Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive509

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

Noticeboard archives



Violation of wikietiquette, stated "Zenarh, go fuck yourself" "Nazi pig!" [1] PRODUCER (TALK) 16:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Given notice, and final warning. This account has a documented history of gross verbal abuse that will land this editor with a block for future occurrences. Let me know if it occurs again. seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
A lucky escape for him - I was filling in the block reason form (having taken a few minutes to find and read the previous ANI episode) when I checked back here to see that Seicer, to whom I am more than happy to defer, had already dealt with it. BencherliteTalk 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What am I supposed to do when the guy insults me in such awful ways? (LAz17 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC))
Rise above it? Walk away? Raise a Wikiquette query? Certainly not the above. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You certainly should not respond with the same types of insults that are directed towards you. That action will result in you being blocked, which does nothing to help your situation. The best thing to do if you are insulted is to first remian calm, next try discussing it with the editor in question on their talk page, asking for clarification/refactoring the offensive statement without attacking or insulting them. If that does not produce any results (it IS worth a try though, even if you think it won't work it shows good faith on your part) then you can bring it to a noticeboard such as WP:WQA, WP:RFC, WP:ANI etc. The point is even if the other editor was offensive and baited you, if you rise to the bait you are more likely to be the one blocked, which I assume you don't want considering you are still on Wikipedia and editing the encyclopedia. Whenever you have a conflict the best thing is to walk away and cool down, as editing when you are angry will just land you in trouble, and will make others focus on your behavior, rather than seeing the editor you have a conflict with as the problem. Good luck. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any rules against baiting, so that the baiter can be punished? (LAz17 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC))
Not specifically, but if you really can't ignore such behaviour then you raise a Wikiquette alert or start a User request for comment, where the community will decide whether the actions were indeed baiting and hopefully work out a solution to the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I will just add that even without having been directly involved in any disputes, I think it is a problem that baiting is so often allowed to slip by. In my opinion, in the case of a heated dispute the person who makes a baiting comment should face the same blocks, restrictions, etc. as the user who rises to the bait with "f-off" or some such. However, this is simply my opinion, as I am not even an admin let alone in charge of Wikipedia, and my above comment certainly does not mean I condone incivil comments in response to provocation, just that the provocation should be dealt with as harshly as the incivility. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Baiting another user to provoke a policy violation may be seen as gaming the system (WP:GAME) which I believe is solid evidence of bad faith, which in turn can lead to an indef block. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Before we go any further with this, would LAz17 be kind enough to show us the baiting of which s/he is complaining? Reviewing the conversation in question, I see this from LAz17, which is obviously highly inflammatory, to which Zenanarh responded with this, which I'm not condoning, by the way, which earned her this from LAz17. Unless I'm missing something, I see a Serbian user provoking other editors saying that half of Croatia belongs to Italy, to which the response is predictable, to which LAz17 unleashes a foul-mouthed volley of abuse. Exactly the behaviour that the WP:ARBMAC restrictions are designed to eliminate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user granting himself unblocks[edit]

Resolved: It is not unlikely that other issues will arise with this editor but this particular issue is resolved; marking the discussion as such.

