Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive505

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Navigation boxes[edit]

I noticed that a great huge quantity of articles on my watchlist recently received addition of navigation boxes which I started to remove, then felt a second opinion would be appropriate so I made a query at Canada notice board and CA education task force talk page. I think I am on the right train of thought that a navbox should rather reflect the content of articles within the nav box, and not be posted on any page sort of related to the nav box but don't know if there is a standard protocol in this regards. Instead of a reduction of clutter there is an increase in clutter, as some articles have their original two navboxes in which they were listed, and then sometimes up to 3 more navboxes have been added which are kind of sort of related to the article in question. Education in Saskatchewan belongs to the Education in Canada navbox. Perhaps readers may be interested that math is a subject, but I don't think the article about the evolution and development of education in a geographic area such as Saskatchewan needs a navbox about education subjects generally speaking, which don't come back around to SK. If I am on the right track, is there a robot that can do the reverts, as the original contributing editor of navboxes was very thorough and very extensive with additions. The contributing user has also blanked their talk page multitudinous times, so I haven't tried to diplomatically talk of my view point. Another editor has asked them to stop edits in a different regards but they blank the talk page several times and keep going. Can you read this query, and decide on the protocol in this case? Please contact me if you need specific diffs, as there are many many. SriMesh | talk 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best platform for this, but I use navboxes extensively and my rule of thumb is if it is not in the navbox, then the navbox is not on the article (however there are a few reasonable exceptions). Coincidentally, someone else has this problem, too, see Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Use of Navbox in articles not in the Navbox, unfortunately that resolved nada. My advice, regarding the navbox issue, is to migrate over to Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates, start a new thread and slap a {{RFCstyle}} on it to garner interest from a larger audience. I must refrain from comment on User:Victoriaedwards since I am not an admin, but an admin might want to chime in on that. Rgrds.--Tombstone (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks... have posted this issue at the WP navbox talk page with the discussion starter for folks who want to make comments. {{RFCstyle}}. I have also posted the location of the above discussion on the talk page of User talk:Victoriaedwards as of this time and date. SriMesh | talk 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Main page protection request[edit]

Resolved: Image protected as a precautionary measure. If anyone has a explanation though, that would be greatly appreciated :-) Tiptoety talk 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone please protect File:Samuel F B Morse - Project Gutenberg eText 15161.jpg. Its on the main page currently. rootology (C)(T) 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit because it is transcluded in the following pages (which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled). Please ensure that you are following the protection policy. Looks fine to me. Am I missing something? Tiptoety talk 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you guys slip me +sysop here while I wasn't looking? :D It's letting me edit the image/upload. rootology (C)(T) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't it covered by the cascading protection, or am I being dense? Black Kite 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's letting me edit/upload, apparently, so no...? I protected the ones on Commons already. rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's weird. I've protected it for 24 hours just in case. Black Kite 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It went to hell with MPUploadBot, from what I can tell. neuro(talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Attack on Slim Virgin[edit]

Resolved: Oh look, something better to do! Leave the horse, lads, let's go check it out... Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

83.78.45.8 (talk · contribs) has added very serious attacks against Slim Virgin to the articles Right of asylum and Attacks on humanitarian workers three days ago. Please delete it from the history. Aecis·(away) talk 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT is the right place for this in the future. neuro(talk) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually as I recently found out admins can remove diffs by deleting the page and then restoring it -1 diff. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that, but Oversight can remove it even from the sight of admins. You were right about Oversight, Neurolysis, I should have raised it there. Aecis·(away) talk 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds, we can do that, but it takes some time, is a much larger drain on server resources, and doesn't completely hide it from everyone as Aecis mentioned. There's also the possibility of it being accidentally restored later on. The Oversight team usually works very quickly anyway, so for cases like this it's better to give them a call. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Deleting selected versions (or even oversight of selected edits) gets ugly, tho, if there are intervening edits. In at least one case above, 2 users added material to the version while this inanity was in the article. You'd have to delete those two version too, then I suppose re-add their material with some kind of attribution, or invite them to re-add the material themsleves, or blow off their edits, or.... I'm not sure I see the point. It's not in the article, no one with an IQ greater than 3 is going to believe (or even understand) this babble, and much worse gets left in the history of most articles every day. I'd just blow it off, if it were me. --barneca (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why were these particular attacks oversighted when most other attacks on editors are just removed and not even deleted...?--Pattont/c 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These edits haven't been deleted or oversighted (yet?). Aecis·(away) talk 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to delete or oversight those revisions (as opposed to merely doing an ordinary revert, leaving them buried in the history, like a million other instances of vandalism, many of which include silly attacks on a variety of individuals)? By now, the silly conspiracy theories about SV are well-known enough (they even made Slashdot once!) that fanatical efforts to cover up every last trace of references to them only serve to increase interest in them. Aren't we past that "BADSITES era" now? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"BADSITES"? Jesus, Dan, put down the stick. Nobody said a bloody word about any attack sites, so your comment is entirely out of context here. This is alleged information about an editor who's been slimed numerous times and doesn't need it again. IMO, it doesn't need to linger around here where it can be referred to by some giddy little conspiracy theorists going "Look, I revealed it! I REVEALED IT!! HAHAHAH!" to their buddies. I'd suggest oversight is appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread seems like unnecessary drama and those edits look like normal vandalism to me. The allegations in them are absolute yawners to anyone who's been around here long enough. Per WP:DENY, I wouldn't bother with any response beyond ordinary reversion and vandal templates/blocks unless SV requests it herself. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever action is taken, this thread has exhausted its usefulness. Let's move on, please. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 - Had second final warning today & removing talk page warnings[edit]

Resolved: Took some time to explain things, and everything worked out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The above user has been removing his/her multiple final warning for adding unsourced information to articles. Since he/she is ignoring my warnings, could an admin please take over. Thank you. — Realist2 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And is now playing Mr Incivility. — Realist2 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Now trolling my talk page. — Realist2 04:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm dropping him a note. However, those edits did not merit a 4im warning, and I don't see that you tried to explain anything to him beforehand (edit summaries don't count). Trying to actually talk things over instead of going straight to templates probably would have avoided all this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

Resolved: Moves reverted, users blocked LeaveSleaves 05:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to revert these page moves [1]. Maybe someone can help. Thanks, JNW (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User is now vandalizing under another username: [2]. JNW (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, this comment is enlightening, to say the least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Page moves reverted. LeaveSleaves 04:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And user blocked. Could someone get the move vandalism (1 2) articles? LeaveSleaves 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mario Mendez Olague[edit]

Resolved: Sorted. neuro(talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He's moving pages (purely for fun). Also a sock of User:Faffafefu Ndenison talk 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone got him. Ndenison talk 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem user:202.138.180.35[edit]

Resolved: Banhammered. Please sign your posts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The user on 202.138.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. He vandalized three articles yesterday. And that was after his ninth block expired. I don't know what this guy's motivation is, but his actions are already appalling, based on his vandalism. I've already reported him on WP:AIV, but since his last edit was more than eight hours ago, that won't do. Can something be done against this guy before he strikes again? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 05:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive please[edit]

Resolved: As already stated, the thread will be archived in 24 hours if nothing new has been posted. There is no need to archive it prematurely. Stop making mountains out of mole hills. seicer | talk | contribs 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping unnecessary drama out...

Someone please archive this. User:Una Smith is forum shopping it a number of other places,[3] and it really requires an RfC:user at this point. I tried to archive it yesterday, but accidentally archived the entire bottom half of the page. This does not require an admin, just anyone. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"This does not require an admin" why are you posting here then? neuro(talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Since that section is on ANI, it is actually up to the whims of the administrators to decide when to close out a discussion. If you didn't want it posted, you should have used restraint before posting it on such a public place as this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not the issue. It's not going anywhere on AN/I, and User:Una Smith is posting all over the place, and has plenty of other forums, but is not addressing issues raised in this thread, so its purpose here is no longer served. And, when items stop serving a purpose, editors can archive them. Archiving pointless conversations on Wikipedia is not reserved for administrators.
Make it even more public if you want. However, now that the underlying issue of the move is done with, and the user is not responding to issues raised, it's time to take it RFC. And, I'll be sure to post a link to the RFC here, in public. --KP Botany (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
However, what the heck, don't archive it! Let it roll larger and larger. I'm fine with that. --KP Botany (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, who else would mark it resolved?[4] I no longer request it, so that's resolved! But, I'll accept that it's an ongoing discussion of a request I made that I withdrew.

