Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

JJJ999[edit]

This user is not assuming good faith and is making personal attacks in this AfD.

Past issues:
He was discussed on ANI in September here when he accused someone of lying.
He was blocked for edit warring and incivility on October 1st for a different incident here[1].
He was warned again on October 20th[2].

Current:
On January 21st, he nominated this article for deletion, speculating with no basis that the creator, Faithlessthewonderboy, created the article because he had a personal relationship with the subject. This would seem to violate WP:AGF.

On January 28th, Faithless nominated the AfD mentioned above for deletion. JJJ999 violated AGF by accusing faithless of nominating the article as retaliation.[3]. He attacks him further here[4] and here[5]. There's more violations on that page, including accusing others (including myself) as voting because we are friends of Faithless (not true in my case, I don't know him). You can see for yourself on the page. V-train (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply- what a tissue of feeble complaints. You don't assume good faith either when it's clearly not deserved!JJJ999 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the article that JJJ999 nominated for AfD was in fact deleted by clear consensus & IMHO good reason by an uninvolved admin. DGG (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The article Faithless nominated is still under discussion; opinion by independent eds. seems divided. The discussion there seems to show intemperate language by both Faithless and JJJ, but primarily by Faithless. I've had a number of disagreements with JJJ, but this does not seem like a situation where he is seriously at fault. DGG (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My take is that JJJ999 is trying to stir up trouble with some very borderline and snarky comments. However I can't see what admin action is required here. I'd ask JJJ999 that he calm down a bit, and start assuming more faith, but it's hardly blockable. Pedro :  Chat  13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've said several times, the article that I created deserved to be deleted, and I did not object to its deletion. DGG, please explain which posts of mine you find objectionable. JJJ999, on the other hand, repeatedly attacks me (even my username), refers to anyone you disagrees with him as "friends of Faithless," and in general is incredibly uncivil. The article currently at AfD is one that I've kept my eye on for some time; I gave it time to be improved, which it never appreciably has been. This is the reason I nominated it, not as retaliation for an article I didn't care about. JJJ999 hasn't committed any one, single blockable offense, but I just can't understand why he conducts himself the way he does. faithless (speak) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pedro that JJJ999 is stirring the pot. FWIW, another incident, so far unmentioned in JJJ999 (aka Jembot99) that editors may wish to review to get some flavour of the history is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine (2nd nomination) (that's not the AfD I was thinking of I'll find the link later) Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are we arguing about? It seems like we're trying to decide if he's a dick or not. Either way, it doens't matter. Dickery is not a reason to block someone. /thread Lumberjake (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, WP:AGF is just a guideline, but WP:NPA is a policy, I think he's demonstrated a continuing refusal to abide by either (while frequently invoking whenever his actions are criticised). Perhaps this really belongs at WP:WQA, or a user conduct RfC, but I think continued flagrant violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA -if they occurred- would be blockable. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate discussion closure[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: there is nothing useful coming from this discussion beyond idle sniping

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist has been inappropriately closed three times. To prevent edit warring/wheel warring, I will not undo the closure again. However, I will strongly state my objection to that closure. I am being directed to the RFAR page, which is inappropriate because a pending RFAR does not preclude reporting incidents and behavior through normal channels and additionally so because the case is leaning towards rejection. As a further objection, both one admins (JzG and SirFozzie) who closed the discussion are is not an uninvolved admins but an advocates for the subject of discussion. I would like feedback on this issue. Vassyana (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: the section you added is inappropriate forum shopping and you should take your complaints to RFAR; the closure of the section is entirely appropriate. Hope this helps. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know what administrator action you or the user you are proxying for would like here. Ronnotel (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this discussion was absolutely inappropriately closed. Please provide an explanation. Bstone (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The explanation is perfectly clear: there is an active debate at WP:RFAR and we do not need yet more forum shopping against ScienceApologist, especially by people who are not prepared to do their own dirty work. This is hardly controversial. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy, dash it, I'm with you there, but could you please express yourself more temperately? See Ronnotel's remark below, which makes the same point, except without sounding pettish. Relata refero (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, you can post a copy at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents. Create the page, copy the text there and add a link from Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer not to post it there since that would be no less "forum shopping" than posting it here, unless those stating it is forum-shopping disagree. Vassyana (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, I would like to know how I am someone who "advocates for the subject of discussion". Please make sure you have your targets correct before you bring out the smears. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If I am incorrect in remembering that you have defended SA in the past, please accept my honest apologies. Vassyana (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted, as obviously you have confused me for another administrator. No harm, no foul, I guess. SirFozzie (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks for accepting the apology. I've stricken the comment about you out. Vassyana (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What admin action is required?
You know, I'm thinking of making a template for that. Every new incident must fill in a little thingie specifying what they expect to get out of coming here because this is not the complaints department. Relata refero (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion SHOULD be closed. This is NOT the appropriate place for it. As has been noted several times above, these comments SHOULD be added to the RFAR discussion instead, which si where they belong. No one is censoring you, but it is a bad idea to start several threads in different places relating to the same subject. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I would like to re-iterate, what admin action are you requesting that you don't feel comfortable doing yourself? I'm not dismissing your concern, but this board is for requesting admin involvement and I don't see anything concrete in your statement. Ronnotel (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The intent was for an uninvolved admin who is familiar with the situation to review the situation. I know it is a complex and ongoing dispute with all kinds of accusations and tomfoolery flying around from all sides. As such, I intended to defer to those more familiar with the editors and the ins and outs of the situation. Hope that helps explain. Vassyana (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Without taking a position on the merits either way, it seems to me that situation is already being reviewed by ArbCom and they should be allowed to continue with their deliberations on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And the tomfoolery being described is being looked at by ArbCom. It would be inappropriate for admins to take action where ArbCom is already dealing with it. The above comments are VERY APPROPRIATE for the open arbcom case on Homeopathy (see below), however there is no one to block or ban or pages to be protected on this yet. Make those comments THERE! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am honestly confused by this. Not reporting incidents because there is a pending RFAR is a new thing to me. Certainly, when an RFAR appears like it will be accepted or has been accepted, such things should be entered into /evidence for the arbs to consider. But quite honestly, I have never heard of not reporting things when there is a failing arb request. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Which RFAR is it as there are several possibilities? Anthon01 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The one where you have already commented. And now you should leave this subject as you are a meatpuppet of a banned user. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy! Please! Relata refero (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please what? Block Anthon01 for tendentious editing, trolling, POV-pushing, disruption and posting on behalf of a banned user? Great idea, I'll get right on it. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The one called "Homeopathy? Lawrence § t/e 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Civility?[edit]

Zenwhat continues to make public reference to me with perjorative terminology; ignoring WP:NPA, WP:ATWV, WP:DONTBITE, and the noticeboard rules. In his ANI, I am referred to variously as a "conspiracy theorist pusher," a "vandal," "troll," "editor with bad faith," and "possible sockpuppet." In his FTN, I am implied to be a " crank."

Overall, the attempt feels to be focused on marginalizing me, and driving away any further verifiable (perhaps, controversial) edits.