Pretty self-explanatory.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does that really work? I think I'll grant myself adminship, and shrink any wikipedia evildoers down to little tiny gnomes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Barneca has it handled. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) If he screws around again, I'll protect the page. If he resumes edit warring when the block expires, he should be blocked 2 weeks. Or a month. Or indef. --barneca (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Editor might have been hoping the template would trigger the software to unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That's called faith-based editing. You could mess with him a little bit. If he tries it again, extend it again. If he tries to BLOCK himself, shorten it a bit. He'll think HE's doing it through reverse wiki-psycholoy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of filing a WP:SSP case against the editor in question since I strongly believe him to be a sockpuppet of banned editor Brexx. Brexx has previously placed unblock notices on his own talk page, see this. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 15:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that you are right. I knew this all seemed familiar.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) New unblock request reverted, talk page protected. Jesus, he just needs to keep his pants on for 2 stupid hours. Part of me wants to extend the block for disruption and general lack of clue, but... meh. I have grave doubts about his editing behavior when the block expires, tho. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barneca seems to be away from his desk. He protected Away From Home's talk page until December 21, when I'm sure that he meant for the talk page protection to expire on January 21 as the same time as Anywhere But Home's block. I tried to leave ABH a message, and could not.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it now, sorry, I'm an idiot. --barneca (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't even know that you could do that. Thats funny.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And it starts again. Series of edits by ABH with bad punctuation and spacing, I caution ABH about punctuation, HalfShadow removes the bad edits, and ABH reverts the edits without making fixes.Kww(talk) 19:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is a separate topic from a blocked user using his talk page inapropriately. Also, HalfShadow's rollback was an improper use of the tool — ABH's preceding edits might not have been very useful to the article but they're not blatant vandalism. The original issue in this report is resolved, I suggest this discussion be marked as such. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
True. I also fail to see how this merits inclusion in ANI. So the user has a problem with periods at the ends of sentences. Fix them and move on, It might have saved time, but I don't know why the entire edit was reverted.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue with behaviour is edit-warring: restoring changes you have made that other editors have objected to without discussion or correction. Perhaps tangential to the report title, but not tangential to the behaviour that lead to the original blocks.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Edit warring and proving to others that you are a difficult editor to work with -- by continuously making typographical errors, misspellings and so forth -- results in a diminished working environment for others. We are not cleanup crews; if the user cannot spell or even adhere to basic English grammar and punctuation, then by all means, play in a sandbox until that user can comprehend what we are driving home here. seicer | talk | contribs 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec to Kww)Well, let's make sure we carefully pick our battles here so that we're not marginalizing real concerns in the process of accusing him of anything and everything. HalfShadow's rollback was inapropriate and ABH (regardless of whether or not he proves to be who I believe him to be and regardless of any other editing concerns) has full rights to revert that rollback since his edits were not vandalism. Furthermore, the onus is not on ABH to start discussion about the reverted rollback, it is on HalfShadow to explain his use of the automated tool to undo multiple edits without discussion. ABH may be doing 1000 things wrong but this is not one of those things, he had every right to revert that rollback. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I had thought he'd since been blocked. Given his antics thusfar, I thought I was helping to clean up: RBI and all that. My mistake. HalfShadow 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping/Sockpuppet[edit]

A case of edit war was presented at WikiProject Football (see here and, as i, upon a careful look, saw a familiar "face" emerging, added some info (

That edit war between user PauloZin (User:Paulozin) and an anonymous user is not new to me, because the anonymous user is none other than BRUNO P.DORI (, banned for disruptive editing, which consisted in enlarging football players' infoboxes needlessly, only working in that area. He was duly warned (see here and finally indefinitely blocked.

I recognized, before and after his ban, more than 30 (!!) anonymous IP with the same disruptive pattern. Here is a sockpuppet list ( Another pattern is that he engages in no talkpage discussions, does not respond to messages and, in over 1000 contributions (all IP added), has not written one single edit summary, none, immediately re-reverting actions that have been reverted (Three-revert rule constantly violated), inclusively leading to some articles being protected (example here As stated initially, when i referred to the edit war between Zin and Dori, see these examples retrieved from Dagoberto Pelentier's (football player) edit history (continuous reverting of article, no edit summaries whatsoever, with lots of the aforementioned anonymous IP from BRUNO P.DORI appearing, see here Finally, that article had to be protected too (see here

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any activity in the past two weeks by any of those listed IPs? The last date I see is January 5th. Tan | 39 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner, ongoing sockpuppetry[edit]

G'day. As a relatively new editor I'm requesting assistance with Nurse practitioner which is being targeted by a very persistent user via various socks. Recently some were blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrse. Two more suspected socks popped up and I reported them, though it seems I may have done so incorrectly by clicking a link on the archived investigation case which added a section. I would be grateful if someone could keep the page watchlisted for a few days as I suspect my inexperience may just make matters worse. Cheers, Basie (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected the article, which will at least slow things down and increase the work cost of creating more socks. I also went ahead and blocked Ewalsh842477 (talk · contribs) as a pretty obvious sock of Nrse (talk · contribs). I'll try to keep an eye on the article as well. MastCell Talk 00:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a weight off my mind. The user counter-accused me of being a sockpuppet, which even though obviously spurious makes it a bit dodgy for me to continue to revert them. Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over that. :) MastCell Talk 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another PoliticianTexas sock: DianaRuiz[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Protonk. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DianaRuiz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is probably a sock puppet of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short). PolTx has generated several dozen known sock puppets; the last was TrentZee (talk · contribs) who was blocked 04:35, 19 Jan; the DianaRuiz account was created 00:30, 21 Jan, and over a period of 6 hours edited 10 pages, many of which have also been edited by PolTx. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence. Some more specifics:

How about a block on this editor? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:DUCK I'd say.--Atlan (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nicely laid out info; I'll go block now, if it hasn't been done already. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, would have posted here earlier but I was called away from the computer right after blocking the account. I've seen a few PolTx socks around and this fits the editing patterns pretty well. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IP hopping/Sockpuppet - UPDATE[edit]

(Before anything, please check item #26 in this page)

Also before starting my commentary, i would like to make it clear i am almost sure this is not the right place to insert it, it is just where i last reported.

