Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive363

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Alien from brixton[edit]

Resolved: well, resolved for ANI purposes, anyway. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alien from brixton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Earlier today the above user redirected their userpage to an article they had created Irish Sea Tunnel. I reverted the edit and explained to them that userpages should not be redirected to an article. (I had an article they had edited on in my watchlist) However they have now redirected their user talk page again to the articles talk page, making it impossible to leave a message on their userpage. Also on the article Irish Sea the same user removed a whole section discussing a proposed Irish Sea Tunnel, initially without an edit summary and eventually stating on my talk page that they did so because it was "crap". I have tried restoring the content following discussion on the articles talk page when I said that I would be restoring the content as it is sourced, valid and relevant, and adding a "main article" link. However they left a message stating "you will not" and have yet again removed the entire sourced section. I just seem to be annoying the user. I have tried sorting this out on their talk page (when they had one) and on the articles talk page, explaining that they would be best editing the section but unfortunately this has falled on deaf ears. I will not be reverting again and getting further involved into an edit war and I have left the article as it was. However, could someone deal with this please? I would leave a message informing them of my bringing this up on here but as I said above they now have no user talkpage. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I have gone ahead and reverted the redirected talk page back to a normal talk page. In the future, if you want to edit a redirect page, when you are on the page you have been redirected too, under the article title a link to the redirect should be present. By clicking on it and then on history, you can revert it. At any rate, I am going to go ahead and leave a note on the importance of talk page. Besides that, I will leave it to an administrator. SorryGuy  Talk  21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left a welcome message and a polite note about the redirect, which I hope helps. The editing dispute doesn't really need adminstrative action. BencherliteTalk 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but how do I now restore the tunnel section to the article? I added the "main article" link in the section to Irish Sea Tunnel but that was also removed and now the article merely states, "There have been various tentative proposals for an Irish Sea Tunnel". The content is relevant to the article, however if I re-add the content again, even if a smaller section, I will be breaking the 3RR and no doubt winding up Alien From Buxton even further. Removing content from an article because they had "made a new article because the old crap in the Irish Sea article is crap and not really revelent" (the explanation given on my talk page) is surely not a valid reason to remove a whole sourced section. The article needs more than a one line throwaway comment.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As I said, this doesn't need administrative action. BencherliteTalk 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

legal threat from IP/sock - blocked[edit]

Just a quick heads up, 142.162.14.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) dropped a legal threat on User talk:142.162.14.78. Since I can't really indef block an IP, especially considering it's probably not static, I made a 1 week hard block on the IP. If a checkuser gets a chance it might be good to make sure I'm not causing any collateral damage. Cheers =) --slakrtalk / 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, didn't know about the whole suicide thing. Somehow it seems that they're finding their way to me this week. :P Anyway the evidence was clear when the user claimed he was on AOL when it's not an AOL range to lift an unblock on the sock account then proceeded to make all of the same edits his sock made. --slakrtalk / 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And is now making the same changes as Kagome 65 (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And again as Saturn 18 (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Socks blocked. IrishGuy talk 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a page move by a newbie editor undone[edit]

Resolved: Page moved back to correct name by Black KiteTravistalk 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rockk3r (talk · contribs) page moved the "Portal Rush (band)" to "Portal Rush" and the result is a broken portal made up of a bunch of red links. I explained blunder to the editor but it looks like he's offline and can't correct his mistake. Can someone pop by and undo his goof. 156.34.213.34 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, though I managed to screw it up the first time as well. Black Kite 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite. The editor is still online but did not get back to "undo his do's". 156.34.213.34 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Systematic removal of WikiProject Totalitarianism project tags[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 24 hours per WP:AN discussion --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Brought over from WP:AIV.ERcheck (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Maglev Power (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log): I don't know if this is really vandalism, but I don't know where else to report it. Maglev Power has taken it upon himself to strip every single article in WikiProject Totalitarianism of its talk page tag, because he doesn't like the idea of the WikiProject. He is currently in the process of doing it. There is absolutely no consensus to do this, and he seems to shrug off complaints on his talk page. At one point he said "Encyclopedias are based on facts, not 'consensus.'" I think some administrator should step in. --ElPeruano (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"

Discussion also on WP:ANERcheck (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd vandalism pattern by 76.109.246.250[edit]

This isn't ongoing but appears to have been overlooked at the time; just thought I'd mention it in case others see the pattern in other similar addresses. Special:Contributions/76.109.246.250 made a series of edits to Legal drinking age and Television content rating systems on November 26. In both cases, the first edit in the series is truncated when viewed in WP:Popups, and looks innoccuous 'above the fold'. Below the fold, urls have had pieces removed[1][2]. This first edit is followed in quick succession by minor, possibly good faith edits (some of these are possible number vandalism). Previous edits from the same address show a pattern of number vandalism and url breakage, but this looks like a deliberate attempt to hide what's being done. --Bazzargh (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have evidence to an effect of things being hidden as well. Edits disappearing! If you need it please let me know and I will dig it up. Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The IP cited above has only edited 7 times since November, and none are what I would call "bad faith" edits. What is the issue here? This is in all likelyhood a different person than edited back in November... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Except for a general reminder to scroll down a bit to check for hidden vandalism at the bottom of an edit, there's nothing to do here. Gimmetrow 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR against User:Jossi[edit]

I invoked WP:IAR and common sense to No Action this 3RR report against User:Jossi. As far as I can tell, Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. I therefore declined to take the rather drastic step of blocking an admin in good standing. This is a fairly contentious issue right now. Does anyone else want to chime in? Ronnotel (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This brings up 2 questions:
i) Does WP:3rr apply to pages other than wikipedia articles? In my opinion, no, thus Jossi should not be blocked (or punished). The reason for this is that, articles are important because they are the only content read by the public. In fact, everything on wikipedia exists for one main purpose, that is to improve articles. Thus it is important that articles be stable.
ii) Are admins and users in good standing exempt from WP:3rr? Certainly not. Infact, if anything, good users, as members who represent wikipedia interests, should be held to higher standards than edit warriors who violate the rule. (In this case, though, as already stated, 3rr doesn't apply). Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to Wikilawyer, but WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The use of "page" instead of "article" in that sentence seems significant to me, so I don't think I can agree with Bless sins' first point. I endorse his/her second point absolutely, mind you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly I've seen people blocked for violating 3RR on policy pages, talk pages, and even user pages. The only time I have seen an exception made was for people removing stuff from their own user page. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the edits to the Homeopathy notice subpage - disruptive edit warring seems to justify a few short blocks, and not of Jossi. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy and it appears Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. Not reason for a block, and agree with Ronnotel's decline.--Hu12 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I encourage you to look through Jossi's recent editing history and some of the rumblings going on at User talk:Jossi. I know it is hard to block what you may consider to be a trusted admin, but I'm afraid he's stepping beyond the bounds of policy and making some very provocative maneuvers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
to be honest, I'm much more concerned about your behavior. I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on. I think Jossi is trying to de-escalate the environment. I can't say the same for you. Ronnotel (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime, I think you should carefully note that this 3RR report was not due to me edit warring with Jossi, so there really isn't a kettle to be seen. Also, FYI, "I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on." is basically flouting WP:AGF. I know that you are upset with my hardline position at cold fusion, but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. For what it's worth, I really appreciated that you started this thread because it shows that this is not an easy situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The real problem is that a cadre of dedicated warriors on each side is pushing the situation to where uninvolved admins can't step in without being attacked somehow.
This whole article probation / etc situation was set up to defuse that, and yet has now become another focus of disruptive editing and infighting.
From a practical standpoint - it doesn't matter who's fundamentally right. If both sides make it too toxic for uninvolved admins to step in, both sides need to get blocked and pages need to be full protected until things cool down.
That is approximately the last step left, and we're approximately there. I haven't pulled any triggers yet, but I think it has to be on the table. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
As a previously uninvoled admin, I generally agree with User:Georgewilliamherbert. I had some hope that Arbcomm would agree to look at the article to look at issues of user conduct, but it appears that they continue to view it as a content dispute. I'm not really sure what else can be done from this point, because I don't think most of the unconstructive behaviour is actually blockworthy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocks aren't the only tool that admins can use here. You can impose revert paroles on individual users, or article/topic bans. That might be a way to address disruptive behavior that doesn't rise to the level of blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that the most disruptive behaviour I see isn't to the article (in the form of excessive reverting, etc.) but on the talk page, where many editors seem interested only in denigrating (civilly, natch) their opponents; the talk pages get flooded with this sort of thing, and attempts to achieve consensus get buried and have low participation. Revert paroles wouldn't do any good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
But that's where the article/topic bans come in. If an editor consistently makes disruptive edits to the talk page, including incivility and obstruction, then they can be prohibited from editing the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's more subtle than that, I'm afraid. They behave civilly, they're polite, and they don't obstruct others' efforts. They just do nothing to advance the cause of consensus, and a whole lot to fill up the talk page with endless debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks[edit]

In order to centralize disussion related to admin responses to the situation...