Thank you for any advisement on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin protection of Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation[edit]

Editors who are involved in the disruption that caused the community probation, are editing the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation page disruptively. I propose am indef protection of the probation page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you propose that only adminstrators be allowed to notify other users about the probation on the Homeopathy articles? You suggest that I did not notify Vassyana here? Have you discussed your concerns on the notification page and sought consensus of other involved editors before reverting the page twice? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Vassyana should be warned, not least, because he hasn't recently edited any of the articles. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a warning, it's a notification. Vassyana has proxy edited for a user who is clearly interested in the article - as such, Vassyana should be aware that any disruption on the article (directly or by proxy) would result in sanction as severe as bans. Finally, Vassyana was notified, regardless of the correctness of doing so, and as such can be subject to sanction via the probation. Such a notation should remain in more than just Vassyana's talk page history. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)As I have proxied for a complaint in a heated topic, and have no intention of editing homeopathy information, I do not object to being listed as a notified party. No need to advocate on my behalf in that regard, though I appreciate the well-intended effort to indicate I am not an involved party to the dispute. Vassyana (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This would cut out the ability of non-admins to issue and log notifications, which would be inappropriate. Anyone is entitled to do that, not just admins. If a user is violating an actual policy, that user can be addressed. In full disclosure, a number of users have expressed that they feel Jossi is too involved in the homeopathy issues himself, and should recuse, which he refused, as is his right. As the community ultimately decides anything and everything, an editor removed Jossi, who then re-added himself. Another user also added Vassyana as detailed above. Lawrence § t/e 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the page is a good solution. Hopefully, with Vassyana's comment above, common sense can prevail for now. The purpose of the list is to ensure that people are aware of the probation. Vassyana is aware of the probation. Problem solved. It's not necessary to edit-war over whether or not his name appears on the page. He doesn't have any intent to edit the article, so it's a moot point in any case. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As a note, to conteract the possible belief I was creating a "Wall of shame" - I had added myself to the list long before I added Vassyana. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps adding all editors that you have notified would help eliminate any appearance of a COI. Anthon01 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just removed my comment to that effect as unecessary (probably should have struck it instead), but you're right about that. MastCell Talk 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If this becomes a problem again, we can split the list of notified accounts off onto another subpage, transclude it into the main Probation subpage, and hard protect the main Probation page without extending protection to transcluded pages. That accomplishes both goals. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page would leave us with no place to discuss the matter. It is the talk page and I thought it was therefore the appropriate place to discuss it. I see my own comment has been removed. (I haven't read the responses yet, but there have apparently been some.) What can we do? -- Fyslee / talk 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I should note that there are several objections to Jossi listing himself as uninvolved on that page. Relata refero (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I second those objections to Jossi as being "uninvolved." -- Fyslee / talk 02:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with a talk page[edit]

There is problems going on here: Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#January_28. Several users are using it as a place to whine about the subject, and other off topic discussions. When I try to remove it (which I'm pretty sure is the right thing to do), it gets re-added for no good reason. One of the editors involved with this: User:Lamename3000, has been very uncivil about it, and refuses to listen when I post on his talk page. He just reverts it off, and has called me a pest and 'tard (short for retard) in the edit summaries. This needs some admin involvement, as everything else hasn't worked. I originally brought this up at Village Pump, but I feel this is the better place to discuss it now. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're the master of civility. --LN3000 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with the matter in hand. RobJ1981 is correct, Wikipedia is not a forum and while a certain amount of discussion about the article subject is permitted it should always be with the ultimate aim of improving the encyclopedia. It really helps if folk can stay on topic, in all instances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am having the same problem understanding the difficulty as another user above. Somehow, we managed to create (not "me" in that "we" but Wikipedians in general) a full article about "Lourdes" which deals with the facts of the place and the beliefs that have made it famous. Why aren't Science Apologist and friends over making difficulties at Lourdes, there being not one shred of scientific evidence for its claims of cures? I'm not defending Lourdes or homeopathy, or attacking them, for that matter, but why can't the article at least be as polite in setting out that there are large numbers of people who believe it, like Lourdes, works? Both may be right; both may be wrong. Where is the need for such contention? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As we're all now very sick of Homeopathy, idea to modify probation[edit]

Anthon01 posted an interesting idea on my talk page just now. I propose we make an ultra-simple modification to the terms of probation, sound off here if supported. Once someone is aware of it (notification, editing the Probation page, etc.), they are subject to a hard 1rr on all articles that are under probation, and this 1rr will include the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation page itself. This'll take care of all the edit warriors on any or all sides. Sound off with support or oppose. I support. Lawrence § t/e 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - if there is evidence of edit warring, any administrator can place any editor on 1RR within affected articles. Doing this automatically for all editors is too gameable. Who needs this now? Jehochman Talk 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was going to say the community, as we're averaging like 3-5 of these topics per day. :) Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC x3)At risk of becoming involved, I support with the caveat that someone has to be involved in editwarring to start in some way. That way we don't WP:BITE the newbies who post and then wonder why six people are jumping on their talk page and yelling that they're a bad person, etcetera. We actually had something similar come from the Troubles ArbCom case (warning before being put on probation by a neutral administrator, once on probation 1 revert limit/week on Troubles related articles, and civility parole). SirFozzie (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too much rules and regulations make Wikipedia into a martial law state! Igor Berger (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And I'm sure too little rules and regulations make Wikipedia into a state of anarchy. We're trying to strike a balance between allowing folks to edit freely and not letting folks disrupt the encyclopedia with constant edit wars. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The admins can intervene when necessary, that is their job. Igor Berger (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have personally voluntarily placed myself on 0RR on these articles. What might calm things down is an aggressive attitude towards spamming of talk pages with nonsense.--Filll (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Since the probation, so have I. Anthon01 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (tons of e/cs) I don't think this is a good idea. What will happen is that there will be races to gather more friendly editors than the other side on a single page and gamble 1RR, which would lead to slow-moving edit wars. Let's give the current system a chance - give everybody lots of rope and the better editors will do well with their freedom while the more unrepenting edit warriors will fashion themselves nooses. east.718 at 19:41, February 1, 2008

Can someone explain what the deal is with this Homeopathy article, it seems like such a mundane topic, why does it have such heated disputes about it on such a regular basis, its not like its a particularly contentious subject--Jac16888 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To put it in general terms, it's become a battleground between people with different interpretations of Wikipedia policies, especially with regards to the inclusion of material that some believe lends credence to pseudoscientific ideas. And as with any battle, there have been associated cases of incivility, edit warring, etc. At least that's my take on the dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Essentially all articles in which the subject of homeopathy is mentioned. It is the mere mention, especially when deemed an unwarranted and irrelevant (for the article) form of homeopathic promotion, that ends up starting fires and edit wars. Many of the mentions are related to attempts to promote the use of a homeopathic editor's book as a resource in those articles. It's like reading the book's TOC, and then articles are created or visited in an attempt to create a means by which the book or its author can get mentioned. The probation enables admins to work with a shorter leash with which they can reign in parties who are improperly promoting homeopathy (advocacy is forbidden at Wikipedia), and anyone - regardless of POV - who acts improperly. No one is totally innocent. -- Fyslee / talk 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who appear to have engaged in post-probation reverting without consensus[edit]

  1. TheDoctorIsIn PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. ScienceApologist PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    Orangemarlin PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    Anthon01 PouponOnToast(talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Levine2112 PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Cobaltbluetony PouponOnToast (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I strike-out myself from this list. Anthon01 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take me off that list immediately. I fear I am a marked man. Woe is me. PoupounOnToast, you are making it difficult for me to AGF in your actions towards me and others. Anthon01 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