It is clear i am treated with absolutely zero respect by people dealing with these matters of reporting (before i could understand it, since i "sent" 2 or 3 reports without having registered; now i have an account). It's about the 3rd or 4th time i report vandals and receive absolutely no commentaries whatsoever. Not even constructive stuff like "please address this or that area, this is not the right place, or construct your sentences better, with this or that input", nothing. I know what i am saying because most reports are addressed within minutes of being inserted. This last one as only been "sent" yesterday, but my last three have been in their respective (hopefully, i am not sure) fields for over a week, and have not been worthy of one single commentary.

Ok, rest assured yours truly will not bother you anymore. I have a couple of wiki-mates (including one admin, whom has incredibly helped me in the past in reporting/blocking vandals, SATORI SON (, and will thus try to deal with vandals in my own meager means, contacting with these people when it is in order.

Sorry for any incovenience (obvious there were plenty), keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Vasco. Here is the feedback you asked for. You must have noticed that Pasd08 has been indef blocked as a result of your report, so you are getting some results. A few points:
  1. Please don't refer to ANI cases by number (as in 'check item #26 on this page') since the numbers change every time a section is archived.
  2. Complex sock cases are not quick to resolve, and in your last complaint about Bruno Dori, you did not even give the IP address that you suspected was him.
  3. You left one complaint about Dori at the *Talk* page of WP:AN3, where it doesn't belong.
  4. If an alleged sock is edit-warring, and you are willing to tabulate all the diffs to prove it, you can submit at WP:AN3. This is quick if the case meets the requirements.
  5. You should get familiar with submitting at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, which is the best place to handle things like the Dori case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin impersonator[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. —kurykh 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not technically vandalism, but Your Principal (talk · contribs) is claiming to be an admin on his user page. I removed it once, he replaced it and called my edit vandalism. It seems that all of his edits are personal attacks on other users in notice board discussions. Very strange, an admin should probably have a look. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This one sent my spidey senses tingling. Checkuser showed Your Principal was the latest in a string of sockpuppets from JIM ME BOY. Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice catch, Raul. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Betacommand socks[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks (archiving comment, discussion on subpage has been archived for two days Fram (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Question on suitability for speedy deletion[edit]

Cheetah255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have several articles under construction in his or her userspace sandbox. Earlier today, Justiceiscoming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) created the article Caitlin's Way (video game) as a crude copy-paste of the visible text at User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game).
Cheetah255 indicated to me that he or she did not desire that that subpage be released into article space at this time, and expressed a wish to more or less re-userify the article. Since cross-namespace redirects are out, that's more or less tantamount to requesting the deletion of the article. Would this article qualify for a {{db-author}} from Cheetah255, even though he or she wasn't technically the "creator" of the article space article, or should the article just be PROD'ed or taken to AfD? --Dynaflow babble 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as a copyright violation, since there was no credit given by Justiceiscoming to the original author (which is needed for GFDL purposes). BencherliteTalk 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, its source in the other user's userspace was attributed in the original copy and paste version, so it wouldn't really be a CSD G12 case, but I guess it's all the same in the end, as long as this deletion doesn't unfairly prejudice the article's chances once the real author decides to recreate the page to float his or her final version in article space. --Dynaflow babble 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like I came in too late, but assuming GFDL requirements had been met, here's what I would have recommended:
Politely explain the situation and ask Justiceiscoming to db-author the article. If he does not, there's not much that can be done: The article must be treated on its own merits and AFD with a recommendation to merge its edit history into User:Cheetah255/Sandbox/Caitlin's Way (video game)'s is probably the way to go. If it's a "pure" copy and paste then there's no need to merge edit histories, just recommend deletion. If the outcome is "keep" then merge the edit histories anyway, but leave it in article space. By the way, if all editors making non-trivial contributions agree to an outcome - delete outright, merge to userspace, merge to articlespace, keep both, or whatever, then IAR/CONSENSUS overrides the need to do AFD. I think this is called WP:COOPERATION. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think Justiceiscoming should be told this is not done. People keep drafts in their userspace for a reason. Unless you've contacted them and they agreed to make the article live, it's best to assume the article is not yet ready. - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

An old "friend"?[edit]


Might want to check out Chris G molests young kids. (talk · contribs)--King Bedford I Seek his grace 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleepers and IP address have been blocked. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism spree[edit]

