Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive385

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

Contents

New account User:Basegirlball posting lots of AfDs

Resolved

Would someone take a look at this, please. This is a new account, began editing just two days ago, and the person is posting AfDs left and right. The one that alerted me is for Dance Theater Workshop, one of the premiere dance presenters in New York, and an organization that easily fulfills notability requirements. There's absolutely no justification for an AfD. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is significant, but the first edit for this user has the edit summary "Created page with 'importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');')". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've closed the AFD in question as I agree, and you beat me to posting here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And I closed the AfD for Independence Air. A couple of these AfDs may have some merit for discussion, but this account's limited history is rather interesting. Resolute 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have removed Twinkle from this user until she convinces an admin that she understands deletion policy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we get the AfD removed after the resultant KEEP? referring to Heart of Brooklyn EraserGirl (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If its clear cut, then speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
An admin will remove the AFD tag when they close it. Black Kite 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This is weird actually, though disruptive, some of the AfDs have merit (i.e.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Salamat_Ali though not exactly phrased well). Black Kite 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It only appears to hold merit. Observe the reasonfor deletion. Non notable promotional crap. Basegirlball (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC). SynergeticMaggot (talk)
No - my point is that it'd be considered a reasonable AfD if posted by a user in good standing. The others are fairly obvious Keeps. Black Kite 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with this, as I had noticed the other nominations warranted deletion. Which is why I didnt close the rest myself. It hasnt been established that the editor is a sock, or just really, really confused. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's a scintilla of confusion there - this person hit the ground running. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Though they may not be a confirmed sock, their editing style sure looks like it. How does a new account know to cite COI and WP:N in their AfD noms? Tiptoety talk 01:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Because they've edited as an IP for years, and only logged in editors can AfD stuff? Dan Beale-Cocks 10:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I only meant that I wont close the other afd's since they aren't as clear cut as the other ones. I'll leave that up to an admin for them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent - e/c*4) Well, I think that the user’s first edit should dispel any thinking that she is a new user. —Travistalk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new user, first edit twinkle, second edit AFD. Most new users are trying to figure out how the buttons work, not mass AFD nominations. The only serious AFD is Mohammed Salamat Ali. KnightLago (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart of Brooklyn as speedy keep. Tiptoety talk 01:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And I did the same as well with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitforms gallery. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that knowing how things work isn't a blockable offense. While it may be unlikely in this case, legitimate reasons exist for a user with experience to operate under a new account. Speedy close what needs to be speedy closed. Let run what should be let run. The user has been warned, and hasn't made an edit since. Unless this is the MO of a known sock, I'm not sure how a checkuser wouldn't be a fishing trip here. --OnoremDil 02:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Note also User:Bananaqueen, who has also been on a deletion spree today with similarly mundane rationales. Bananaqueen has been around since 20 February 2008, but today imported Twinkle to their monobook.js from the same account as Baseballgirl (User:AzaToth/twinkle.js). --Canley (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, everyone gets Twinkle from there, sorry. --Canley (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, turns out your gut reaction was correct, Canley; Basegirlball and Bananaqueen are the same user, confirmed by Checkuser. I'll leave it to someone else to tag these up and block if not done yet; there are more, too, investigating it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they're all socks of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs) etc. So blocked and tagged. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Partyhard2008

Resolved

Partyhard2008 (talk · contribs) is creating several attack articles I've deleted that reference 4chan. I know that is related to some other issue. And reading their userpage, I suspect there are more new accounts. I've blocked for 12 hours, but please extend if this is part of a larger issue. MBisanz talk 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 4chan is a larger issue right now, and i feel that an indef block is suitable here. Tiptoety talk 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I'll be bold and extend it; they've been harassing users as of late and as such I have adopted a one-strike-one-week policy in re the IPs threatening and harassing users. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 06:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew I'd seen 4chan mentioned in a bad way, but couldn't find a discussion quick enough and figured a fast block + extension review would be best. MBisanz talk 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Null persp, chummer. I'm just sitting here waiting for the next scratch monkeys from there. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 06:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horadric Cube

Resolved

I think this is the 2nd nomination of the same article so I think this should be a separate nom. I think the nominator overwritten the last Afd. By the way the repost has to go. Judging by the popularity of Diablo II and its recent incarnation, I strongly suggest a protected redirect to the Game Play section --Lenticel (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the repost and simply reverted and unlisted the AfD. Feel free to create the redirect and contact me or WP:RfP in case it actually needs protection.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still nobody

Resolved: I guess this is the place to complain about that :)

There is still a 3-day-old request at the AWB checkpage. See WP:AN for more. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone at home? Littleteddy (roar!) 11:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of the software approval processes tend to take a while. I waited a month to get approved for VandalProof. This isn't really the place to complain about that. You could try the AWB help pages/talk pages, or simply contact one of the regular approvers and kindly ask that they address the current requests. Equazcion /C 11:08, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
According to this requests page you should ask on the admin's noticeboard for approval if there are outstanding requests. Littleteddy... keep me in a good mood 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see that. My mistake then. Equazcion /C 11:25, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou

This is something that's been bugging me for a while, I was going to bring it up last week but thought better of it, however, I feel something needs to said.

On 2nd March, User:Tiamut, who I believe is a Palestinian, placed a notice on her talk page stating that she is "in mourning" regarding the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza in which 100 people were reported killed over a number of days. She amended the notice a couple of days later. Normally a prolific contributor, Tiamut did not start editing again until the last couple of days.

A couple of days after Tiamut placed her message, I happened to notice that User:Jaakobou placed a message on his talk page stating that he is "in mourning" over "upcoming exams". He used exactly the same template as Tiamut and the same format. Where Tiamut embedded a photo of "Gazans in better days", Jaakobou embedded a photo of Native Americans "in better days". It is clear this comment is intended as a parody of Tiamut's notice. To make sure that no-one missed the joke, he placed the notice at the top of his user page as well.

Now there's a lot one could say about this. For example, the fact that Tiamut may well have been concerned about the fate of friends or relatives living in Gaza. Jaakobou of course could not possibly know whether this was the case or not, but he apparently thought he would have his little joke at Tiamut's expense in any case.

But basically, I just consider this to be gratuitous disparagement of another user - a user, moreover, who is noted for her civility and courtesy in dealing with political opponents. I asked Jaakobou to take the notice down but he responded by removing my request whilst accusing me of "trolling".

I was hoping he'd see sense and take it down himself but after more than a week, I think enough is enough. Which is why I've brought my concerns here today. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't think of asking him yourself? What is an admin supposed to do? Just tell him, or stay out of iot, if Tiamut is offended he will say something-Phoenix-wiki 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I did ask him myself, I said that. Tiamut may not have seen it, or may not want to confront him about it. And what I expect an admin to do is tell him to stop harassing another user and take those notices down. Last time I looked we had policies concerning civility, taunting your opposition is not acceptable in my view, particularly in such a problematic and divisive area as the Israeli-Palestinian pages.
I was originally going to take this up at AE under the newly established general restrictions, and perhaps that's where it should have gone in the first place, because I believe Jaakobou's actions are a clear breach of those guidelines, but I thought it could probably be handled with a minimum of fuss here. I didn't particularly want to escalate it to that level, but if no-one here is going to take action, then I guess it will have to go to AE after all. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see East.17 has removed the notices from Jaakobou's page. So as far as I am concerned this matter is now resolved. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Shannon Mathews

Disappearance of Shannon Matthews this article is going to light up like a xmas tree very shortly, no problem at the moment but some admin eyes would be helpful as it's likely that all sorts of BLP material might start appearing. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Have also removed the "crime" cats as there is no evidence of this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good on her, I'm glad this story has a happy ending, such as it is. I've added the stock header to the talk page, as it'll probably get busy before long. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IP avoiding warnings/block

There have been several IPs vandalizing Fort Jennings, Ohio coming from the range 66.114.0.0, currently only two have popped up User_Talk:66.114.9.1 and User_Talk:66.114.17.22. They seemed to have stopped vandalizing, but if it is the same person running the IPs they have gone past the final warning. Basically, I do not know what to do. Rgoodermote  15:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are only meant to prevent further disruption, so just wait til they do it again, then worry about it. Equazcion /C 15:07, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I know that, at the time they were vandalizing but as I was writing it seemed they either stopped or moved to another IP. Rgoodermote  15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we (an administrator) add a link?... the page is protected.

Resolved: link added

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Can we add a link?. Or can we make this article semi-protected? --CyclePat (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Blnguyen

Resolved: Socks in need of a wash, move along... EVula // talk // // 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello this user User:Blnguyen is not allowing others to edit in article Sreesanth and further more the User:Blnguyen had Blocked user User:Police187 without giving a Warning or Notice and had Blocked the User for 20 Days. User is abusing authority and unfair, atlease user could have gave Warning. (see [1]) and 2nd user [2] the only two who contributed to article Sreesanth. See the User never provided any Notice, Warning or Talk nothing. Just blocked for 20 days without notice. user Blnguyen is abusing authority. Please resolve. --Wikiston (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets do not need warnings. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't. User making this report was obviously another sock, so blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Claim of user using his User space to CANVASS for AfD warring

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has apparently heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Wikipedia can be kept, even going so far as to say that policy should not be followed ([3]) and saying that "policy is not binding" ([4]). He's created User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight and linked to it from his User page. Corvus cornixtalk 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We really need to have a word with Kmweber. The RFA opposes are in good faith, but now it looks like he's picking a fight. Will (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Where did this administrator put out a call for on-wiki disruption? Link? Lawrence § t/e 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No one called for "disruption" and its on WikiEn-l. I don't think there is a problem with putting a list of AfDs you're interested in on a user subpage, and if this wasn't Kurt with his history at RfAs there wouldn't be an AN/I thread about it. Avruch T 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw Corvus write, "heeded the call of David Gerard on the mailing list to go and turn AfD into a battleground so that every bit of garbage ever put on Wikipedia can be kept", and that did not sound good. But thats why I asked. Lawrence § t/e 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This has been actively discussed on Wikien-L for a couple of days now. This is entirely appropriate - canvassing for a particular AFD issue is questionable, but calling attention to process issue<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">s writ wider is completely legitimate community activity. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reality check: Kmweber is pretty much exactly the wrong person to be encouraging to use Wikipedia as a personal battleground regarding deletion policy, given that he -- literally -- believes everything, without except, belongs on Wikipedia. Witness this and his arguments here (like this claim, this claim, and this claim. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I claim no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that Kurt reads wikien-l and will use it as a launching point to go off and be Kurt - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ecX2)Whats wrong here? It looks like he may be taking WP:IAR a bit far, but policy is not the end all solution to everything here, and if it gets in the way of a constructive project then go around it. And as for the links to AfD's, I know a ton of users who have those, just a list to watch, and it is not canvasing if it is in his own userspace. Tiptoety talk 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
David Gerard's call for AfD warring is at [5] and following discussions on that thread name. This has nothing to do with Kurt Weber's history on AfDs, I don't even know what his history is on the matter. It wouldn't have been an issue if David Gerard hadn't begunt his campaing and Kurt hadn't followed along. What would you call Kurt's vote to keep articles on non-notable bands which violate a LONG-standing guideline at WP:BAND except trying to turn AfD into a battlefield to keep garbage? Corvus cornixtalk 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"AFD warring"? This is a perfect example of the problem with AFD: it's hopelessly inbred and inward-focused, with active hostility (which has even been noted in Third-Party Reliable Sources) to anyone perceived as an "outsider." AFD can not seriously be claimed to represent community opinion if its regulars are "reporting" people to ANI for pointing this out and asking people to participate in it, which I did indeed do, so help me Dawkins - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
David, this is the fifth or sixth time you've referred to "Third-Party Reliable Sources" without bothering to elaborate. Which Third-Party Reliable Sources? Could it be that you're getting a bit worked up about an article in The Economist? AecisBrievenbus 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there an article in Slate about AfD at one point? I remember it not being particularly well-written, but also not particularly flattering to WP. I think I've seen others as well, though I can't remember off the top of my head where. In any event I think it's fair to say that third party sources have criticized the deletion process on Wikipedia -- whether that criticism is valid or not is of course a different matter. --TheOtherBob 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The song remains the same: if they rightly criticize us over AFD, we should fix it, but only because there's a problem to fix; if they wrongly criticize us over AFD there's nothing to fix. This isn't the first time we've been covered, and it won't be the last time. The "public relations" issue is irrelevant since we're an encyclopedia, not a public relations firm. There's no immediate urgency justifying the way David Gerard and others are going about things. AecisBrievenbus 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you can chalk this up to "don't ask a question if you don't want an answer." The question may be irrelevant -- but, hey, since you asked it...
To answer your point, though, no one has said that we should change the AfD process to enhance Wikipedia's public image. Rather, the point (as I understand it) is that we're (in David's view, apparently) receiving a fair amount of outside criticism, and that we should consider the possibility that this criticism indicates that our processes aren't working as well as they might. If David is right and AfD has become so hostile to outsiders that it's become notorious...well, then it may not be working properly. That's not PR -- that's hearing criticism and taking a long, hard look at ourselves. And maybe that long, hard look will tell us that all is well (I hope it will -- I've never considered AfD to be as broken as it's made out to be here).
Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with encouraging participation in AfD, particularly with an eye towards improving things there -- so this seems much ado about nothing. --TheOtherBob 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This was not a call for AFD warring - if the community is concerned about the way AFD has been going of late (and I for one am, and was long before this Wikien-L thread) and we're motivated to get involved, this is entirely legitimate community process. Corvus, you may not like what we think about things right now, but please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree, lets WP:AGF here, no policies have been broken, and no damage done to the project (not yet at least). Tiptoety talk 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite. That an AFD regular can react like this at the prospect of the community they claim to represent actually showing up fails to demonstrate that AFD is fine and dandy and non-pathological - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I make no claims of representing anyone but myself. I do feel a bit of dismay when you, or anybody else for that matter, start posting calls for war. Corvus cornixtalk 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that what I actually said was (to quote the message in its entirety): "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there. Got a spare half an hour today?", I am completely at a loss to make sense of your bizarre characterisation as other than seeing yourself as defending AFD against invading forces. That the invading forces would be the community that AFD claims its mandate from seems to have completely escaped you - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing a different side or something, but as of late, AfD seems to be improving. Whenever I've nominated a questionable article, it's either accepted to be deleted due to no sources after a couple people looked, or kept after being vastly improved. Doesn't sound so bad. After reading the mailing list I don't see anything about it making it a battleground. In fact, I'm not positive what they want. To quote David: "Participate. This is like shovelling through sewage, but the only way to get the attitude changed is to get in there." Now, what attitude he means I'd like to know, this way I'll knwo whether I'm for or against this. Wizardman 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly referring to the general AfD attitude of deletionism that has been turning into a battleground against "outsiders" interested in real discussion. I haven't seen what Wiz has sen in an improvement, personally, in fact I think it's getting worse. ANI threads like this only add to that. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
WEll, whether circumstances are betting better or worse, I have no idea what Kurt is trying to prove with his edits other than a point. Wizardman 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As to that, closing admins are encouraged to use their best judgment. AFD is allegedly not a vote, so if Kurt is proposing things that don't have consensus, what's wrong with that? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, our deletion processes suffer from a lack of sufficient participation and are often dominated by two groups; AFD regulars and the authors of particular articles. Neither are a good gauge of wider consensus, I feel, and David's attempts to encourage AFD participation are praiseworthy. Note that he has explicitly encouraged those who disagree with him to also go to AFD and participate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, getting different users to look at different AfDs is a good idea. Hopefully this will continue, since I do tend to see the same editors pop up every so often, though I do see occasional new afd users. Wizardman 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there even are "AFD regulars" shows something is seriously wrong around here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is barring you from participating. Corvus cornixtalk 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If only everyone was an AfD regular. Tiptoety talk 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As an admitted "AfD regular", as nominator, participator, and now more recently as closer, I would be more than thrilled to see wider participation. I probably relist for consensus more than I close as either keep or delete because nobody (at least whilst looking through the older debates, seems to be chiming in. Just an observatin. Every editor, regardless of how they arrived there short of being a SPA or canvassed, IMHO, is welcome. Also, IMO, Kmweber was not canvassed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not a secret that I consider the general atmosphere on AFD severely problematic and damaging to the project's internal workings, let alone its public relations. (When you get written up in The Economist, you've, ah, arrived. The people on WT:AFD who dismiss the article as merely a pissed-off deletee are just ... rather too highly focused on AFD itself.) The best possible way I can think of to get it fixed is more community involvement - David Gerard (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I do think things have settled a little but this is where I get a problem with consensus WRT deletion-minded people predominating there while others of us are making content. I sometimes wonder whatever happened to AGF, where editors have to hide stuff on their sandbox so it doesn't get speedy-deleted. Just seems to be the wrong way about it all some how (flower power, man...that's where we should be at..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The emphasis on "public relations" is grating. It has soured at least one editor and possibly more on the whole article deletion process, which is ironic given the calls for wider participation. Aren't we were supposed to be neutral and objective? Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Wishing that people would participate more in AfD's is hardly "a call for AfD warring". (that was to address the David point.) As to AfD, it really does just need more people to chip in, and more people to close the debates too. I've been starting to do non-admin closures but I don't think I'd have much luck doing that to something with only one or two responses. And are AfD regulars really 'abnormal'? :):) As to Kmweber, I disagree with his position on keeping all articles, but he's allowed to list some AfDs in his userspace. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 11:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But David didn't just "wish that people would participate", he wished that people would participate and make sure that iffy articles get kept. He was requesting that like-minded individuals to participate. Corvus cornixtalk 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
At least once he stated that he also wants those who disagree with him to also edit there. I suspect David would agree with me that one of its flaws is such minimal participation that many deletion debates aren't properly representative. Additionally, he stated all these things in a neutral forum (wikien-l) frequented by those with pretty much the whole spectrum of opinions on AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In terms of AfD, there are three kinds of articles: ones that are clearly keeps, ones that are clearly deletes, and ones that could be kept if improved. I don't see the problem with keeping an article and improving it, instead of discarding the whole thing. I've recently been involved in a contentious no-consensus deletion of an article on the grounds of its POV. The button to press to address POV isn't delete, it's the one at the top of this screen that says edit this page. If we would do more creation and editing and less destruction, we'd have a better encyclopedia. The article rescue squad has the right idea.
For articles "on the bubble," could we give them a suspended sentence to allow time for improvement? And for all deletion discussions, could we emphasize the discussion over the voting? Based on deletion policy, it seems to me that the strength of the reasoning for deletion is what matters, rather than the strength of numbers. --SSBohio 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and transcluded {{User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight}} to my userpage and I encourage others to do so as well. Fight the power! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Fight the power!"? That my friend is seriously the wrong attitude to have for this place. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But look here he is "fighting the power" here, here, here, here and here. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but you seem to be stoking it quite a bit. At any rate, XfDs are based off of consensus. It's not a majority vote, since Wikipedia isn't a democracy, so copying-and-pasting the same argument to multiple AfDs doesn't really help your case. It just seems to be making a point. --clpo13(talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Like Grand Moff Tarkin in Episode IV, or Emperor Palpatine in Episode VI, I felt the need to demonstrate the power of our new weapon. I'm afraid the Death Star has cleared the planet, and your cruisers can't repel firepower of this magnitude. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yikes! Can we sedate this guy? I know where he's coming from, and in that space, what he's doing is colossally funny. He pulls these pranks, he pulled one in the middle of my second RfA. Based on what I've seen before, there is indeed a point, and there is very little actual disruption, unless somebody tries to "take him out." The point I see here is that using the tool of a special notice file abusively -- and many immediately think of this, instead of the actual and legitimate use -- is still visible as abuse, and will be rapidly detected. However, it's also been proven that this audience doesn't think it funny, generally. Do we have one of those long poles with a shepherd's crook on the end? I've asked him to stop. I think he will. If he doesn't, well, I've done what I can. For those who may not realize it, Mbstpo is a long-term, experienced Wikipedian with a very good knowledge of policy and politics, and some sense of where Wikipedia needs to go to survive. He's an excellent writer, and I recommend his essays in general. He's also impulsive, which I don't see in the essays.--Abd (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I take it we've got some kind of plot happening? ;-) How about putting some kind of auto-delay in deletion of good-faith-content. (A bot could help?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Special circumstances? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Catherine de Burgh redux