I withdraw the request. But it can stay here and be discussed as long as needed. No problem. --KP Botany (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked to have the thread archived, and User:Rschen7754 answered that it is up to the whims of administrators to close the thread. Now, he's picking at me about this choice of words, which he introduced. Can it really get more ridiculous than this? This is really happening? I'm being picked on by an administrator because I asked to have a thread on AN/I archived, something that is commonly done.[5]

I'll make sure I post my updates on the thread from here to eternity to see it's never archived.

I don't care if the thread is archived. I asked for it to be archived simply because it had stop serving its original purpose and was now being used to discuss article issues.

I hereby withdraw the request I didn't make to have the thread closed. This is absurd. --KP Botany (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple request, nothing accomplished, except admin allowed to bully editor[edit]

I asked for the thread above to be archived because it was no longer serving its purpose. User:Rschen7754 said it could not be "closed," and said that I should not have posted it in the first place if I didn't want the publicity. I didn't ask for it to be "closed," but rather "archived" like a thread above since it was no longer serving its purpose.

I included a link to the archived page above, and posted a note to User:Rschen7754's talk page that my request to have the page was archived and that is was, indeed, a failure on his part to assume good faith to accuse me of simply wanting it archived to avoid publicity--in, fact, it was weird, not just a failure of AGF. And User:Rschen also said that only administrators can "close" threads on this page.

Now, after I post the link showing how another thread was archived, goes back to saying it's about "closing" threads.

This is just bullying.[6]

How silly. What a waste of time. Yes, I got the word wrong once on his user page, but I asked for something that is done all of the time, and my request was reasonable.

AND, my marking my post above as resolved, since I had withdrawn it was also entirely reasonable.

There is no reason for this petty little bullying, to prove, apparently, that he knows a word that I don't know (archive--my choice, close--his response) by an administrator when someone asked for help.

This is a monumental waste of time just show an administrator can show he's a boss administrator and I'm not. Fuck that. --KP Botany (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting my removal of {{resolved}} until this is dealt with. neuro(talk) 23:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Arrgh. Holy Drama. Leave a thread alone for more than 24 hrs, it will be automagically archived. Just leave it alone, you were simply told that you should not close the thread - you can say "I withdraw it", but commentary can still continue. Really, leave it (I'm not an admin, and nobody bullied you) BMWΔ 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know I can leave it alone for 24 hours and it will be closed. And, so I withdrew my request. See above. But I was told I can't withdraw my request. See above. See his talk page link above.
But this thread is no longer about that issue. It's about being bullied by Rschen7754, and, yes, that's precisely what he was doing. I didn't ask for it to be closed, but he picked at me about using the word he introduced to the conversation. Why? Why did he say anything about something I didn't ask, then pounce on me about it? Yeah, that's bullying. That's precisely what bullying is.
AND, I didn't CLOSE anything. I marked it resolved, which it was, since I stopped requesting it. So, if we get to pick words and say they mean what I mean when I say them and what I mean you mean when you say them.... --KP Botany (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, quit ... you're no longer ahead. Marking something resolved means closing. Really. You're becoming disruptive. You did a fine job with the issue you first brought here... now you're just losing it. BMWΔ 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, I made a simple request that a thread be archived. Now, I'm being attacked about that request, after being joked around with by a bored administrator. When administrator's like Rschen7754 play petty jokes with editor's time for this simple purpose, I suppose, of showing they're an administrator, or they know better, they waste everyone's time.
If you really want to contribute something, don't keep baiting an upset editor, which is what Rschen7754 was doing. I'd like, instead of being baited, and bullied, and shown I know less than someone else, someone to acknowledge that administrators aren't here to bait and bully and bother, but rather here to help things run a little smooother.
So, if you came here to take a poke at me, think instead of a way to cool down an unnecessarily heated. --KP Botany (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...and now he's retired, simply because he didn't understand (or wouldn't read) what is one of the basic rules: don't close your own reports. He'll be Bach. BMWΔ 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for being petty in return. I should not have let the petty digs get to me. It's an aspect of editing Wikipedia that all must get used to: the endless flaming and baiting of other editors when they get upset. No matter how tiresome it is, and how much I wish the community could see how ugly it is, I've been here long enough that I should known that's not possible, and I should have brushed it off for what it's really worth. --KP Botany (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Need protection on page Leland Yee[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue. neuro(talk) 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Admins, I was told to report further incidents of reversion of this page here from the guy on IRC. I need help protecting the page Leland Yee from unregistered users because of reversion of material. The problem with the version which it was being reverted to contains biased material copied from the individual's website and uses it as a valid source. Furthermore the previous article removes mentions of incidents reflect his negative aspects. There is also bias wording and weasel words which gives a positive connotation which is against wikipedias NPOV policy for example:

Dr. Yee has one of the best track records in getting his bills passed and signed into law.

Unspecific referential index When saying the word best compared to who?

--Cs california (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is down the hall, to your left. :) neuro(talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the redirect. But the page was protected twice before so can someone put it on watch list or something? --Cs california (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple account vandalism, promotion on liquor related articles[edit]

Resolved

I'm looking for opinions regarding blocking these (presumably related) accounts for vandalism and promotion in various liquor related articles.

From where I sit, they appear to be the same editor. Eh? --ZimZalaBim talk 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Might you be looking for WP:RCU? DARTH PANDAduel 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't need it. "Quack." Even if they weren't all the same user, they're all being quite disruptive on their own. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else find it funny that whiskeyguy was trying to get bacardi deleted([7])? Trying to take out the competition--Jac16888 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sleepers blocked, IPs hardblocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Quality check[edit]

I'd like administrator intervention here to try and get Quality Check to move away from the area he currently edits in. My first interaction with him was after he tagged one of my pages as a 'stub', something I didn't have a problem with (it was a stub) but after looking through his talkpage and contributions I found a long history of drive-by tagging. While advising that he might be better off with referencing 2-line articles than tagging them for someone else to do I noticed a string of previous warnings, first from User:Beeswaxcandle and User:TerriersFan about improperly tagging articles with prod tags and then from User:Velela about giving people a chance to edit their articles before plastering tags on them. User:KP Botany then followed me with a warning, again about improperly tagging articles and allowing people a chance to edit their articles before going quote 'tag-crazy'.

In light of these repeated warnings and Quality Check's failure to do anything about them I gave him an all-encompassing warning and a pointer that, should he keep creating messes for other wikipedians to clear up and fail to correct himself in the future I would take it to AN/I. KP Botany followed up with a warning of their own, and followed up with a long discussion (and several reverts of Quality Check's wrong tagging) in which it became apparent he was not going to budge on the Matter. User:Nick gave him a warning in the spirit of my own (advising that he correct the problem instead of just leaving it for someone else) [8] here but Quality Check still seems to be failing to understand the problem

Quality Check's response to these warnings has been a mixture of denying that there is a problem, claiming that he will be more careful in future and that he is correct the majority of the time and that that justifies his mistakes (despite the fact that he is only right around one in 20 times.