Resolved: All done. Thanks. Doulos Christos (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posting from WP:AIV. (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) on a vandalism spree. Thanks. Doulos Christos (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user creating multiple attack accounts[edit]

Should this be possible? BencherliteTalk 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Answers own question) Aah, account creation wasn't disabled in the original block. I've blocked the first few of the new accounts, but have to run. Can someone finish? BencherliteTalk 12:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Should be cleaned up a bit more, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


The user creation log

I don't know what this user's aim is, by creating two accounts, but most of his posts are discounting legalities created by a capitalist government, and his contributions only consist of articles relating to that. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I do not see a constructive contributor here. He is also using wikipedia as a forum to note, or discuss how a capitalist government, such as of America, is bad, re: But since most people live paycheck to paycheck, if they lose their job they're "starving", especially if it takes months or years to find another job, if ever. And don't argue that there is welfare, soup kitchens, etc to help feed them, because that's not the right way to keep people from starving. There is such a thing as lying through omission of such data because someone doesn't want too many people or nations to think that anyone in America has ever starved to death. Most people in other nations would be shocked to hear that America has ever had one homeless person, much less millions, & especially children sent west on the Orphan Trains.

Please weigh in.— dαlus Contribs 09:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One edit per account outside talk-space, and both edits seem OK-ish (adding a link to The Landlord's Game to Renting and adding a link to Hooverville to Ghetto. I'm not necessarily seeing an unconstructive editor - possibly they just need tickling with a clue-stick? I've not looked at their talk-page comments; I'll take it on trust that they're soap-boxing and agree that this needs reined in. [Disclaimer: not an admin, politically biased towards this editor (even if they to my right ;-) )] Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(Both now welcomed (thanks, Dougweller); I'll continue to monitor their contribs. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
All I can think of right now is "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! MuZemike 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You should be thinking of Life of Brian, splitter. Huh! Holy Grail indeed! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio advice[edit]

Is the Stu Ungar article a copyvio of this? Or vice versa? I see no mention of Wikipedia or GFDL on the zimbio website, but I do see "Some rights reserved" at the bottom. Am I wrong? (For the record, they are exact copies of each other) ScarianCall me Pat! 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That article was posted "Sep-23-08 4:05pm", and the history of our article predates that, so I think it's safe to say that it was copying us.-Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well technically, they were copying this... but I believe the same logic still applies.-Andrew c [talk] 15:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In the future, you may want to go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.-Andrew c [talk] 15:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did consider going to the noticeboard earlier but it doesn't look particularly active. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken infobox?[edit]

Why isnt the skis section showed in this article: Arthur Khamidulin. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because if the "club" field has no value, then the "Professional Information" section doesn't display at all, even if a value has been given to "skis". Incidentally, the infobox has been moved to Template:Infobox_Ski_jumper , so when you're fixing it you might like to update the reference. GbT/c 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, questions like this are probably best asked at the help desk. GbT/c 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elplatt (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

OK, this is spreading over too many venues. There are now plenty of eyes on the talk pages and no admin tools are needed at this time. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been regularly trying to add a list to Children of alcoholics and previously Adult children of alcoholics. Several other editors have tried reasoning with him, please see the talk pages of both articles, Please consider a block, I think a temporary block might be not only in the interest of WP, but the user too. FWIW, I think Elplatt has made useful contributions on other articles. Thanks --Richhoncho (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • His most useful contribution right now is to propose merging those two to a single article with some actual content. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Not quite, it was my suggestion to merge these 2 articles and a different editor who suggested the 3rd article. This user created Children of alcoholics to get round the arguments relating to an earlier article. Here's just a sample of the reverts, would also be useful to read the edit summary and talk pages. [2][3][4][5][6]--Richhoncho (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved here. But at the moment this user is unilateraly edit warring against consensus on talk, and defending with wikilawyering about needing a "policy reason" to exclude material that most people see as irrelevant to the subject and questionable under BLP. I've tried to reason with him, but I'd ask that some admin who is uninvolved in the content issue look at his behaviour and warn/act as appropriate. Also, can someone uninvolved keep an eye on the editing here. See here and study the various threads on the talk page for context.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You're right, I was wrong. I have left the user a warning. Any repeat and think a block is in order. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Guy, the wisdom of Solomon. Let's hope this is enough. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the user in question. I would like to make a few points here in my defense.