^ If you are gonna make such a list, shouldn't you include diffs? Such a list seems pointless unless others can examine the substance of your accusations. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am just about ready to ban PouponOnToast from these pages because they seem to be engaged in combat. This is not appropriate at all. Jehochman Talk 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, PouponOnToast hasn't edited in the mainspace substantially since the probation came down. A ban from all related pages seems to be jumping the gun - perhaps a final warning that future attempts to turn a talk page or noticeboard into a battleground will result in blocks without warning? east.718 at 20:00, February 1, 2008
PouponOnToast intends to participate in User Talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal and so will be making no mainspace edits for a month. Relata refero (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
To disputed scientific articles. We are the worlds formost and most valuable resource for Pokemon and obscure indirock, and I have no problem editing those articles. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have explained this. Let's wait and see. Jehochman Talk 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't belong on that list. But he saw fit to place me there. Anthon01 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to put Pouponontoast on the list or to block him. Can someone show me a diff of him being disruptive?--Filll (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Popupontoast made the list and signed each line, apparently. Mike R (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is discussing ways to improve Wikipedia at User Talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal discouraged? I would hope not. I would encourage all to visit and contribute ideas to help improve things.--Filll (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: I'm not sick of Homeopathy. I don't even know who that is. I don't appreciate when people put words in my mouth and say such pretentious things as "the Wikipedia community this" and "the Wikipedia community that". A group of people say something and then associate themselves with the entire project to make themselves seem bigger. Lumberjake (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am having the same problem understanding the difficulty as another user above. Somehow, we managed to create (not "me" in that "we" but Wikipedians in general) a full article about "Lourdes" which deals with the facts of the place and the beliefs that have made it famous. Why aren't Science Apologist and friends over making difficulties at Lourdes, there being not one shred of scientific evidence for its claims of cures? I'm not defending Lourdes or homeopathy, or attacking them, for that matter, but why can't the article at least be as polite in setting out that there are large numbers of people who believe it, like Lourdes, works? Both may be right; both may be wrong. Where is the need for such contention? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that the sanctuary water article states as fact, "It does not have power in itself to cure anyone and has no special scientific or medical properties." So the question is then, why aren't there dozens of true believers in Lourdes Water edit warring to insert magical beliefs into the article? Homeopathy supporters claim their magic water has power to cure anyone and has special scientific and medical properties. That's why there isn't an edit war at Lourdes, and is at Homeopathy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I don't think the characterization is quite right. No plausible method of action has been found for homeopathy. So Anti-Homeopathy editors would like the article to reflect that in more words and ways then I just stated. Pro-Homeopathy editors want less, and it's been suggested, (not confirmed) a few want no criticism in the article at all. In the middle are editors who want a balanced article but it is difficult to achieve that with pro and anti editors constantly at odds. Anthon01 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But method of action has been proposed, and their are specific claims of it having scientific and properties, and of it being a treatment for specific ailments. That's why the thorough debunking of these things need to be in the article. Anything further discussion should be on the article page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • This whole Homeopathy thing is WP:LAME Igor Berger (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • obiovusly, but when you get a lot ofpeople who feel strongly that the words on wipkipedia shape reality, then thats what you get. some Pro-homeopathy types think that any criticism fo homeopathic science on their aritcle is tantamount to HOlocaust denial, and some pro-Allopathy types think that anything non-critical of homeopathy is pretty much a rejection of all science now and forever. Thats what i have decided to take a brief sabbatical form editting the article itself to give me some chance to get a better perspective on the whole sitaution, because currently the situation that i am in right now is contraversial to the whole issue of why Wikipedia exists as a community. Smith Jones (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What needs to be decided is what constitutes an NPOV article here. Will it contain 1% material debunking homeopathy? 10% ? 20%? 30%? 50%? Also, Lourdes is not promoting itself aggressively across the internet and in many communities. Lourdes also does not make scientific claims about itself, or claim that allopaths are evil, or that Big Medicine is part of a conspiracy, or that Big Pharma is some malevolent force, etc. Lourdes does not claim that people should not be vaccinated or should not take antimalarial precautions. I cannot buy Lourdes water in my drugstore or my grocerystore, but I can buy homeopathic products there. I do not see Lourdes water being advertised on TV or the radio, but I see homeopathic material advertised in the media frequently. Lourdes does not claim all kinds of strange theories for how it works including misapplied QED or water memories or dozens of other strange bits of scientific nonsense for which there is no evidence. Lourdes is not pushing for government funding and grants for research studies. Lourdes does not frantically lobby people and claim fraud when studies show that their water does not have an effect. The priests at Lourdes managing the spring do not insist on being called doctors. And there are many other instances in which the two are not quite parallel. --Filll (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Problem[edit]

I am having trouble getting to any pages related to blocking Garyxxxxxx (talk · contribs), who seems to be another sock (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man and compare his contributions). Every time I try, I insta-timeout; is anyone else having this problem? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brion committed a bad revision that was undone before you posted. east.718 at 20:09, February 1, 2008

User just doesn't stop uploading the same image[edit]

Resolved

See User_talk:Sidhugill#Please_stop_uploading_this_picture_now. This user just keeps uploading the same fair use violations: [6] [7]. I even asked him to stop. I don't know what to do. He keeps on uploading fair use violations, even months later after being asked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shell Kinney blocked the uploader until a resolution is reached. I deleted the images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, indef'd until we get some kind of acknowledgment out of the user and an agreement to stop the copyright infringement. Probably going to take some explaining if the user finally communicates since they're grabbing text and images from all over the net and tossing them up here. Shell babelfish 01:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
{ec}OK, I hope that's useful. I know indef blocks take care of the problem, but I hope he's able to figure out how to ask for unblock and return.
As for the text, I wasn't aware he did it any other than that one time, but it isn't really surprising. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dethzone and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Hello. I'd like to voice concerns that BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of blocked user Dethzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The account BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS was created about three days after Dethzone's block ([8] [9]). Both make similar edits to Wikipedia:Sandbox and enjoy music. They both appear to be fans of Metalocalypse, their signatures reference the show, and BRIEFCASE FULL OF GUTS once edited a comment made by Dethzone ([10]). This is highly suspicous. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also this. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
They also both seem to have problems with a stuck caps lock key: [11] [12]. If this wasn't so obvious, I would say take it to WP:SSP. But it is. Does this user deserve another chance? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Iam Not A Sockpuppeter But iDo Like Metalocalypse But that Dos not Mean That Iam Deathzone But Its A Small World iThought iWas the Only Fan With There T-Shirts And Album The deathalbum But there Is A Resembles But iShould Check His Page iHave Know Idea What His Page Looke Like Seriously Plus caplock is my thing some times But Not Always. Nathan Corpsegrinder Wartooth (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck. It'd be very unlikely that Briefcase isn't a sockpuppet. Useight (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather than have people waste their time further, can I just say
 Confirmed - Dethzone (talk · contribs) =
- Alison 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
All blocked and tagged. east.718 at 02:42, February 2, 2008