A discussion between me and KP Botany two days ago ended with us agreeing that we would assume more good faith despite the massive ladles of it already being used before taking it near AN/I; after all, the user is saying at least that he will correct himself in future. Two things changed this; User:Nick's warning and the rather blase response and this, which shows that even if Quality Check is improving with his tagging he is not doing so fast enough to stop creating masses of work for other people. I would like the administrators to step in and get him to stop with his tagging; while I have no problem with him learning how to do it properly and coming back to it in the future he is at the moment damaging more than he fixes, and I cannot see any evidence of this changing. Let him learn how to do it, fine; but let him learn the theory before he moves on to the practical. A phrase I often use comes to mind; one independent user complaining about your edits is a complaint. two independent users complaining about your edits is a dispute. three independent users complaining about your edits is time to question whether you might be in the wrong. When six independent, unrelated users, two of them administrators, complain about different edits and you still refuse to see that there is any kind of problem then it is time for further action to be taken. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think , and generally Ironholds has agreed, that this editor could be worked with, if he could see that he needs to change some of his editing styles. However, he's not really listening right now, and he is creating a lot of work for other editors to clean up after him.
It would be useful if an administrator who has some time could help this user out, as I think he's trying to do useful work,and, more important, would be quite capable of it, as a few of his edits show, but he won't address problems with his work. If there is still a mentor program on Wikipedia, that might be a great way to go. However, he also just needs to back down on some of his problematic tagging. --KP Botany (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I may be erred by adding some irrelevent tags,and that i already promised to be careful about. Please look at my contributions after some user complained about inappropriate tags, to check that my editing style gets corrected or not after that?
All tags are very much useful becuase they instantly alert other editors about deficiency in that page. Otherwise all editors (who check that page) have to scan full page to find shortcomings in that page. No backlog is created at all, otherwise if they are not pointed out by anybody, the article may remain without ref/cat. Also, adding a tag automatically put that page into specialized category of articles with same deficiency. And editors, which have special interest/liking in adding cat/ref can work on them in their free time, without first finding uncat/unref pages. Its not like creating backlog/work for others(as im poinintg out deficiency in that page only) and Im helping to built a good article in my own way. Adding a tag is just a first step in improving the page. Quality check 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It is creating a backlog and work for others; literally in fact, because we have massive backlogs in those areas. Tags have their place, but when an article is two lines long leaving a 'this page is unreferenced/uncategorised' message is useless, firstly because everyone can see that already and secondly because you normally do it incorrectly. Yesterday I had to remove a 'stub' template you'd added to an three paragraphs long. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Quality check, could you please request a different username at WP:RFCU? Your username is probably not allowable under Wikipedia:Username because it could give users an impression of undue authority. Jehochman Talk 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean WP:CHU, Jehochman. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have delayed intervening to allow some time for reflection and, I had hoped, understanding by User:Quality Check of the difficulty and frustration caused by the incessant tagging of articles; especially newly formed articles. This can only occur if User:Quality Check is constantly monitoring the new articles list. I would humbly request that he/she desist from this and only tags articles, if indeed they need tagging, that come to his/her attention through normal editing and navigation activities. I am currently reluctant to create new articles because I can be fairly certain that they will be tagged before I have any chance to flesh the article out. If the rules allow I would have suggested a 48 hour block to allow for some measured reflection on the views of a number of very experienced editors and contributors. I fully support the earlier comments of KP Botany and Ironholds and others in asking for a substantial change in editing philosophy and approach by User:Quality Check. Velela (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Owens[edit]

It's quite rare that a large organization decides that adding disinformation to Wikipedia is part of its mission. Perhaps a block of 129.174.0.0/16 would be in order? -- The Anome (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
this link may be relevant. Explains the hoax and backstory. Not sure what 129.x.x.x has to do with it. // roux   12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd assume it's the George Mason University range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of boldly renaming the article as Edward Owens (hoax) as suggested by User:DGG in the AfD. Ryan should note this media involvement in Signpost. BusterD (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That was helpful, BusterD. Meanwhile this brings to mind the course title How to vandalize Wikipedia for fun and publicity 101. Would they get extra credit for slipping disinfo into Joe the Plumber? Would it build up a CV for someone hoping for a job at MSNBC or BBC? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The possibility of prolonged, organized and supported hoaxing is one serious ongoing threat to the pedia. I have no difficulty with a teacher using this platform for instruction, and hoaxing is a way of experiencing in a somewhat safe environment the arguable joys of creating misinformation, a powerful tool in a media-driven society. I've taken a position on this in the new AfD, but The Anome raises an important issue: should a user or an institution face some penalty for flouting elements of wikipedia policies? The pedia is clearly NOT intended to be an extension of one user's classroom. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Penalty"? Like what, having them arrested? For adding stuff to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Like that case would last 5 minutes in a courtroom, I'm sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The Anome had suggested an institutional ip range block as less harsh penalty. Identified offenders get blocked for lots less. BusterD (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And if that doesn't work, try ringing their doorbell and running away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Season passes to "Celine Dion in Las Vegas" might be sufficient as well. BMWΔ 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
No! Not that! Wayne Newton, maybe. But not that! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have drawn out at least one sock pyrate. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas userbox?[edit]

Firstly,

  1. I'm an admin on Persian wikipedia. There's only 6 admins in total. 110000 users. We're overwhelmed.
  2. This is a userbox on Persian wikipedia. It says: "this user praises Hamas and all its innocent epic creators". It's being used by several users.
  3. Our policies are a direct copy of English wp. I translated some myself.

Question: would you, as an admin, sanction such userboxes? yes, no, why? Would u delete them citing this? I wanna hear your input before making my move.