As you've been told constantly, the "appropriate avenue" is discussion on the talk page to get consensus. However, at the moment you are the only editor who believes that this material belongs in the article. Make your case, but then respect the consensus. It appears that some editors have BLP concerns, whilst others question the relevance of the material, but none agree with you that the material belongs. If you want to change that you need to persuade, not edit war or wikilawyer.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't resort to name-calling. I am open to discussion, but you and your friend have only responded by repeating that you don't think the list should go in, without giving a valid reason. --Elplatt (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As some who has used the words "sockpuppet" and "dishonest" to describe other editors and called me a liar on this page - even to the extent of emboldening the word, I don't think you are in a position to complain about name calling. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have stated that the material is not relevant. You disagree. So, we see what consensus says. At the moment it clearly favours exclusion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Elplatt, it looks like you believe that there is some kind of "burden of proof" on those wishing to remove material. That is not, and I think has never been, policy here. As it stands, several editors have voiced opinions, but only one supports inclusion of this material. If you are not happy with the consensus that seems to exist, you should follow dispute resolution to try to more clearly establish what consensus is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Continued IP hopping abuse[edit]

Resolved: Semiprotection applied

See this archive for the previous discussion on this vandal. Diffs of vandalism by seven different IPs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. swaq 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected Porsche 911 two months. If this fellow gives up sooner, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
How will we know when/if he gives up? ;> –xeno (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is disappointed that anons can't contribute to the article for that amount of time, they could ask for temporary unprotection and see what happens. Also it's regrettably possible he will develop an interest in other articles, in which case a LOONG rangeblock might be considered (not just 1 day). This range would only be, so making it a long block could be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK/Next update inadvertently protected[edit]

Resolved: Will leave it move-protected. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Template:Did you know/Next update page has apparently been accidentally protected through cascade protection. I tried to unprotect but as I'm not that familiar with cascading protection and how it works, it didn't work. Can an admin with more experience of this function please unprotect the page? It shouldn't be protected, as many of our updaters are non-admins. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about {{Did you know/Next update}}, the template is transcluded onto User:Ameliorate!/DYKlock, which has cascade protection. I would contact User:Ameliorate! to find out why it is protected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ameliorate has retired from the project. What I'd like to know is why this has suddenly happened, since Ameliorate has been gone for some weeks and AFAIK there have been no recent changes to relevant pages. I guess as a short term measure I could change the protection level of DYLLock, but I have no idea what ramifications that might have. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I removed the cascade protection from the DYLLock page but the Next update page still appears to be protected. I really don't know what else I can try. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The page is still protected from moving [9] but not from editing. I logged out and was able to edit the page. I would recommend leaving the page move-protected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template conversion needed[edit]

Would anyone be willing to convert the final six uses of a template at this TfD? I am about to close the debate but must step out shortly and don't have time to do the conversions. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.png Relevant discussion atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.
Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering. :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on wikipedia must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article[10]. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009
I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you take no exception. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?
The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.
A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff [11]. She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
See my talk page at [[12]]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell Talk 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on wikipedia - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. [13], [14], [15] Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. [16] The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka[edit]

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too.[17] See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Wikipedia. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with Swatjester on this. Also, this is a sad issue and the rhetoric is getting far too lofty. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Probation[edit]

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua?!? 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Wikipedia policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell Talk 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Definition of "uninvolved administrators" from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." I think "on the topic" means actual article content disputes, which Elonka doesn't seem to be engaged in on these articles. On some of those lists, Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Arbcom ruling says, "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." She has been in a current, direct, and personal conflict with me for a few months. During that time she sent a threatening and defamatory email to me, which I published on my user talk page. Certain individuals who are protecting her deleted it. I've forwarded that email to Arbcom, which is proof that she is an involved participant in these matters. I think she should be immediately desysopped.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calls for desysopping are really helpful here, following from the principle that any kind of call for someone's head based on participation in a hotbed subject is generally unhelpful in solving the problem. Also, OM, deletion of published emails on your talk page is less related to anyone trying to "protect" Elonka, but more that a) we don't publish private correspondence on Wikipedia for several reasons (copyright being not the least of them) and b) It falls pretty squarely under the purview of what Wikipedia is not.) This is not to say Elonka is blameless or anything -- I really don't know because the whole series of events is so mindnumbingly complex it makes my brain hurt. That being said, I think we could do to lower the anger level from everyone here. SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing[edit]

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here [18]. Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

Since my name's being invoked here and there, a word of explanation. While I've been rather busy lately and haven't been involved much, my watchlist which is far too large attracted my attention to this edits by Elonka.[19] While it makes a reasonable point about participating more on the talk page, it comments on using twinkle to revert and then adding a request to the talk page for protection, and says "what you did could be considered disruptive." Since the request for protection explicitly pointed that out,[20], the suggestion that it was disruptive appeared a stretch. On the article talk page replies to Elonka's suggestion of sanctions proposed that retitling be sorted first and that an "uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a 'tag team'", so I made suggestions for possible retitling to discuss while the page was protected.[21] [22] When Orangemarlin added a comment, Elonka responded that she was not involved and had no personal conflict with any of the editors.[23] When Orangemarlin responded to what looks rather like baiting from Levine2112,[24] [25] Elonka posted a message to Levine2112: "Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own. :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions?",[26] [27] and two minutes later cautioned Orangemarlin that his comment "was uncivil and unhelpful".[28] [29] In the past I've noticed a tendency for Elonka to emphasise civility over article content policies, doubtless with the highest motives but inadvertently favouring Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.