Disconcerting[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but at 1:37 this account was created and edited until 1:41. At 1:42 this account was created and started making identical edits. The edits appear to be constructive, so I don't know if another editor is creating accounts and reverting vandalism rapid-fire, or what exactly is going on here, but I thought I'd point it out. Useight (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Their edits don't look constructive at all -- they both look like they're removing a bunch of article tags (notability templates, etc) that were added by User:Gavin.collins. The edit summaries claim to be "Reverting vandalism by single-purpose account disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" but that doesn't seem plausible, given that User:Gavin.collins has been around almost a year, I doubt it's a single purpose account. And the edits being reverted don't look all that disruptive to me; see this for example. Doesn't look at all like they're reverting vandalism. To me this looks like an abusive sockpuppeteer. -- Why Not A Duck 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like it's related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp - same sockpuppeteer who was reverting edits by User:Gavin.collins some weeks back - Alison 02:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Coincidentally, Jéské just reported Zhentarim (talk · contribs) at the above checkuser request and it's now  Confirmed as being Grawp. Halruua (talk · contribs) is now also confirmed, as well as Daysroach (talk · contribs) and Toldaside (talk · contribs).  IP blocked also - can someone move these over to the Grawp case at RFCU? I have to run here :) - Alison 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right, the editing wasn't as good as I initially thought. I was at work and couldn't do more than take passing glances at Wikipedia as my contribs pattern for the last 4 hours shows. I see that the IP has been blocked. Useight (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Rolling back the edits, indef semi-protecting the articles, tagging as sockpuppets. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

122.148.180.50‎[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 31 hours --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To keep this short and sweet, this ip adress has been vandalizing wikipedia. Check contribs--DurzaTwinkTALK (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Click Here to check contribs. Thanks--DurzaTwinkTALK (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been reported at WP:AIV. If you report it there, it (usually) gets dealt with faster. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--DurzaTwinkTALK (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Have also semi-protected talk page for same period as the editor vandalised the block notice and continuing not to make any sense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible return of V-Dash?[edit]

Resolved: CU came back "confirmed."

My spidey sense is tingling at DeathMark (talk · contribs) - his contributions look a hell of a lot like indefinitely-blocked user V-Dash (talk · contribs)'s, and, as V-Dash did on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he's stonewalling discussion at Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and edit-warring (albeit slow-mo) over the genre of the game ([13], [14], [15], [16]). I have an RFCU out on him, but I wanted other administrators' opinions first. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Grawp[edit]

Banned vandal, Grawp (talk · contribs), is back. See Suck my dick, kid, like your daddy did. (talk · contribs), Master of the Flys (talk · contribs), Breaking Faces (talk · contribs), Hubba Hubba Hot Chick 9 o'clock (talk · contribs), etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. --Yamla (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp, too. He's been back for a few weeks now; he's just mainly been stalking Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Indefinitely semi-protected all pages edited by these socks. Post any further ones at the checkuser case above; Alison (talk · contribs) has it top-priority. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We're on some sort of Grawp paranoia. AIV just got a request to block Dickmann1960 (with NO contributions) as a Grawp sockpuppet. Folks have got to calm down about this. I'm not saying they're not, but there is NOTHING to say they are. - Philippe | Talk 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We'll see about that; I'm submitting the names above to the checkuser. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed - it's Grawp yet again; same narrow IP range, also Expand my brain, learning juice (talk · contribs).  IP blocked yet again - Alison
Damn, you're quick. I just submitted the above. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding User:Dickmann1960 (created 4:12) - the previous sock User:My dick is bigger than yours. was blocked at 4:11, and an autoblock (with ACB) for this user was set on 4:13. From my technical understanding it is excluded that this is a Grawp sock. --Oxymoron83 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 Note: - fun's over. I rangeblocked his main range for a month. There are a few others, mind, but I'll prolly hit them, too, as he returns - Alison 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have asked WP:D&D to supply me with a list of articles that both have tags (or have had them recently) and aren't protected. Once I get this list, I will post it on a user subpage as a reference. However, I will state that one Grawp sock attacked the completely unrelated Perfect Hair Forever article; keep an eye out on any unprotected articles bearing cleanup tags. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious Vandal. This guy is creative[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 2 weeks—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, several users, particularly User:Thingg, have been reverting vandalism by a single IP vandal that is using a dynamic IP assigner to circumvent the blocks he has been given. In one of his edits, he said what he was doing. As far as I can tell, all his IPs are 75.100.x.x . While it may be drastic, I think someone is eventually going to have to block all IPs from 75.100.0.0 to 75.100.255.255 . Seriously, this guy is really starting to get on my nerves. He is laughing in our faces, and us non-admins can't do anything but keep heading him off hundreds of times. J.delanoygabsadds 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if I knew how to rangeblock, I don't think we can block such a huge range anyhow. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure we can. We don't like to, but as Ryulong just demonstrated, we can when required. I was going to rangeblock 75.100/16 for 3 hrs to discourage them, but he did for 2 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Will (film)[edit]

Numerous editors, in general anons but not always, keep adding unsourced cast members to Will (film). What's there now has citation needed tags on it, and I'm going to remove them in a few days if valid sources aren't provided. I don't know if this is some kind of orchestrated hoax being perpetrated, or some sort of PR campaign, but I keep removing these unsourced names, and will continue to do so, but I could use more eyes watching this. Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist/UnrealRoyal[edit]

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

Unrealroyal.com was blacklisted as spam (which it is not) by User:Hu12 who seems to be partisan on the subject as is clear from User_talk:Hu12#unrealroyal.com. The subject was looked at rather perfunctorily at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal in which User:Lazydown participated. He is a sockpuppet of User:Kingofmann who is David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Would an independent admin please have a look. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As to whether it is spamming, I have no idea. But I see no reason to think it would qualify as a reliable source (it appears to be a personal site, even if a well-researched and well-written one), so the point seems to be moot. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The first point is that it is not a spam site. Which is the purpose of that list. WP:RS is not the issue. The second point is that it is not for User:Hu12 to determine the issue as he has been involved throughout. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My past experience with User:Hu12 is that I talked to him, and he fixed the problem. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well he would say that, wouldn't he? It should have been closed by an uninvolved admin. More than one person who has looked at this thinks it was improperly resolved by an involved person - namely he who put it on the spam list in the first place. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't blacklisted as "spam"[17]. Also, an univolved admin (also meta admin) closed the removal request[18], not I. Repeating the same request 3 days after that close, does not become re-opened by virtue of repetition--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only was Hu12 the person who added the link to be blocked, he was the original creator of the article which the content from the site was criticizing. Hu12 is apparently camping-on the blacklist, any removal requiring personal approval, and ignoring consensus. The blacklist additionally, in my humble opinion, is being used to stifle criticism and suppress dissent. The use of the admin bit, by an involved admin, in content issues, is at-odds with the project goals. Any question of reliable sourcing should be taken to that board to discuss, not pre-emptorily blocked by a blacklist addition. This disruption has already led to one ArbCom case. The issue of community involvement in the blacklist should be taken up somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where. Wjhonson (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The site in question is based on this blacklisting of a attack site. The "Criticism", as claimed about the subject of the BLP's was not the reason for the blacklisting. This site contained an entire page devoted to outing various editors ("Wikipedia.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) in an attempt to identify and harass several Wikipedia users. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment apply to any kind of attack or harassment in any context. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment. Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another or multiple Wikipedians has never been acceptable on wikipedia. Websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter, as evidenced by ArbCom rulings[19].
Consensus was achieved by multiple admins in the first request for removal, yet in pursuit of a certain point, despite that concensus, Wjhonson re-requested within 3 days of the other request being declined. This type of tendentious re-request is normamaly unusual, however it was uncovered there was something else going on . It was uncovered that Wjhonson was acting in a Meatpuppet[20] capacity for the purpose of influencing the blacklisting, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits related to the interests of the site owner of unrealroyal.com. See here.
"You solicited to the owner of unrealroyal,(MAR), on groups.google.com, in a thead entiltled Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity "By the way MAR, if there is something in particular about that article to which you object, let me know. I'm not adverse to battling it out on Wikipedia."[21][22], which clearly demonstrates your intent to misuse wikipedia. Of course MAR replies to your offer by linking direcly to the article, my userpage and the blacklist[23]."
This ongoing "forum shopping" is continued evidence he is infact following through with his off wiki threat to "battle it out" by using wikipedia as a battleground and foregoing aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests. Reinforcing that Wjhonson states himself that "I don't think the argument of citing your article however will win"[24] ....the site owner himself states..."I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used as a citation or reference" [25], conclusively there is no valid reason for pursuing this matter except to WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Although the link is no longer on the blacklist (moot), this, does not excuse Wjhonson's behavior in manipulating Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests by acting in a capacity for the purpose of influencing, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits for the site owner of unrealroyal.com. Although his behaviour is clear misuse wikipedia and disruptive, I'll leave it to some other admin to propose sanctions. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So at some point are you going to publicly admit that you created the article that started us down this long trail of tears in the first place? I think that's fairly relevant to your long-winded counter-attack above. As for all the above I'll invoke WP:KETTLE which covers it quite nicely. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com justifies putting unrealroyal.com on the spam blacklist. All the arguments for doing so come from Hu12 who is a wiki spamcop. He should step well back and let someone else sort out this mess. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wjhonson, did you somehow miss that tidbit in the KOM/Rfa? Arbitrators did not express any concerns, nor was there any to express. Interesting manor in which you phrase it, however. Guess you would find it relevant if your defense to my comments above is to mischaracterize that fact, to seem somehow unreasonable or improper. See article history. I'll invoke bothWP:SEI and the Duck test
  • CarbonLifeForm, in all your objectiveness, please explain then why was the offending page ("Wikipedia.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) was deleted from the site? Which, infact, occurred just prior to Wjhonson's removal request, and shortly after his "offer" to the site owner of UnrealRoyal? Perhaps your application of WP:COI is misplaced.--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. I have never seen it. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine. It's not technically a spam site, so it does not technically belong on the spam blacklist. However, it is unacceptable as a source or an external link, as described to you many times. Therefore, there is no pressing need to take it off the blacklist, is there? Because you certainly wouldn't want to get into an edit war by using it as source, would you? Of course not. So, issue closed. Thatcher 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As it is agreed that it is not a spam site, let it be removed from the blacklist of spam sites. Then the issue will be closed CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above its no longer on the MediaWiki blacklist. Agree, the issue is closed --Hu12 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved

After talking with JzG, will be unblocking user a few hours after the conclusion of the original 48h block. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today (or, depending on the time zone, yesterday or tomorrow) I blocked Nealparr (talk · contribs) and Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours (essentially for edit-warring against each other). Apparently, Lucyintheskywithdada is the same person as the users noted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski, from December 2007 (she openly admits that here). Now, the question is: should I/we indefinitely block Lucy and unblock Neal? I ask because none of the accounts on that page received progressive blocks, so it's not clear that Lucy is evading a ban. Additionally, Lucy does not appear to currently be using her current account alongside other sockpuppets, as she appeared to be doing when the SSP was file. Granted, as one can see by Lucy's contributions, she (particularly in conjunction with Neal) has been highly disruptive on articles related to Spiritualism. So, any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I was toying with blocking Lucy as a tendentious and disruptive editor, so an indef there is good. I refrain from comment on Nealparr. I have indefinitely blocked Lucyintheskywithdada for the reasons I noted on her talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't see this until just now, but was also reviewing this situation as my experience with Neal has been that's he's a solid and constructive editor, albeit one whose views I often do not share. I too was about to indefinitely block User:Lucyintheskywithdada as a disruptive editor and questionably legit alternate accout, but I held off and left a note at User Talk:Orderinchaos, as that admin had more experience with the sockpuppetry issues surrounding this user. In any case, I am in general agreement with Guy's indefinite block, unless Orderinchaos has something ground-shifting to say about it. Personally, I would have given Nealparr a bit more benefit of the doubt on the 3RR thing, partly because he's had a long track record of constructive editing on tough topics, and partly because his "opponent" in this case has a quite different track record. Still, he did edit-war rather than seek outside help, and he did lose his patience. I'd favor a good-faith unblock of Neal and commutation to time served, with the understanding that this was an isolated and regrettable incident, won't happen again, lesson learned, etc. MastCell Talk 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I support unblocking Neal. I'd gladly do it myself, but have had previous interaction with him (perhaps ironically, we've often been on opposite sides of an issue). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I support unblocking Neal, but I believe Lucy's should be commuted to the original block as imposed. On the Arbcom-probationed BK articles they have shown a newfound ability to work constructively with the other side and I think having the entire of one side blocked when the other side has an open conflict of interest is not a good idea. (For the record I believe both should be there so the article exhibits balance.) That being said, we shouldn't tolerate bad behaviour in unrelated areas for this reason alone, so I believe the original block should stand. Orderinchaos 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Developments since mean this thread is probably unnecessary now. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds fine to me. MastCell Talk 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef'd User:Wfgh66[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.
Blocks exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. There has been significant disruption, abuse of the wikipedia e-mail system, repeating inappropriate behavior and major breaches of policy by this user. This is not controversial and an appropriate use of a block--Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

After escalating blocks, I have indef'd Wfgh66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for copyright vio on his talk page. He was apparently enraged that his pet site, priory - of - sion (dot) com, was blacklisted, so he resorted to uploading the content to his talk page. Please be on the watch out for potential socks posting the same material. Ronnotel (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it was User:Sam Korn who indef'd. We seem to have ec'd on the indef button. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have done a history delete on the talkpage, we don't need the information to be linked via e.g. a permanent link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
How is uploading your own content to your own page a Copyvio? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a copy vio, it's a violation of WP:POINT. Horologium (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is Point now a violation that can cause a user to be indef'd? I don't recall that consensus gathering meeting where that was decided. The entire episode from top-to-bottom here is a bit of an extreme reaction to the actual situation, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I was just going to post this: It is a violation of the GFDL if the text hasn't been released on a free license. Otherwise you end up with text under two licenses and that's a recipe for disaster. That's why even the authors of text need to formally release their material into a free license before we can host it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
(responding to Wjhonson) He was blocked because of his abuse of the wikipedia e-mail system. That's why Pwok got indef-blocked, too. Look at Wfgh66's block log; the POINT violation was the straw that broke the camel's back, to use the old cliché. He was engaged in edit-warring, disruptive behavior and spamming. (That is why the site was blacklisted.) Horologium (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:POINT violations are disruptive, which is blockable. This users conduct severely Disrupted the project and persistently violated multiple policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violations were disruptive. Repeatedly he was warned and chose in pursuit of a certain point, to reject community input and consensus that his edits were disruptive.--Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the rules stand in the way of blocking a blatant troll, we should ignore them.

Wjhonson, you don't appear to be addressing this user's behavior or what impact he has had on Wikipedia, but argue, "But WP:POINT says X! And policy says X!" This is a red herring.

In order to defend the indef block, others say, "No, but policy really says Y!"