If you are lacking in sources of amusement you might want to glance at this page since it was restored a day or so ago. She seems to be having some sort of argument with her sisters. Loren.wilton (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. No disruption, no abuse, nothing administrators can act upon. Just a humorous userpage. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Should it at least be identified per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you like your bureaucracy to cross every t and dot every i then yes. But if no foul == no harm, then there's no problem and we can do other things. Drink cocoa or write an encyclopedia or clear a backlog or something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there really no policy about a satirical userpage masquerading as an article? Avruch T 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would there be? ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Now some horrid, nasty person wants to delete the heirloom photographs I have uploaded for posterity [6] I despair, I am undone. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Satire is a sort of glass wherein everyone sees every face but their own," or the reverse. What's the problem? Are people really stupid or really humourless? Utgard Loki (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, sometimes people take things WAY too seriously. It's satire, not insulting anyone, not disruptive, not trying to prove a point. It's in USERSPACE for crying out loud. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there websites out there for bad jokes and other nonsense of the deleted persuasion? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 21:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) refuses to discuss disputed edits

The title says it. This is a recurring pattern with this user. One example can be found at Mary Stalcup Markward. The discussion, such as it was, can be found at Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward#census image. I asked a question, and got a single response. When I followed up on the response and corrected a misimpression on his part, Richard Arthur Norton had no more to say. I saw that he was doing extensive editing on other articles, so I posted a notice on his Talk page asking for him to respond on Talk:Mary Stalcup Markward. Still nothing, so I edited the article. The next day, I see this edit to the article -- he reverted my edit "per talk page", despite the fact that he never responded to my follow-up on the Talk page.

A similar pattern of behavior can be found at Annie Lee Moss, Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless and Talk:Annie Lee Moss#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits. He rarely responds at all, and when he does his comments are usually off the point or meaningless.

I've heard from another user that this pattern has been repeated by Richard Arthur Norton elsewhere. RedSpruce (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Do you "have here in your hand a list of names made known to Wikipedians as those who have accused Richard Norton of 'repeated patterns'" or "hold in my hand the names of 57 card-carrying Wikipedians who have abetted Richard Norton". Its amusingly ironic that you edit articles on Joseph McCarthy and then use his same tactics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1) What do you want an admin to do? 2)Your Mary Stalcup example isn't great - he seems to have added a verifiable reliable accurate source to some information in the article. Why do you feel that's wrong and needs to be removed? Dan Beale-Cocks 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that refusing to discuss disputed edits is something that undermines the whole principle on which Wikipedia is based. It ought to be a blockable offense. If it isn't, I'm open to advice on how to proceed. What you personally think of the edits in question isn't the point. There is a dispute, and I don't see how to resolve that dispute if the other party refuses to engage in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He added a reference to an unreferenced statement...and you took issue with it...and now you say he should be blocked? Am I the only one utterly confused? Why are you disputing him adding a reference? --SmashvilleBONK! 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: What anyone here personally thinks of the edits in question isn't the point. There is a dispute, and I don't see how to resolve that dispute if the other party refuses to engage in discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: mentioned this thread on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s talk page. I think that ought to have been done by this point... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As for your question of how to resolve the conflict, I don't think "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you."[7] is the most constructive thing you could have done. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a mistake, but it was no less productive than my many and various previous attempts at more-rational discussion. And it made me feel a little better. RedSpruce (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait...you attacked him because it made you feel better? How is that reasonable? --SmashvilleBONK! 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"it made me feel better" was an effect, not a cause. And I didn't say it was reasonable, I said it was a mistake. RedSpruce (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you continue to answer questions from someone and try to discuss something rationally if they called you an idiot and a moron and repeatedly questioned your intelligence? --SmashvilleBONK! 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "continue" does not apply here. Hence my frustration. RedSpruce (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ever see you apologize for calling him an idiot and a moron. I saw that you called the comments deserved and then you brought this to ANI. Why would he have continued discussing something with you when you continued to make personal attacks? --SmashvilleBONK! 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "continue" does not apply here. Hence my frustration. RedSpruce (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that your only response now? It absolutely does apply. Your complaint is that he would not continue communicating with you after you made unapologetic personal attacks at him. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

←No, my complaint is that he never communicated in a meaningful manner. If you'd read more carefully, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. RedSpruce (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And being uncivil and making personal attacks is a "meaningful manner"? --SmashvilleBONK! 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, the answer to "Would you continue to answer questions from someone and try to discuss something rationally if they called you an idiot and a moron and repeatedly questioned your intelligence?" is 'yes' (and I've done so many times). This is the practice recommended by NPA#Responding to personal attacks. RedSpruce (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks? The one where the very first sentence is "Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all"? --SmashvilleBONK! 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are being sophistic, Smashville. RedSpruce (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, I'm not. I quoted the first sentence of the policy. And it's beside the point. You're now complaining that he wouldn't respond to your personal attack (while acknowledging it was a personal attack). Do you not see how backwards that is? --SmashvilleBONK! 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that you honestly believe that the meaning of the first sentence of WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks is "stop all discussion with the person who attacks you; make no further attempts to discuss anything at all with that person ever again."? If that's what you believe, then no, you aren't being sophistic; I withdraw the comment. RedSpruce (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh my God...you are seriously not arguing this, are you? You made a personal attack...and you are complaining to ANI that he is not responding to your personal attack. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. RedSpruce you have zero case. Please stop posting here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in with your constructive, carefully reasoned and well-thought out comment, Theresa Knott. RedSpruce (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I have responded on the talk page of both articles, and using Wikipedia policy I asked for a third party to look over the sources used in the articles at the Wikipedia:Biography page. This was to help decide if we should have both references, or just the Spruce references. I reverted the deletions of my references, so that the third party could see the version with both his and my sources in place, and left a message on the talk page of why I reverted to the version with both references. I tend to use contemporaneous newspaper accounts because I have a paid subscription to the New York Times and Washington Post archives. Spruce favors books. I like both his and mine in the article. Most readers don't look at the references except for the more research oriented reader, and that reader may want references from both newspapers and books. I can't predict what references will be helpful to people, so if I find a new fact, I add the reference. You can always ignore the reference section, but if you really need to know the source, it is there. The New York Times articles and the book references look great side by side. I have never deleted Spruce references in favor of mine, only him deleting mine in favor of his. I stopped engaging Spruce after the threats and name calling left on my page. Thats when I asked the third party to look at the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just look how much information was deleted by Spruce in his last reversion of my edits back to his last version here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article. I don't think this as an issue of what references are best for the article, it has become very personal for him. I understand the pride that comes with contributing to an article, but pride is one of those deadly sins. It easily slips into feelings of ownership, and anyone that also contributes to an article that Spruce works on is labeled a "moron", as I was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing that Richard Arthur Norton did right was to ask for outside comments. Unfortunately none have been forthcoming. Here, as always before, he persists in misunderstanding my point. I was not deleting newspaper references in favor of book references. I was deleting footnotes that were incorrectly placed, irrelevant to the text that they were attached to, included meaningless and irrelevant quotations, included links to images of illegible and irrelevant documents, showed a misunderstanding of what they were supposed to document, and were, at their very, very best, unnecessary. I did not delete links to sources that were available online. (Most of RAN's footnotes, as he notes above, were links to subscriber-only newspaper websites). I've made all of these points before, but as you see above, RAN persists in not understanding them or responding to them. The difference between what the two of us want is not large, but with no true discussion, we couldn't come to a compromise. RedSpruce (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless he clearly doesn't need to be banned, no action needs to be taken by an admin, this is a content dispute, and since he clearly is responding you still have zero case. So this discussion can now stop here on an admin noticeboard. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Since RAN is now engaging in something resembling real discussion on two articles (yay!), it appears this ANI has served spme purpose. Unfortunately, as I noted above, this is a pattern of behavior with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and I'm sure other editors will have similar conflicts with him in the future. RedSpruce (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Its not quite stopped, his last action was to delete all my additions to the articles then ask that they be protected, so his changes could be locked into place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my "last acts" (to date) have been to leave questions for RAN to answer, so that discussion could move forward: [8], Talk:G. David Schine#Restoration, Talk:G. David Schine#Consensus, Talk:G. David Schine#Ownership issues, and [9]. All of these are still waiting for responses. But, like it says in the heading: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) [still] refuses to discuss disputed edits. RedSpruce (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't "leave questions". You make whatever changes you want then you filibuster, then ask for protection of the article, to lock in your deletions of my material, as you did here:
  • here at Annie Lee Moss. Where you reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again *And here at Mary Stalcup Markward. Where you deleted every edit I have made to the article, back to where you contributed.

Pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing by User:RedSpruce

Please note there is another ANI on User:RedSpruce here

A disturbing pattern of disruptive edits has been made by User:RedSpruce to a series of articles related to Joseph McCarthy, including Annie Lee Moss, Mary Stalcup Markward and G. David Schine. RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of these articles, repeatedly reverting edits made by myself and other editors that primarily focused on adding sources to the articles, starting off with this revert and this revert, moving up the abuse scale to "rv undiscussed edits", "rm irrelevant and useless quotes", "rm irrelevant and useless quotes", again, "rv to compromise version", and the warm and fuzzy "rm stupid and useless quote" and "rv, you are being an idiot". There are numerous WP:3RR violations mixed in here, but the far more troubling issue is gross incivility, such as the edit summaries cited previously, and topped off by the WP:NPA violation "You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you", which was reverted by an edit stating "rm personal abuse, albeit deserved". Unfortunately, User:RedSpruce's pattern of refusal to work on a consensus basis is only aggravated by his egregious incivility. Alansohn (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a revenge-post, in response to the incident posted immediately above. User:Alansohn has a history of backing up User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) when editing disputes occur. I've seen this in Annie Lee Moss and another editor reports to me that it's a pattern. User:Alansohn doesn't engage in any discussion, he just blindly backs up User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), often with blatantly dishonest edit summary comments like this one.
It's true that I was uncivil to Richard Arthur Norton. It's also true that he deserved it. It's rather frustrating, to say the least, when you put a lot of work into improving an article and another edit starts "dis-improving" it, and then utterly refuses to engage in meaningful discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
He deserves uncivility for adding sources? How is removing sources improving Wikipedia? And how is saying that consensus is that we don't remove sources "dishonest"? --SmashvilleBONK! 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to discuss the value of the edits in question with you, Smashville, but that is not the issue here. The Talk pages for the articles in question are open to all comers. RedSpruce (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, you can't bring something up...and then when someone responds, tell them to discuss it somewhere else. No offense, but this complaint is about you - you don't get to pick the forum. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When sentence one in a statement about claims of incivility reads "It's true that I was uncivil to Richard Arthur Norton", one would hope that sentence two states "I understand the issue and will do everything I can to work in a constructive and polite manner". It's rather disturbing to read the actual follow up, "It's also true that he deserved it." The first step to solving this problem needs to be a genuine recognition by User:RedSpruce that there is a major incivility problem here, which only compounds the refusal to work by consensus in editing and improving the articles in question. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is one issue; claiming that I "refuse to work by consensus" is a separate issue, and is also both incorrect and ironic. The source of the frustration that lead to my incivility was the fact that both User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and User:Alansohn refused to discuss the edits in dispute. RedSpruce (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Um...he answered you right here 32 minutes after you asked. This is after - in your very first contact with him - you called him unintelligent, you threatened to block him for adding sources and "an idiot and a moron" on his talk page. You then responded to his comment 5 times. All because he added sources to unsourced statements. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
RedSpruce, what is your definition of consensus? It appears to be you disagreeing with two other people that agree with each other. I don't see how one out of three represents the consensus position. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Your comments here aren't very informed, Smashville. Your first link above is incorrect, for one thing. RAN answered me a few times, but never in a meaningful manner, leading to my comments: 1, 2, 3. Interspersed with this fruitless attempt at dialog, RAN continually re-added his edits without any discussion. I would ask a question and he would make several article edits that ignored my question, and then go back to the Talk page and make some meaningless comment. Whether through willful deception or a communication disability, his responses were always off-target and never addressed my points.
It is incorrect to say that RAN only "added sources to unsourced statements", and this shows that you haven't read the existing discussion on the article's Talk page, but I'm not going to discuss that any further here. If you want to discuss the article and RAN's edits, use the article's Talk page. RedSpruce (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, I have read the discussions. All of your issues are with him adding sources. You realize if he is constantly reverting your edits then you are also constantly reverting his edits...it seems as if you are trying to assert ownership over these articles. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the article and RAN's edits, use the article's Talk page.RedSpruce (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't bring something to ANI and then tell someone to go to the talk page. That's not how this works. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The heading here is that I have a "pattern of uncivil and disruptive editing". If you're saying that my edits to the article were, in your opinion, deliberately disruptive, then I'll respond. Otherwise the quality of my article edits is off-topic. RedSpruce (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is discussing the quality of your article edits. You made a claim that he constantly reverts you...I said that in turn you constantly revert him. It's a two-way street. And you claimed he wouldn't answer you, which he did. None of this excuses incivility and personal attacks. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is discussing the quality of your article edits. You said that I was removing sources (by implication sources that were valid and appropriate) from the article. That is a quality-of-my-edits issue. And you claimed he wouldn't answer you, which he did. I claimed he never answered me in a meaningful manner or answered my questions. If you disagree with this, please point to a question that I asked or a point that I raised and then point to his response and explain how it addressed my question or point. RedSpruce (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes you have discuss all the surrounding facts. That's how a discussion works. And again - the fact that you didn't find his responses "meaningful" doesn't give you free reign to be uncivil and make personal attacks. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Loren.wilton, your comment doesn't make any sense. I never claimed that there was a consensus. Alansohn incorrectly made that claim, even though a) he had contributed nothing to the article discussion, and b) the discussion, such as it was, was a disagreement between two people. RedSpruce (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's a "pattern" you're looking for, I have some diffs I'll be digging up. This discussion was the final act of a series of edits that culminated in RedSpruce accusing me of being homophobic. When asked to apologize for his personal attack, he bizarrely apologized "to Wikipedia." Diffs of said discussion will follow upon request, if you don't believe me. Bellwether BC 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's one diff where he calls me homophobic. I'm haven't yet tried to find the bizarre apology "to Wikipedia", but if it's necessary, I will. I don't think I've touched the OSC article since his attacks. Bellwether BC 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just look how much information was deleted by Spruce in his last reversion of my edits back to his last version here at Annie Lee Moss. He reverted over a dozen individual edits, including information on her birth, her parents, her husband, and her death date. Again here at Mary Stalcup Markward, he has deleted every edit I have made to the article since his edit, including the source for the name of her parents. I don't think this as an issue of what references are best for the article, it has become very personal for him. I understand the pride that comes with contributing to an article, but pride is one of those deadly sins. It easily slips into feelings of ownership, and anyone that also contributes to an article that Spruce works on is labeled a "moron", as I was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • here in G. David Schine he is removing the quote parameter from each reference. Can someone take a look and decide? Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual.[5]" Well what exactly have some historians concluded? Hence the actual quote from the article placed in the reference using the "quote=" parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person reread the entire article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. You cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't a matter of developing consensus, its a matter of deleting everything I add to the article, no matter how well sourced it is. The only reason for deleting it appears to be that RedSpruce didn't add it to the article. He keeps adding to the edit summary that my additions are "irrelevant". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what is most telling is the above discussion...where he says that WP:NPA says that he should respond to his personal attack...kind of like, "Officer, I just punched that guy in the face and now he won't talk to me..." Not only is he admitting the personal attack, but he is finding something wrong with someone not responding...to the point of taking it to ANI...which is very, very, very bassackwards...He also said in this thread that Richard "deserved" it...--SmashvilleBONK! 21:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You certainly are fond of repetition, aren't you Smashville? You'll have to continue it without me from here on, Im afraid. And I apologize for calling you a sophist. A sophist, roughly speaking, is someone who pretends to be obtuse for the sake of argument. I no longer think that description fits you at all. RedSpruce (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a certain irony in your basically calling someone stupid in a thread about your incivility. Bellwether BC 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but at what point was any of this about me? You are being called out on this thread for incivility. The only interaction I've ever had with you has been in this thread and in the above thread. --SmashvilleBONK! 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are three ironic moments: 1) above as you point out 2) telling Smash that he will not converse anymore inside a discussion about RedSpruce complaining that I don't talk to him. 3) using a McCarthy like threat in the previous ANI that he know of others with the same complaints about me, like McCarthy's "I hold in my hand a piece of paper with the names of ...." It is deliciously ironic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum 4) He left this comment on a talk page after being told by me he is showing ownership tendencies: "Your point of view about 'ownership' is incorrect, and your persistence in making this accusation is a personal attack." (my emphasis added) He has called me a "moron", and me saying he is showing ownership tendencies as "personal attack" is perfect irony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the sources added by RAN have *no* mention of the article subject - which is a bit odd, no? Also, many of them were added to odd places in the articles. RedSpruce did attempt discussion, was met with RAN's normal dismissive attitude. Both editors have "interesting" discussion styles, so combining them is probably going to lead to problems. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Kendobs1 (talk · contribs)

Resolved: Both now blocked indef for sockpuppetry & abuse of other editors --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kendobs1 (talk · contribs), more than likely the same person as Kendobs (talk · contribs), is making personal attacks at several editors' talk pages. The editors he's attacking are of Serbian origin and the attacks he's making are nationalistically oriented and, I believe, are a result of an ongoing dispute in some Kosovo related articles. Kendobs is currently blocked for disruptive edits (although he also made the same kind of attacks under that username) so he's using a likely sockpuppet name Kendobs1 to circumvent his block. These are some of the attacks in question: [10] and [11] are by Kendobs1 and [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] by Kendobs. Since not many people here understand the Serbian language, here is an english translation of some of those words:

  • jebem - I fuck
  • majku - (your) mother
  • srpsku - Serbian

I didn't bring this to WP:AIV nor to WP:SSP because, even if Kendobs1 gets indef blocked and Kendobs gets a block extension, I suspect that by the end of the day today or tommorrow Kendobs2 will rear his ugly head and start this all over again. This needs to be dealt with thoroughly so I thought I'd ask for advice on how to stop these attacks effectively.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked indef, please monitor for further sockpuppets, which will now be blocked on sight.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed several admins know this guy on sight. If he returns under another Kendobs name, or any random name, and starts again, drop me a note on my talk page. I will personally handle it ASAP... Or just post a thread here, and someone will deal with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks gents and/or ladies. SWik78 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) The Serbian/Kosovar problem appears to be perennial, two groups of people very upset over land. This sounds like NIMBYism and the hunt for lebensraum and irredentism all rolled into one phenomenon. And now it's spilled over into trolling and sockpuppetry. Yuck! — Rickyrab | Talk 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted wikifollowing

Resolved

User:Ns tyrantk keeps following me around and keeps trying to talk to me on my user talk page with pointless things, like saying that today's featured article looked interesting. I want him to stop, but he isn't. I also suspect him as a sock of User:Durzatwink, since he had a very similar record of tracking me. Can someone help me? STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. Such behavior can be sanctioned with a block. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It told me to come here. STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know - an admin will have to look into it. For now, I dropped a message/note on the user's talk page as an advisement/warning of the situation. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you check my sockpuppet suspicions of the user and Durzatwink et al. ?--STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to fill out a suspected sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
But can you help me gather some evidence? I suspect that the user changes his IP repeatedly by resetting his router, so I don't think Checkuser would be very effective. (should we try anyway?) STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser is in fact quite revealing. I haven't finished going through it yet, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked them all. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Death threats

Resolved

*sighs* [18]... looks like vandalism, but consensus is to treat them seriously, so I'm bringing it to everyone's attention. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that random on-wiki threats such as this merit any special attention - WP:AIV is still fine for those I think. I believe the emphasis is on actionable, real-world threats - e.g. bomb threat at a school. Ronnotel (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Puppy girl 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef. blocked as being a vandalism-only account as a result of a submission at AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ECx2)I don't think this one falls under the new WP:Threats Of Violence, since its not actually a threat against a specific person/group/organisation/institute, its just a general rant, all this needs is a block i think. As has happened--Jac16888 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is a threat, then I have come across hundreds of those while doing recent change patrolling. Just revert and warn like normal. (The user has been blocked anyways) Tiptoety talk 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, saying you're gonna hunt down and kill wikibastards (I guess that's us) sounds like a threat of violence to me. In any event, WP:RBI seems like the right way to go. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Disregard as trolling, I doubt its even possible to kill ClueBot. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Without an identifiable target, there's probably not much any authorities could do about it anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends how you want to play it. Sure it'd be nice to block, revert, ignore. That's step one. But this is a threat of violence and it should be taken seriously. Local police would be very interested to see that this person has threatened murder. True, a specific target hasn't been identified. It's likely a hoax. It's a registered user so a checkuser would have to get the IP info and relay it to someone trustworthy of the info and reporting it. So, what's the threshold? I'd say we take it seriously and inform the local cops. Bstone (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And tell them what? And anyways, we dont know who the "local cops" are, we dont have an IP. Tiptoety talk 04:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Tell them that this person has threatened murder. That's more than enough to start an investigation and to get the cops very, very interested. As far as the IP info, as you can see in my previous post I mentioned we'd have to get a Checkuser involved who would then relay the IP info to a trusted party. Bstone (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you are welcome to. Tiptoety talk 04:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy to. I would just need someone to furnish me with the IP info. Bstone (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, is someone going to really contact the police? what will be told? "excuse me officer, I am calling to report a death threat against a semi-automated bot account" doesn't sounds logical, why aren't we applying WP:DENY here? - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The police are always, always interested when there has been a threat of murder. And this was not against a bot. It was against Wikipedians. Bstone (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks serious to me, why should be have to take this kind of Crap? "just because its the internet" is not good enough anymore, so many editors have left this project because of this stuff. One admin had death threats at home, this has to be stopped. (Hypnosadist) 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it need be said that there is a significant difference between particularized threats of harm credibly leveled at specific individuals and generalized threats that don't reasonably trouble anyone; this is of the latter variety, especially because, pace Bstone, it was emphatically against a bot, to-wit, "wikibastardbot" (sic) (to be sure, the precedent phrase "wikibastards" might be understood as relating to individuals, but who those individuals might be is entirely unclear, and I cannot imagine that anyone is actually concerned or need actually be concerned). If someone wishes to report the "threat" to law enforcement, he/she, in his/her individual capacity as a citizen, may (even as it as it might strike some as utterly bizarre that anyone should be so inclined), but we need not, IMHO, trifle with it here further. Joe 07:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Its pretty obvious the threat itself is against "wikibastardbot", its pretty safe to assume it was directed against ClueBot who had left the user a revert notice a few minutes before this rant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, this should be investigated.... she might not have been aware that the bot was not a human editor... — Rickyrab | Talk 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins willing to block?

Resolved: The right troll was eventually banned. Thatcher 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
{{Resolved}}Dealt with by FP@S; Coll blocked indef for socking. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}
Not yet resolved. Fut.Perf. 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)}}

I recently filed a CheckUser on User:TharkunColl which unturned numerous sockpuppet accounts being used to distrupt wikipedia through racist editing and vandalism. The checkuser can be found here, I believe an indef block is needed on this account. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From the CU: [...][A]ll the above accounts have been blocked[...]. FP@S took care of it already. Misread the first time; blocked Coll indef for sockpuppetry. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And an unblock. I declined the first one, would another admin care to give it a shot? -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 07:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note, I blocked only the obvious throwaway accounts I listed at the bottom of the checkuser. I did not claim TharkunColl was himself the sockpuppeter. Haven't got time to deal with this right now, will be back later. Fut.Perf. 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A question about this - the block on TharkunColl says that he's been blocked because checkuser says he is SheildDane. However, the checkuser is just a request at the moment - it doesn't say that they have the same ip address. Has someone jumped the gun here? --Bazzargh (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I blocked based on what Joseph said and what FP@S said at the CU; it's a behavioral sockblock and can be rescinded should CU come back "Unrelated". -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly convinced of the TharkunColl block (ShieldDane is a different matter, he's clearly a disruptive troll). Note also that User:Joshuarooney, the initiator of the CU, has been playing a rather disruptive role himself. Very over-eager at pushing for blocks, making posts that appear as if he was assuming checkuser and/or admin powers to himself, very aggressive. This account too might require some more looking into, given the fact that it's a very recently returned user with a disruption/trolling past. Fut.Perf. 10:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And now User:Sacharin comes along and baits TharkunColl. This is a whole circus of funny troll accounts from all sides. :-( Fut.Perf. 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that TharkunColl has been unblocked by User:Chris G and the checkuser request is still outstanding. This is not resolved yet. Fut.Perf. 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Stunningly, Joshuarooney and Sacharin are sockpuppets, or at least taking turns editing from the same terminal at school. Indef blocked pending further investigation and discussion. There are two alternate explanations that can not be ruled out by checkuser: that they go to the same school but live in different homes, or that they are a single person. The problem is that Sacharin largely stopped editing when Joshuarooney was unblocked (which is suggestive in itself) but it means there are no overlapping home edits to confirm one of these alternatives. And all the accounts listed at RFCU/Tharkuncoll are unrelated by IP. Thatcher 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed to indefinite ban per [19]. Thatcher 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There's no difference btw an indef block and an indef ban, is there? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure there is, look at the block logs and the messages I left on the talk pages. Thatcher 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I will admit that I royally fucked up on this one, and have already issued an apology to Tharkun and declined both of Joshua's unblock requests (and he's started to attack me, even after I blindly followed his request last night...). I apologize here for jumping the gun (and ultimately getting a bullet in the side for it). -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW anyone?