I have just blocked ShmuckyTheCat for 3 hours for the edit: [3], which I judge to be disruptive and drama-increasing rather than reducing behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so following WP:TALK is now blockable. In this forum, it figures. Shot info (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it was Shmucky's edit summary? This does seem like an odd choice. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleting a bunch of comments is not helpful. By itself it would probably be worth a warning or overlooking - but it was further escalation after comments by myself and other admins that further escalation is unacceptable, and that crackdowns for existing behavior might be justified. 3 hrs is enough to make the point without abusing anyone severely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I seemed to have missed that bit in WP:TALK. Would you be able to point out where jossi's comments helped improve the article? Shot info (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If I were to rigorously block for violations of a strict interpretation of WP:TALK on the article talk page, about 35 editors will be sitting on their hands for the next week.
Alternatively, one can acknowledge that WP:TALK is a guideline not a prescription, and "violations" of it aren't removable barring other disruption... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure that having a bunch of the editors sit on their hands is a bad idea. You could accomplish that through article/topic bans through blocks, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just shaking my head at what actually is acted upon decisively. No, it shouldn't surprise me, given the obsession with civilness over content. And edit warring civilly is tolerated....until it becomes uncivil, but by then it's too late for certain admins to act. Instead they pick and easy but largely tangential target. Shot info (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, large scale edit wars and disruption are worse for the Encyclopedia than even having clearly factually wrong content in some articles. Edit wars and personal attacks are attacks not just on individuals, but on the community. The community will, if it's not damaged or scared off a topic, eventually fix incorrect articles and related problems. But there's not much which fixes the community if people rampage around trying to break it.
Schmucky happened to be the first incivility to step in front of the bus, after we started the bus moving. That it was him and not one of a few dozen other people is not his fault, nor a conclusion about his position in the article dispute.
If you will excuse me from this little discussion, however, I have some people to ban from the talk page for a couple of days, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
George, in all honesty, there are a LOT of editors who are just waiting to see admins actually begining to act and act sensibly. Blocking Schmucky wasn't sensible (IMO). But if he is the first sign of a movement by admins to enforce content by removing editing warning, then I think he would be accepting of his fate. But then again, some oldtimers have heard this sort of talk before. I personally look forward to in anticipation to see what happens. Will the project move forward, or will WR be proven correct? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an absurd thing to block over. From George's perspective, removing comments made things worse. Schumucky felt differently. So instead of asking him not to do that.. no warning, you jump on a block? Wha? Schmucky's logic for removing the "OMG I'm leaving" comments are reasonable. We should not block over bad judgement calls (not that I even agree that it was a bad judgement call or not). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


endorse. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to be civil rather than how they have been uncivil. Ronnotel (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there's some edit warring over the inclusion of the Pseudoscience and Fringe science categories on Homeopathy. This sequence of edits strikes me as a bit odd, since QuackGuru is an advocate of the categories and Dance With The Devil has never edited the article before. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec to Ronnotel) This is the major problem with the Project at the moment. The most civil POV is rewarded by the admins rather than NPOV and improving the article. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to improve the project rather than how they have been uncivil. Shot info (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL is an official policy at Wikipedia. Editors who are laboring under the misapprehension that they can 'improve the project' while being 'uncivil' are... laboring under a misapprehension. Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
First let me say that I endorse the article ban of User:Infophile, and further endorse User:Dlabtot's comments on civility. That said, I understand where User:Shot info is coming from; editors can be as frustratingly obstructionist as they want on the article talk page, but as long as they're polite about it there are no consequences to them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. The problem isn't the civility, it's the failure to enforce NPOV. It's time to reward those who contribute to the project, rather than do what we have been doing - which is reward those who editwar, but do it civilly. Shot info (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just don't agree with your assertion: There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of admins are putting forth their best good faith efforts at enforcing WP:FIVE. And I'm sorry, there simply is no way to justify uncivil edits: not only is incivility a violation of one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, it also just doesn't work - it's poor rhetoric which not only fails to persuade, but backfires. Dlabtot (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's right, it backfires, meaning that the uncivil NPOV pusher is overwhelmed by the civil POV pusher. Which is worse? From the answers here is it clear that it is the more civil. Also it is plain only one one of the pillars is monitored - civility, because the civil POV pushers are rewarded. If you want people to believe you, then it's time (as I keep advocating) for the admins to start enforcing the others. NPOV as a starter. Clamp down on that, and you will find that users (on the whole) won't be around to be uncivil. It's not difficult - although the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Shot info (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. (Don't even think about WP:IAR.) It's frustrating to those who value content, but you can't fight city hall. You either play the game by whatever rules you're given or you get off the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. Another assertion with which I must respectfully disagree. In fact, that is precisely why I linked to WP:FIVE. These fundamental principles form a whole. It makes no more sense to think one is more important than the other than it does to think that your heart is a more important organ than your brain. But as far as "getting off the field if you don't like the rules" - yes, I completely agree. Dlabtot (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This can be tested empirically: make impeccably neutral edits supported by top-drawer reliable sources and use uncivil edit summaries, then make POV edits supported by the lousiest possible sources but do it civilly. See which gets you into trouble faster. I'm not suggesting you actually do this, but I think the outcome of the thought experiment is obvious and is supported by past experience. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you posted this below my comment, as it seems to be completely unrelated to anything I have said. Dlabtot (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only can it be tested, the evidence supporting it is rather apparent. Saying it doesn't happen is just rewarded the civil pov-pushers, but that is the default position, and has Ray states, no point fighting it. Too bad it isn't actually the rules of the game, just umpires being selective in how they do their job(s). Shot info (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
(Outside view as an interested but uninvolved ordinary editor) Shot info, I think part of the problem is that enforcing civility is content-neutral, while enforcing NPOV requires making judgements about content. As soon as an admin tries to evaluate where NPOV lies in a contentious article, that admin is an involved participant in the content dispute. And since admins are explicitly prohibited from using their administrative tools to adjudicate a content dispute, there's no straightforward to "enforce" NPOV. I think the current system relies on the assumption that anyone focused on pushing a particular point of view will also trip up in more objectively measurable ways, such as incivility, excessive reverting, lack of sources, or abuse of multiple accounts. Most of the time, that's true. Sometimes it's not, and then what do you suggest? --Reuben (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that admins don't enforce NPOV, and just enforce CIVIL - because it is "easier"? This agrees with what I have been saying (and others have disagreed with I note). The solution is for admins to become more informed, not involved, of the issues. Too many admins opt for the "civil" solution and reward the civil pov-pushers, while with a bit of care and attention (and doing some of this stuff called "work") the correct solution can be applied to correctly ID the real editwarrior. Besides, as it is noted over in Homeo-land, almost every admin adjudicating over there has been "involved" at some point or another. Something which is proving to be a problem for admins. My personal solution is "AGF" for involved admins regardless of the level of involvement because if an admin editwars, well that what we have AN/I for. But as we see here at AN/I, an admin can 3RR (and even "civilly") and get off scot-free. God help us if the watchers don't watch their own watchmen. Shot info (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not just because it's easier, but because the admin tools and the rules for using them aren't very well suited to allow the admins to enforce NPOV. I agree with your assessment of the problem, but I don't think there's much the admins can do about it. As soon as you decide who's a "civil pov-pusher" and who's a "good editor," you're involved in the content dispute and ineligible to use administrative tools, so the admins are in a bind. Again, this is my observation as a non-admin. --Reuben (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Refocussing[edit]