My comment: The specific, technical wording of policy is irrelevant, per WP:IAR. The man was blatantly spamming Wikipedia with his website on the Priory of Sion, which reeks of self-published conspiracy theorism. He was blocked over doing this several times. He disrupted Wikipedia again, so now he should be banned. Again, the specific, technical wording of policy is irrelevant, per WP:IAR.   Zenwhat (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree with your analysis of what actually occurred.Wjhonson (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And I respect your right to disagree. However, please be aware that this user was found by multiple admins to have engaged in seriously disruptive behavior. As stated above, it was a single purpose account with a WP:POINT agenda to flog his web site and willing to do pretty anything he could to do so. Disruptive editing, badgering emails, trolling, sock-puppetry, you name it. What's described above is literally the very last straw. At some point, WP has to accept that a certain individual has nothing useful to offer and move on. That point was reached. Ronnotel (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Pookeo9[edit]

Pookeo9 has had a history of creating tests, doing nonsensical things, and overall semi disrupting Wikipedia. So far, he has nominated 1 AfD (but then closed it as keep), and closed about 2 others. That's not so bad, but so far has files 2 RfA's that seem to be tests, or vandalism (Also 1 request for mediation). He might be trying to do good, and I am assuming good faith, but he is doing things that I have never seen before, and it is likely to continue. Just as an extra note, he has been given a final warning for vandalism. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and improper AfD closure by non-admin

This covered several categories, so I hope it's okay here. User:Pookeo9 has closed several AfDs, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Southern Cat Rocks On (check the history). User contribs: Special:Contributions/Pookeo9. It was suggested at the Help Desk that I bring this here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, see the above notes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 :) Yeah, I should have actually just posted here instead of both. But oh well. Thanks for reading that reply so fast! Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, it would be good to hear from Pookeo9 and his/her mentor/adopter - JetLover. I'll direct them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamunknown (talkcontribs) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have seen what you wrote and i did not know it was vandalism. I will remind my adopter one more time to look and comment if he/she can.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: Some things on wikipedia i have done were good and bad and i knew some bad things but i just couldnt stop doing it. As i said before i will remind my adopter one more time about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to politely suggest, until you gain quite a bit more experience, that you don’t try to close any more AfD debates. —Travistalk 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Travis.--Pookeo9 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page[edit]

70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs) (among many other IPs as well as the username 'Mondrago') has re-added the link to their personal website (which adds nothing to promote the content of the article and vios WP:EL) has gone 10RR+ and has some sort of "if we don't get our way we will sue you" jargon posted on their talk page. 156.34.222.28 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    • The article has now been semi-protected due to increased vandalism of external linkspam from 5 IPs. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and add the link to the spam blacklist. Nakon 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno man, are you sure you want to risk being sued for deformation (sic)? Resolute 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point, you could get bent out of shape... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing[edit]

This discussion from the top which has since been archived.. I'm concerned about Lumberjake's actions on Wikipedia. Besides the above mentioned issue, see this. Editors removed his PROD and began sourcing the article. That wasn't good enough so he sent the article to AfD. Bells go off when an account only 5 days old is on a PROD removal spree, or PROD/AFD placement spree.. Then his edit summaries such as this, this, this and this PROD reason only further make me wonder what is going on here. - ALLSTAR echo 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User is currently blocked; block is being reviewed. What is it that you would like us to do? El_C 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing now. At the time I posted, he wasn't blocked. - ALLSTAR echo 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a puzzling thread on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible suicide note[edit]

Disruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 3rd complaint[edit]

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices again on Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. He was previously blocked twice for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and material that violates NPOV. He has been engaged via the talk pages for his entries in the past as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references, not references to his own blog and forum pages. He has responded with continuous reverts to strong arm his edits. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. I have stopped before violating 3rr. I'm requesting administrator intervention again. Here is the record for the previous blocks: IncidentArchive347 IncidentArchive348 Here's the current listing of anonymous IP's: 61.18.170.141, 61.18.170.108, 61.18.170.107, 61.18.170.129. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll sprotect it, for now. El_C 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan[edit]

162.84.234.178 has repeatedly over the last several days removed content from this article. Now the IP claims to be Jay Brannan on the IP's talk page. Then, I'm assuming this user registered and is now known as Jaybrannan, a user that just blanked both the article and the article talk page. I restored the article and talk page. The user then just now left me a message on my talk page regarding the deletion. Someone have a look? - ALLSTAR echo 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:slackr has blocked the account for 31 hours, and i've done the same for the IP Reedy Boy 10:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well before seeing this post, I blocked him for 3RR, since he was a bit out of control. I still have no idea if this is actually the dude or not, but if it is, it's still a huge conflict of interest issue, which I warned the IP he was editing under about. --slakrtalk / 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with possible rangeblock[edit]

Hi - my first post here as a new admin. I've noticed that Nancy Kulp has been subject to the same vandalism[26] from Carleton University IPs (134.117.0.0 - 134.117.255.255 according to WHOIS) for several months. I think all the vandal IPs fit into 134.117.137.0/24, so I was thinking of blocking this range. Could someone confirm whether or not I'm right and if so for what sort of period I should block? Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  12:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Maxim has protected that page, but as I suspected, it's just made the vandal move on - see [27].  —SMALLJIM  14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Oops, that was an old one!  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and not an expert on blocking, but I'd certainly hesitate to block a whole university. How many good edits are also coming from that range? Would it be the type of block that allows logged-in users to still be able to edit? Do you have a feel for how many good contributors are using that range of IPs? Is only one page affected by the vandalism, and if so, why not just semi-protect that page instead? Surely a university is a fertile source of new, good contributors. Putting a barrier in their way such as making them get an account in some more complicated way before being able to edit might just turn away potential excellent contributors before they ever discover what editing Wikipedia is really like. Congrats on your RfA, by the way. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to avoid the rangeblock and leave the semi-protection in place. Unless we can demonstrate vandalism ac cross the project coming from that range. But one article can be protected and such is less damaging than a rangeblock. And thanks for asking first. Always a good idea. -JodyB talk 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict; agree with JodyB.) My impression is that a rangeblock would be way overkill. I looked at the article and what I see is anon-IP's repeatedly inserting "(ironically)" into the article. If you want to stop that, just semi-protect the article (or have a non-involved admin semi-protect it). I looked at the contribs of one of the anon-IPs that added in that "ironically" thingy: 134.117.137.183 (talk · contribs). I see a bunch of apparently (at a brief glance) good-faith edits on other articles plus one edit adding the word "ironically" to this article. That's nowhere near enough vandalism to block even just that one IP, let alone a whole range, even if you consider it to be vandalism rather than a content dispute which is discussed on the talk page. I realize you're proposing to block a certain range, not the whole University, but still. Just my opinion as a non-admin. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for the feedback. I certainly wouldn't have gone ahead with a rangeblock with my current level of knowledge without checking first: I know they can be problematic. You're right, of course that semi-protecting the page is a far better idea, though I was concerned that would just encourage the vandal to move on to other pages (as he has done at least once [28]). He's also been making a repetitive edit to James Lipton since the end of December.
It looks like most of the addresses in the range 134.117.137.18 - 134.117.137.253 have been active, so I guess dynamic allocation is being used. I've checked the contributions from a number of them and while there were quite a lot of good edits up to around 2006, there's not been so much since. Anyway, it's been more an exercise in detective work than anything actually useful, but at least it's made a change from continually rolling back "poop"! And I've learned some new stuff today, which is good.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an honest question...[edit]

...but it could be absolutely trivial, so if I'm making a tempest in a teacup, please be kind...