Resolved: WP:RBI applied in all aspects :o) ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I need new tires. Franamax (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR on Prem Rawat


Threat in Edit Summary Comments

Resolved: locked

207.235.188.1 is threatening to hack Wikipedia and send viruses if we keep reverting his vandalism. (I hope this is the correct place to report this.) Dawn bard (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Reporting to W:AIV will usually get a faster response. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Should we call the police or Jimbo. This person is threating Wikipedia so we need to call the police.--Rio de oro (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see there isn't a WP:WOLF page. There probably should be if people are going to be in a dither to replace basic thought processes with automatic dialing. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No. It's a kid. Empty threat. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Inspiron6m possible sockpuppet to Inspiron600m and Iloveaustria87

Resolved

This user is a clear sockpuppet to User:Inspiron600m but it is also a possible sockpuppet to User:Iloveaustria87, but Inspiron6m says it is not a sockpuppet and tells me someone else used that account. I had a discussion with this user about this issue at my talk page Here. Apparently he/she doesn't understand what a sockpuppet is, and she also said that the account was "comprimised" in some way. What should be done here? Momusufan (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that talking or quacking? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what you mean. but please see the edit history for Inspiron600m, you'll see all the evidence you all want. Momusufan (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Inspiron6m (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef by Jayron32. Tiptoety talk 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Lesson: How to tell if one account is a sockpuppet of another:
  1. Account 1 is blocked
  2. Account 2 is created, and their first edit is to claim that they are not account 1
  3. Account 2 is lying. Go ahead and block it...
That is your lesson today. Further lessons in how to translate duck language into English will be presented later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:D I think the question was more in regards to the comment about the account being compromised (though in the long run it really does not matter) Tiptoety talk 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user editing Homeopathy

Resolved

User:Dr.Jhingaadey, previously indef blocked as a sockpuppeteer and spammer is editing the talk page as an IP, addresses include User:122.167.21.159, User:61.2.70.167 and User:61.2.70.140. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion at Talk:Homeopathy#Read_this_Dr._Jhingad.C3.A9, Scientizzle has decided to give Dr. Jhingadey another chance on a new account: Ramaanand (talk · contribs). Given that he's created this on the advice of the admin, I don't think he should be further blocked for sockpuppetry here. I'd trust Scientizzle to handle him if his behavior otherwise causes a problem, thoough. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged User:Ramaanand as an alternative account of the main account. I'm puzzled as to why Scientizzle didn't simply unblock the main account if he thought the user had reformed, but we'll see what happens. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, Tim...but I think this works a bit better: a "fresh start" with all the relevant info clearly laid out (see the talk page). I'm not so sure that the user has "reformed", but more likely was an overzealous, ignorant-of-policy newbie that quickly irritated us all; a restart, if you will, may produce a productive editor...I'm watching this closely, hoping I haven't wasted my (& everyone's) time. Thanks for doing the tags. — Scientizzle 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and good luck! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of Office Open XML

Can an admin (or anyone else) please take a very brief look at this article's history and tell me who should be blocked for edit warring? I'm pretty sure there are a good 2 or 3 users whom have violated WP:3RR. I'm so tired I can't even see straight anymore. Thanks in advance. ScarianCall me Pat 18:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I saw, User:WalterGR should either get another 3RR warning, or more probably, a short block. Enigma msg! 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VilaWolf

Resolved

Was considering nominating the userpage for MfD, due to WP:CHILD (the user identifies as 14 years of age): "Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate.". And there is quite a bit of such information listed.

Looking for insight as to what should be the next appropriate step. - jc37 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The user says they were 14 when the picture of them was taken. Looks like it says they're 23 now. --OnoremDil 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm 2008 - 1984 = 14 is quite an indication of a.) poor math or b.) lack of sleep. (the latter is more likely : )
Thank you for the clarification : ) - jc37 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I'd pursue this myself but I'm pretty busy right now... but I strongly suspect that a user I had to block a few days ago, User:Connortt9, is evading the block by editing under the name User:Gia Primo. Gia Primo started editing the day after Connortt9 was blocked, is making very similar edits (details about European wrestlers, creating several articles that are being speedied), and even uploaded the same image. Compare this deleted wrestling image from Connortt9, added to Rape vs. the same wrestling image Gio Primo used in his/her article Manraping. Gia Primo has deleted and restored the comments on Connortt9's talk page, and Connortt9 also had a sub-page titled User:Connortt9/Gia Primo. (The case seems pretty solid - I just don't have a lot of time today to finish it, so if anyone else can double-check I'd appreciate it.) Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

quack. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been contacted by another editor with the same suspicion. The last thing they did before you blocked was creating European Fight Club and some of theri memebr, which I tagged for CSD. ---Tikiwont (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Quack, indeed. Sorry for the delay in posting here... I did a quick check of the sub-page; turns out that Connortt9 created it and Gia Primo recreated identical text. User has been blocked for a month for now; does this warrant an indefinite? --Ckatzchatspy 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest an extension. I don't really know the history but I would suggest a tariff (from todays date - not post dated) of either 3 or 6 months. Indef doesn't mean infinite, so I prefer time expired tariffs for violations while blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. --Ckatzchatspy 05:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Metros

So admin Metros totaly deletes both reports that I make [28] after stating that I should resubmit them [29]. The reports that I made were against two users who had gotten me blocked for 3rr, but had violated 3rr themselves. Why even suggest that I resubmit both reports if you're going to delete it anyway? Uconnstud (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So rather than get blocked for placing them on the 3rr report and getting warned for following policy I am asking other admin's to take a look [30] at my report below. He was being a bit lazy (in my humble opinion) to completely and totally not even look things up, but asked me to resubmit it and then not look at it again.

See explanation for why the reports were removed at User talk:Uconnstud#3RR board and User talk:Metros#report. Metros (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He has even removed my notice. [31] Uconnstud (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which I have every right to do. Plus, you placed the template twice, one of them in the middle of a sentence and the other with an odd indentation. Metros (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
3RR reports by Uconnstud are in this archive box. I have collapsed it for ease of navigation on this page. Metros (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


User:Jaysweet reported by User:Uconnstud (Result: )


1st revert: 20:29, 12 March 2008

There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [33] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [34] and [35] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [36] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [37] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:)


There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [39] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [40] and [41] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [42] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [43] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you scroll above there has been blocks that were over 2 days old and over 24 hours. So why is this ignored?
  • I was told by an admin to resubmit it If you look at the link on the report.
  • Had I resubmitted it earlier I would've been circumventing the block.
  • Why is it that I was blocked and the other users if you scroll a bit higher not blocked for reverting a talk page of an article [44] and the others haven't been?
  • There have been bad faith edits and bad faith accusation and bad faith warnings. [45] Uconnstud (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely interesting that here it states [46] "Many administrators do have a modicum of intelligence, and are capable of making decisions without the help of huge complaints about the user's general behavior. Just give us the article, the diffs, a link to the history, and as little else as possible." Why would Metros simply ignore and delete stating that it wasn't up to par ? Uconnstud (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • So, you repeatedly spammed links to a site which shows no evidence of having copyright permission, and you've come here to bitch about being reverted. That may not be the smartest thing you did all week. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess it's ok to have youtube on wikipedia in one sense [47] but not not in another? How fair of an application is that? Uconnstud (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I blocked Uconnstud 24h for disruption. Three retaliatory 3RR reports plus all this crap here and a steadfast refusal to listen to people who told him to drop it. Enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Permanent community ban on Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs)

This person is probably either insane or one of the most obnoxious time-wasting trolls I've ever seen. The actual listing of socks/suspected socks and abused IPs is just a small fraction of the actual accounts/IPs he's abused. See Natalie Erin (talk · contribs)'s post at AN about The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), which is just another sockpuppet of Monro. [48] I posted a partial listing of accounts/IPs this clown has abused to her talk (at her request). In addition to any work done by her trying to sort this out, I strongly recommend a permaban for this person for their massive disruption campaign/game playing. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. In my time as a Wikipedia user, I've seen quite a few users of the sort come and go - Michael/Hephaestos, and WoW among them. But bear in mind that it's the BEHAVIOR that is wrong, and not necessarily the PERSON, and while the PERSON should be banned for the BEHAVIOR, calling that person insane or a troll appears to violate WP:NPA and perhaps even WP:BLP. Nonetheless, it's valid criticism. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't worry too much about personal attacks on obvious indefblocked trolls who have abused multiple(tothenthdegree) socks/IPs. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(Shrugs) It never hurts to be too careful. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. I'll take the heat if this guy turns out to be okay after all. :-) Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael WAS NOT Hephaestos. Hephaestos was a victim of Michael'sCorvus cornixtalk 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody's in any hurry to unblock the main account, so the user is de facto banned. Socks are blocked on sight as block-evaders (and for the same crass behaviour). What needs to change? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing I spose, I just thought an official ban was different from a indef block. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. A user who is blocked is considered banned when we get to the point that no admin is willing to unblock. I don't see anyone overturning this one. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The question I raised on AN, which no one really commented on, was whether or not we should delete the sockpuppet category. IMO it's not useful to anyone but the sockpuppeteer himself, who is using it as a toy essentially, so we could probably delete it with few or no consequences. But I'd be happy to hear if anyone thinks this sock category is actually useful. Perhaps it can be protected instead of deleted. Natalie (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Khan bangledesh

Will someone do something with this guy? He keeps vandalizing Kalash page. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The edits may not be helpful, but they don't look like vandalism. It doesn't look like any attempt at discussion has been made. Undos and rollbacks don't communicate much about why their edits are being reverted. --OnoremDil 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Have left a warning to discuss on Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


User:Uconnstud complaint (2)

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.

The Wikipedia forum shop is closed. User was blocked perfectly correctly, has now also been warned for disruption. See also the thread about two up from here. Uconnstud, put down the stick and step away from the horse carcass.


JAysweet has already violated 3rr over 24 hours in a two day period http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=198260695&oldid=198256740 and has worked together with Colfer2 and i sumbitteed a report [49] and had to correct the the edits so it would be correct [50]

6 Reverts by two editors. 4 by one editor Jaysweet and 2 by another colfer2. All edit warring and why no block on either? Uconnstud (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For more background see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Metros several sections up, this declined 3RR report, this declined 3RR report, and this pending 3RR report. Metros (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Also see this 3RR report. Metros (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep Metros following me around again. Alright Metros deleted 3 reports from me. The pending with Colfer2 has been turned into a warning. I think that user Jaysweet should be blocked as well for at least the same amount of time that I was because he continued to revert even after I was blocked to totally violate 3rr Uconnstud (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the cross-posting and the Forum shopping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a bias from Metros and didn't want to violate a 3rr on a noticeboard so I posted it here. Didn't mean to upset you Jossi. Pretty name by the way I still love Josie and the Pussycats Uconnstud (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I asked [51] why he archived this report and now deleted my question. I guess he was joking. I am being totally straightforth with this report. Uconnstud (talk) 21:46, 14 March 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.
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.

Closed Tiptoety talk 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Although I totally disagree with this ruling, and think there is a valid underlying arguement, I won't push this. At least Colfer2 was warned. Even if Jaysweet did in fact violate 3rr. Uconnstud (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, we already closed the forum shop. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:01, 14 March 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.
Re: "At least Colfer2 was warned". Just to be clear, the warning was not against me, but against Uconnstud. It was misworded at first in the header, then fixed by Metros. Similarly the title of this thread is a bit misleading "User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 Edit Warring". Thanks, have a good weekend everybody. - Colfer2 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nori198

Can someone please take a look into Nori198 (talk · contribs), he appears to be a sock of Eyrian (talk · contribs) and has been recently using 68.209.235.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to edit (self admitted). He has now started creating what appears to be a bad faith sock puppet case against User:Kung Fu Man, and is using IP's such as 72.234.254.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to show support for a checkuser to be preformed on Kung Fu Man. I would deal with this myself, but am way too tired. Anyone care to help, thanks in advance. Tiptoety talk 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is being dealt with this way. Tiptoety talk 23:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for remedies - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems

Please review and tweak: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence § t/e 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism by fake-impersonation user profile

Resolved

This fake-impersonation user profile titled 'Sudharsans Papa' meaning 'Sudharsan's Father' in Hindi, has vandalized my userpage leaving an abusive comment in Hindi, '+ मे तेरा बाप हूं ' and this reads as 'Mein Tera Baap Hoon' meaning 'I am your Father'.

I sincerely request the Admins to ban this anonymous fake profile which has been created for the only purpose of impersonating and vandalizing my userpage, as evident from the contributions. Thanks a lot. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


PS: It is to be noted that another profile titled 'Snsudharsan' was created several months ago and vandalized my userpage leaving racist, degrading comments that I was 'impotent Tamil pig' in my userpage and the fake-impersonation profile was also deleted.

I have blocked the user. Tiptoety talk 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your prompt action :-) Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Stephaniequinn

Resolved

This is user is adding a load of vanity to Stephanie Quinn, for example

Her gifts for capturing attention are coupled with her talents for paying attention – to the sounds and needs of her community. Ms. Quinn is a gifted teacher, as well as an experienced public speaker

Also he/she created User:Stephanie Quinn which I tagged for speedy deletion as a user page for a non-existent user. I was going to report the user at WP:UAA, but realised that there is probably no violation as this person is not well known. I was thinking of nominating the article for deletion also, I'm thinking there is little chance of success in this domain, but articles like this I find annoying. People will say there are plenty of sources, but the same can be said of any group or person that spams all over the internet about themselves. This is all just part of an advertising campaign, but I know if I try to get it deleted people will say oh look there are 80,000 results on Google. What can be done ? Or do we just have to ignore it and move on ? I get the impression there are more and more articles like this about people who may have had an interesting career but who in fact are in no way remarkable enough for an encyclopedia, and (of other things) wikipedia is becoming wikiresume, for self-infatuated people who want to make it look like they are important enough for an article on wikipedia. Meanwhile people who are really notable in countries outside of the US, have only a one line article, or none at all. Jackaranga (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Also she moved User (computing) into Stephanie Quinn, and someone else moved it back by copy/paste. This was almost 2 weeks ago, but nobody cares! Everyone is just leaving it as a total mess like that. Please fix!! Jackaranga (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Right. Article is now speedied as implausible redirect/non-notable, whatever, Afd is deleted, and all is fine in the garden. Peasants are merrymaking after the storm, and weasels are dancing the hornpipe. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No it's not OK please see the message on your talk page. If you have never fixed a cut/paste page move you can ask another admin for help, I can understand it might be a bit confusing. ThanksJackaranga (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Finished. Steep learning curve has now, I hope, been conquered. Not Everest, but 'king close. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, everything seems to be fixed now. There is only one deleted edit on Stephanie Quinn, and the history on User (computing) seems to be correct. The only thing I did was restore the rest of the deleted history on User (computing). So, you had it almost completed. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged. I need to do some more reading, obviously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ModernLeaders

Resolved
ModernLeaders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can someone look at the edits of ModernLeaders, in particular, his comments to me on his talk page? I would hit the appropriate button myself, but someone would probably complain about me, as the aggrieved party, being the one to make the block. Thanks. --B (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And..... Done Tiptoety talk 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arg....what is up with this?? Wierd block.....