Jossi's behaviour is troubling. He has been told that he is not considered uninvolved or a trusted mediator by a particular side, and yet he continues to maintain he is, and to take actions to the point of violating 3RR. Can someone explain why that is considered OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been told that by both sides (see e.g., the comment by Martinphi, who is a paranormal-oriented editor[4]) but in this case both sides are wrong. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that since I'm just a science geek and not a lawyer or diplomat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
From my perpsective, it became a problem when he had to "edit war" to assert his uninvolved neutrality. What should have happened (given the half dozen admin eyes on the page, and the assumed dozen more watching it) is that a different admin should have made the revert so that Jossi wouldn't have had to do it himself. No one is perfectly objective or as we say here "neutral". But I imagine that more than anything, Jossi got riled by the lack of support that he should have received. My comments here notwithstanding, I hate how this turned out, mostly because, with the recent block of that cat guy (gal?), it reinforces the (mis?)understanding that being admin is more than just having a mop. R. Baley (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I've looked through some of Jossi's edits in this area, and I have to say that in my opinion he and the rest of us would be best served if he looked elsewhere. I can recommend several other problematic areas that would benefit immensely from his energy.
I'm not sure what Martinphi's objection is, but he seems to be more welcoming than the other 'side'.Relata refero (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with some of the above. Although I respect Jossi, he should know perfectly well that 3RR is a community consensus and he has ample methods to deal with the situation other than what occurred. No one is served by allowing admins to IAR content-issues where they are related. Rather it presents the image that admins are under no restrictions to do as they will. The project already suffers from too much of that image. It's almost a daily refrain. I also agree that the extent that Jossi has self-involved now becomes problematic.Wjhonson (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The 'content' in question, though, was the warning template. Actually, instead of reverting the editor who kept changing it without discussion or consensus, Jossi should have just blocked him for violating the probation. Dlabtot (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If all of Wikipedia were handled as the homeopathy page is being handled we could easily get the community down to pre-2004 levels tout de suite. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see Jossi's behavior to be the issue that needs discussing and possibly remedial action there. FeloniousMonk (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. Why is insisting on non-involvement when he appears pretty involved not worth discussing? Relata refero (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Because Sgt Friday always supported Bill Gannon. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
When both sides in a dispute think the admin is on the other side, that's a pretty good sign that they're neutral. Is jossi regularly involved in editing homeopathy articles? Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you substantiate that belief in this case? Which people think Jossi's anti-homeoepathy? Frankly, I don't think you can, so I suspect the statement's irrelevant. Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he's only made a couple of edits to Homeopathy itself, but a larger number of edits to Dana Ullman (apparently some sort of homeopathy advocate). He does however seem to have been fairly heavily involved in the talk pages of both articles but only since January 22. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
He appears to have edited Dana Ullman only from the 26th to the 28th of January. In other words, no, he's not regularly involved in editing homeopathy articles. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet, somehow, has managed to be a perceived problem in that much time. Do we really want this particular editor imposing hair-trigger sanctions in this area? Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, so some edits = uninvolved. Or <30? <10? > 1000000? I seem to have missed that bit where uninvolved becomes involved? Will enjoy reading the tortured wikilawyering to justify this bit of Adminoversight (tm). Shot info (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
When I added it up the other day it was 114 of his last 500 edits. I'm sure I counted incorrectly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, I don't think he's on one side or t'other, I just think his behaviour is questionable (at best). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Under the "some edits = uninvolved" standard, I would be an uninvolved admin, as I've only edited the talk pages of Homeopathy and deadly nightshade in the last few days; otherwise, I've never touched homeopathy articles. If I were to enforce the probation, though, I don't think I'd be perceived as an uninvolved party... --Akhilleus (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've articulated above, I have no problems with admins being "involved" and this exercise is showing that making admins "uninvolved" is a futile exercise. However in saying that, the normal avenue to policing admins should they start to break the rules (ie/ other admins, nominally via here) is shown to be broken (ie/ by Jossi's very example). So the only way to police it, is to force admins to be uninvolved. And as we see, what constitutes "uninvolved" is largely in the eyes of the AN/I and seems to differ from admin to admin. Perhaps if admins actually monitored for editwarring rather than civility....well, we wouldn't be here and lots and lots and lots of typing would not be needed. But as we can see, that's just too difficult... Shot info (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In my time as an IT manager, I've found that I much prefer technicians who were deeply knowledgable but rude and uncivil over those who were nice as Mother Teresa but clueless. But that's just me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 08:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that computers don't complain about who's servicing them... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about admin action[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.

Merged here from WP:AN. I was banned for 1 week from editing the homeopathy article and talk pages by East718 for stonewalling.[5] Besides that, user East718 did not specify why he imposed it on me. Is it possible for me to get greater clarity as to why I was banned? Perhaps some concrete examples so I can consider if there is any reason for me to appeal and what I should appeal. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that you are tendentiously pushing a point of view, using whatever measures you can to try to get your way and frustrate the editors who oppose you. Look at your own contribution history. Virtually every edit you make related to homeopathy fits into that pattern. I think East718 can provide specific diffs to support their actions. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I await East718's input or any other admins' input. Anthon01 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a diff might be helpful to explain what Anthon01 is doing wrong. —Whig (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notify East718 that a discussion is occurring. That would be the first thing to do. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think he deserves at least a diff and evidence presented to know why he was blocked for a week. Bstone (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly tht Anthony01 was blocked for continuing to disagree on the talk page aka stonewalling? To me, this blocking for this "offense" sounds exaggerated. Andries (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Anthon01 was temporarily topic banned from homeopathy, per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. If they would like an explanation of that action, they should ask East718. No block has occurred to my knowledge. I do not understand why Anthon01 address his question here, rather than at User talk:East718. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia and don't understand the process. I thought that since this is the admin board, I could get an answer here? Anthon01 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
this is the noticeboard to notify admins (and indirectly the entire WP community) about admin related iussues. if you have a personal discussion with a user going on, address it to their talk page like User:Jehochman recommended instead of airing your dirty laundry out for everyone else to see.
I will take responsibility for suggesting that Anthon01 ask on WP:AN (not WP:ANI) because that is where appeals of admin actions are supposed to occur pursuant to the homeopathy article-probation, as I understood it. I should perhaps have suggested that Anthon01 go to East718's talk page first. —Whig (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
i have always beleived that it is better to try and explain your side of the story to the admin first instead of humiliating both yourself and the admin on an easily accesed discussion board like this. such a drastic step should be a second move in case appeal negotaitions stall since alot of these issuses can be resolved informally through a chat between the adminsitrator and the blocked user. Smith Jones (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I still would like to know what 'stonewalling' is, and where it is referenced in Wikipedia policy. I've heard of tendentious editing, and actually, it seems to be pretty common in th homeopathy/pseudoscience disputes, on both sides. Is that what Anthon01 is accused of? Is this related to the article parole? In other words, did this take place after the article was put on parole? If so, where are the diffs that show his actions? Personally I think there are perhaps as many as 6-8 editors on both sides of this WP:BATTLE who have engaged in tendentious editing, over a long period. To single out one editor, without actually saying specifically what he did to deserve being singled out, seems arbitrary. Dlabtot (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can look up stonewalling in any good dictionary. Just because it isn't referenced in Wikipedia policy doesn't mean that it cannot be a rationale for blocking. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a diff: [6]. It happens to be the last diff this user made to the Talk:Homeopathy page. Now, taken out-of-context like this, some people may say, "hey, this isn't so bad". But after seeing only this kind of argumentation (that is, stonewalling) and continually arguing for removal of some rather obvious categories while insisting that "there is no consensus" looks not only like obstructionism, it looks like Wikilawyering, disruptive editing, and tendentious editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't need to explain the dictionary definition of stonewalling. I've observed plenty of stonewalling on WP from both sides in the many battles that you are involved in. What I want to know is how it is different from 'continuing to disagree' and if 'continuing to disagree' is against Wikipedia policy. What actions did User:Anthon01 take that User:East718 believes violated policy in some way, and what is that policy? How is the stonewalling that User:Anthon01 has engaged in different from the stonewalling that you have engaged in? Has User:East718 communicated this information to you? Dlabtot (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