You dont know how much your input means to me :-) Thanks again.--زرشک (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It kind of depends on what "innocent epic creators" means (I have a feeling it didn't translate so well). Is the userbox divisive? If not, I see no problem with it, but I am unsure whether it is from your translation, sorry. neuro(talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe "The creators of epic events who are innocent"? The word "epic" there could mean many things: war, battle, or something that will always be remembered. We have Jewish users who have objected to this userbox, citing it as a vehicle for terrorists on wp. How do I respond to all this?--زرشک (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I would say that perhaps the userbox could be more carefully worded, but for others to cite it as a "vehicle for terrorists" sounds a little over the top. neuro(talk) 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
On the flip side of that, I don't see how it could help in the building of an encyclopedia. It seems to be a soapbox type Userbox - a political statement, which might be divisive by its very nature. We do allow those on en.wikipedia, but opinion is divided about them. So in essence I'd say the userbox is useless and potentially divisive - but probably allowable. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Perhaps foregoing its usage on the grounds that is not very neutral; whereas there are userboxes that express personal preference, not that many are stating an advocacy of behavior deemed as "naughty" by the rest of the world. Userboxes are meant to serve as a sort of "howdy" to fellow editors; this one seems designed to advocate a political stance that regularly and unilaterally practices violence as part of its agenda. As well, the argument could be made that, because our userspace isn't really ours, using such could be interpreted as an advocacy of such by the wiki itself. Your mileage may vary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how that particular text could be anything but divisive. I guess it is possible to neutrally state support for Hamas, but that is not what it would look like. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but it seems to me if you're going to allow as a matter of policy userboxes praising any political movement or cause, then you should probably allow this one. Put another way, as i understand policy, a userbox that said "i support/oppose hamas" would probably be allowed on english wikipedia. I do agree with others that "epic" doesn't translate well here... while simple support of hamas might be acceptable here, a userbox that said something like "I support Hamas shooting rockets at Israel" would probably not fly because it, at least, would attract so much attention/anger and cause a great deal of disruption.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"this one seems designed to advocate a political stance that regularly and unilaterally practices violence as part of its agenda." The 500 men, women and children killed in the last few days might argue over your use of the word "unilateral". To the OP: It's a userbox proclaiming support of (as far as I understand it) a legally constituted political body that won an election. I might not agree with their aims or methods, but then I don't agree with the aims or methods of the U.S. Republican Party either - and supporters of that are allowed userboxes. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Still, 'epic' seems to be a bit inflammatory. neuro(talk) 16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What a thorny issue! To make sense of the question one has to assume that: (1) Hamas as an organization is problematic in some manner (whereas the Republican Party, for example, is not), and (2) something about the userbox is provocative and goes beyond a neutral statement of affiliation or support. You could argue otherwise, but such arguments are not easily settled on AN/I. If either of the foregoing assumptions is untrue, in my opinion, the userbox is perfectly legitimate and there is no policy question to consider. As a policy matter, does Wikipedia permit userboxes that support problematic organizations in a divisive way? Perhaps not on the English Wikipedia. The Persian Wikipedia has to decide for itself. Although it's free to defer to the English Wikipedia, it is free to decide otherwise. Copying policies verbatim does not have to mean copying the cultural and editing norms that go along with them, or the evolving interpretation of those policies that results. My inclination is to think that although the userbox does not help build the encyclopedia directly, affording editors some safe ground for self-identification humanizes the process here, and the editing process requires tolerance, understanding, and mutual support all the way around, including acceptance of any good contributions from editors with real-world political positions one vehemently disagrees. The userbox adversises a likely bias on articles having to do with the subject matter, but announcing one's biases is not necessarily a bad thing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
On en.wp, the applicable rules are WP:UP, which prohibits "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" on an user page, and also WP:NOT, which prohibits the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy more generally (as also enunciated in several ArbCom decisions). On that basis, in my opinion, most non-humorous userboxes stating support for or opposition to real-world political groups, but certainly any organization engaged in armed conflicts (as here), are not allowed. In practice, however, such userboxes appear to be tolerated except in egregious cases.
I did forcibly remove a Middle East userbox once (also about Hamas, I think), which gave rise to some discussion here (it's in the ANI archives somewhere), but as far as I remember there was no consensus that I acted wrong in doing so.  Sandstein  17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read much of the above (prob. should have, but tl;dr), but we have had similar issues with nationalistic userboxes. I believe the general idea on the last discussion I recall (it was a rather jingoistic FYROM userbox) was that user boxes should a) Have something to do with the project, or contain information people might want to know if they're looking for someone in a particular field AND b) Not piss people off. If a userbox was missing either, particularly the latter, it was at risk of being removed. If it was missing both, it should have been removed yesterday. In this case, it's a borderline for a) (useful) and definitely violates b) (offensive). If I recall correctly, Hamas was considered by the world press to be the more radical group in their last election, and their party has been found to be at least partially responsible for some of the constant fighting in that region (trying to stick to what I know are facts here, don't fully understand the situation nor do I care to). To call them "innocent" is probably wrong and certainly provocative towards those on the other side of the fence, and possibly even some in the middle. I agree with the comments above that this being a vehicle for terrorism is over the top; it's not advocating violence directly. That said, I'd ask the user to reword it to something along the lines of "This user praises Hamas" (and leave it at that), and if they refused, remove it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you decide to keep the userbox, consider moving it to a user subpage. That way you avoid giving the impression that the userbox is officially endorsed by wikipedia. Rami R 18:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fawiki doesn't necessarily have to follow enwiki's example on userboxes or (most) other things. enwiki had an enormous war about userboxes a couple years ago that you might be familiar with. The end result was that userboxes were split between template space and user space, reflecting a compromise between editors who felt that userboxes should be used only for encyclopedic purposes and an entrenched boxcruft culture that filled userpages with userboxes as cutesy-poo self-expression (so much for WP:NOT MySpace). If you don't already have a culture like that, your best bet may be to do what you can to prevent one from getting started. Btw, why can't you promote some more admins? Again though, enwiki is not the example to follow; its RFA process is totally broken. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


  • The Nazis were a legally constituted political body as well. I wouldn't consider a "this user praises the Nazis and all their innocent epic creators" userbox Kosher (d'oh). I don't believe the Republican Party has organized the suicide bombing of innocent children - but in the offchance that they have, I would recommend that Republican Party userboxes, like Hamas userboxes, be removed. Badger Drink (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Userbox policy here is essentially identical to userpage policy. They're not supposed to be a venue for political or social soapboxing, merely a descriptor at most. Also, they must not be inflammatory or divisive. Thus, while "This user thinks the glorious martyrs of Hamas should crush the Zionists into dust." would be disallowed, "This user supports Hamas." would have a much lower likelihood of offense. Still, just remember, the idea here is to minimize created drama. Typically if more than one established user are upset enough by a userbox to complain, the box should simply be summarily removed. Problem solved, no muss no fuss, everybody get back to editing. It only gets dramatic when pointy drama-mongers who make obviously divisive boxes are allowed to scream "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" when they're asked to delete it, like you're stealing their right to vote or something. Precedent now seems firmly in the camp of "if it's not useful, it's gotta be harmless". Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Fiantres - block needed[edit]

Resolved: User warned and personal attacks deleted

Given this edit summary — Could one please take appropriate action? :) Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you? You're an admin aren't you? No one will get upset if you block just because he mentioned your name. Majorly talk 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I warned the user - it was pretty out of line but not worth an out-and-out block as far as I can see. Of course, if he continues, then a block would be justified. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Well, having just seen Majorly's comment and neither your warning at the talk page nor your comment here Lankiveil I have just blocked that account — also for this edit. Do you want me to unblock again? — Aitias // discussion 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Eyh, it seems rather unsporting to block someone without any warning whatsoever. I doubt that he's going to contribute constructively, but neither am I so convinced he will that I'm really going to press for an unblock. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC).
Okay then. Unblocked. — Aitias // discussion 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's funny to see a guy writing about a kiddie song and then swearing like a sailor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted all but the last revision of the page above and its associated talkpage to remove the personal attacks in the edit summaries. The user has been blocked, unblocked, and warned, so I'm assuming that this is resolved. For now, at least. —Travistalk 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy. Again. (redux)[edit]

(This looks like it was inadvertently archived by the bot while unresolved. It should probably be addressed, as failing to do so will only encourage the bad behavior to continue or - heaven forbid - allow it to blossom into yet another AE complaint.)



Sorry, I did try to resolve this with the user without success. DreamGuy (talk · contribs) is again reverting edits without discussion, and using edit summaries as platforms for personal attacks. As per this edit:

"sick of my personal stalker following me around to undo noncontroversial edits... funny thing is then he removes one of the most notable cultural refs (successful novel series) and keeps utter dreck"