Resolved

Okay, so I just unblocked User:Blacknews4uscom so they could request their username changed, and yet they still stay they can not edit any page but their talk page. I have no idea what is up....did I do something wrong? Could it be something on their end like a browser cache...help please! Thank you, Tiptoety talk 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock looks OK to me and user is not showing as an active block. Has user tried looging out and then in again? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he has. At least that is what he said in his email to me. Tiptoety talk 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
He was autoblocked; I've found and removed it. —Cryptic 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Tiptoety talk 03:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User Biophys stalking and reverting my changes without legit reason

The user User:Biophys has been reverting many of my legit changes in articles over the past few days, and in one instance followed me to a topic which he has never edited before to revert a very large revamp, again without any legit reasons, only citing completely irrelevant policies in a wrongful manner.

That's the increasingly frustrating part. For example, in three separate instances I added a response to certain accusations or situations in three seperate articles, and he removed the responses saying that it's "pov", which is clearly backwards to how NPOV policy works. Examples: article one: [52], article 2: [53], article 3: [54], and finally, an edit war in the article he's never even contributed to before: [55]

I've also looked around at his other recent edits and can see this same sort of thing going on in other articles - citing irrelevant policies in a wrongful manner to justify his biased edits, and edit warring constantly. He has been warned by another user about edit warring in his talk page recently, which he removed.Krawndawg (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I explained this to Krawndang here [56]. Please see all his ~50 edits in WP here [57].. His edits were rebutted by several users at several talk pages [58]. All but one page indicated by him I have edited long time ago, and they are on my watch list.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The only edit I made that someone other than you reverted was the "conspiracy" title for a section - it was later changed to "claims" by someone else which I did not dispute any further, whereas you just reverted and accused me of pushing POV. You assume bad faith, and I resent that. Krawndawg (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You need to follow dispute resolution and you might find the mediation cabal helpful. Either way, there doesn't seem to be anything here to require the intervention of an admin. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

this isn't a content dispute so much as it is harassment that makes editing, anywhere, extremely frustrating for myself. How can this community function when admins don't take action against this sort of abuse? Krawndawg (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
after a little homework I found this "Please be aware of the 3RR. Your changes on the article are unwelcome and strongly opposed, and you have given no reasonable argument in discussion aside from your own biased views on the subject and your obvious inability to comprehend wikipedia policy. You've already addmited to having an agenda, and you've addmited to your intentions to push this agenda at any cost. I suggest you stop. Sbw01f (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)" It seems that biophys has been warned several times but ignors the warnings. I suggest report him for 3rr as his history indicates editing abuse.Thright (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for check

I am not an administrator. Will someone please check the page(s) "mortise and tenon". There seem to be two pages (both acceptably good) with a redirect of some kind.

Thank you71.197.68.207 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a bit tricky without links, "mortise" matches 533 WP pages; several spelling variants, including the single "mortice", link to mortice and tenon. Could be a little more specific please?--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be. Someone seems to have already fixed it. I wonder if some very subtle vandalism was going on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortise_and_tenon Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceauntay (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Ceauntay's back, recreating "Jane Hoop" articles on user talk pages, the only avenue available since he was mass-blocked. There may be new socks - I'm moving through, deleting and protecting the talk pages, but help would be appreciated. User pages number at least to Ceauntay37. Acroterion (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I got the last of them. Tiptoety talk 04:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks that way: I appreciate the help. Now we have to watch out for IP's creating the same material in new, orphaned talk pages. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

threat posted on It Impossible(song)

Resolved: WP:RBI. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
this was posted by a sock of user:Mmbabies. Is there anything ; we as in general could do about it. Rio de oro (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone follow-up on it , I think the Wikipedia Foundation needs to know this. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC can vouch for me because he filed an abuse report on Mmbabies twice, and contacted the FBI , Houston Police Department, Texas Rangers; yet still we this bs. Rio de oro (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Revert, block and ignore in this case. If the user is clearly trolling, and not in any real harm, then just block and revert. Obviously this was taken care of once for this user, so furthur disruption from him should be ignored. — Κaiba 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree, WP:RBI. IP has been blocked a month anyways. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
A death threat was posted it targeted a person. I dont get it all of you guys here on ANI act all Dog the Bounty Hunter on trying to look for the guy that posted the bomb threat on the Plano HS page. What is the difference between this clown user:Mmbabies , or that the guy that caused the Plano HS incident. Because if I asked Jimbo right now, he would agree with if a death threat targeted someone should contact law enforcement. And, btw people here on ANI agreed that if a guy were to make a "threat" to the Betabot if its a death threat, so why dont we just alert the Houston Police allredy. Jesus, what if something were to happend , then what then. Rio de oro (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to contact the police if you think that is the appropriate action, no one is stopping you. Tiptoety talk 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible impersonation

DreamsthatWar (talk · contribs) states on their user page that they are Admin User:Warofdreams alternate account to test "non-admin things". But considering the non-admin things like this vandalism here, I doubt this is the same person. I left a note on Warofdreams's talk but they have yet to respond. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:UN at least. If it is User:Warofdreams, which I very much doubt, he'll explain. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Grawp, anyone, back for a vengeance? --Alisyntalk 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, checkuser shows its not Warofdreams. Thatcher 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits deleting prior material

There have been a couple of incidents recently in which one user's edit seems to override changes by another, or editing one portion of an article accidentally reverts to an earlier version of another person. This happened yesterday on comments on an arbitration case, and almost caused quite a skirmish until it was figured out it was an accident, and I've just received another report of the same thing on a controversial article. Has anyone else seen this, or know if there is a bug report? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can check out existing bugs here, and report new bugs here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is due to accidentally editing a specific version of a page instead of a section. Editing a specific version deletes all subsequent edits. It is prudent to look at a diff of one's edits to make sure only desired changes were made. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki's conflict handling is relatively straight-forward — it just lets the client keep track of when page contents were loaded using hidden input elements — so I doubt there's any server-side error involved. It sounds like someone just copied the contents of a page, reloaded the edit form, and pasted in the old contents. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

When I use certain PCs at work, I often get served old versions of the page. If I edit without paying attention, the same thing would happen to me. (I know Jimbo has done it at least twice on Arbitration cases.) The individual solution is to purge the page cache before editing to make sure you have the newest version. A more general solution would require maybe updating the caches more often? I don't know why this happens with some PCs at work but not others. Thatcher 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If you know you're getting an old version of the page, one solution is to bring up the page history (which shouldn't be cached), and edit the last version in the history. If it isn't really the last version, it'll give you a link to any later revisions from the page view. Yes, this is a pain. Gavia immer (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive administrator

On my Talk Page, I posted a "Help Me" request, indicating that I was having problems with an abusive administrator. I was told to come to this page. So, now what? How is the issue of an administrator abusing his position handled? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Well first it would be helpful to know which administrator you are referring to, then provide evidence of the "abuse". Tiptoety talk 05:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Here is a summary of the facts:
1. I participated in an AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk
2. Administrator Sean William closed the debate as a consensus to "delete", while offering no explanation or rationale
3. I sent a message to the administrator, asking for his reasoning, rationale, and explanation as to why and how he determined that any consensus was reached (much less a "delete" consensus)
4. His reply was essentially non-responsive
5. I asked two reasonable and relevant follow-up questions
6. His non-responsive reply was (a) to summarily dismiss my questions without answering them, and
7. (b) to present a closed mind by claiming that "my mind is made up and I am not changing my decision, period" prior to engaging in any discourse with me whatsoever
8. He subsequently replied only after I posted a Help Me notice complaining about an abusive administrator
9. His philosophy employed in closing the AfD debate was "which argument do I personally side with?" … as opposed to "was any consensus of the Wikipedia community indeed reached?"
10. The above demonstrates a clear abuse of administrative duties as well as a cavalier abusive attitude.
The discourse (if it can be called such) is here: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Lauren Burk. And please note that I am only referring to my conversation with the administrator … and not the administrator’s side conversation with another editor (Baseball Bugs), which is interspersed therein. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
It's User:Sean William and the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk which he is not willing to overturn. You can see the discussion here. There's no abuse of admin power here; the correct place to request an overturn is WP:DRV, to which Joseph A. Spadaro has already been directed. Nothing to see here. --Haemo (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. But thanks for your concern and assistance in this matter. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
Furthermore, the request to overturn the deletion is wholly separate and apart from the issue I am presenting here --- abuse of administrative duties. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

""(outdent) Umm..making a contentious decision is almost impossible to avoid in these situations. I don't think posting to the closing admin was going to be productive. Even if the admin did have a change of heart, then it would still need a DRV. I didn't view his replies as dismissive, just usual when two people interact who have a fixed position on this. My feelings are more for keeping the article than not, and DRV is a place to gain a wider audience. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What abuse? Just because you don't like his perfectly civil answers does not mean he's guilty of abusing his admin duties. WP:DRV exists for cases like this. --NeilN talkcontribs 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NeilN ... when there are no answers ... how is it that you are classifying them as "perfectly civil answers" exactly? Thanks. Please let me know. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
OK. I will assume that you are asking me to spell it all out for you. (1) Refusing to answer reasonable and relevant questions. (2) Refusing to engage in meaningful open-minded discourse. (3) Presenting a closed mind immediately upon entry into the conversation. (4) Changing the standards of deletion. (6) Refusal to provide accountability for rationale of deletion decision. (6) Uncivil and dismissive treatment of a fellow editor. To me, these six factors, taken accumulatively, add up to abuse or, at the very least, an appearance of abuse. Once again, I will reiterate that I am referring to my dialogue with the administrator and not the administrator’s dialogue with Baseball Bugs. And once again, I shall also repeat that the issue on this page is not the claim of inappropriate removal, as I am well aware of the DRV route. I shall repeat that this issue (cavalier and dismissive mistreatment of fellow editors) is wholly separate and apart from the deletion review. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
I don't see any compelling evidence of incivility or refusal to answer questions. He may not have answered them to your satisfaction, but that's an issue for WP:DRV. If you have a more serious personal problem, try WP:RFC. There's no room for admin action here. --Haemo (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
#1. OK. That's your opinion -- with which I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. #2. Then why was I referred to this page? The above caption at the top of the page says that this is indeed the page to discuss administrative abuses. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
And # 3 ... by the way ... aren't you the very person who dismissed this issue as "resolved" before I even was able to get one word in edge-wise? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
Yes, I just double checked. At the very top of the page, it says, quote: "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." How exactly does your dismissing the issue as resolved --- before I even get to state what the issue is --- conducive to and aligned with that prefatory comment? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
Because ANI is a good place to start IF an admin is abusing their powers. In this case, it's been judged that no abuse took place. --NeilN talkcontribs 06:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! Please tell me by whom and using what standards? I am a little confused. So, please explain how my above allegations do not rise to an abuse of admin duties? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
Because I looked at it, and noticed that there was no substantial issue here. At no point were administrative powers misused here, and you have already been referred. to the correct place to discuss the other issues further. A protracted discussion will not change this, and there's nothing for admins to do here. WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. --Haemo (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Once again, I asked, using what standards? Just because "you say so"? Are you saying that ... in closing an Afd ... the closing admin should not be answering questions about such from other editors, can refuse to answer questions, can start the conversation with a closed mind, can summarily dismiss the discussion before it even begins as his mind is made up, and can change the standards of deletion as he sees fit? Just so I am clear. An admin is "allowed" to do all that? And that is not an abuse? Please advise. ( If so, cool. How do I get to be an admin? LOL. ) Just kidding about that last part --- the parenthetical. Ha ha. But, please advise on the rest! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
And quite frankly, I'd like to know how you can state with a straight face that -- if an admin unilaterally decides to change deletion standards as he sees fit -- that is not an abuse of admin duties. Please explain. Then why have policy at all? I'm real confused here. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
The admin did not change deletion standards. He used David Epstein's point of WP:BIO1E. Perfectly valid. --NeilN talkcontribs 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
He did answer your questions — you didn't like those answers. He did not "change the standards of deletion", he applied them as he interpreted them. You have been given the page to discuss this on if you disagree. This page is for misuse of administrative powers — there were no powers abused here. The forums for dispute resolution have been referred to you. I suggest you use them. --Haemo (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph, let me try to explain the response people are giving. The way I understand it, there are two issues at stake here for you:

  • You disagree with how the AFD was closed--not just in terms of opinion, but in terms of whether or not it reflected Wikipedia policy correctly.
  • You believe the closing administrator should have been more open to discussing this descrepency with you.

Now, I'll start with the latter because it's easier. Civility issues between editors are not an admin-specific concern; that is, you don't actually have to be cheerful and gregarious to become an administrator. It's not a requirement at all, because there's not supposed to be much of a difference between admins and normal editors. So any trouble of this kind, from mild impoliteness to vicious personal attack, is handled on the same level. And generally speaking, only overt rudeness is really forbidden by policy; dismissiveness, while annoying, is allowed, purely because it would be so hard to police.

The first issue, of the AFD, is a little trickier. My suspicion is that User:Sean William was just doing his best to interpret Wikipedia policy in a way that applied to that article. It's actually perfectly acceptable to go against the AFD !vote if the majority of responses are in conflict with official policy. Remember, those policies are in place by consensus too--and a much larger consensus than any AFD we've ever had. So closing any AFD is very much a big-picture issue, because it involves a subjective judgment on whether or not the arguments match up with policy.

That's why AFD-closing is usually not considered an abuse-of-power issue (except when it's blatantly disruptive). You're certainly entitled to think he was wrong, and more than entitled--there's an entire process set up for exactly this kind of situation. Like others have said, if you head on over to deletion review you can work on getting this sorted out--either by having the deletion overturned or by coming to understand the reasoning behind it.