Exploring the contributions list of ACMEMan(as part of an AfD issue I recently discovered) I discovered the following:

# 17:54, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.230.233.240‎ (←Created page with '(blocked)')

This user is not an admin, and thus can't block anyone. Is it appropriate for non-admins to do such things? As I said--this is an honest question, and though it's a bit stale, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time--I'm still trying to learn my way around here a little better. Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you could leave a polite note for ACMEman explaining things. It seems like this could be a simple misunderstanding of how things work. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's an ongoing misunderstanding, then. He's been doing that to IP user talk pages for a month now, as his contribs page shows. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Normally that's what I'd do...but if you'll take a peek at his talk page, you'll notice that much of it is dominated by AFD notices, placed there by yours truly. I have a sneaking suspicion that he would not take kindly to even the politest question, especially since there's a potential appearance of stalking. (NOT the case--I found one non-notable article he wrote, then discovered another on the same general topic, and figured I'd check his contribs to see how many more there might be--but I can see how it might look bad.)Gladys J Cortez 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left them a note. Hut 8.5 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed full of awesome. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing[edit]

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has just reverted much of my work from December and January, of converting external map service links to the more general geographical coordinates, improving existing coordinate tags, reviewing the quality of the results, and then removing the links from articles. She abused administrative and other tools by blindly reverting 220 edits, restoring all the removed links, and in many cases making the reusable coordinate information unavailable for now. Her tendentious and disruptive reversion spree was a result of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services, where she wasn't capable of thinking the situation in a wider perspective and her personal viewpoint of "any map link in all articles" wasn't supported by other participants, as opposed to clicking on the coordinates and choosing a link from the first page, though the same procedure had already been done with book sources and ISBNs. She was pointed out the Wikipedia policies against the inclusion of such links, but she decided to ignore those fundamental principles and go by her personal preferences. During the heated debate the last couple of days I had stopped all article editing related to this issue until more people voice in, but BrownHairedGirl lost her cool regardless and decided to go solo.

For background on this: My original edits were part of WP:GEO goals to "have a uniform, extensible way of accessing all types of map resources, avoiding having direct external links to maps in articles" by consolidating and standardising coordinate and map link use on Wikipedia. This goal is based on Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia information should be reusable, that external links to general map services are not information about the articles' topics when there exists dozens of other similar services usable with the same geographical coordinates, and that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and it doesn't offer to readers or support any single external advertising supported map service over all the others, but readers will have to choose themselves. More details on these at Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services - summary.

What can be done with administrators who disregard Wikipedia policies and revert other editors in a tendentious manner with nothing but their personal opinion behind their actions? Arbitration is probably too drastic as the damage she has done is only temporary and the information is easily recoverable, but there must be something to discourage such admin behaviour? --Para (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has the same right to edit as any other user, but mass-reverting good-faith edits doesn't seem to me to fit the intended purpose of admin tools, and puts Para at a severe disadvantage. Can we agree to stop these high-speed admin-tool-powered reverts now, and then work something out at WP:GEO, please? -- The Anome (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:GEO would indeed be the right place for the discussion, but whenever users new to a debate join a discussion that has for the most part taken place on a wikiproject page, they are fast to point out that the participants haven't represented the views of the community, and that the discussion should not be continued there. The proposed correct location is often the village pump or other central dumping ground, but all discussions can't be had there, which is why they are separated on pages focused on some very specific topics. Should all wikiprojects that simply enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an organised and centralised way then have the wikiproject connotation removed from their names? --Para (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
On review: yes, Para has a point -- this is very much like the links-to-Amazon issue for books. Sure, the ISBN link system is clunkier than a simple link to Amazon, but it gives the reader more choice, and avoids any suspicion of commercial promotion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
First thing: if a complaint is raised about someone at ANI, it is helpful to notify the person complained about so that they can respond, and it's a pity that Para did not to do so. Thanks to Luna Santin for pointing me to this discussion, which I would otherwise have been unaware of.
On the substance of this, there has been a lengthy discussion at WT:EL about Para's mass removal of all direct links to external map services. The discussion was an exceptionally difficult one, because of Para's repeated refusal to take seriously the deep concerns about the usability of the GeoHack system which were expressed by every other contributor to the discussion other than Para — everything was repeatedly and arrogantly brushed off as "resistance to change" or as "nonsense".
Para's summary above the discussion at WP:EL is a gross misrepresentation of that discussion, and in particular Para's attempt to conflate a series of policies into a ban on any direct links to map services is highly misleading. Para is acting as if there is a clear policy supporting his actions, when there is not, and refuses to listen to any objections.
It is quite clear from that discussion that there is no consensus for this mass removal until the usability of the GeoHack system is improved. (I believe that the discussion shows a consensus against, but Para disagrees on that point),
For now, the relevant guideline is at WP:EL, whose nutshell says "Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." One or two direct links to a relevant map at an appropriate resolution are entirely in keeping with that guidance.
There is no objection from me (nor, so far as I can see from anyone else) to the addition of GeoHack links to articles which do not have them, and I would welcome that addition. The issue in dispute is solely Para's unilateral mass removal of all other links contrary to the existing guideline at WP:EL, before usability issues have been resolved.
Unfortunately, Para is engaged in a one-man exercise of mass-removal of direct map links, before usability problems have been resolved, and has adamantly refused requests from several editors to desist until the usability problems have been fixed, decrying the consensus against him as "resistance to change", which is a bizarrely arrogant description of widespread concerns about poor usability.
The folks at WP:GEO are doing good work in developing the GeoHack system, and I wish them well in developing the system further to improve its usability to the point where it is welcomed by other users as a satisfactory replacement for all map links. However, it's not there yet, and there was a very sensible proposal last night by User:Wikidemo, who wrote "The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots."
Unfortunately, that wise proposal was immedaiately rejected by Para, who wrote "The best solution is to just go for it and then see about the comments.".
In response to that, I warned Para that any mass removal of direct links without consenus would amount to disruptive and tendentious editing ... and when I later checked Paras' contribs and found the extent to which this had already been done, I reverted those edits of Para's which were described in the edit summary as the removal of map links. (Note, I did not revert edits which described the addition of geohack links, or even of those which replaced map links with geohacks — in those cases, the map links should be restored but the GeoHack should stay, and simple reversion would be inappropriate).
As to a solution, it is not for the WP:GEO project to impose its system on the whole of wikipedia. I wish them luck in improving the GeoHack system, but for now the guidance at WP:EL permits a limited number of relevant links to external sources, and there is no consenus to ban any direct links to map services. If, as Wikidemo suggest, the folks at WP:GEO improve the usability of their system to the point where "everybody loves it", I'm sure that there will be consensus to change the guideline. However, we are not there yet, and Para's mass-removal should stop.
(BTW, in reply to The Anome, this is not the same issue as links to Amazon. Amazon exists to sell books, but Google Maps or Line Search Maps or Yahoo Maps are not trying to sell a product. Like online newspapers to which there are squillions of links, they are advertising-supported information services, which is a very different matter to a sales site.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl continues to ignore fundamental Wikipedia principles, doesn't even try justifying why they could just be brushed aside with her personal opinion, and seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that what she has done is not appropriate for someone who supposedly has the trust of the community and is expected to know Wikipedia policies. The book source system was taken into use and Amazon links removed, and the map sources system works exactly the same way, except that more attention has been given to usability. Both types of services benefit from incoming links, and with such services that have dozens of alternatives usable with a known identifier, Wikipedia should not promote any single one over the others. Even if the usability was on the same level for both, we could already move to using the centralised map sources page as there's the precedent and supporting policies, but BrownHairedGirl insists on imposing her personal preferences on all Wikipedia readers.
The only people to ever have complained of my removal of map links are Sarah777 (talk · contribs) [29][30][31], who then alerted[32] BrownHairedGirl to speak for her, and we all know now how she delt with that. All comments of her disruptive actions have been negative, and people have already started reverting her reversions independently [33][34]. I am not alone at all in converting map links to coordinates, see for example the entirely independent edits from these users during the couple of days I was monitoring external link changes:
See also the WP:GEO discussion on getting rid of all external map service templates, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord, where there was a clear consensus to remove the links. The people opposing the change there only had concerns that have been taken care of since.
In addition to the direct map links BrownHairedGirl restored, she also restored a WikiMapia link to 900 articles through a template [44], though the links had been gone for almost a month already without a single complaint. WikiMapia in particular is an ad infested website that, despite the name, only has the community editing part of the site common with Wikipedia, but keeps the results of the work for themselves. Such a site shouldn't be supported in any Wikipedia article except the one about the site itself. People who really want to use it can choose it from the list of all other Google Maps mashups.
I expect BrownHairedGirl herself to have to revert her own reversions. Meanwhile, as there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links, how do we get that in the guidelines so that other opinionated revert warriors ignorant of Wikipedia's goals won't go on the same path? Guidelines are after all just extensions and longer explanations of the existing policies, but obviously a direct note about this is needed in WP:EL. Generally it has been very difficult to get people comment on a minor issue such as map links or coordinates. Should everyone identified in editing map links or coordinates be contacted directly, or can we just act based on the existing fundamental policies? --Para (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Use of rollback[edit]