This is despite the fact that DG has made a total of four edits to the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the earliest of which was on October 6th, 2008, and three of the four are reverts. I would point out that the accusation of wiki-stalking seems unfounded, as I had begun that article over six months earlier, and have made 6x more edits to it.
Were this the first instance of this behavior, I'd simply shrug it off as someone having a bad day. Unfortunately, this is something that happens (and keeps happening) in most of the articles that DG edits, as his user talk page (including those bits he likely finds a bit more embarrassing and removes) would seem to indicate. The user is currently under AE civility parole, which has been extended again and again, as the user is considered a net asset to the project. I submit that these benefits to the project are diminished by shutting down those other editors who grow weary of being exposed to DreamGuy's thick layer of hostility and rudeness. In the past, his incivility and personal attacks have chased away new editors. The current resurgence of uncivil and unfriendly behavior is of precisely the same sort that led to the user being placed under ArbCom behavioral restriction in the first place.
I did attempt to address this behavior in a civil fashion on multiple occasions recently during the Annie Chapman image discussion (1, 2) before he deleted the section as "serving no point". As well, Jack the Ripper, and his usertalk page (3), where he deleted it again with yet another PA edit summary, an action which prompted my posting here. I am certainly not the first to have had unhappy interactions with DG, but I think I've done everything civilly possible to defuse the behavior he seems to reserve for anyone who doesn't share his exceptionally narrow worldview. He reverts and edit-wars without discussion, and it just keeps happening over and over again in any article he touches.
I would remind the noticeboard (for the three or four people unaware of his status) that DreamGuy is currently under behavioral restriction by ArbCom, reinforced by AE on a few occasions (to be more civil in his dealings with others). Looking at the edit summaries of DG's contributions over the past month, I am not sure this civility parole is being followed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the contrib history of Scarlet Pimpernel, and confirm Arcayne has previously edited the article since April of last year and DreamGuy only since August. I have therefore warned DreamGuy regarding both his edit warring and inappropriate comments regarding Arcayne and suggested withdrawing from editing the article. I have not reviewed Arcayne's other concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
...aaaaaand this was the response. I have left a further comment, but I suppose that it will be reverted similarly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne has a long history of wikistalking, so to tell me he is not is simply wrong and showing a recklessness in taking action. Furthermore it's completely inappropriate for you to just tell me not to edit the page in question. Admins don't just say that editors are not allowed to edit. Before you give lectures you need to make sure you know what's what. Inisting on putting a warning on my talk page despite knowing that I said you were misinformed isn't particularly helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has a well-demonstrated history of personal conflict with me and also for wikilawyering to try to get his way, including misleading reports here and to ArbCom. Quite often he shows up here and gets some well-meaning but inexperienced admin to jump in and do whatever he wants because they do not take the time to examine the full facts. He knows he is banned from my talk page, per my instructions and warnings from several admins, so claiming he is trying "to resolve this with the user without success" by posting there is complete nonsense. He is not trying to resolve anything, he just blind reverts my edits on any article he happens to be on with misleading edit comments, often with statements to "see talk" when he didn't put anything on the talk page... in fact he quite regularly on Jack the Ripper says to "see talk" or "per talk" or claim no evidence was ever given for an action when he has deleted the discussion of the article talk page (calling it an archive, but doing so so often that current discussions go away). I would caution anyone seeing this to not fall for Arcayne's little tricks as others have in the past. Shows editors agreeing that Arcayne has been harassing me, that people complaining are trying to game the system, etc. and there is more evidence as well. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw after this comment - but someone who has edited an article since April 2008 cannot be "wikistalking" (isn't the term de joure "wikihounding", anyway?) an editor who started editing an article in August of the same year. Also, as far as counting back the months go, as I have been a sysop since May 2007 I am a little too long in the tooth to be termed "inexperienced". Nevermind, it doesn't seem as if you are interested in statistics where it does not suit your agenda. Best of luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be part of my "little tricks" to point out that the section DG linked to is almost year old, and he has been blocked three different times since then for the same sort of behavior which prompts this complaint? I would also point out that of the three editors thus posting to this section, only DG has been blocked - less than a year ago - for "gaming the system". Anyone who blocks him is "inexperienced"; anyone who disagrees with him is "blind-reverting". No one is saying DG is stupid - a block log as long as his suggests that he does bring something to the table here. I am pointing out that I have been accused of wikihounding in an article that - by all accounts - it could be more convincingly argued that DG began visiting the Pimpernel article less than 15 minutes after reverting an edit of mine in the Jack the Ripper article (1, 2). Do I like the user? Clearly, I don't, for reasons that are a part of the record. However, I am not being hypersensitive to the accusations of wiki-hounding, as they tend to (pardon the pun) tend to follow a user around. The disproven accusations by DreamGuy, coupled with his recurring uncivil behavior seem to communicate a need to curb the user's behavior somewhat further; the behavioral restrictions don't seem to be working as well as they would with most other folk. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Some insight would be dandy here, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Allegations by DreamGuy are just that. Admins are likely to ask for proof, in the form of diffs, before imposing sanctions, or believing allegations. The first diff from Arcayne does look like a textbook assumption of bad faith, but I'm not seeing enough here, from either party, to justify sanctions. I'd really like to see both parties attempt to get along better, but that may just be my inexperience showing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
DG and Arcayne are long-time antagonists, and I doubt that any resolution of their feud(s) is possible. It might be a good idea, though, to focus on article content rather than personal disputes; try getting the relevant articles into mediation or some other form of dispute resolution. If everyone participates in DR and the article improves, everyone wins (yay!). If one editor refuses to participate in dispute resolution, the subsequent course of the article usually shows who's editing constructively and who's editing disruptively. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not only Arcayne, DG remains an 'equal opportunity' incivil editor - as this edit comment shows - made while this thread is still active. DG has a significant contribution to make to wikipedia, but he really needs to rein in his impulsive urge to put down everyone he encounters (including myself). I wouldn't accuse either party of wiki-hounding - they're both very active editors; and sadly will bump into each other.
I surmise that DG will continue to reject any attempts at mediation and dispute resolution - as he did here (where he makes a statement that "[I] as a matter of policy refuse all such filings" (it should be noted that when a suitable authority was finally brought in to determine the matter, he was in fact proved right).
What I find infuriating is that if he did take other editors seriously then these matters would not drag on for so long and the project would be enhanced, rather than damaged. DG will continue to push the boundaries of his editing restrictions. How that's dealt with is beyond me. If he continues to ignore editing restrictions on civility, then there is only the 'big stick' left. For Arcayne, I'd advise patience - as exercised when dealing with any 'savante'; for DG, I'd counsel tolerance of other's fallibility. Kbthompson (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stereotypes of Jews[edit]

I need a sanity check here, and I'm clearly involved and biased. This article was recently nominated for deletion, though the nomination was just withdrawn. A list of mostly unfavorable and completely unsourced stereotypes was the main body of the article prior to some major trimming as seen here. The list was then moved to the article talk page, with the rationale that it might be useful. Do we keep random, unsourced, largely derogatory lists generated by one user on article talk pages just because they might have the potential to be useful? If I'm being reasonable by removing the list from the talk page, I'd really appreciate another administrator coming in to help. AniMatetalk 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible list. And I am not sexually frustrated. LOL. Seriously, it's not sourced, it's like a random list generated from the mind of DCvoice. It's not like it's very useful. Hell, I could create a much better list, without thinking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. [9] [10] [11] [12]. He's also aware of this thread. AniMatetalk 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"Toxic"? That's funny, travb. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wow, big surprise, your block log is even longer than my rich block history.
Again, can I reopen the AfD, or create a new one? travb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Utterly irrelevant -- and ancient history. Again, this is about the project. Try to focus, Inclusionist. deeceevoice (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Wow, reality check on aisle four, you guys. I read this, and the whole time was thinking, "seriously?" It's not just the insane amount of drama it has stirred up- which is usually wherein the problem lays (lies? I dunno no grammar, I'm just a JAP). Here, it's the "content". A list of [negative] Jewish stereotypes is utterly unencyclopedic. Ignoring for a second all the discussion on the talk page and looking solely at that list- what possible use could that be to anyone? I'm not saying this shouldn't be discussed- but it's covered fairly well... and properly cited! over at Antisemitism. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Deecee has anything but the best of intentions and sincerely wants to help the project, good faith is not a qualification for the inclusion of material. The list is bad, consensus appears to be that the list is bad, content guidelines even say the list is bad... and Deecee needs to let it go. l'aquatique || talk 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

zomg but ur jewish ur not neutral. But seriously; the list is pretty bad. Hence why my justification for voting deletion was "duh". Sceptre (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As a young white southern Protestant American male, I find the list pretty bad. --Smashvilletalk 04:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that people are talking about "original research" and "bad" lists. I've just glanced at the list, and I saw entries such as Jewish-American princess, Shylock, Nice Jewish boy, and Jewish mother. Perhaps the people who are talking about unsourced stereotypes should expend their efforts not on edit warring over a list on a talk page but on addressing the entire articles in article space that we have on these things, and their sources. Some perspective is obviously needed. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Textbook case of WP:OTHERCRAP. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This isn't a deletion discussion and the above is not an argument about deletion. It is, however, an suggestion to gain some perspective and focus on the articles, rather than on edit warring over a talk page. Have you not paid attention to why this section was started? This is the administrators noticeboard, and editors have come here to complain about an edit war on a talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody like to convince me not to just speedy delete this crap G4? I have reviewed the deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/Stereotypes_of_Jews that were deleted with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews and I am not at all convinced that this page "address[es] the reasons for which the material was deleted". --B (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