Hm. That was really long. ^^; Oh well, I hope it was helpful. --Masamage 07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned here that closing AfDs improperly cannot be an abuse of admin powers; it's actually an ordinary editorial decision, though non-admin closings are rare. The only difference between an admin closing and one by a non-admin is that the latter can't directly delete the article, and, if the closure is delete, would have to find an administrator to do it. Most non-admin closings, therefore, are not with a Delete result. A non-admin closed an MfD discussion ( forWP:PRX) as Keep, when there were piles of votes to Delete, based -- correctly -- on general guidelines, causing a huge flap. But nobody reverted it until it was clear that the closer would accept that. Instead it (incorrectly) went to WP:DRV, which is for "review" of "deletions" (the appropriate remedy would have been a renomination for deletion).
The closer correctly informed this user that the remedy for an improper closure is WP:DRV. As with many deletion issues, there are some substantial differences of opinion and philosophy, over notability and how to define it, and, this often comes out in actual deletion discussions; the proper place to resolve those issues is on the various guideline pages. And it may take more than that. There is, in my view, no consensus on this, there is only majority opinion, and even that is not clear.--Abd (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 block log

Due to recent events, user:Mackan79 has been left with some pretty grim stuff in his block log. Whilst not fatal (quite a few users have incorrect blocks logged that were quickly reverted), it is 1/ ugly, 2/ a pretty bad memory, and 3/ the naming of a specific name (later proven incorrect) is a bit of a bad taste.

A user who is blocked for alleged puppetry then unblocked, would normally have their block log left as-is. That's the norm, for almost every case. But as an exception, I'd like to sound out communal views on IAR + a request to the dev's to modify the narratives for those three entries. I can't really say why, we've communally left other material that's comparable in, I'm sure. But this was an ugly case, and there's something about that log that is ugly too in some way.

This is not a free for all, on other deletions. The proposed changes would be:

Current wording   Proposed wording
blocked with an expiry time of 1 second:
(Absolute proof this user isnt a sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=197924363&oldid=197924312)
Pfeil rechts.svg (no change)
unblocked:
(Not a cockpuppet [sic] per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=197907489#User: Mackan79_apparently_WordBomb_sockpuppet)
Pfeil rechts.svg unblocked:
(No evidence of puppetry, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=197907489)
blocked with an expiry time of indefinite:
(Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)
Pfeil rechts.svg blocked with an expiry time of indefinite:
(Believed abusing multiple accounts: self-outed sock)

I've tried various kinds of "cleanups" and the above is the best I have got so far, to try and balance:

  1. We don't (or shouldn't) remove log entries lightly. For example, someone may legitimately want to refer to this case in future, in the context of some other discussion. Pure deletion would prevent that.
  2. Leaving a sense that the user did anything wrong, or slightly doubtful, would be unfair. Mackan79 has gone out of his way to help fix this. Simply minimally cleaning the original wording would still leave the strong impression from the wording that he must have done something wrong (ie the impression he did abuse, and did self-identify).
  3. Making the log entries bland, would remove evidence the blocker acted rashly, which would not be fair to users assessing his blocks if ever needed.

Whilst they change the text slightly, they leave the sense of it, but make clear to any reader the reality of the matter... but in a way that doesn't unfairly prejudice any party.

Thoughts?

FT2 (Talk | email) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mackan was blocked incorrectly, but I see no reason to make a special case for him here, unless we're going to do the same thing for everyone from now on. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to remove this kind of block from any user, particularly an experienced user who has been here for close to two years. As we know, WordBomb is extremely controversial, with some people alleging everything up to and including criminal actions on his part. To have a blocklog saying I've identified as him in that situation, even though it's well recognized that the block was entirely a mistake, wouldn't seem to me a fair amount of collateral damage when it could fairly easily be resolved. However, I'd also respectfully ask that perhaps less involved editors speak to the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the main change is that the particular individual with whom Mackan was falsely identified is no longer specified in the revised log; the change doesn't appear to help him in any other sense. In general it is better to not "rewrite history", and I would hope that no one is going to look down on Mackan for what was clearly a wrongful block; in fact, I suspect leaving the identification with WordBomb would only make the spurious nature of the block more obvious to anyone looking at the log. However, if this is something that concerns Mackan enough that he has requested the change, we should do it. Everyking (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mind a joke to clear it up, but my concern is basically as stated above, as well as that I'd somewhat rather pretend it didn't happen. I can't judge what people will think, of course. Since it has apparently been offered before, I think it could fall into whatever category of extraordinary cases exists. Mackan79 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks for raising this, FT2. Can I ask, however, whether the only option is changing the wording? It should be evident, I think, that very little thought went into the block, as among other things I've been editing since before WordBomb arrived. I also have nearly three thousand edits, without having done any significant amount of vandalism patrol. I wouldn't blame GW for inquiring, as I've said, but to have been blocked in that situation is what I found particularly bizarre. That said, it's a bit insulting to me that future people are going to look in my block log and see I've been blocked as a sockpuppet in 2008, even if not the way it is currently written. So that it's recognized, the blocking admin has also supported expunging the log. If that leaves the third point, I think there's still plenty to show what happened that probably can be recalled if an issue is raised again (the record now exists here, if nowhere else). As you said, I did go through some effort to straighten this out, and I have foregone making a bigger deal out of it than I possibly could have. In sum, I'd appreciate having as much of it expunged as people think is consistent with the foregoing. Mackan79 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever Mackan79 wants, I guess. Can I suggest that the ANI link go to a version after the thread was archived? Though that might look odd in terms of the timeline. R. Baley (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support either of the first two of FT2's suggestions. The very idea that Mackham79 was a Wordbomb sock must have been reprehensible to both parties. Ameriquedialectics 08:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck in convincing a developer in making a request to alter a log for no reason. And yes, because you don't like what was written, is no reason. — Κaiba 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's more than 'idonltlikeit', it's 'I'm being tarred and feathered wrongly'. Stick the 'he's wordbomb/no he's not' on an account, and there will always be one or two hawks watching forever, looking to prove he was, in fact, Wordbomb. The admins fucked up big here, and typical of admin behavior when admins do wrong, you're circling the wagons to protect each other. erase the entire entry set, and restore his good name. The ONLY reason to keep it there is to humiliate the editor, and permanently leave him stained as suspicious. If he went for adminship, I guarantee at least one oppose comment based on "What if he really is Wordbomb and got clever enough to fool us, do we want that?" Admins made the mistake, admins should fix the mistake. If ever tehre WAS a time for developer intervention, it's this sort of crap, where admins do something incredibly stupid, half-ass the fix, and say, 'well, he can still edit, so what's the big deal?' What a load. Stop protecting each other from having to admit to a colossal cockup, and fix it fully. Even if it means hat in hand to the dev team, for the fixes. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite your personal attacks via edit summary and incivil comment, I think I'll reply. Do you think removing the log will remove the fact he was blocked from Wikipedia as a potential sock? Do you think that editors will magically not see old discussions and come to the same conclusions? It doesn't matter if the log exists or not. Those who are going to watch him to see if he really is or not are going to do so, with or without the log. There are multiple talk page discussions and AN and AN/I threads detailing the log which are permenent and a request to a developer to remove the log will, probably, be permanent as well. The block was tremendously bad, but the block has come and passed. There are a lot of bad blocks that were undone and kept in the logs and this is just another one. Don't you think User:!! wants his name cleared? More than likely, he does. I guess the choice is the developers, and if they do, fine. But removing logs doesn't erase minds, as you seem to think it does. — Κaiba 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly I'm not looking to change minds, but more concerned with editors who aren't aware of the discussions seeing it and not knowing what happened. We don't generally allow changes, I think, for a concern that everyone would ask them, and we don't want to encourage the idea that bad blocks would be deleted. Specific commentary in a blocklog saying someone admitted to being a banned user who has often been alleged to have committed outrageous and even criminal behavior, in a way that several admins have said shouldn't even be discussed on Wikipedia, is a bit different. This isn't to say I support those accusations or to say anything else about them, but that an exception in that situation is fully supportable, and I think reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it not enough your log saying "blocked with an expiry time of 1 second: (Absolute proof this user isnt a sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=197924363&oldid=197924312)" not enough to prove anyone who comes and looks at your log to know that you =/= WordBomb? The only time I see that block coming into play is when, as ThuranX said, during some kind of !vote situation like WP:RFA, but bureaucrats are smart enough to discount those claims and others participating would surely make mention of the link in your block log that states otherwise. — Κaiba 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're saying we shouldn't ever change a block log, fair enough. I'm simply saying that if ever there is an exception, this seems like a reasonable request. Mackan79 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there could be a case, like a violation of the privacy policy or otherwise revealed something personal, but other than that, I really see no reason if everything can be talked through. — Κaiba 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If we can trust Alison's statement regarding Mackan's actual identity (and I think we can), the only people who would significantly benefit from this revisionism are Mr. Bagley (accused of socking as a user who obviously isn't his sock) and Mr. Herbert (having made another poorly-reasoned block). Could somebody remind me why this is being proposed? — CharlotteWebb 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the one time this was done before, the block was completely expunged. I suspect that the option is only to remove the record of block or to leave it in place, and that wording changes are not possible. Newyorkbrad has also indicated he would support expunging the log[59]. Risker (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to admit I didn't think this would be an issue, so I'll withdraw the request. Newyorkbrad suggested it, and it seemed reasonable. As I said elsewhere in response to this, the truth is that I expected controversy when I started commenting on this whole dispute, so I haven't been caught off guard. I think the result pretty well shows why the discussion hasn't been effective for some time, but to the same extent there probably isn't any use in hiding it. Thanks in any case to those commenting. Mackan79 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Resolved: clear

at WP:AIV. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Resolved: Cleared Rudget. 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to address the backlog here, thanks, Igniateff (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been told that this isn't exactly a crucial incident to report. WP:AIV yes, but UAA doesn't pose an immediate threat methink. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
For admins anyway, five users are present/remain. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians (talk · contribs)

Prowikipedians (talk · contribs) is removing messages/warnings from their talk page. This user has been a problematic editor in the past, violating WP:3RR and not complying with consensus. I informed them that they would be blocked if they did not refer to guidelines as posted by Kafziel (talk · contribs), but instead of accepting this they became very defensive. Eventually they removed the messages from their talk page, for which I warned them. However, they are not paying me any attention and have since blanked their talk page. Praia da Lulz (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Users may remove anything from their Talk page, as they choose, at least normally. (There is an exception for certain notices, typically placed by an administrator, for the purpose of notifying other users that, say, the user is a blocked sock puppet.) For a user to remove a warning is evidence that they saw it. Users have no obligation to keep anything on their Talk pages, and attempts to keep something there against their wishes can be considered harassment. So you incorrectly warned this user for removing the messages. If the user is violating 3RR, when you file a 3RR report, you will cite, not the Talk page, but diffs to the warning edits to the Talk page, which the user can't delete, they remain in History.--Abd (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Praia da Lulz. Praia da Lulz is a blatant sock puppet/troll created to harass User:Prowikipedians, and should be immediately blocked. Checkuser should also be run to identify puppet master if possible, likelihood is high that master has edited recently. I have no opinion or experience with Prowikipedians beyond having been thanked for my response above, thus calling my further attention to the situation. This new user was under the understandable impression that PdL was an administrator, given the edits made to the user's Talk.--Abd (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
☑Y Blocked. Account is very experienced, has CU been run? Rudget. 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I blocked after investigating Prowikipedians' comments on Kafziel's talk page. Praia da Lulz has done nothing productive here, just harassing Prowikipedians. If anyone wants to file checkuser, go ahead; it would probably be fishing though without evidence to support who this could be a sock of or anything like that. Metros (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Prowikipedians seems to have received some harsh initial treatment for some improper edits which were not "vandalism"; I'd like to let this user know that normally you get to make a few mistakes around here, and have plenty of warning before being blocked. Do pay attention to warnings (even warnings from sock puppets!) and, when in doubt, ask any experienced editor. If Prowikipedians were to consider those who might have a motive for harassing him or her, and let me know on my Talk page, I'll investigate further and see if it is worth filing a checkuser request. Meanwhile, my apologies on behalf of Wikipedia for the harassment. Do read articles on how to edit, as suggested by User:Groupthink on your Talk page. (you'll find it in History.) And you can always ask me. If it gets to be too much I'll tell you! --Abd (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Adam4eve310

This user is repeatedly creating an article for "Sereen Curtis (porn srar)." I didn't spell that incorrectly. That's how the last version was spelled. He already created one version (Sereen Curtis (porn star)) that is now marked for deletion. There is also a talk page (Talk:Sereen Curtis) created for the peformer, but not article page? I'm confused by that one. Anyway, this user is a spammer and has not heeded the messages on his talk page. Also, he keeps adding the article to List of male performers in gay porn films and I can't remove it anymore because of WP:3RR. Someone please block him for spamming or somehow explain to him that he needs to stop creating the same article over and over, because right now it doesn't seem to be getting through to him. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There he goes again. Someone please block him, pretty please. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And again. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Spammer, part 2. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked him for a week. If anyone wants to decrease/increase the block, thats fine. Also, I've indefinitely blocked the sock account. Addhoc (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Gracias. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spy89‎ (talk · contribs)

Spy89‎ (talk · contribs) had many sock-puppets that were banned.[60]the user is now active again. He is constantly reverting warnings from his talk[61]. This user is also actively using one of many anonymous IP address such 99.238.149.188[62]. He has now again started reverting my edits, for which he was banned originally,[63] and does not bother to go through what he reverts.[64].I think he deserves a permanent solution.Ajjay (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of assist requested

Could someone come over to Talk:Jerry Springer: The Opera and explain to User:TR Wolf why there cannot be a lengthy synopsis of the show, taken (he says) with the permission of the copyright owner from [65], that may not be edited in any way? I've posted an article RFC but gotten no response; this really should be a no-brainer, but I don't seem to be getting through to him. Perhaps it's just a garden variety of copyvio that should be deleted, but for whatever reason I need a hand. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you not in violation of the 3RR on this page? Rudget. 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Copyright issues are generally exempt from 3RR. Mr.Z-man 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread the comment above. Rudget. 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've made a benign comment on the talk page regarding how it's general practice not to have a quasi "fair use" synopsis, but a user edited one. I know this is an image rule, but it can be extrapolated elsewhere. There is no core policy on this, but the WP:OWN that I see being pushed isn't exactly in wikipedia's best interest. Also, make sure you do not revert war. Wisdom89 (T / C)
Well, yeah, that's why I'm here. Either it's a copyvio or it's GFDL; either it has to go completely or it has to be editable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon block request

User:192.206.119.3 has a talk page with several vandal warnings and they continue to revert information (1, 2) on a bio page that is unsourced and inflammatory. I believe this should constitute vandalism and result in an anon block. Padillah (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are concerned about vandalism from that IP, the first step is for you to warn the user. There are no recent warnings on that talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And that is exactly my point. They are doing the minimum to be allowed to continue to vandalize but not enough to get blocked. Then they start over in a week or two and do it again. They are using a technicality to get away with vandalism. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This IP address is owned by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and I have left a warning that not only will further vandalism result in a lengthy block, but that it may also cause an abuse report to be sent to that company's IT department. The page is also watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And that's nothing to sneeze at. :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You should have seen some of the gags I rejected as tasteless, considering their full product range! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
abuse report to be sent to that company's IT do little. Wiki holds little weight due to 'anyone can send the report'. We should handle all IP vandals the same. If they want to create an account let them, if not sorry.Thright (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

spam email from what looks like wikipedia?