Just as an aside, isn't the rollback tool only allowed for "obvious" vandalism? Lawrence § t/e 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback, and I will not revert my rollbacks. Despite Para's long posting above, the fact remains that in the discussion at WT:EL, I can see no-one else supporting Para's purge of all direct map links.
Para points us to a discussion at WP:GEO, but a wikiproject does not make policy or guidedline for wikipedia as a whole. And it's very depressing to see that despite a clear consensus at WT:EL not to support the amendment of the guideline, Para claims that "there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links". That's a transparent falsehood, and it's very disappointing to see Para trying to make all these false assertions. In two years of editing wikipedia, I have never before encountered any editor so utterly unwilling to listen, and so determined to ignore consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Which part of the discussion on WP:EL makes you think there is consensus in any way? Perhaps I'll summarize: I support removing map links, Wikidemo supports removing map links, SEWilco supports removing map links, DanBealeCocks prefers the list of map services over single links, Sarah777 likes Yahoo and WikiMapia and would have liked to have been notified of changes, BrownHairedGirl likes any map link as long as it's directly on the page, some anonymous user dislikes the WikiMiniAtlas, and EdJohnston seems yet to have decided on an opinion. No matter how many ways I try to count this in or weigh the arguments, I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the discussion is finished or is showing any consensus at all. Above I provided diffs of edits where 9 different people have removed map links from articles. What kind of inverted view of consensus do you have?? --Para (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Para, I don't know why you persist in repeating so many untruths, but I have never before come across a wikipedia editor who will so blatantly claim that black is white.
I'm not going to waste time summarising how you have misrepresented several editors, but I'll just repost wikidemo's latest comment in full, highlighting in bold the points where wikidemo specifically opposes the mass removal of links at this stage:
"Maybe everyone should take a little chill. This issue isn't new and it's not getting resolved soon, so no emergency worth getting personal over. I don't think it's a good idea to link directly to map services, and I would probably remove such a link if it appeared for no good reason in an article I was working on. At the same time we have 300,000 and it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place. The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots. We could even give people some notice and warning time so they can put a "do not convert" flag somewhere for the bots, if they strongly feel that a particular external link to a mapping service should remain. Of course they could always just revert the bot too"
If you really think that "it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place" should be read as meaning "I support Para's zealous insistence on immediate mass removal of all direct links to maps", then you need to do some urgent remedial work on your reading comprehension skills.
Anyone else concerned about this issue should read the thread for themselves rather than relying on the bizarre misrepresentations posted here and elsewhere by Para. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The only remaining usability issue that has been reported is the interpretation of the title "Global", on whether it indicates map sources with data on a global scale, or if it means services that only show a globe. Nobody has confirmed the issue or suggested other alternatives, but it is of course listed in the appropriate place for further comments. Absent any other issues, we can say that the system is good or at least as good as the book sources list, and the quoted comment from Wikidemo is therefore unrelated. To further quote the same editor [45]:
"for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps"
Making Wikipedia's external linking neutral is an ideological issue, and BrownHairedGirl's personal opinions are irrelevant when keeping Wikipedia's principles in mind. Book sources have already been centralised, and so will map sources. BrownHairedGirl is acting from a minority viewpoint mostly represented by herself alone, and any of her attempts to keep Wikipedia biased should be reverted. --Para (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • cough* Alone? I have not been silent in my opposition to it, nor have other users. Orderinchaos 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I participated briefly in this discussion and overall, it's pretty clear that the way to go in the long run to remove links to specific mapping services in favor of a universal geocoding system promoted by the appropriate wikiproject. It seems that 282,000 of 300,000 articles already take this approach but that there's some objection to mopping up the last 18,000, on account of the geolinking service on Wikipedia is clunky and takes extra clicks to use. That's a fair criticism, and if the community really thinks so, it's valid request to ask the geo people to go back to the design lab and come back when the feature is perfected. I don't know what it even means to talk about consensus in such a context, but in any event the bickering between BrownHairedGirl and Para at the village pump has gotten so intense that it's very hard to tell what's going on, and unpleasant to participate in the discussion. Perhaps a full review would reveal that one or the other started it or is being unreasonable, but I'm just an editor and it's not worth the frustration to wade into someone else's flame war. In any event I don't see any chance of a new consensus emerging as long as the discussion is so hot (which leaves open the question of what the current consensus really is about these articles). Perhaps they both need to take a short or long-term break from this issue, or invoke some kind of mediation. In any event it would seem inappropriate for any party to such a dispute to use administrative tools or privileges to have their way - even if administrative action is called for it would be a lot better if it could come from a disinterested party. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed Wikipedia:Rollback policy does not seem to me to countenance rollback for "the mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback" as suggested by BHG above. Can those in favour of rollback for such purposes please get consensus on that page either for changing the rollback policy/guideline or for correcting that document's mis-statement of WP policy? Thincat (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Allowing the use of mass-rollback over content disputes in this manner, sets a chilling precedent for editors without this tool. It is not an appropriate manner for dealing with the issue. The previous versions should be mass-rollbacked and dispute resolution should be entered. This is a content issue. Admin tools were not given for the purpose of engaging in content wars. Wjhonson (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So far we have four people who feel that this was an inappropriate use of rollback. Anybody else care to weigh in, or is this "chilling precedent" going to stand? Pairadox (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally (and I'll admit a past involvement with this matter) my perception of this situation is that Para and SEWilco have been quite difficult to deal with with regards to this. They seem to have decided in absence of any community consensus on what they are going to do, are mid-way through implementing it, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. It's an approach that flies completely in the face of consensus-building. Developers of the map link templates such as myself are getting occasional bouts of criticism for doing nothing about these incursions. It seems like WP:OWN on a grand scale where a small wikiproject has decided to take ownership of a particular attribute on thousands of articles. While there have been some minor improvements, a quick inspection of the WP:GEO talk page will put paid to any notion that there is a consensus or that they take criticism on board. As far as they are concerned, this is going to happen whether we like it or not. As such, I support the actions