by only including links to actual articles about notable stereotypes it avoids the admitted "free association" that were the fault of the original article. As I !voted keep at the afd just now, I obviously think G4 inappropriate. DGG (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (paraphrasing my AfD comments): I can envision an academic essay easily, and an encyclopedic article without too much trouble (Shylock, South Park's Kyle, Woody Allen, Max Davidson... that's just the pop-culture crap off the top of my head) - but this article is not academic, encyclopedic, or even a useful stub. Seems to be Ms. DCV's reaction to an article on African American stereotypes - check the first edit summary, which pretty much solidifies this speculation. It wouldn't be the first time DCV has been a bit... headstrong, to put it mildly. The whole sequence of events has shades of American politics in 1984. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not already in the article, don't forget about the horns and stripes stuff. Also, are there pages for other ethnic stereotypes? For example, the joke about Italy anytime a war breaks out: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered!" And then there's the one about the Arab tank and the Israeli tank colliding. Tell me if you've heard that one before. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So it was the 1967 war, and these two tanks collided, and the Arab jumped out and said, "I surrender!" and the Israeli stayed in his tank and cried, "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...the minister ducked. --Smashvilletalk 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"Jesus saves. Moses invests." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
And these are all funny how? So, we can make Jewish jokes, because of what reason? Please explain. Replace the Jewish reference with "black" or "African American", everyone would have been blocked. This is insulting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I used to live in Alabama...my roommate introduced me to his girlfriend, his aunt and his sister...I only met one person...badumbum...I'm here all week...tip your waitresses, try the veal...--Smashvilletalk 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the pork chops might be a better choice for this particular evening... Wink l'aquatique || talk 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness...here's the thing about this article...it reeks of the sort of thing that would be on ED. --Smashvilletalk 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So a standup comic starts a story: "Two Jews get off a bus..." A guy in the audience objects, "Hey! Why does it always have to be two Jews? Why couldn't it be two Chinese?" The standup says, "OK, two Chinese get off a bus. One turns to the other and says, 'So, tell me, Chan, how was your son's Bar Mitzvah?'" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess I prematurely closed the 2nd AfD for this article. I reopened the 2nd AfD and merged the 3rd one into it, as someone suggested on my talk page, and on the 2nd AfD talk page.
I will be very happy when this incident is all behind me, and I can return to helping serious editors save articles. travb (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The rationale behind your closure was solid. The rationale behind turning this thread into another Baseball Bugs yukfest.... not so solid. AniMatetalk 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I see there are many "Stereotypes of..." articles, and I suspect they all have sourcing problems. Good luck with all of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The irony of all this was that both me and Animate voted originally to keep this article, and I fought very hard to keep it.travb (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: is Deeceevoice still on probation? The motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice was never rescinded. Sceptre (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but decided against bringing it up. These articles are all hogwash in my opinion, and getting them off Wikipedia is more important in my mind than any further sanctions against Dee. Besides, after her behavior on this and other "Stereotypes of..." articles, there will be alot more eyes on her. If issues come up again, we can worry about enforcing the ArbCom case then. AniMatetalk 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Like this? Ethnic_slur This is like a directory to surf through a number of articles, and a "things to do" list for more, much of which is apparently frustrating DCVoice, and all of which should give anyone pause, regardless of the "too pointy" argument.Steveozone (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban - needs outside attention[edit]

After reading the findings in the case Sceptre linked, this kind of disruption is exactly what the case was designed to prevent. I propose as a solution, in accordance with remedy #7 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, "Deeceevoice is indefinitely banned from creating or editing "Stereotypes of ..." articles, or any similarly themed article which may be created as a successor." Deeceevoice explicitly stated his/her intention to create disruption - see [13] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites. The latter is infuriating and shows in no uncertain terms that the purpose here was to disrupt. This ban is rather light, really. Thoughts? --B (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. So, the only groups I checked were "Jews" and "White people." Interesting -- don't you think -- that at the time those were the two articles conspicuously absent from the list? deeceevoice (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support I don't think someone should be allowed to purposely upset a bunch of editors to make a WP:POINT like this. I think any and all of these types of stereotype articles should be speedily deleted if they haven't been already. Racism and bigotry should have no place here at this project. This editor seems to go out of the way to stir up drama as shown by the difs provided. I would go as far as to say an indefinite should be applied if there is any further disruption. If I remember correctly from the last ANI with this editor, s/he used their talk page for WP:Soap and ranting. I know I am very upset with all of this right now so please excuse me if I am over the top on this issue. I agree in total with the comments made by others about this and esp. with the comments made by User:Orangemarlin. He was very upset too. I was furious at the comments made when he stated he was shaking "in anger". I'm sorry but this project is more important overall then to allow this kind of hatred to be allowed anywhere. Sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - If this editor has been enjoined from creating disruption and has done so in the guise of this article, then the editor should clearly be at least banned from creating/working on articles regarding stereotypes. I find the current article to reflect strong anti-Semitism and feel the current the article on that topic sufficient. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I support a total ban, given that Deeceevoice hasn't learnt from her history of disruption, but if that doesn't give, I'll be okay with a topic ban. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support In her quest for parity, dee has forgotten one of our core policies about original research. She wrote two offensive articles based on her perceptions, and edit warred to keep her observations in the encyclopedia. I actually agree with her feelings to a large degree, but the way she's handled herself isn't conducive to collegial editing. As an aside, I'm not sure this discussion is even necessary, as the remedy states that any administrator can ban dee from articles. AniMatetalk 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is not necessary, but I still think it is a good idea for it not to be a unilateral move. --B (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Seeing as I considered enacting the remedy and decided against it due to my involvement, starting this thread was probably a good idea. I'm fairly certain, however, that this is going to be seen as more systemic bias from the evil Wikipedia JewsTM. AniMatetalk 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (topic ban or long-term block / warning against disruption on such pages). The editor is deliberately provocative, and continues this behavior despite a block, ongoing dispute, arbitration case, etc. In other words, they are engaging in ongoing disruption and not being reached by normal warnings or blocks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Given she was nearly fully banned a year ago, and her continued disruption here, I support a site ban. If there's not consensus for that, I certainly support a topic ban, which I think has enough consensus here for an uninvolved admin to enact. seresin ( ¡? )  07:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The list returns[edit]

After coming off of a 24 hour block for reinstating her list onto the talk page of Stereotypes of Jews, deeceevoice's first edit was to reinstate the list, albeit with references.[14]. Some sort of action needs to be taken here. I'm quite tempted to enact the topic ban myself, but I think another longer timeout is needed as well. I'm too involved, but something needs to be done. AniMatetalk 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's block was for 3RR, not for maintaining a list of stereotypes. DCV is trying to use the article's Talk page as a workshop to improve the article, including collecting sources, and I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
When someone repeats the same revert immediately after returning from a 3RR block, there is something wrong with that. But regardless of that, [15] and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites demonstrate in no uncertain terms that Deeceevoice's purpose is to troll. --B (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a deliberately provocative move. Not only is the list unnecessary, it's offensive. I can spout a bunch of racist bullshit and then go find sources to back it up, but that's not encyclopedic. It's offensively bad original research and she needs to cut it out. AniMatetalk 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the list, with explanation. It's certainly provocative and only serves to continue any dispute / drama / disruption. I did not have an opinion until now, but at this point I think a loger-term block and/or topic ban is in order. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's back. I think blocking for disruption is appropriate at this point, but I think an uninvolved admin doing so would be best. seresin ( ¡? )  07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week owing to disruption. I think a longer block should also be talked about now. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was also uninvolved till a few hours ago. Gwen and I go way back, but, unusually, I disagree with her and don't think that a longer block should be talked about now.
I have not looked into the charges of edit warring and the like. I realize that edit warring even with "GF" (etc) is a bad thing and can merit a block. For all I know, Deecee may have warred or otherwise been disruptive to the point where the one-week block that Gwen gave her was richly deserved.
Yet some of the allegations made against her seem wrong. In particular if the list referred to above in "Not only is the list unnecessary, it's offensive. I can spout a bunch of racist bullshit and then go find sources to back it up, but that's not encyclopedic. It's offensively bad original research and she needs to cut it out." is the list of Jewish stereotypes in a diff pointed to at least twice by Gwen on Deecee's talk page, then I strongly disagree.
I agree that Deecee has deliberately regurgitated what can fairly be described as racist rubbish. (Philosophically, I'll limit bullshit to meaningless use. This stuff, alas, is meaningful.) I read it. It's largely sourced. This of course does not make its substantive content any more convincing. It remains mere rubbish, and the sourcing merely means that we have reason to believe that this rubbish has existed, and perhaps still exists, and may be encyclopedic.
I think that most people here, perhaps all, will agree that racism, however repellent and/or depressing it might be, merits illumination and is encyclopedic. Well, racism comes with racist stereotypes. It's a very long time since I did (desultory) reading on the sociology of stigma, so I'm not going to pontificate on the relationship between racism and racist stereotypes. Let's just agree that there does seem to be a relationship. If there is indeed a relationship (and conceivably even if there isn't), then racist stereotypes themselves merit illumination and are encyclopedic. Of course this kind of material has to be handled with care, and Deecee may have been careless or even arrogant about it and may deserve censure for that. But the impression given by some comments both above and on Deecee's talk page that she added offensive material because she believed it, in order to offend or disrupt, or just for fun, is utterly unlike the impression that I get.
Some sort of mediation or similar might be a good idea. (I'm not offering my services. Mediation isn't my thing, as I quickly get impatient.) Or at least some cooling off. And a few truckloads of "AGF", for both sides. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware, I had thought a longer block might be fitting before I had talked with her at length. I unblocked her when I began thinking her edits were made in good faith (they may have been original research with sources tacked on later, a flawed way of building content) and am not now supporting a block. I've stricken my comment made yesterday, as to talking about a longer block. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that you've changed your mind and that you unblocked her; thank you for this, and I appreciate the very measured word "flawed", which might be more polite than a term I'd have used. Let's keep on in this direction. -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef block for disruptive editing[edit]