to the best of my knowledge, stonewalling i defined as deliberately refusing to understand other editors' positions in order to make a WP:POINT. it is pretty much exactly the almost the same the as the WP:TEND violation, but some users prefer the term stonewalling because the user creates a stonewall of text to obstruct any progress for personal or imperatious reasons. . Anthon08 was probably accused of this because he refused to cooperate with another editor. i was not present tot this altercation so i don not know why User:Anthon was singled out for this, but i am certain that there was a good reason or the block will be overturned. Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This situation is disturbing. Anthon01 did the right thing taking the specific concern over whether or not a particular position paper can be used as a reliable source to include the PseudoScience cat on the homeopathy page. Taking this to RS is I repeat, the correct procedure. The long discussion there was no consensus over the particular issue as anyone willing to review it can plainly see. The mass counter-attack over content issues is absolutely unwarranted. This is clearly a disputed content issue. Admin action should not be taken to resolve this issue. That is contrary to our don't smother conflict. If any admin action is taken it must be imposed equally on all warring parties. I'm not an involved editor in homeopathy, but I am a strong advocate of the freedom to reach consensus. Anthon01, does not appear to have done anything against policy in this case. If he has that must be made crystal-clear with diffs. This situation is highly antagonistic and simple approaches will only serve to inflame it more.Wjhonson (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to ask East718 to be sure, but I interpret "stonewalling" as "tendentious editing"--in particular, Anthon01 has been willfully obstructing the formation of consensus, rather than working towards it. It's not over one particular action, but rather a pattern of being uncooperative. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Another accusation but no diffs. You have said that Anthon01 has been willfully obstructing the formation of consensus. Have you any diffs to support statement? I'm trying to understand what it is I have done wrong or different then anyone else on homeopathy? Has anyone really taken the time to look thoroughly at my recent edits on homeopathy? Anthon01 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't exist, because consensus doesn't exist. I'm not going to ignore the attempts to process the critics into silence. Tendentious editing is not interpretable as "we can't reach consensus so let's report the other side for being obstructive". That is not the goal of our project. We reach consensus. Once we have consensus, then we act upon that consensus. There are articles for which we cannot reach consensus, and in those cases we do not act. That is why we have dispute resolution. Editors seeking dispute resolution should not then be processed into silence. We are not a project run by forcing silence on critics, we are in-fact, one of the most open projects being run. If you cannot find common ground, then I would suggest reviewing again the full DR process and taking the appropriate step along it. Wjhonson (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the history of Homeopathy and related articles, which have been a source of intense conflict lately. DR has been pursued, and a request for arbitration (still visible at WP:RFAR) was rejected, and article probation has been imposed as a trial solution. Anthon01 has been banned from the Homeopathy article (and its talk page) for a week as a result of that probation. That's the path that DR is following here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And we're discussing the basis of that ban. I feel that ban is not appropriate because no evidence has been presented here that warrants it. Any person wishing to, can present the evidence that warrants it. If no one can present the evidence, then there is no evidence and the ban was not appropriate. That's what we're discussing. I'm open to being shown what is the evidence. Wjhonson (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread is too critical of the admins. Someone should clamp an archive template around it to stop it and edit-war with anybody trying to remove it. Is anybody willing to do this?   Zenwhat (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of my views on Psuedoscience are summarized here. [7] Anthon01 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If no diffs are provided to support this ban of Anthon01, will it be lifted and how? —Whig (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be premature. If anybody has notified East718, please post a diff. Otherwise, the conversation has not even begun yet. Complaining to a noticeboard without notifying the relevant parties is rude and disruptive. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
On the subject of preparing diffs, see also this. Relata refero (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above discussion, because it was disruptive. If you wish to complain about an administrative action, please notify the administrator so they can respond. Whoever continues that disruption may be subject to a remedy specified in Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've undone your collapsing. East718 has been informed that a complaint had been tendered on AN, and he can follow your merge here to AN/I. Note that I'm quite uninvolved in this homoeopathy business. Relata refero (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The diff you have posted is a request for information, not an appeal. A request for information should be directed to East718's talk page. If the explanation is not satisfactory, then Anthon01 can post an appeal to the noticeboard. Bringing the discussion here is premature at this time. Less than 24 hours have passed since the notice to East718. Jehochman Talk 14:47, 4 February 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.

Can somebody review this and, if possible, delete it?[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.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments

User:BQZip01 and myself have been engaged in an editorial dispute over the inclusion of some meaningless statistics at Talk:Kyle Field. I filed an RfC, which has gone mostly unnoticed. User insisted on a response from me to his suggestions at his 2nd request for Adminship, which I then did.

We weren't able to come to an agreement, but, for reasons I don't understand, user has created his own indictment of my editorial practices within his userspace. I asked him to remove it on his talk page and he responded saying that, since it was his userspace, I couldn't tell him what to do. I think it's somewhat unfair to me for him to advertise what a terrible editor I am, as it's uncivil and (I suppose) constitutes a personal attack. I would ask somebody to review the material on that page, determine if it violates it policy and, if so, delete it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it strikes me that this needs to go – constitutes a personal attack, seeing as it's all about the negative points of one editor. Would be nice if he requested speedy deletion of it, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. alex.muller (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually after reading really thoroughly through WP:NPA, it doesn't seem to be a personal attack. It's just plain not nice alex.muller (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the more appropriate venue for this is a RFC and not a page on his userspace. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It almost looks like that's what the userpage is being used for, prepping an RFC. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But he also says "It may take weeks, months, or years to put this page together," so I don't know how long he wants to wait before filing that RfC, but in the meantime I don't think it's appropriate to for him use it as a platform to accumulate accusations and negative remarks about my editing style. If he's going to file an RfC, he should file it so I'm not waiting on hold with this thing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks to me like it's prep for an Arbcom, which I'd highly recommend. As it says on the page itself, Unless someone is poring [sic] over my contributions (as they might be in my RfA), there is no reason that anyone would have to even see this page. Also, BQZ's remarks are more about Cloud's poor behaviour than "editing style". - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The previous comment was brought to you by the same user that brought us [this]70.4.12.147 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What's with the "[sic]" after "pore", above? It's being used correctly -- or are you suggesting that User:BQZip01 thinks someone will be dumping liquid all over his contributions? --Calton | Talk 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't used this term in some time, but I did use it in this page. This seems to be a tit-for-tat response to a perceived wrong. [sic] is used to show a quote is taken directly as stated and spelling errors (or malice for that matter) were kept as originally written. — BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This looks like content dispute not ArbCom or RFC... Igor Berger (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I wish someone had told me about this sooner. I would have been happy to explain. I suppose this is preparation for an RfC, WP:ANI, or something else. Personally, I hope it won't be necessary, but this is merely preparation for such an administrative request.

That said, this page is linked absolutely NO WHERE that CC didn't first bring it up. Moreover, I have never linked it myself, though I have certainly responded accordingly. I had no intention of ever linking it to anything (hence the term "draft"). It is not complete and I may phrase about a bazillion things differently or delete whole sections altogether. How CC believes this is "advertising" is beyond me.

As for "he removed the request I made on his talk page." I certainly did.

  1. It was taken away to prevent any "advertising". this is a draft, not a final version of what I want to say. (see above and the disclaimer on the page)
  2. WP:USER

In order to make this process more transparent, I invite anyone to read my edit history. BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

— BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to get this right, are your surprised that people looked at your contribution history when you nominated yourself for adminship 20 days after your last attempt failed? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No. — BQZip01 — talk 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So if you have no intention of filing an RfC, or going to ANI or anything, what's the point? What is this a draft of? The fact that it isn't linked anywhere isn't really relevant, since you're still compiling what amounts to an attack page. You've said a couple of times that nobody should have found, so I have to wonder if you were trying to bait me into an argument by doing it that way.
  • If you're not going to do anything with it, I'm going to ask you again to delete the page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said I wasn't going to file something, only that it isn't imminent (you can change your behavior, I could change my opinion, etc.). The fact that it isn't linked is certainly relevant as you stated I was "advertising" it; in fact, I am not the one even bringing it up: you are. I am not compiling an attack page, but my analysis of your actions and how I find them contradictory to the goals, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia.
I never said no one was supposed to find the page (those are your words, not mine...again) only that I have taken good measures to not advertise it until completed. I see no problem compiling my thoughts and preparing such an admin request for assistance. If you feel as if you have been baited into responding...that's your feeling and I can't do anything to change it. I'll let your comments and characterizations stand on their own. — BQZip01 — talk 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So you're going to track my edits for the foreseeable future and use that page to judge whether or not they're acceptable to you? Sorry, but that's not OK with me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You've left this page up for the past 6 months, long, long after the RfC with ThreeE failed. I do not want a protacted dispute about the contents on that page. Do something with it or delete it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. I never said I was going to track your changes for the forseeable future. If you will notice, all of these on this page are in the past (prior to my RfA). PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. I never said this at all.
  2. Wikipedia already tracks your edits and anyone can see them at any time. Anyone can look at them if they wish.
  3. I cannot "judge" whether or not they are acceptable, only express my opinion. Judgement is the job of an ArbCom or admin.
  4. I'm giving space to allow for something other than an RfC or RfA. You don't seem to even want that assurance and want to take it there ASAP. Would any of your response change if I said, "I plan on filing an RfC on 27 February at 4:30 PM CST. This is my draft for that RfC"? If so, why? I don't know when I will file it. Why should that change your mind?
  5. Sorry that it isn't ok with you, but your "okay" isn't policy and I don't need your permission/acquiescence. I'm quite frankly tired of trying to reason with you as your edits are misleading/misrepresenting.
  6. As for "do something or delete it", please read WP:DEADLINE. I have no intention of rushing into something. I plan to take my time and think this through.
  7. Again, please stop misrepresenting me. That draft was created not 6 months ago, but just over four. I also ceased edits on it a LONG time ago (about 4 months ago) and am not actively doing anything with that page. I see no problem in deleting it.
  8. For the last time...it is a DRAFT!!! not my final thoughts. — BQZip01 — talk 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. As for the "RfC that "failed" with ThreeE, I hardly think 10 editors agreeing with my side of the issue and 1 that agrees with his side could be considered "failed". — BQZip01 — talk 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading BQZip's comments it's become obvious that he won't take any action to delete it himself and currently has no plans to use it for an RfC or anything else, so it serves now only as an attack page. I would ask that it be promptly deleted. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I said, I'm not ruling it out, but I don't have to rush and submit anything immediately. I'm really hoping it will come to not be necessary, but let's just say here and now that I plan to use it for one of the methods of dispute resolution, but my plans could change and I don't know the exact date I will submit it. Does that make any difference to you? Why should it?
  • Again, you are not some deity or entity that can just proclaim something to be "obvious". You intentionally ignore what I type and want to have some sort of immediate battle. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going that way. I have no intention of having a rushed confrontation and can take any reasonable time I want to put this together. — BQZip01 — talk 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that you intend to file anything, since this is a (trivial) content dispute that already has an open RfC at Talk:Kyle Field. Claiming that you may or may not file something in the future is a stall tactic to allow you to keep this material on that page indefinitely. I'm asking you to start the process now or remove it from that page. The bottom line is that it shouldn't be in your userspace anyway, even if it's a draft. Put it in a text file on your desktop if you truly intend to come back to it, otherwise file your RfC or delete the page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Um...no. I hate to be blunt on this, but you just don't seem to get it: you aren't my boss and cannot order me to do something. I have broken none of the policies or guidelines of Wikipedia. I don't need to post something right now or delete it just because you want me to. I'm standing firm on this right now out of principle. This page would have disrupted nothing if you didn't bring it up. — BQZip01 — talk 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey BQZip? Not to nose in or anything, but couldn't you just stick that same content into a Word file or a Yahoo/Gmail or whatever, take it off your userspace, work on it in its new and non-Wiki incarnation, and let the holler cease? Just a thought (I was reading thru the page, saw this, and thought "hey, you know what would stop this?") Gladys J Cortez 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    I would agree wholeheartedly except the formats used are completely different. I can't work with the links and syntax within Wikipedia there. Good idea though and thanks for the feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure you could. It wouldn't take that long to convert the links and such, and you could speed up most of it by doing a "replace all" search, replacing "[[xxxxx]]" with "http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/xxxxx". I think it might be worth it, considering the discontent the page is causing as is. -Elmer Clark (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Do it in Word or whatever. Any final wikilinks- not sure what you mean as you can put a [[]] round something even if you write in a word processor, it just won't do anything until it's pasted onto wikipedia- but you can tinker with them when you finally file whatever-it-is, and just use the preview button until it's right. It will work against you having this here anyway, as well as seeming like an attack it gives your 'opponent' chance to formulate his responses far in advance.:) Merkinsmum 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
He may work on a rebuttal, but that is his right. I have no problem with him editing and working on his own rebuttal if he wishes. I can see that one too, if necessary. I prefer transparency to obfuscation. — BQZip01 — talk 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'll be doing that. It would needlessly escalate a conflict that has already been blown way out of proportion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a reminder of two points from the fourth pillar is in place:

  • Work towards agreement.
  • Forgive and forget.

May I suggest continuing discussions about optimal approaches to a systematic long-term breach of this guideline elsewhere? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • There is nothing wrong with the sub-page BQZip01 has created. It is commonplace to use an out-of-the-way sub-page to gather ones thoughts. Johntex\talk 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I *am* an uninvolved party, I believe. Why would you think I am an "involved party". I have not, to my recollection, had any part in creating the sub-page in question. Johntex\talk 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't want to make this problem any worse than it is, but I've noticed that any time BQZip01 has an issue with something he's more likely to ask you for administrative advice or intervention first. I'm sure he'll dispute this as another misrepresentative falsehood, but in the interest of resolving this amicably for everyone, would you mind if I waited for a second opinion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have no objection to you seeking additional opinions. The more the merrier. I hope you and BQ can work this out between you. For the record (in case readers don't want to follow the diff CC posted), BQ did not ask my opinion on this matter at all. I learned of this posting quite by accident. Johntex\talk 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me rephrase this to sound less confrontational: I appreciate your response. I disagree, but hopefully we can sort this thing out with more input from others. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Johntex and say there is something wrong with the subpage. It's uncivil and unnecessary. If you need to preserve the wiki syntax, I recommend hiding it at another wiki. (May I suggest taking up useless E.D.'s disk space?) —Wknight94 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually almost grounds for a speedy under G10 IMO. Orderinchaos 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Never even knew the page in question even existed until the complaining editor brought it to the noticeboard. My advice to the complaining editor is to ignore it. If the page is true, having it removed will not hide that truth. If the page is false, then the editor has nothing to fear and can fall back on the relative merits of his edits and contributions and say "See, this how I edit!". The page in question may be a singular and isolated affectation... or it might be indicative of how others may also feel. The editor is being given an opportunity to see how another perceives certain editing characteristics, and can now approach a "problem" amd make it an opportunity for growth and accord. This is exactly what Wiki consensus ia all about. If any editor's edits are good, they will survive consensus. If they are bad, consensus will have them removed. Karma does exist. (PS If I should not make a comment here, where should I have made it? I have already vowed to not put anything on the complaining editor's talk page.) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent, but I think that would be more applicable if we were talking about an RFC. A user-space page is a different animal, at least in part because it doesn't allow the sort of consensus-building discussion that I think you're contemplating, and that you would see at an RFC. --TheOtherBob 08:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment On one hand I think it's permissible to create a user-space evidence page in preparation for dispute resolution - a "draft," if you will. On the other hand, "enemies pages" are not permitted. I'm not sure which this is - but I don't think it matters. Whether this page is permitted or not, Wikipedia is not a battlefield. If this list is racheting up the animosity, then my suggestion would be for BQ to take responsibility for removing it in the spirit of compromise. There may or may not be a "rule" that covers this situation -- but Wikipedia is based on consensus, compromise, and working together to build an encyclopedia. This page does not appear to be directed toward those goals, and seems to me a bad idea that's only serving to create ill will. --TheOtherBob 08:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking that people are watching your contributions is annoying but expected - that's why contribs are public. To see it in print is a whole other thing entirely. This page needs to come down soon. Find whatever justification you want - WP:CSD#G10, WP:U#NOT, WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:IAR. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am still not convinced there is anything wrong with this sub-page that BQZip01 has created. As I say above, it is quite normal and accepted to use a user sub-page as a sort of draft working area. BQZip01 has not created any inbound links to the page, so a reader would not find this page by accident. One would have to be looking for it, or following BQZip01's edits.
Never-the-less, the comments here indicate that some people do view it with concern. Therefore, I would like to propose a compromise to BQZip01 and Cumulous Cloud: What if BQZip01 keeps the page but removes editorial comments about how he views the edits?
This would allow BQZip01 to keep the list here on Wikipedia, where formatting is better maintained than off in a Word document somewhere. (I completely disagree with the idea of moving this to some other wiki, such as ED. Cumulous Cloud does not want the information published, so I don't see how deliberately publishing it to another wiki would be a good idea for anyone.)
At the same time, it would remove any editorial comments that could be viewed in any way as a personal attack.
I think this would be a fair compromise. Johntex\talk 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard a good reason to justify its existence. Having it exist in a private shared area - like gmail or wherever - serves the same purpose and doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers. That others have maintained similar pages does not make it any more palatable to me. They should be deleted too. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What good would that do? You would still have a page listing edits that one user doesn't like about the other, but now it removes any information that would normally be seen in an RfC. So now I would have a permanent page maintained by BQZip01 for all my edits that he disagrees with and that would never be seen in an RfC or anywhere else. Inevitably, we would all have to come back here and review that decision somewhere down the road anyway, so I don't see why we don't just deal with it now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry Johntex, but that's a false compromise. Civility is paramount here and not subject to compromise, and keeping pages like this laying around are counterproductive to that end. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to the aforementioned page


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.

Copying and pasting own deleted contributions[edit]

I've been reviewing my deleted contributions, and there are some edits there (mostly those to user talk pages of users who have asked for their talk pages to be deleted) that I would like to retrieve (at some point) and record on a subpage of my userpages. Is this an acceptable use of admin tools? I'd say yes, because I still have the copyright on my contributions, even after freely licensing them under the GFDL, but I'd appreciate confirmation of this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best use of your time, but I don't see anything against policy, assuming obviously that there's nothing problematic in the edits themselves. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Newyorkbrad. Under the GFDL, you still own your comments, so go for it. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this about Squeakbox? Obviously, there's no copyright reason you can't ... but please make sure you aren't treading on WP:POINT territory. --B (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not Squeakbox. It's actually Bishonen's talk page. I vaguely remember a long mini-essay I may have posted there (though it may have been somewhere else), and that is one of the things I'd want to organise and move to the right place at some point. And Brad, my time is my own to spend, like everyone else here. I could have just viewed the edits, and copy-pasted them off-wiki, but as some of the comments involve on-wiki stuff, I'd prefer to keep them all in one place. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a non-admin editor and I would like access to this same facility. Where can I review my deleted contributions and obtain copies of same? I would not wish to preserve them on-wiki, however I assume I have the same rights under the GFDL as described above.

I'm thoroughly confused with the user-talk deletion policy (NOT the user-page deletion policy). I was fairly sure I'd read articles to the effect that user-talk pages were not subject to right-to-vanish or courtesy-deletion provisions when they contained substantial edits by other users. Over the last few months, I've seen several talk-page erasures carried out by fiat, now I can't find the policies, some of the pages I thought I'd read have been recently edited, so I'm just not sure exactly what the policy is anymore.