I commented later "At present there seems to be room to find a constructive way forward, and I've not noticed any warnings being handed out. If warnings are posted to any editors, it would be helpful if the admin doing so pointed that out on this page. Both Elonka and, given my comments below, myself are rather too involved in the area to be making any blocks, if conditions do deteriorate to the point of warnings being issued and ignored, a report to ANI for an outside admin to take action would be appropriate."[30] One hour after that, Elonka added the list which has been the subject of so much discussion,[31] and replied to my comment "Ah, your name is currently on the list of uninvolved admins below, but if you would like to remove it, that's fine. For myself, I still have uninvolved status....".[32] My reply was that "as stated above I've no intention of using the tools, and given past disputes it's my opinion that you'd be well advised to ask an admin without your degree of personal involvement to carry out any actions if it reaches that stage. This procedure that you've initiated seems like overkill at this point and if anything is distracting attention from finding agreement on a way forward...".[33] That remains my view. While a mention on the talk page of any formal warnings would help to identify the alleged misconduct and facilitate any necessary discussion of the warning, I share the view that the whole list is more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does she get credit that she doesn't mention blocking, giving any real warning, and seems to be prodding him towards changing his behavior instead of being an over aggressive rabid admin like many, many have done before? I can provide you names if you need. :) I would be extremely grateful if -Elonka's- response was the response I received from many admin in the past. I'm sure that Orangemarlin would not wish to trade his position for one of mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated at the outset, my attention was drawn by Elonka making an apparently reasonable request to discuss matters on the talk page. It's certainly polite, but focusses on "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", with the clear implication of further sanctions which she has since applied. The actions by Orangemarlin were explicit and in my view reasonable: he requested article protection with the statement "Temporary full protection' dispute, User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru are battling over verbiage. I think that QG's version is the best, and I've reverted, but I don't think this is going to end. Maybe a page protection for a cool out period to discuss would be best."[34] In the context of article content covered by WP:NPOV/FAQ he reverted to what he saw as the mainstream position, drew attention to the edit war and requested admin intervention to allow discussion of the issues. Elonka did not caution the edit warriors, but failed to WP:AGF and accused Orangemarlin of WP:DE in the nicest possible way. Her proposal to introduce sanctions diverted attention from the much needed talk page discussion, as the responses indicated. When I proposed an alternative article title to get discussion going, Elonka was increasingly involved in arguments over her proposal, blatantly taking sides against Orangemarlin and with Levine2112. In my view both had made remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility, and both could reasonably have been given a caution to that effect, but Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other. Note that this was entirely a dispute over etiquette and proposals for sanctions, not over article content. There's nothing wrong with giving people reminders of ideal behaviour, and I did that myself,[35] but while it pays to be polite, it's also important that admins taking on the mantle of Arbitration Enforcement should be seen to be fair and reasonable. . dave souza, talk 11:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) diffs rectified dave souza, talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the implications via presence. I have had much experience with people trying to do that. As of now, I feel that if someone wants to block me, just do it. Don't say "this is almost blank, or that is almost blank". If I cross the line, warn me. So, in such a light, Elonka's concerns would be problematic. However, that is mostly for annoyance. I would suggest that the spirit of "don't template the regulars" would extend to don't bother the regulars about such things when you are a potentially blocking admin because it could be seen as rudeness before the fact.
But to get back to the point - perhaps ArbCom enforcement should be done in pairs or triples. We do have many people working it. I even think KC is working on it a bit, along with SB Johnny, in addition to the old cast and crew, including those like Tznkai. I would like to see KC and Elonka try to work together on the issue.
But to be blunt, does this date back to Elonka's involvement with Science Apologist? It -feels- like it might. I honestly have no sympathy for the guy, and I feel that -those- feelings are why I don't see Elonka in any kind of dark light. There could be some other thing that I am missing. I don't think it is just long experience in the matter. It feels like the bad blood was caused by a particular censure. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Dave souza, parts of your statement are very much in error, and I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions. For example, when you said "Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other", could you please provide some diffs? Because I'm unaware of what you're talking about. Or when you say, "Elonka did not caution the edit warriors," have you taken the time to actually look at the history of their talkpages? I very much did issue cautions, to both "sides" in the dispute. For example, here I told Levine2112 to stop repeatedly deleting the chiropractic entry,[36] and here I cautioned QuackGuru.[37] For another list of the warnings I have issued (the list is still in process, but shows that I've been handing out warnings to both sides of the dispute for awhile now), see User:Elonka/ArbCom log#Pseudoscience log. I would appreciate if you would refactor your statement to be more accurate, thanks. --Elonka 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka, I do appreciate that you've been giving out warnings every now and then to what you call "sides" in the dispute. Since some of the diffs given in the first paragraph seem to have been a bit muddled, I've struck out and corrected them where appropriate. This comment tells Orangemarlin that you were "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", but for some reason there seem to be no diffs in the talk page histories of User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru of you issuing cautions to them regarding that particular incident. You maybe felt that having left them messages a week earlier, that was sufficient, but frankly it didn't seem to be working very well. If I've missed something, I'll be grateful if you can correct me. Regarding "Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other", that was the impression I gained from [38] and [39]. Since Orangemarlin was commenting on your behaviour, and Levine was attacking him, your partiality is doubtless understandable but a more even handed approach would seem to me appropriate when you're wielding the AE powers. As I wrote above, both could reasonably have been cautioned about making remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility. My concern remains that by diverting attention away from reaching agreement on a way forward to discussing your sanctions, and apparently being unwilling to accept advice about considering a retitle to aim to resolve problems rather than discussing Potential ArbCom sanctions, your approach in this particular case caused more heat than light. Perhaps the approach is more productive where WP:NPOV/FAQ isn't involved. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification[edit]