I count about 20 blocks on Deeceevoice that were not overturned. Per the section immediately above, I am blocking would have blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing. Enough is enough. If they want to edit again, they need to show that they are going to change their ways. These revolving door blocks have not worked to control the extensive pattern of disruption. Jehochman Talk 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale got there first with a one week block. I'd suggest upping it to indefinite. Jehochman Talk 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd support an indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I support the week long block, but the indef may be overkill. There's an arbitration remedy in effect that states dee can be topic banned by any administrator. Topic ban her, and let her get back to editing productively. If she chooses to break the topic ban, an indefinite block is always an option. AniMatetalk 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That case is three years old. A lot has happened since then. Modern ArbCom rulings have sanctions that last a maximum of one year because the Committee recognizes that circumstances change. Jehochman Talk 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If the remedy isn't enforceable, I'm still not sure I support an indefinite block, though I certainly won't oppose either. I just hate to lose a committed editor, and some of her work outside this area seems good. Still, she's clearly on a crusade and has been for some time, and crusaders make terrible editors. Meh - I'll let other editors figure this one out. AniMatetalk 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I support the indefinite. The editor comes back from a 3rr block for this same list and immediately goes to the talk page and put it back is looking for drama and disruption. An indefinite looks like the only way to make this stop already, enough is enough. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I also support an indef. Discounting the block log and the previous arbitration case, the hoopla surrounding this article merit a long wikibreak; adding in the block log, a ban is totally appropriate. Horologium (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and think that Horologium's term "hoopla" is telling. Yes there has been hoopla. Yes Deecee has been strident. I think (I don't claim to know) that she is angry, and I think some of the anger is a reasonable response to mischaracterization of what she has done. While I do not claim to know what's going on inside Deecee's head (or Crohnie's, or maybe even my own), I find it very hard to believe that she "is looking for drama and disruption" (Crohnie, above). So an appreciable amount of the hoopla has been drummed up by those who say they have been offended by her edits. While I don't say all have been OK or even that she shouldn't be censured, I do say that certain edits have been misrepresented. I've expanded on this in the nearby section on arbitration enforcement. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No, Hoary, not angry. (Why is it that everyone assumes Black women are angry? ;) Impatient/fed up with the ongoing systemic bias of the project? Most certainly. deeceevoice (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

Sanctions levied under an Arbcom case should be discussed here. The relevant remedy is "Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_bans_or_blocks" Those considering an indefinite ban may consider the middle ground of a year long block.--Tznkai (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have closed that thread because I think it is unfair to enforce a three year old decision. We can act as a community on the basis of the evidence before us. This matter does not seem excessively prone to disagreement. I'd support a one year block instead of indefinite, though I'd hope the editor would return sooner by undertaking not to use disruption as an editing tactic. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. One reason I went into such a long thread with her after the block is that I'd like to unblock way before the week is out, if there is any way which might be had to stop the disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked Deeceevoice. I think I made a mistake. In talking with her and reading comments on her talk page from uninvolved editors, I believe she has been editing in good faith and given this, while there has been some disruption, I don't think a block would be called for unless this thread were to resolve with that outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether she is blocked a day, a week, a year, a fortnight, or anything else, the topic ban ought to be implemented. I don't care about a block personally - I care about stopping the disruption. A topic ban at the very least is necessary for that. (A block might be too ... but that's not the problem I'm trying to solve.) --B (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If there is disruption at a topic from a given editor, I'd rather see a topic ban for that editor than a block. That's a general principle but it applies here too. Do we have consensus that there is disruption at this topic from this editor? Is it likely to continue? If yes and yes, then I suggest we implement a ban. If you (gentle reader) think not, please elaborate why not... ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Lar. It seems a much better idea to remove dee from the areas she disrupts than from the whole project. She's a good editor, but her crusade gets in the way far too often. AniMatetalk 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: the penultimate sentence, above, should be " If yes and yes, then I suggest we implement a topic ban."... I neglected to include the word "topic" and I want to be crystal clear that I'm inquiring about that, not an outright ban. Sorry for any confusion. Plus, I got to use penultimate in a sentence! ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I stay neutral for now. I haven't looked at the general charge of disruption yet. However, a significant part of the alleged disruption seems to be the alleged dreadfulness of some of what Deecee has added. I have looked at what appears to be a particularly contentious edit (as Gwen pointed to it twice on Deecee's talk page) and disagree that it's dreadful. So I think that Deecee's behavior has been significantly and unfairly mischaracterized. See my further thoughts in the section above; I shan't repeat them here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's been pig-headed revert warring in of poorly sourced (racist) material against consensus after being blocked for the same and asked many times not to do so by many different editors. I can't say that's worth a ban or extra-long term block -- since Gwen Gale unblocked she has not reverted it in yet again; blocks and bans are to prevent disruption, not to punish editors for unpopular positions. Still, we should be firm against creating this kind of drama by adding racist nonsense to the encyclopedia. This could easily be kept in a sandbox or on someone's personal computer until and unless there is sourcing. Many, many editors asked that this not be put on the talk page Wikidemon (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No. It's been a determination to see that the normal editing process be allowed to proceed unhindered. It's already been stated by at least two admins that the removal of the list from the talk page space was improper. I was in the process of writing an explanatory intro to the list and its reappearance and asking that it be allowed to remain until I could take the matter to the AN/I, when the block was enacted. I figured that the substantial documentation I'd added and revisions in the list were sufficient such that the revised list wouldn't be regarded as merely an intolerant screed or edit warring, but, rather, an attempt to accommodate others' expressed concerns about it and providing a useful tool for others to use in the framing of the article. (If I'd thought it was edit warring, would I have shown up at the AfD and announced that I'd just reinserted it? I mean, really.) My bad, I guess, for expecting it to be received for what it was -- a further attempt to improve the list of ideas and sources for article, taking into consideration the concerns/complaints expressed about it.
But on to a, IMO, far more important/useful matter: Just what about the list in its entirety (yes, there are some entries I haven't yet taken the time to document -- and likely won't for a while; the article isn't a main focus of mine, and I've got a seriously heavy work schedule for the next week or so) Wikidemon, is "poorly sourced"? And since when is it required to provide citations in an article talk space for the a list of suggested inclusions in an article, anyway? It's amazing to me that people are pretending that I pulled the items on that list out my a**, that they're fabrications of my imagination -- instead of part of a pattern of historic negative (or positive, in the case of flattering stereotypes -- also included in the list, I might add, as well as suggested countervailing information/sources) bias against Jews -- or characterizations perpetuated by Jews themselves (as in "the spastic Jew" -- Jerry Lewis and Howie Mandell's early stand-up routines and Michael what's-his-name's character, Kramer, on "Seinfeld." I'm asking the question about the list, Wikidemon, because I really want to know. What's your beef? deeceevoice (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've returned to say that I appreciate the time taken by Gwen Gale to discuss and reconsider her block. That was a pleasant surprise. Perhaps there's hope for the project yet. Perhaps. But I'm not even going to address the matter of sanctions. I've said everything about this I have to say here, at the AfD discussion, and in my exchange with Gale in my talk page space. deeceevoice (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks as well to those who supported the lifting of the block. deeceevoice (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's admin bot[edit]