In any case, I'm comforted that all GFDL contributors will be extended the same rights. At least I hope they will be... Franamax (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Custom is changing towards greater ease of deleting user talk pages as well as user pages. Maybe this should be debated more fully. See also Meta - RTV. You might want to check out Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Tyrenius (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Custom is changing? Is that the same as the community consensus is changing? Or is custom being changed? Maybe this should be discussed more widely, it's disconcerting to read ArbCom cases and watch the links go from blue to red to blue before the voting starts, at the highest forum in the land.
Pace Carch, who only started the thread, but I assert my exactly equivalent GFDL rights. How do I go to a provide-deleted-article admin and say "it's in a history thread somewhere, I think it's there"? How do I know what to ask for, when I can't see my deleted contributions? I'm not chasing any particular edit here so it's not ANI-worthy, but the question has been asked... Franamax (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You ask them to review your deleted contributions and, in my opinion, provide you with a list of deleted pages. You can generate this sort of list yourself if you have the "watch all pages I edit" option turned on. Then review the list of pages you have watchlisted and note the ones that have turned red. You can then decide which ones are worth taking further. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Franamax, you have 15 deleted edits. 14 of those are to subpages of your userpage. One is to User talk:Freshacconci. This is a fairly simple request to fulfill, but more complex requests may need more discussion. I'd be uncomfortable posting this sort of information on-wiki in a complex case without more consensus behind it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Carcharoth, I've now turned that option on, it will save me clicking "watch" on every page I edit, the way I have up 'til now. As I said, I'm not pursuing any particular edit, or anything other than a principle. But there you go, which of those subpages was the one where I wrote "please kill me"? (In the db-userreq, part of a defined software test, with a funny-ha-ha explanation, honest :) Are we equivalent? I can't see my licensed contribution, although someone could restore it without my knowledge or consent at any time - but you can see all of yours, any time you want, and make copies of them. And you can make copies of my GFDL edits which I myself have no (browsable) access to?
The salient point here is that I am not able to view the text of my own deleted edits, thus I have no way of pinpointing which edit I might wish to ask someone else to provide me details of. The broader point is the promptness of responses to purported RTV requests; declarations of "I'm leaving"; self-page-blanking; and the resulting loss of community overview of the leading events.
No, I have no particular complaint, I'm asking the general question: what is the defined policy on talk-page deletion? and does that defined policy address the concerns of non-admins who don't have free access to examine and browse the contents of individual edits? (PS move to talk at your option to spare the ANI page) Franamax (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to non-admins being unable to see their deleted edits. I've said in the past (even before I was given the tools) that this function should be tweaked so all users can see their own deleted edits (but not the deleted edits of others). Those who post unsuitable material may recycle what has been deleted, but that will only get them blocked faster, and there is no way to distinguish between re-posting of off-wiki stuff and repoting of on-wiki stuff. Anyway, you are right, the stuff specific to our edits should be taken to talk. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I forgot. Some of the edit counting tools (the ones that scrape the contributions logs) give a total number of edits that is the non-deleted edits. API queries (eg. here) give the total number. Theoretically the difference is the number of deleted edits. Unless you do lots of tagging of pages that get deleted, the number of deleted edits should be quite low. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to get community consensus against deleting talk pages, especially those of admins. For admins, everything we do should be visible unless there is very good reason otherwise. Except of course for removing vandalism, though i see that many of us dont even bother removing vandalism, just archiving it,. I would also support this for other users. And I agree with Carcharoth about seeing one's own deleted contributions. For one thing, it would cut down on unnecessary requests at Deletion Review for emailed copies. DGG (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
One very slight problem - what about when your talk page has a huge number of edits and doing anything with it risks slowing down the server? I had to move my edit history recently to an archive for that very reason. Orderinchaos 11:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the Main Page[edit]

Resolved: Two users are going fishing for the day. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was sort of an accident. See, the Main Page used to be blocked from deleting because of the 5000 revision thing. I was bored a bit, and looking at the Main Page's deletion log from the delete interface. I asked in IRC whether it's possible to delete the Main Page again. A certain user who might like to show up here, possibly, told me that he tested it and confirm doesn't properly work. I was a tad too gullible and tested it for myself. Luckily, the damage was reversed and I think everything should be back to normal. Sorry, folks. Maxim(talk) 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was my fault. I thought it was obvious I was joking, but clearly it wasn't. I accept the responsibility for this one, and I'd like to appologise to everyone for that - I was way way way out of line here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems a couple desysoppings and bans are in order. ;) --Rory096 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well my pride is seriously damaged, that's for sure. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jumping off an 70-floor building won't kill you, I tried it and was fine"... Whitstable 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone who jumped off of a 70-foot building complain about it. --B (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that jumping off tall structures has never killed anyone - it is hitting the hard stuff at the bottom of said structures that usually causes the problem... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the fall that kills you...Animum (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, you can undelete a page, you can't unjump off a building. --Deskana (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you guys know that if you put a picture of goatse on one of the interface pages, it doesn't show up? srsly --- RockMFR 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for anything to become of this. I support forgetting about it- everyone makes mistakes, and everyone forgets that jokes don't translate well over the Internet. It is pretty funny though. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, that's about how I feel now... I deserve a big chunk of the blame for actually pressing that damned button. Maxim(talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. --Masamage 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned on Talk:Main Page, perhaps we should institute some sort of protection against these things? We could have another prompt to enter one's password before an edit to the main page went through, and an "are you sure?" box before one deletes the main page. That could help prevent some of these things from happening. --Rory096 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't have helped. Ryan told me, jokingly, that it simply won't work. So I foolishly tested it myself. Those wouldn't have stopped me... Maxim(talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
True, but if a box pops up that doesn't normally pop up saying "Are you absolutely positive you want to delete the Main Page?" you might have been alerted to the fact that one can, in fact, delete the main page. Also, the password prompt would have prevented the editing of "Wikipedia" to "Dickipedia" that happened this morning. --Rory096 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
However, as I said on Talk:Main Page, it wouldn't have helped with our penis-image-related vandalism the other day, as that was through an edit to a template. The templates are edited a lot- needing to put in your password would not help. Anyway, most people would have their password saved anyway (is there a way to get around that?) and having to enter your password would slow down reversion, too. Sounds pathetic, but I think we need reverts almost instantly in the case of main page vandalism. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How long does it take to enter in a password, though? It seems like it would only be a very minor inconvenience, even if it were applied to templates on the Main Page, and it would only add a second or two to reverts, which wouldn't really make a big difference, especially considering it would probably prevent vandalism that would last longer than the extra couple of seconds any vandalism that did get through stayed up. --Rory096 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The Main spage os the cornerstone of Wikipedian society. adding extra protections to prevent it form being vandalized is the most worthwhile ambition imaginable. I seen o reason why we cannot formally ask the developemnt team on wikipedia to consider adding this to the program. Smith Jones (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why we shouldn't expect administrators to behave better than this. This is a behavioural issue, not a software one. Risker (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This was an accident that could have been prevented if he realized he was mistaken, and this morning's incident was a result of someone gaining access to a computer logged into an admin account, and it would have been prevented if a password were required. --Rory096 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See User:Pedro/Sarcasm for my "long standing rationale" on this ... ) Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed this. Assumed it was a mistake of some kind. Still, did it really take 13 hours for the protection to be put back on the Main Page? Or was the page really still protected all that time? Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have the correct timestamp format enabled in your preferences, you will see that the two log entries are only 19 seconds apart. —Animum (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The protection was removed by the delete, not the edit this morning. --Rory096 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This needs to go into WP:BEANS. The definitive Wikipedia beans. Hiding T 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Best laugh of the day on here is this thread. ThuranX (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Maxin, that's hilarious. Do you now get to put a "This user has deleted the mainpage" userbox on your userpage? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Bang icon 32x32.pngThis user has deleted the Main page.
I have no idea how this happened. I can personally attest to the fact that the Main Page was impossible to delete for about the past month -- since 'bigdelete' was implemented. It seems the Main Page no longer has 5,000 revisions. How? I have no idea. A word to all admins: if the form appears, it means you can delete the page. The warning message takes the place of the form if it isn't possible to delete the page (try United States for an example). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry, couldn't resist). 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiding (talkcontribs)
By all means, encourage admins to attempt to delete the United States :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You lot are a bad influence. Especially with the goatse idea lol.:) Merkinsmum 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
We need a Wikipedia:Village stocks to list these things, then we can all go and giggle and/or throw rotten tomatoes at people who delete the main page and crash the servers by deleting the sandbox. :-) Gwinva (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Great idea! BTW, I tried to delete the United States, and the warning notice appeared. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, if you'd succeeded in deleting the United States, I have a feeling there are some smaller nations who would be forever in your debt. (Now if you'd just delete a few of our politicians, as well....)Gladys J Cortez 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even stranger things have happend to the main page in its long and turbulent life... How about this: [8]? I personally quite like the name "Little Barrier Island" for the main page... -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some MediaWiki: namespace magic that should hopefully make deleting the Main Page a bit harder, at least... -_- krimpet 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, Maxim - you're supposed to take it to AfD first. Anyone for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man, that is FAWESOME! And I thought User:Scientizzle did the most-amazing deletion ever when he broke the whole 'pedia...what was it he tried to delete again? Isn't that why the >5000-edits thing was supposedly put in place in the first place? Anyway, kudos on your amazingness--you are now the official patron saint of us folks who trip over rocks, spill things on our shirt, and otherwise make unintentionally-hilarious mistakes. :) Gladys J Cortez 00:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, I went and created Wikipedia:Village stocks. Do with it what you will. Turn them into patron saints, too, if you like. ;-) Gwinva (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ban all admins from Wikipedia for one year and let us regular folks go back to business as usual..:) Igor Berger (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