Since I don't agree that Elonka has the right or the "uninvolved status" to be the policeman for these activities, I have started this request for clarification. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no such thing as an uninvolved administrator ... by this reasoning, there would be no such thing as an uninvolved administrator, because by taking any administrative action, one becomes involved. This is pure sophistry. A judge doesn't become an involved party in a lawsuit by making rulings in the case, and admins don't become involved in an editing dispute by acting as admins. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
They do however, when they continually disparage one side of the conflict as a "tag team" which is a slur created to marginalise what is otherwise known as editorial consensus.
Elonka has overt hostility to one side of this debate, and I honestly can't fathom those who to refuse to acknowledge that and just wikilawyer with the "well she didn't technically edit this page, so she doesn't have a dispute with the editors here" talking point. It's flat-out insulting to my intelligence. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no preference on the article content: My goal is to stabilize the article so that it can be brought out of its current state of indefinite protection. To say that I've been favoring one side of the debate over the other is not correct, and I'm happy to provide diffs to prove that I've been handing out warnings evenly. Ultimately though I see this as a variation of "the wrong version". No matter how hard that an administrator tries to be neutral, someone's going to complain. --Elonka 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Elonka, you seemed to take it amiss that the article was protected in the "wrong version", as is of course standard practice. Given the immunity from normal standards of uninvolvement that you seem to take from your interpretation of AE Sanctions, that additional power carries with it an additional need for you to display fairness and impartiality. Unfortunately not all of your actions give that impression, as discussed above. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights source alerts[edit]

Resolved: issue now moot. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{LGBT rights source alerts}} has been placed on a large number of talk pages of articles relating to LGBT issues. I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. Is it appropriate for me to roll back the addition of the template?-gadfium 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