Resolved

FYI: I was browsing through my spam bulk box and I noticed some email that appears to be from the wikipedia server... even when I checked into the full header it still said wikipedia. --CyclePat (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

note: I checked to see if the user name existed but there where no user names of the such on Wikipedia. anyways... --CyclePat (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Some spammers claim to be from Wikipedia. Somehow, they think it lends an air of verisimilitude, but, of course, they are wrong. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Just dont respond, ignore and delete. Tiptoety talk 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
But they say that they have a $1.4 million in unclaimed Wikimedia donations that they can wire to my account if I give them a nominal cut in advance. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well in that case I am willing to hand over my social security number. Tiptoety talk 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hummm... this sounds like the plot behind the Futurama movie Bender's Big Score... Or maybe not... oh the decision to make... the deal is quite tempting and all I have to do is sign over 51% of my business. ;) Best regards, you guys a great. --CyclePat (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't trust Wikipedia to hand me over 1.4 mill in unclaimed donations regardless of whether I paid or not. Nigerians, on the other hand... -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What on earth could you do with 1.4million Nigerians? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsmen?

It may be foolhardy asking this question to a bunch of administrators, but does Wikipedia have anything like an Ombudsmen? Or the equivalent of a Civilian Review Board used to oversee police activity in many jurisdictions? I'm thinking about a person, or panel of persons, who are not administrators and who review administrators' actions on a routine and ongoing basis, either on their own initiative or by public complaint? I ask not because Wikipedia administrators are necessarily a venal and corrupt lot (I hasten to say), but because they are human, and as human beings there is a bit of a tendency to circle the wagons when a charge is made against one of your own. (The "he's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch" syndrome.)

Anything similar to that in Wikipedia's crazy quilt of policy enforcement? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is what you're talking about meta:Ombudsman commission. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but, no, that's not exactly on point. That Ombudsmen is specifically about privacy policy. No, I'm thinking more of a place where non-admins can go to voice complaints about admins if they are abusing their powers. As it stands now (if I understand the system correctly) it's other admins who decide if one of their colleagues has abused their privileges. I'm sure that in many case they look at them as objectively as possible, but I have noticed a tendency for these complaints to be dismissed more or less out of hand. It would be nice to have a place to go where a complaint against an admin (and let me say that I have no axe to grand here, I have no outstanding complaints against any admin) would be given the benefit of the doubt. It's the same theory which leads to civilian oversight of the police, the admins having the policing function in this community. I know the cops don't like that, and I'm sympathetic to their arguments that civilians don't have the experience to judge the actions of the police, but it's the same reason that democracies (at least in the West) generally have civilian control of the military. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I didn't entirely read what you were asking for. My bad.--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thought this: wp:Ombudsmen --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a little closer, but still not general enough. (Plus, it looks like a proposal generated out of a specific animus. I don't wonder it was turned down.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well it's an interesting idea, though I feel it may add another layer of WP:CREEP that is generally unwanted. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that CREEP is really applicable in this instance - that seems more about having too many policies, so that instead of there being a clear-cut idea of what is and isn't allowed, people get to pick and choose which policies they want to invoke based on the outcome they wish to encourage. Yes, I think an Ombudsmen is potentially another layer of bureaucracy, but since its remit should be fairly tightly focused, and its size should be limited (perhaps "civilians" [non-admins] and admins would rotate through it on some sort of semi-random basis so that you're not creating a coterie of anti-administrators), I don't see it as too much of a threat. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
But isn't this what the ArbCom is for, to me it sounds like it but with a narrower scope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeArrow (talkcontribs)
No, I don't think so. Here are some differences as I understand this suggestion: Ombudsmen would be unable to hand out any punishments, so they would have to maintain strong trust relations with admins. On the other hand they wouldn't be doing the daily work of admins, so they would preserve at least part of the pre-admin perspective on WP.
Sometimes things go wrong. Unfortunately not all editors are able to give constructive feedback to admins, and not all admins are able to react in a constructive way when criticised. Ombudsmen could help to solve this communication problem. I would expect them to rephrase any non-frivolous complaint about an admin into a constructive one and to pass it on in the most effective way. I think this is somewhat similar to what we have at WP:WQA. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, yummy. More bureaucracy. If you have a problem with an admin, bring it up here and anywhere else MIGHT apply. It'll get noticed, reviewed, and after a few hours of admins reviewing your edit history, block history, and underwear for stains, will promptly redirect it all into being your fault and ignore the offenses of the Admin till the NY Times runs a story on it. Having an ombudsman will simply create a new focus for their ire. Go ahead and create it, and see how many hours it takes for them to indef block it. ThuranX (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a good thing to do, odds are that you can do it. Wikipedia does many things informally where established procedures aren't adequate, or simply as alternative ways of proceeding. Essentially, if you can find any experienced user who will help you, you have your ombudsman. Non-admins don't have the tools, but some are just as experienced -- and just as widely respected -- as some who do have the tools. Further, administrators are in theory no "better" or "more powerful" than other editors, and if they use the tools contrary to the benefit of the community, they can lose them. There used to be WP:AMA which might have helped. There is, unfortunately, some substantial sentiment here, highly-motivated, that even voluntary, non-coercive organizational structures among Wikipedia editors are to be ... salted. Unless something like this arises from the ashes, what I'd recommend is to watch related policy pages and discussions, and look for a user who seems to have his or her head screwed on straight, and ask that person for help. It could take some time, to be sure, but what's the hurry? Is there some kind of emergency? If so, then this page is, in fact, the place to go. However, as has been noted, if a complaint is about an administrator, there is some tendency to circle the wagons. From some points of view, this is a good thing, but it can tend to become a tad ... inflexible. --Abd (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, Wikipedia:RFC/U#Use of administrator privileges and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration already cover the sort of remedy being asked for in this thread. Vassyana (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think both are far more draconian solutions than I was hoping to find. Not ever bad action by an editor ends in a ban, and not every abuse by an admin should end in de-sysoping. I heartily endorse User:Hans Adler's comments above, his thoughts are very much in line with what I was thinking, and while User:ThuranX's comment is overly cynical, it does represent a common strain of thought on Wikipedia, one that might be moderated if there was a place for people to go to vent their complaints and have them endorsed if they're justified. As non-admins, an Ombudsmen would have nothing but its moral authority to support it, which would encourage it to be fair and maintain good relations with both administators and ordinary editors. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blondi image

Resolved: Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I know administrators noticeboard is not the right place for this, but it is urgent and I found no way to get help other than coming here. This is about an image of Blondi. I want to use the Blondi image in the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany, but the image is copyrighted. The image was uploaded only for using in the article Blondi. I cannot understand if this image can be used in any other article outside the Blondi article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a limited use of copyrighted image comes under fair use rationale. As long as it is used in articles only for the related theme, there will not be any problem. I therefore am thinking you may go ahead with it. --Harjk talk 09:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to be able to write a specific reason justifying why the image is fair use in each article where you want to use it. For example, if Blondi is already discussed in the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany, then it should be easy. If you are using it as a generic picture of German dogs, and Blondi has nothing to do with the issue of animal rights, you probably can't. Add the fair use rationale to the image description page. Thatcher 13:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk messages left by User:Community service

Community service (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) left a sequence of messages to the editors who participated in an AfD that deleted an article he created (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMPACT-Charlottesville). The messages bordered on personal attacks, crossing the line in a message left to me.[66] I've got a COI in the matter, so I don't want to take further action. Can another admin take a look at the situation? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Left WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA warning on this user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
These are threats "I will immediately lodge a complaint with whatever authorities hold you responsible, and if that does not work, your fellow peers. "[67][68][69]--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Got one too. He's apparently having a delayed reaction bit of fuss over the deletion, despite appearing to be OK until his last comment in the AfD where he requested deletion. I understand frustratin but this is a little much TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And he's continuing. I know reporting to AIV won't do anything since it happened more than a minute or two ago and he's whitewashing his page to look innocent, but if somoene feels like doing something....

Has now been blocked for 48 hours which, coincidentally, is exactly what I was going to do myself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd actually just come back here to say I was going to take it to AIV after I saw this to JJL, this to Seicer and this to C.Fred. No great loss on our end I don't think. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv

User:70.83.226.185 is a very obvious sock of Pgsylv, who at the moment is topic-banned from Quebec and Talk:Quebec. Could someone please block for block evasion and trying to circumvent the topic ban? Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one month. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo threatened

An IP threatened Jimbo in this edit. I reverted it. Aleta Sing 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That was followed by a suicide threat from another IP here. Aleta Sing 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the page. Someone poke me in a day or two to unprotect it, or find another administrator to reduce it (I left it as infinite so that move protection doesn't expire). Metros (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert block ignore. Why bother even discussing it here. That is what they want. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

Both blocked 24 hours, but I have seen that wording before somewhere. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo is probably going to file a police report on the idoit that threatned him or ban him indef--Rio de oro (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

American Civil Liberties Union

63.3.10.2 aka 63.3.10.1 is removing material from this article with these kind of edit summaries: 1 and 2. The second IP address is currently blocked. Can someone block the first one? The sock case can be found here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cowboycaleb1 (3rd) Apologies if this is not the right forum to mention this, but since a sock case was already filed in relation to these IP addresses, I figured this was the place to go. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, 172.132.21.169 is now blanking the page & 172.166.112.63 left a soapbox message on the talk page. More socks? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Have blocked 63.3.10.2 to roughly match the duration on 63.3.10.1. The 172.x addresses are probably related to each other (that's a highly dynamic AOL range), but the article's been getting a number of problematic edits from what appears to be a wide variety of sources in the past few days; bearing that in mind, I've semi-protected American Civil Liberties Union for one week. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut & paste move: The Nutty Squirrels

Resolved

Nutty Squirrels (the original) is copied to The Nutty Squirrels, then the source article is redirected to the new one, thus divorcing the edit history from the article. Can someone fix this? / edg 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! / edg 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.222.206.97

72.222.206.97 keeps saying he is going to kill himself on User talk:Nick.

Also, this appeared to be normal vandalism about blow jobs and Silver but upon closer inspection it included threats of racial violence.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. WP:RBI. GBT/C 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That's about the latter IP, in case it's not clear. GBT/C 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Beh-nam

Resolved

The Indefinitely blocked user:Beh-nam is editing using the account User:Jalalabadi. Checkuser has confirmed it Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam though the account has not been indefinitely blocked can someone finish it off. - dwc lr (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. BencherliteTalk 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Westvoja vs. others on Bird and dinosaur

Resolved

Westvoja is repeatedly inserting some text into bird - [70], [71], [72], [73] (plus a look through the history will show some older ones)

On his talk page here, and also that of bird here, editors have tried explaining or discussing, but his reply to Jimfbleak here suggests he is getting angry and will continue against consensus. I was tempted on getting involved but I think a non-involved admin maybe needed here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

....and there goes the 4th revert for today (sigh) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation for a user who is going against consensus and relies on multiple reverts is WP:AN3. Seems like the user has had ample warning/talking to adjust the temperament Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree...I'll post there..it wasn't at 3RR when I first posted, although I think it will persist past a 24h block... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Appears user was blocked following AN3 report; let's see where this goes when that block expires. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Resolved

I've put semi-protection in place on this page for one week - doubtless that's overkill, but there's been enough IP vandalism here tonight to merit protection of some degree, I feel. GBT/C 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to, but you beat me to the punch. Good call. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
To his credit, it would appear that Sean William got there before I did. Thankfully there appears to be no such thing as "protection conflict".... GBT/C 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict x3) Oh shoot, was my protection superseded? I'm surprised there wasn't some sort of edit conflict :). Sean William @ 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just upped it to indef because if the edit protection lapses, so does the move protection, and in a week could be forgotten. Much better to unprotect when things get a little quieter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to also after an edit conflict in the last revert. It's best.— Ѕandahl 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

PoV pushing on Meijer

Ta5172 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding the following statement to Meijer:

Meijer is a family oriented company. Meijer offers workplace protection for all employees. There is no specific protection for homosexuals as they do not even acknowledge the homosexual lifestyle. Keep in mind, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness until the late 1970's by the authority for mental illness; the DSM-V. Coincidentally homosexuals formed a lobby in Washington, DC during the same time period it was removed from the DSM-V.

That is obviously not adherent to WP:NPOV, and I have reverted it at least three times (it's also been reverted a few times by other users). Despite being warned twice, the user accused me of being slanted, when frankly I have no slant either way, and am actually trying to un-slant the article. Persistent re-addition of this information has continued despite multiple warnings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and have a word with the editor. Definitely looks to be outside of NPOV, and it's also not really sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the editor's response to people bringing it up on his talkpage was this diff on Tony's talkpage. Unless I'm misreading it, isn't that a valid reason to banninate per WP:LEGAL? Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
...and blocked indefinite until the legal threat is revoked. I see no useful contributions, and I'm not really sure that Meijer would have a comment to say about their surmised anti-gay policies (like they would come here to back the statements up). seicer | talk | contribs 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Some people's kids. *shakes head* Thanks, Seicer. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad archiving going on at Jimmy Wales

I am not sure what is going on- someone archived the whole page- someone reverted that, someone then cut and pasted some of that into the archive- though the archive appears to have some of the current discussions still left.

Anyway- someone with my experience, please check out the situation. Hohohahaha (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with reverts.