According to this tool, the Main Page is only 8 edits shy of 4,000, and could've been deleted for not reaching the "bigdelete" limit (5,000). That's been fixed now. We laughed, some cried, let's move on. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Process attack by Hu12[edit]

Admin Hu12 has now instead of making an attempt to resolve this dispute, escalated the situation by reporting my own site here to the Spam police. Grossly mischaracterizing the situation. It seems to me that he is attempting, yet another process-end-run to try to discredit anyone pointing out his own anti-project behaviour. Wjhonson (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attack? Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. This is not the first time this has been an issue with you, seeAN/I Original research and linkspam on Talk:Mike Huckabee.. You're here to improve Wikipedia, not just to push adjendas or funnel readers off Wikipedia onto your site, right?..Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2F.countyhistorian.com--Hu12 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What's "this dispute" which you refer to, Wjhonso? (it's linking to WP:DR, not to any specific dispute) El_C 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And you know we've already run this EL process and your position failed. The previous AN/I failed as anyone can see. There was no follow-up, and no further action. And all reviewers can plainly see that this situation has developed solely because you are seeking to discredit me for pointing out your own conflict-of-interest in the entire King of Mann / unrealroyal.com circus. Wjhonson (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wjhonson, rules are rules. It's your site. WP:COI tells you what to do with it. Besides, it fails WP:RS and WP:EL, so it's inclusion is dubious regardless of the COI. Shot info (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not in disagreement with that interpretation Shot info. I have a few rare times added a direct link to an article I've writen to an in-wiki article page. As A.B. correctly pointed out on the Spam Project, editors are not only allowed, but encouraged to provide in-TALK links to information, including their own, that might be useful for developing article detail. For the most part that is indeed what I did. In the few cases, where there is a link from article space to my site, I would have no problem at all, with removing them. Hu12 has never approached me to resolve this which would be the normal and correct first step. His report is merely, part and parcel of the entire long-running King of Mann fiasco. Now that Mann has evidently returned to Wikipedia, I'm sure we'll see much more of this sordid situation.Wjhonson (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You were aware of this back in March 2007 @ AN/I Original research and linkspam on Talk:Mike Huckabee., so there is no excuse and I yes I've notified you [9]. While one or two talk page request may have have been appropriate (discounting the WP:RS and WP:EL issue), spamming 18+ additions to talk pages is called Canvassing (Source soliciting), and unacceptable.--Hu12 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Wjhonson here. This does not seem to be extensive or intensive enough to warrant blacklisting. El_C 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I have a link to the "spamming 18+ additions to talk pages," please? El_C 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
See also - →Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2F.countyhistorian.com
  • This is all from a while ago, so what prompted the latest? El_C 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the problem with his comment at the rfc/Bluemarine? El_C 10:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It being a continuation of past behavior, but that was an honest statement. Nothing here in my opinion warrants blacklisting (not sure who brought that up, nor did I suggest). These reports take time (started a month ago), and the long term nature (since 2004) of the additions required just that, more time. In any event, if one or two talk page request were made probably wouldent have spent the time as it would have been appropriate (minus WP:RS and WP:EL).--Hu12 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) No redirect Hu12. Anyone who reads the AN/I you linked above can see quite clearly that no action or response was taken. You have failed Hu12 to notify me on my talk page, or request any sort of reaction or response there. That is the first step in dispute resolution not the last one. And I reject your repeated use of the word "spamming" in this derogatory fashion. Anyone can clearly see, the links were placed over a long period of time, and were directly related to updating certain particular article details. Admin A. B. has already addressed this for you, since you seem confused about proper use of external link information on article talk pages. You have misinterpreted our policy a number of times, which is disconcerting since you should be in a position to understand it more clearly. Your behaviour here and elsewhere is really quite remarkable. And I don't think I need to clarify that any further. El C, the 18+ Talk links to which he refers, were diffed by him on the Wikiproject Spam link, Hu12 provided above. Anyone can read them, and convince themselves that those diffs, have no relation to spam, the links being directly related to information useful for expanding the articles. And placed on the talk pages as we as editors are encouraged to do. Hu12 is just fishing around for something to use against me. Whatever might stick.Wjhonson (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of User:X3210[edit]

Resolved: Although the user did lash out, he has since contacted me via email and has, in my opinion, genuinely apologized for his actions. I've since unblocked the user and left a welcome back note on his talk page. --slakrtalk / 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review the blocking of User:X3210, it followed an incident where an administrator incorrectly reverted his user page (that the user had blanked as is his right) [10] and told the user it was not allowed. I became involved because of this post Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments#Disagree in which the administrator cited this as an example (which is also unfair and should be removed).

When I checked the page it seemed to me that the administrators involved acted hastily, without complete understanding of policy and with a serious misunderstanding of the users contributions (the use was characterized as a "vandal" and all I can see is that he was undoing vandalism on Tom Petty, incorrectly tagged an IP, apologized for it and then blanked his page after the other involved parties had replied. I don't see where an attempt was made to verify policy until after the incident had escalated. Thank you. Awotter (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems X3210 was (wrongly) told not to blank his talk page, proceeded to make a WP:POINT by blanking someone else's user and talk page, and that got him blocked by a previously uninvolved administrator. I see no error in that administrator's actions. Sandstein (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, while it looks like the people who reverted the blanking of this users talk page were not entirely correct (any user may blank their talk page at any time; blanking of ones own talk page confirms that one has read any messages thereof; archiving is not required, and we don't make users wear Scarlet Letters.) the users response thereof was ENTIRELY inappropriate, as they seemed to go on a blanking rampage of other users talk pages. So, to sum up, this user SHOULD have been allowed to blank their own talk page; the people who told them this was not allowed were incorrect. However, the users response was entirely inappropriate, and merited a block. In the future, users should contact admins here or at WP:AN and not attempt to rectify a misunderstanding by revenge. I endorse the block, but the editors who told them the wrong info should be set straight also. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Gah - I just wrote a long post with diffs to try and clarify the sequence of events, and here I get beat to the punch >.< I agree that the editors need to be set straight--it's worth noting that a user even used rollback to restore the contents a couple of times, although they later posted on the talk page that blanking is acceptable. --jonny-mt 07:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
First, he blanked his talk page, not user page as stated above. I have no problem with people blanking their user page at any time. It is, however, correct that I was mistaken about user talk page policy. I still disagree with that policy, and the essay that backs it up. In the future, I will only restore very recent warnings that were clearly removed in bad faith; I understand that still technically contravenes policy, but I have seen many editors do it. Second, I of course didn't block X3210, or accuse him of vandalism. He was blocked (31 hours) by Slakr because he blanked my user talk page, Pumpmeup's user page, and told me to "buzz off". I did not request that block.
I don't understand what is unfair about me "citing" my blanking (I didn't cite the block, or say the block was justified) at Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments#Disagree. I was quite frank that I had done something that was in violation of the essay. I also explained why I disagree with the essay. Superm401 - Talk 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Other than making a user wear a big giant red "A" on their chest, what is the purpose of preventing registered users from blanking their own talk page? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:refactor. Igor Berger (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is none, anybody can blank their own talk pages. It's usually a sign of frustration when vandals or other editors who've been warned again and again keep blanking warnings, and the legit editors keep stuffing the warnings back up to show they've been tagged as vandals. It happens. Heck, it happens to me, too. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I had no problem with the dude blanking his user talk page at all, since it's our policy to allow users to do that. Of course, when he started retaliating at others for restoring the pages instead of taking the issue here or elsewhere, it seemed like a clear issue of civility and harassment/retaliation. However, if the user is willing to be civil and use the proper channels for resolving disputes, I'll be more than happy to unblock him/her. --slakrtalk / 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I like to keep it all transparent. To me it is a Red Badge of Courage! But that is just me. Igor Berger (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I should make it clear that I don't think what the did user was at all appropriate, but had it been handled better and a bit slower, the user might not have gotten to that point, in fact the user did reply on the talk page of the admin initially and not in an uncivil way and his page was reverted again.Awotter (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason we have multiple levels of warnings. If someone pastes gibberish into an article one time, I'll give them a polite warning. If I see they've done it before, I'll give them a more severe warning or block them. But I don't want to look in the talk history, just because the user prefers to blank their page completely every time someone puts a message. Superm401 - Talk 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't really be surprised that users react poorly when they perceive they are being harassed, and lash out at those they see as the harassers. Someone restored X3210's talk page hours after it had been blanked, and without leaving any explanation. Gimmetrow 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Communication is the key! Templating regular users does not work. They are not vandals. If people would learn to communicate better we would have less Flame Wars going on! Igor Berger (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
True, restoring someone else's talk page shouldn't be done. However, to me that's a very small problem. When a blocked editor has caused trouble all over the place, legit editors get frustrated and sometimes make bad decisions. To misappropriate Chris Rock, "I ain't saying I would have done it...but I understand." Snowfire51 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • However, neither should we condone the lashing out. This user wasn't exactly a newbie, and any reasonable person never resorts to blatant vigilante-style revenge when faced with perceived harassment. I am nto surprised when people act like dicks, but it doesn't mean I think it should go unchecked. Reasonable people look for authorities to turn to when they perceive harrassment by others. This user's first response was to return fire. Hardly a proper move... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, the first response was this at 3:46:04, which looks pretty civil. Then at 3:46:59, Superm401 restores X2310's talk page, and at 3:47:56, X3210 blanks Superm401's talk page. Not the best response, but hardly seems to have merited a once-and-final NPA warning. Gimmetrow 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Superm401"In the future, I will only restore very recent warnings that were clearly removed in bad faith; I understand that still technically contravenes policy, but I have seen many editors do it." I'd like to suggest may be you not be concerned with what users do on their pages talk or otherwise, good faith, bad faith or indifferent faith. If they've blanked it they've read it, that's the essence of the policy. The warnings don't disappear.Awotter (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It may not have been known by the editor that users have every right to blank their pages, even involving bad faith, warnings, block notices. That's something a lot of editors have a problem with, from what I've seen. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said they disappear. I said they become needlessly inaccessible. It seems like this policy exists for the whims of editors, without any consideration for the efficient functioning of the wiki.Superm401 - Talk 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned user Grawp[edit]