good grief. cross-posting this here (posted to user's talk page before received message he/she posted this here):
following message posted to User:gadfium's talk: "not sure which talk page you are objecting to its placement on, but other than Socialism and LGBT rights, it only is on LGBT rights in (country) article talk pages (mainly to discourage the use of sodomylaws, which had been heavily used - and provide a way for editors to warn about outdated sources (if source #1 is out of date for countries A, B, and C, then it might be outdated for countries G, Q, and Z. This way alerts can be easily and briefly placed on all LGBT in (country) talk pages A-Z. If you think it is disruptive on a certain talk, feel free to remove or cmt it out"
This source template was posted to Asia and Africa articles earlier this month without incident, in light of another editor proposing deletion of LGBT rights in Benin, finished rolling out the template to Europe, Americas (to facilitate updating/fixing of LGBT rights in (country) articles. The only article talks this has been placed on are: LGBT rights table (continent), LGBT rights in (Continent), LGBT rights in (country), and Socialism and LGBT rights.
"I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. "
attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics?????? it is on the talk page (not the article page), and is a warning not to use a certain source which previously was used. presumably if someone goes to the talk page of an LGBT rights article, this template is relevent.
Thanks, Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Which of the pages on which you have placed the template contain references from the source that you are warning about, and in which of those cases is this source considered unreliable? Those are the pages for which this template might be relevant. That might be talk:LGBT rights in Nepal and Talk:LGBT rights in the Marshall Islands (which is a redlink, perhaps the article doesn't fit the naming scheme). If you want to broadcast a message to all editors interested in LGBT issues/sources, please use the relevant wikiproject.-gadfium 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If a certain source is wrong for 2-3 countries, then it shouldn't be used on any countries without additional sourcing. This is about human rights law, not whether buffy the vampire slayer says x or y in episode ##.
  • Any thread not replied to within 7 days on WT:LGBT is automatically archived by the bot. Additionally, not all editors of LGBT rights articles are members of WP:LGBT, and even most members of WP:LGBT do not monitor all of the project's pages. If consensus is against using this good-faith method to efficiently (and un-obtrusively, since it is on a talk page, not the article page) warn against certain sources, then the tribe has spoken. but accusations of evangelistic spamming are a) incorrect and b) not in keeping with WP:AGF. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What the $%^$%^$ is this template suppose to do that actually requires it existing? Don't we already have enough warnings and templates to do almost ... anything! This one just wants us to not use one website or what is this about? aaaaahhhhhhh! attack of the templates!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Add the source to WP:RSN and the project and delete the darn template. I cannot imagine what you are thinking, spamming talk pages with a template which discusses individual sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • good f**king grief people, can't you disagree without being WP:DICKs. i really DGAF if the template is deleted, but doesn't anyone understand WP:AGF? (and how many of you are admins?) peace. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Watch your langage, this template is obviously some sort of spam website link, i agree that the template should be deleted. Elbutler (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
    • methinks dickish behavior is more offensive than "offensive" language, but i've censored my f-words above. (besides, as the Penis picture contributors would remind us, WP is not censored lol) I created the template in question (though I do not object to its deletion), and i can tell you it is not intended to spam some website. if you disagree with its application, fine, but all of you people (especially admins) should read WP:AGF before you run off more people from WP. AGF AGF AGF. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have blanked the template and replaced the TFD with author-requested speedy in the no-include space. For now have just blanked it (since it is transcluded on multiple talk pages). This template was created in good-faith, and was rolled out to Africa and Asia (where most anti-homosexuality laws exist) without incident. After rolling it out to Europe and Americas though, (and specifcally to New Zealand) it became controversial. This was a good faith attempt to improve the efficiency and reliability of LGBT rights in (country) articles, not to spam. per WP:DGAF, i dgaf, and have rendered the issue moot by blanking the template & putting it up for speedy. Will remove the transclusions over next 24 hrs. This was a good-faith effort and alot of you (not naming any names, as it doesn't apply to everyone) should read WP:AGF before you start going around being WP:DICKs. Thanks. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


User:Thulasi12345 insists on recreating an article called "Vettaikaran" which has been deleted twice at AfD and prodded/speedied several times more - see logs for Vettaikaran, Vettaikaran (2009 film) and now Vettaikaaran which I have just tagged with {{db-xfd}}. I'm not sure what the procedure is here, but could someone please take a look because it looks like this will only continue. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've redeleted the page and again warned the individual. If it happens again a block is most certainly in order. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Amid.Abdullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user, per this edit, and the fact that most of their contributions tend to center around the Anonymous group, and things 4chan-anonymous-related such as Imageboards and Computer Security, not to mention this oppose to the trial runs of flagged revisions, because, as we all know, 4chan loves to attack this, any anything like FR would make it virtually impossible.

Anyway, to the point, I believe this user is one of those of the 4chan group, who loves to coordinate attacks on wikipedia, or such, and per the other edits the account has made, such as reducing the importance of various articles under the scope of various projects, even though the editor is not in those projects, I find worrisome. Does anyone share my feelings here? Please weigh in.— dαlus Contribs 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Hhhhhahaha (talk · contribs) is loading loads of copyrighted images without appropriate copyright, they're getting lots of bot warnings, but a person hasn't warned them about copyright. Would it be appropriate for an admin to do it? AnyPerson (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that user is a piece of shit. I am woriking my ass all day reverting crap from WIkipedia. Im so tired of Vandals who just come around and trying to ruin everything up for the fun's sake Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't go turning his userpage into cusses then. --( fi ) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The next time you make a personal attack, such as the one I deleted at User:Hhhhhahaha, you will be blocked. Kevin (