I was directed here by the folks at the Help Desk. I have been trying to edit energy drink to make it less biased against energy drinks. If I understand correctly Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, right? User:Mighty Antar reverts my edits every time I do one to this page. It is very frustrating when you're trying to edit a page and someone keeps reverting it. Please help. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduce referenced material to support your contention that the current article is unbiased and it will not be deleted.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You're both close to WP:3RR and this is a content dispute; I suggest you thrash it out on the article talk page, because there is nothing admins can do here. If that doesn't work, look at dispute resolution or get a third opinion. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion discussion

Resolved

I don't think Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Threats of violence has a snowballs change in a hot place of passing. I would not object if it were closed as such. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Need sysop help to roll back large number of good-faith/badly-executed pagemoves

SGT141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has moved a large number articles on US police departments to new titles in a helpful attempt to specify the state in which each department is located. Unfortunately, the new titles are formatted like this:

San Francisco, California Sheriff's Department

In addition to being more cumbersome than the originals and being grammatically incorrect, that formatting also breaks the official names of the organizations in half, which -- per my understanding -- might have an effect on searches at third-party mirrors. In any case, it doesn't seem to be in line with the standard naming conventions. Most of the pagemoves do not seem to have been done for purposes of disambiguation, but simply for their own sake. I left a message with the editor asking him to stop, but if I remember correctly, doing a pagemove in reverse without borking things up requires administrator rights. Can someone give me a hand to reverse the recent pagemoves in SGT141's log? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 05:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In case there is a need to disambiguate, parentheses at the end could be used, for example: Nassau County Sheriff's Department (New York). bibliomaniac15 05:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In theory your either moving to a new page per Biblio or moving back to where he created a redirect. So if it san entirely new page, the only issue is double redirects, which non-admins can fix or move over redirects Help:Page_move#Moving_over_a_redirect, which AFAIK, non-admins can do. MBisanz talk 05:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Try clicking revert (if you have rollback) on this page [74]. For any it won't let you revert, then an admin would be needed. MBisanz talk 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never gotten around to requesting rollback. Is anyone willing to grant it if I go apply for it right now? (Where did I see that page...?) [edit: Hey, I guess I do have it. I wonder when that happened.] --Dynaflow babble 05:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for rollback ---CWY2190TC 05:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Granted rollback after reviewing history. Just remember not to use it in content disputes. MBisanz talk 05:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start, but my NyQuil has finally started kicking in, so I'm going postpone undoing the rest of the moves until tomorrow. No deadlines, no worries. There's a nasty flu-type bug loose out here, but at least being homebound and away from work gets me in front of Wikipedia again. Thanks for the help everybody, and make sure to drink plenty of orange juice, lest the flu get you. --Dynaflow babble 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

moved to village voice as suggested

Template:Canvassing

This page Template:Canvassing is worrisome because it encourages violation of our canvassing policy. The editor who created it, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) was recently involved in the highly problematic Wikipedia:Delegable proxy proposal under a former username, and was blocked for sock puppetry. I am concerned that we have an editor who is engaged in creative disruption. These serious-looking proposals appear to be wasting time and aggravating the community. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Opting in to canvassing.[75] Accounts that don't write articles and only put forth disruptive proposals eventually need to be restricted. Wikipedia is not a game; it's not a laboratory; it's an encyclopedia. What shall we do about this situation? Jehochman Talk 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the template under WP:CSD T2 ("blatant misrepresentation of established policies"). A template encouraging canvassing seems inappropriate - I'm not really looking forward to hearing "...but they said they wanted to be canvassed to vote in this AfD!" Appropriate notification of discussion does not, and has never, required a template, so it's hard to see any utility here. No comment on the larger issues. MastCell Talk 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What about this userbox? EdokterTalk 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel these proposals are a waste of time, it may help to remember that it is not mandatory for you or any other editor to involve yourself in them; you are free to leave it to others. Incidentally, delegable proxy was designed for just that purpose; so that one user could express the views of many and thus save time, while still allowing each user's opinion to be represented. That particular proposal may not have been the best vehicle for doing so, but there's nothing wrong with throwing out ideas. However, this community seems to be pretty harsh and conservative about that kind of stuff. Granted, the methods used to promote WP:PRX weren't all that great. Anyway, it is clear that you can crush these ideas in a lot less time than it takes me to create them. Moreover, I have little to gain by stirring up trouble for trouble's sake.

Creative disruption usually involves trying to find loopholes in rules in order to cause a negative kind of disturbance. But opt-in canvassing seeks to close a loophole, which is that users can presently communicate on IRC, email, and other off-wiki channels that they have established with informal caucuses, and it goes under the radar. Those who have not had time or inclination to set up effective off-wiki caucuses are at a potential disadvantage, which opt-in canvassing seeks to, at least partially, fix.

In the wake of the likely (and misguided) rejection of that, then it becomes necessary to think of another creative solution. Am I supposed to read people's minds and know what they will object to? I have yet to understand what exactly motivates the community to do what it does in these cases, as the logic I'm seeing does not seem entirely consistent. Abd would say that the motivation is a desire to cling to power, although, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm more inclined to apply WP:AGF. The phenomenon I'm seeing here is somewhat familiar to what I've read about in Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of the People.

The standard process for dealing with proposals on a wiki is WP:BRD (see diagram at WP:CCC. Someone makes a bold edit, and if it's not reverted, it becomes policy. Otherwise, we discuss it. There has to be leeway for creative solutions or we stagnate. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn more about Wikipedia before suggesting further changes to policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a chat room for exploring novel policy ideas, nor is it an experiment in unlimited free speech. Perhaps you want to obtain a dump of the Wikipedia database and download free MediaWiki software so you can build your own version of the encyclopedia with your own rules. It is disruptive to continuously propose large, unsupported changes in many policies. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I support the deletion of the template under CSD T2. This should start out as a policy proposal, not a template creation. It's not clear what problem this template is solving. People understand the present canvassing rules, and it's a troublesome topic. There is no reason to revisit that entire area without an urgent cause. The memory of WP:Delegable proxy is not pleasant, and per User:Jehochman's comment about 'disruptive proposals', editors who we associate with that topic should perhaps avoid the subject of policy reform for a little while. Working in safe areas might be a way to regain their reputation and earn general respect for their work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about this editor. Obuibo Mbstpo seems to like playing devil's advocate and seems to also be an avid WikiTruth enthusiast. See these edits, where he actually used them as refs: [76] [77]. He's also posting this canvassing proposal at many different talk pages and making policy changes in the interest of getting the proposal passed more easily. No offense intended -- but I've already reverted him a couple of times and I don't want to be accused of stalking, so I just want to bring this to others' attention. Equazcion /C 21:24, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

:::Am I really that drunk? Or are there actually double edits above...? GBT/C 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Turns out neither... GBT/C 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There were, that was my mistake :) Equazcion /C 21:26, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the idea Obuibo Mbstpo is the new User:Radiant... except has more trouble keeping his nose clean. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) A possible hypothesis is that he's simply not dutch enough ;-)

Just to note that following the deletion of this template under CSD T2, the user simply went over to WP:CSD and deleted T2, marking it a depracated (without discussion). It is certainly a novel way to go... "If what you are doing falls foul of a policy, unilaterally revise that policy to allow you to do what you want. Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
On Village pump, this same user, Obuipo, proposes a similarly bizarre pro-Myspace class system. See here (subsection). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, I'm no one that anyone has ever heard of to the extent of someone like Radiant. Anyway, I don't mind people watching my contribs; to paraphrase Barney the Dinosaur, "I stalk you, you stalk me, we're a wiki-family. With a quick revert, we're back to status quo; AfD the rest and make it snow!" (Actually, most of my AfDs don't end that way, but I was having trouble thinking of a rhyme.)

Anyhoo, if you want to settle this once and for all, might as well force the issue and take it to RfC, and see what the wider community thinks. I'm going to continue coming up with creative ideas and being bold about implementing them, or at least throwing them out there to get the creative juices going. And the reason I think that's okay is that while it's an encyclopedia, it's also a wiki, and we're screwing it up by compromising the wiki aspect in ways that aren't necessary to preserve the encyclopedic aspect of it. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy, you have to go through proper channels to do stuff; here, you are free to make good faith edits without asking permission, as long as the change you make is easily reversible.

I'm pretty well-versed in Wikipedia's policy, although there's always something more to learn. Then again, You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Ah, Wikipedia. So many paradoxes. Enough that you can claim policy is on your side no matter what you do; or conversely, that you can accuse anyone of breaking it if you don't like what they're doing. As long as the mob's on your side, you're OK. Unfortunately, the mob does not appear to be on my side. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with WIARM and IAR and BOLD, I do not particularly like being called part of a mob. But thanks anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
All well and good. However keep in mind that if we think you're just throwing out ideas for the sake of experimenting, there are things that can be done to put a stop to it, despite you feeling that it's beneficial. Just a heads-up. Equazcion /C 21:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And Obuibo, if you spent as much time making sure your "contributions" to policy discussions were valid, novel, and appropriate as you did to making sure your "barney quote" that you revised a couple of times, was appropriate, you might get a better response. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to get it juuuuuuuuust perfect. However, you are welcome to be bold and improve it. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
OM: You need to realize these people have a point. You're very energetic, but your ideas are missing the mark badly, probably because you don't really understand Wikipedia. The best way to gain that understanding is to participate more in it without trying to change it. You know the basics, I think, but you don't really have a sense of the place. Mangojuicetalk 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
OM: Dude, I figure you have the right idea. You just need to go slower early on, so that you can pick up feedback and respond to it before you get into too much trouble. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there are a couple problems (in addition to my approach): (1) People don't give ideas a chance to be tried, and (2) They take my ideas as immutable proposals that needs to be shut down rather than as something that maybe we can tweak, build off of, maybe take a few aspects of the concept and work with, etc. Obviously most of the stuff I propose isn't ready for prime-time, but I put it out there to get feedback, and people feel the need to MfD it. If you conceal it from view, how will it be improved upon?
But in most cases, people say the basic ideas are flawed. That is pretty much the most common problem I encounter when I try to reform anything, whether IRL or here – people saying, "What we have now is fine." If it's working so well, why are we going downhill? By the way, some people find it objectionable that I quote from Wikitruth but I feel pretty much the same way they do: "Make no mistake, we wouldn't be bitching this much about Wikipedia and Wikipedian failings if we didn't, at the core, love the whole concept."[78] (Right on, brothers!) By the way, I hope I don't come off as shooting the messenger here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think most of your knowledge of Wikipedia comes from WikiTruth (you even created a userbox denoting that, I believe), and their information will obviously be slanted towards the viewpoint that Wikipedia is broken and needs to be changed. So it makes perfect sense that you're immediately trying to make such sweeping changes. As everyone else here has already advised, I too suggest you gain more knowledge from experience first. Wait a while before you decide things need changing. Equazcion /C 22:34, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Users with less experience here than Mbstpo seem to think this. He has the experience. He also has ideas. There are serious problems we have; there is a project Mbstpo started to collect "exit interviews." We can already see, in the parting comments of many ex-administrators (on and off-wiki), that something has drastically shifted. Sweep it under the carpet if you like, but don't complain if the carpet starts to get lumpy. What worked some years ago isn't working so well any more. Edit patterns are shifting, and more and more editor time is wasted in just maintaining articles from vandalism and POV-pushers. It's a losing battle, in fact. Vandalism, easy. Long-term dedicated and cautious POV-pushing, well, from my observations, we're a push-over. All it takes is patience. We have substantial effort going into AfD, and the argument for AfD is based on improving the reputation of the encyclopedia for reliability, but deleting non-notable articles does not improve the reliability of the encyclopedia (particularly as long as they meet WP:V). The reliability problems that harm our reputation are with more substantial articles. And we are not addressing the problem, we haven't even begun to address it. To do so will take structural changes (not, by the way, changes in policy, which is generally quite good; the problem isn't policy, but how policy is applied -- and misapplied). I follow Mbstpo's Talk page, and I'm not seeing warnings of substance. There is no pattern of tendentious editing, no incivility beyond some occasional sarcasm, quite mild by Wikipedia standards. Abd --23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Especially by the standards of Talk:IRV. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, MfDs aren't started in order to conceal things from view. If something doesn't belong on Wikipedia, it's simply deleted. We don't keep things around on the basis of experimentation. Also: No one finds it objectionable that you quote from WikiTruth. But they aren't a reliable source so you can't use them as refs in articles. Plus, this edit in particular is of course not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, as the only point of it seems to be to criticize use of the word, and offers no actual information. It may even constitute intentional disruption, ie. vandalism. Equazcion /C 22:56, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
The intent may not be to conceal stuff from view, but that's the end result. Also, I didn't get most of my knowledge of Wikipedia from Wikitruth; I just happened to stumble across that site a few days ago and was like, "Whoa, this is awesome." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The point applies nonetheless. We don't keep things around just so that people will see it. If it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, it gets MfDd. Equazcion /C 00:29, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

break

I figured this template didn't actually endorse canvassing, and tried to clarify the matter on the talk page, but since it's deleted no one can see those comments, nor do I know if I ever got a response. I wonder if the deleting admin even took the time to read those comments. In a nutshell, this seemed to be a poorly named template that should be used when someone wants to indicate they're not bothered by receiving lots of notices, which is one small reason we discourage canvassing. Besides the name itself, I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourageencourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc.

So I have to ask, are all of you just responding to the name and what you thought would happen, or did you look and see what it actually was? -- Ned Scott 08:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

oops, meant encourage, not discourage. -- Ned Scott 12:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm responding based on the VPP discussion so yes I know what the proposal and template were about. Your comment confuses me though Ned -- "...I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc." -- If it wasn't trying to discourage those negative aspects of canvassing, isn't that a bad thing? Equazcion /C 09:33, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Equazcion knows or should know about the template. But others don't, and will comment here based on the report. What could Ned have possibly meant? From context, it's pretty obvious that he meant to write "encourage" and simply slipped and wrote "discourage." The template did not encourage any prohibited form of canvassing. My opinion was, from the beginning, that the template was a bad idea, not because it would create policy violations, but because it was essentially useless. However, "useless" is a judgment, and judgments can be wrong, and we should give new ideas their day in the sun. If the template was misleading, the wiki way would be to fix it. So I'm getting tempted to DRV this.... I dislike that, because it wastes even more time.--Abd (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, my bad, I meant to say "encourage". -- Ned Scott 12:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. What could we fix about it? As the deleting admin more or less noted, its fundamental purpose is to attempt to violate a policy. Canvassing is just not allowed on Wikipedia. Whether or not the template specifically said canvassing was okay or told people to do it, it's still not appropriate. Canvassing is not allowed even if someone states they don't mind being canvassed. People don't have a choice, to be canvassed or not. It's simply not allowed, at least with the current policies. Equazcion /C 13:59, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
...which you don't agree with changing, either, as noted in your Village Pump comments. The closed-mindedness of this community toward even giving a new idea a try amazes me. I think that despite the problems which are becoming more statistically evident, Wikipedia can coast awhile on its current momentum. But the situation is pretty ripe for a paradigm shift. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to call people closed-minded. The other possibility is that your ideas are just not good. Don't be so quick to judge people -- especially so many of them who all disagree with you. It's not all that likely that you're right and everyone else is wrong. And trust me, I myself am not inclined to agree with everyone else just because I'm part of the community. Take a look at my block log. When I feel it's necessary, I do take a stand, but your ideas just aren't good. Sorry. Equazcion /C 15:34, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
How do you know they're bad ideas? The community won't allow (e.g. in the case of Template:Prob) enough slack for it to be determined whether it works in practice. So it's basically repeated iterations "will not!" "will too!" You just happen to have more people on your side. So be it. You win – kinda. But I think in the end, all this stuff is likely to become irrelevant, perhaps with the application of interwiki subversion branching, so it's kind of a moot point. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say I know it. But in order for an idea to get tried, especially one that would mean significantly changing a current policy, enough people have to agree that it has potential. Without support, there's no reason to try an idea in practice. I don't support your idea, and neither do the vast majority of others who've heard it. It would be pretty counter-productive to try out every idea that anyone happened to come up with. Equazcion /C 12:56, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a little puzzled why an admitted sock of an already indef banned editor is not shown the same door. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The block was lifted, OM has agreed to restrict himself to one account. See his talk page and the note from Jehochman. Mangojuicetalk 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the basic concept a bad idea at all. I've let a lot of people know that I'm always open to their requests for comments, even if it's something I'm not really interested in. As long as they're telling me in a neutral way, and are not telling me because they want a specific response, etc, I don't mind getting a lot of messages. That is assuming that this template was only meant to wave the "spam" portion of CANVASS. -- Ned Scott 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if you read the proposal, as posted in many different places by this user, it will become apparent to you that neutral notifications of RfCs and such are not all that OM has in mind. Equazcion /C 12:58, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Schnabel, Tussen stigma en charisma ("Between stigma and charisma"), 1982. Ch. IV, p. 99:
      [...] de [...] intellectueel weinig opmerkelijke Maharaj Ji.   [...] the [...] intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kent2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).