Resolved: Additional IP's blocked. SQLQuery me! 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Grawp is reverting a large number of redirects to non-notable D&D articles using the IP 71.107.164.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I request that someone block him and semi-protect everything the IP has touched. FWIW, these redirects were all made by User:Craw-daddy who I see as one of the D&D "fans"; one who is editing quite reasonably. --Jack Merridew 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the sockpuppet accusations, but the massive reversions seem to be a problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Alison dinged them. So resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Alison seems on top of this; he'll rant on the ip talk page until someone protects it a while. Watch for a return on some other IP or D&D-themed sock account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed as Grawp yet again. Also Keysapart (talk · contribs), now blocked - Alison 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And 71.107.164.232 has had their talk page protected to prevent further trolling. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back with IP tag-team tactics such as [11] [12] which fake-out ClueBot [13]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the 3 IP's in question as probably grawp socks. SQLQuery me! 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Jack Merridew 10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

nb: also came back as User:Whomtends but that's all over and blocked; should be checkusered. --Jack Merridew 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done and checkusered. Blocked another account and its underlying IP - Alison 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd vandalism on Jakarta International School[edit]

Hi folks, Just a bit of odd vandalism - a user appears to be making some form of bomb threat (be it a prank or not) to a school, Jakarta International School. The user is Soul_988, and I've added a regular vandal tag to their talk page - just wanted to let an admin know in case there's any special procedure or perhaps this is genuine in any way (I don't want to make a call like that myself). Thanks. SMC (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff is here, contact details are here. Worth somebody who's familiar (if there is anyone) letting them know alex.muller (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like a vandal. But you never know! The user made the same remarks to another school as well Special:Contributions/Soul_988 Who knows what are procedures for this type of behavior? Igor Berger (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone like that can just be blocked indef now, right? Several years ago there was thought to be a risk of an attack and the school was actually closed for a time. Hardly a laughing matter (although it sounds like bored kid). --Merbabu (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Main Page discussion (notice)[edit]

Just in case anyone has missed it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding useless revisions to pages to make them undeletable. See also this wiki-tech mailing list post. The main outcome seems to have been this, which means that all main pages on all wikis are undeletable and unmoveable. Please, no discussion or comments here (go over to WP:AN to add comments). This is just a notice. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of AN post[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary for three issues (A, B, C) that I think it would be good to discuss in regards to a recent block of a bot and a set of admin actions:

  • (A) Consequences of BetacommandBot's week-long block and how to handle the work it does.
  • (B) Whether an arbitration case should be opened to handle the desysopping points (East718).
  • (C) Whether there has been abuse of a bot flag (Betacommand)

Posting here and notifying of discussions there, to avoid splitting the threads. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Swatjester[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Block reversed, let drama die

I got an email from SqueakBox on Saturday asking that I delete his user page. I thought nothing of the action, and did so. It seemed simple enough. Today I logged in and saw this message from Swatjester. I followed it to the AN/I thread above, and the deletion log for SB's page. As we all know, this wasn't the first set of threats against SB - CUMBEY posted them on her web page, off wiki, iirc, and there have been lots of others. Anyway, there's no requirement for proof of a threat in order to delete your user page.

Quite frankly, Swat's refusal to assume good faith is bad enough. It would appear that he is willing to put the safety of an editor at risk because that editor used the wrong template/terminology. Now, to top it off, he is engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries - here and here. Calling someone a liar isn't the same as accusing them of misrepresenting the facts - it goes to intent. Given his actions which put another editor at risk and his personal attacks, I think a block is in order. I think his present attitude makes him a danger to the project. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks despite a warning [14]. I'm blocking him for 12 hours. If someone feels that the block is unjust, feel free to undo/adjust it without consulting me - I'm not that attached to my own actions. Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocking another admin over a dispute you're personally involved is generally a really bad idea... krimpet 15:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How was Guettarda personally involved in the dispute? -- Zsero (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Krimpet. I'd strongly advocate Guettarda removing the block himself, before someone else gets in there. ~ Riana 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Wow, he actually did it. Guettarda, when you're the aggrieved party, you should have taken it to AN first. On the other hand, he does say that if anyone disagrees, they should undo it, so minimal drama please. Relata refero (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How was Guettarda the aggrieved party? -- Zsero (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, the block has been undone by LaraLove (talk · contribs). ~ Riana 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Those edit summaries are bang out of order and the block should stand. In regards to the wider issues, Wikipedia is just not that important, something that we on the inside sometimes forget in our work for the project. Whatever the conduct of an editor on wikipedia, if they feel that their actions here have compromised their real world safety, then we act to minimise that damage - the on-wiki stuff is irrelevent in that context. Are some editors going to attempt to use made-up threats to gain advantage here? yes but it doesn't matter one iota when weighted against the possible ramifications of us blaming hardball with the 'wrong' (those who haven't made made up a threat) editors. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for the personal attacks after he was warned. Anyone who thinks that's ok can unblock. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see myself as in a dispute with him - I warned him about his behaviour. That isn't a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Pot, Kettle, Black. You came to my talk page after this issue was good and resolved, just to tell me how I make you sick, and you're utterly disgusted with my actions. Personal attack much? There's no proof that there ever was a death threat. There were no such threats at all on wiki, and I explicitly stated if there were I would delete them immediately. Now you're calling for a fucking block because I did exactly what WP:USER told me to do? Maybe you should review the policies Guettarda. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This issue has been resolved for over 24 hours now. What do you think you're preventing? Or is it maybe that YOU are refusing to assume good faith in MY actions? Jesus fucking christ, the hypocrisy here knows no bounds. -e- So I was blocked eh? Yeah that's appropriate. I'm done with this discussion. If anyone wants my viewpoint, they can talk to me on IRC or IM. I give full permission to reproduce my statements from there. SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to tell you that putting procedure above the safety of another editor is unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that you engaged in PAs after a warning. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I lost in the superbowl pool last night. Can I get in on the desysop pool? In all seriousness, bad idea, very bad. Both of you need to calm it down a few notches - this is the stupidest thing in the world to argue about. We're talking about a user page being hidden from public view (nothing is really deleted). This has no impact on the encyclopedia and everything is accessible if there is anything needed from it. I despise with a passion that we allow user space to be indexed by Google and I'm all for anyone wanting to get rid of it for privacy, but it isn't that big of a deal that you should block an admin over. --B (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If Squeakbox's claim about the death threat is true, then it's a huge deal, and the need to hide the page from public view is urgent. If the claim is not true, then indeed it's not a big deal. Therefore, regardless of who ultimately turns out to be right on the underlying facts, only one of the two is taking it too seriously. -- Zsero (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that we allow Google to index anything other than the mainspace? If it's not in an article (such as disputed statements or idle speculation on talk pages, or discussing the inner workings of WP itself), then it shouldn't be something than has Wikipedia's name attached to it in a google search. Just my 2¢. Horologium