Resolved: No one cares. John Reaves 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved: People care. 65.4.33.66 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is running an unsupervised admin bot on his account, and has been doing so for awhile now. I generally have no problem with admins running bots on their accounts to do mass deletions and other mundane tasks, but unless MZMcBride has been sitting at his computer nonstop for days on end, he is doing so without reviewing any of the work the bot is doing. Also note he was recently blocked for such behavior.[16]. Cheers, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's time once and for all to decide whether what he is doing is appropriate. I'm not bothered whether he is using a bot or not, it's whether it's right or wrong to be deleting those pages. Majorly talk 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)I don't see any non-stop contributions, or anything to make me think that they are running a bot on their account. Am I looking in the wrong direction? neuro(talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at his deletion logs. Majorly talk 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The deletions seem to be fine, per a few discussions at WT:UP (which lead to WP:OLDIP) and Wikipedia talk:CSD#Deletion of old IP talk pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c x2)Ah, right, deletions. I've seen other admins (well, to be honest, I've only seen MZM and east) doing this though, so I can only assume that there is some policy I am missing. neuro(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst such actions may not be disallowed, what are the reasons for deleting them? neuro(talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That's very likely a script but I don't see anything too worrisome about the deletions. One does like to see an IP's talk page history but after a year, any hints it may give have likely gone way stale. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Without getting off onto a tangent, whether it is a fully automated script or a bot is mere semantics. MZMcBride has been deleting thousands of pages for several days straight now, without the slightest bit of supervision (I stopped looking at the 48 hours/several thousand mark within his logs). That, IMHO, is the problem. I also don't see any benefit to deleting these pages, and I like (yes, like) being able to see the talk history of the IPs I use. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion about whether deleting them is right or wrong doesn't belong here, and I've already linked (above) two discussions that have resulted in the understanding that there is no real need to retain these pages. As for the "script" versus "bot" and whether or not it is "unsupervised" - we can only speculate at this point. Not seeing an issue here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's the fact that WP:BOT#Bots with administrative rights is rather specific on this issue. Could you point me to the WP:BRFA where this task was approved? Thanks in advance, 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, but I can point you to WP:BURO, and more important in your case, WP:SPA. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
SPA? Honey, if you don't like unregistered users, you best find another project. My IP changes on a daily basis, and sometimes several times in one day. Yesterday I was 65.4.33.178 (talk · contribs) and 68.17.180.54 (talk · contribs). Prior to that, I edited briefly as 68.159.168.71 (talk · contribs). So, with all due respect, I suggest you either contribute to this discussion productively or not at all. And as far as BURO, we have an admin running a bot on his account, who has deleted over 5000 pages within the last day alone, with no real approval or consensus for him to do it. Asking where the task was approved is not bureaucratic bullshit. 74.226.9.42 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I already provided links to two discussions where the task of deleting these pages was deemed acceptable, honey. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
With that said, after all the effort we went through to get the admin bot policy up, is there a reason MZ doesn't just create a bot account, get it approved, and stop all the complaints? It seems to me that that would solve most of the issues here. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Notified MZMcBride about this thread. » \ / ( | ) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Generally, if a "bot" is acting up, we disable and ask the owner, correct? If this is not a "bot", it's harder to disable. The owner has been asked to comment, and we await such. Deletions can be rescinded (or is that "bee" rescinded, after all the honey talk, or did I just bumble my way into that?) BMWΔ 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't know any better, I would think this IP were my sockpuppet... Down to the same way of saying 'admin bot'. Needless to say I agree with the IP, if (and I don't believe this to be the case) MZM is running a bot, and not a script. The difference being that bots are unsupervised, and take action on their own accord, whereas scripts simply go through a list and stop at the end. Prodego talk 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a real wonder that people hate this board when nobody bothers going to my talk page first.... This has been discussed in three (maybe four?) forums (fora, if you prefer) already. I have no idea what more you want me to say here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that is a sign that things more constructive than padding your delete count should be done... John Reaves 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Which then leads me to wonder why we care about anyone's delete count in the first place. If this action has been deemed acceptable in the past, and there are no concerns about the actual deletions, then I see no issue here. Resolute 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the deletions were wrong so I don't see any action that we need to take.--Pattont/c 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a general acceptance that admin bots have their uses even if there's not a well developed policy about them. I'm more concerned with this mass deletion of old IP talk pages. It's simply not the case that they contain nothing but warning templates etc. They are used for discussions about article development that are relevant to the encyclopedia, just like talk pages of enrolled user accounts are used for the same thing. Because of dynamic address assignment, non-enrolled users change IP addresses from time to time so they tend to leave a lot of old talk pages if they stay around long enough. The mass deletion is inappropriate. I've used a lot of such pages over the years and would really prefer that they be kept around. I've left a comment at WT:UP about this. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 208.x.x.x. What's to say there's not useful discussion on one of these pages that might one day be useful to a future editor? ...following a link from an article's talk page, for example? MZM's criteria do not check for such things. Furthermore, what's the point in deleting them anyway? Doesn't save space... (actually takes up more space, yes?) Deletecountitis?xeno (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
User talk:89.242.215.88 is a good enough reason for me. -- lucasbfr talk 15:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
So we pander to IP users who lack reading comprehension? From the page: If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Wouldn't simply blanking the page, or having mediawiki time out the orange bar after a period of time also work? –xeno (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You can make it blinking red, people still won't read it (and don't see the date). And for one complaining, you got dozens just as angry who feel they are being unfairly accused and leave. Blanking would still pop up the orange bar, and I don't feel removing the orange bar altogether would be better than deleting (on top of being yet an other low priority development that can be avoided with tools at our disposal). I am not thrilled by the deletions, but I think in the end there are more benefits than drawbacks. -- lucasbfr talk 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Blanking would still pop up the orange bar..." - That's quite incorrect. A bot (with the bot flag) will not cause the new message bar to pop up when it edits a talk page. 65.4.33.66 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You'd still have the orange bar because of the non-bot message/warning that was left there a year ago :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I didn't think about that. I still don't like the deletions, and there has to be a better way. Would it be too much to ask MZMcBride to halt the deletions while this is discussed? 65.4.33.66 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of award/warning.[edit]

Resolved: No. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An administrator who recently came under some fire for their bad decisions is now compounding this by engaging in an edit war to remove their Colberry. I would like their page locked so that they can't engage in an edit war to cover up their previous errors. Spotfixer (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer has returned from his block to troll my talk page.[17][18] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Calling me is both false and uncivil. I reprimand you for violating WP:UNCIVIL and demand an apology. In addition, you must stop edit warring on your own talk page. Spotfixer (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Users may wholesale remove anything from their talkpages except declined unblock requests during an active block. I suggest you drop the issue and walk away. //roux   03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Spotfixer blocked 48 hours for incivility and trolling. Considering he just came off a block...the post was extremely uncalled for...taking it to ANI pushed it over the top...there is no reason whatsoever for those edits to ever be appropriate. --