Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Aoganov (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for sockpuppetry but has requested an unblock:

"My username (Aoganov) corresponds to my real name (Artem R. Oganov), with which I sign my edits. Within a short time I have made important contributions to WP. Being a professional scientist (and a good one), I can (and plan to) bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies, currently existing on WP. Since I use my real name, I am directly responsible for my edits and can be contacted directly. I admit that in the beginning, when I lacked experience and did not know that this is a violation of any policies, I opened several accounts. Trying to correct errors, I edited pages related to sensitive/controversial scientific issues (thus, precipitating a conflict with editor NIMSOffice, the same user as Materialscientist, some of whose edits I found incorrect). With time, I learned more of WP policies. I can assure you that in the future I will use only one account for editing WP. You can already see that since opening of the account “Aoganov” I made no anonymous edits. I hope that my account will be unblocked."

I would like to take his word that he really wants to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and won't engage in sockpuppetry in the future. He is a new user who was drawn to Wikipedia over a conflict related to his area of expertise, a physical form of boron. But I do believe that he is learning and has a good chance of eventually becoming a productive member of the community. But there is the hot button issue of boron. So, I suggest a compromise: keep the block in effect for a week and then probation in the form of a indefinite topic ban on his editing of boron-related topics. This will give him an opportunity to prove he can be a nondistruptive editor by contributing to other articles. If that can be proven, then we can talk about lifting the topic ban. Any edits to boron-related topics or other disruption (such as sockpuppetry) in the probation period would result in immediate indef reblock. What does everybody think? --mav (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This heavily involves OTRS, I no longer feel like dealing with the case myself but somebody needs to be consulted before action is taken. Tickets: otrs:2009040610066734 and otrs:2009050810050058. BJ^Talk 15:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Topic ban and unblock works for me. I note from his message that he plans to "bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies" - it would be best to emphasise the WP:NOR and WP:V in any unblock message. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Topic ban and unblock after a week. When I can look into it more, I think I might support a topic ban for some of the others involved, unless they have clearly stopped with their own problematic editing of the Boron article. (It takes two sides to make a long-term edit war). Anyone thinking of adding their own comment to this thread may be enlightened by a quick look at WP:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. I am glad to see that Mav has notified several others of this discussion, including User:Materialscientist (formerly NIMSoffice), for whom a topic ban might also be considered since he appears to be a real-life participant in the Gamma Boron controversy. (At least, Aoganov asserts this in the AfD discussion). Aoganov is connected to the use of sockpuppets, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • See below. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I struck my suggestion that others should also be topic banned, based on searching the Boron edit history back to May 1. (See my comment below). I have a memory of past edit warring on this article, but that must be farther back in time. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I am the blocking admin for this sockpuppet case, and I have received a couple of emails from Aoganov. In one of the emails, he states "While I do admit that I created accounts Dian_john1, GFZLab and ESRFBeam, the following account has nothing to do with me: 66.204.147.253". This shows that although he did create sockpuppets ("I created those several accounts only in the beginning (without knowing that this breaks any policies)"), he's admitting to creating them, so maybe willing to change his ways. Another point that he made, in regards to EdJohnston's comment is that "It would be fair to ban Materialscientist from editing those pages too. His edits are highly biased, and in this situation I believe it is better to let WP-community make proper edits, without (at least for the time being) those directly involved in the controversy." If this user (NIMSOffice/Materialscientist) is also causing problems for the Boron article, then I suggest a topic ban on this user too, per EdJohnston's suggestion. In regards to Ironholds' comment, in another email the user stated "As you can find, I am a well known scientist, and my expertise is definitely needed on WP. WP-pages contain many inaccuracies, and I have corrected many of those and added some new scientific information as well." I agree that this means that whichever admin unblocks should tell Aoganov about our policies relating to any edits he makes, to stop original research and ensure the information added is reliable. I can provide copies of the emails if required. Thanks, The Helpful One 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • See below. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think preventing him from editing the boron related pages, might me more than enough. His edits are good as long as the disovery of gamma boron is not the topic. Even the boron controversy article was not that bad. The personal involvement of him in the case makes it difficult to have a NPOV. He is highly emotional on the topic, but on wiki there are not banned users, which have a less civil way to comunicate than he does. He is not aware of the complicated and well hidden politics of Wikipedia. It took me quite some time to figure out what a Sockpuppetis and many other things are, so let the time cool his emotions on boron. The sad thing is that the controversy has a good chance to be eternal, because neither of the two sides has a prove of the their wrong and right actions and if all actions had the necessary ethical standart. On the actions of Materialscientist I only say that I liked to work with him here on many articles and that if possible somebody else should look if he has done something wrong on the boron page. --Stone (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock with topic ban. Since all the editor's problem edits have been related to one topic which he is emotionally involved in there is no reason to believe edits on other topics would also be problematic. Also support topic ban for Materialscientist since his edits in this area have also been problematic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They've been described as problematic, by Aoganov. But that's not the same thing as their actually being problematic, for which you'll have to supply concrete evidence. See below. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• As I mentioned to mav (before this discussion has started), I support this idea. The user has a history of sockpuppetry, WP:harrassment, WP:BLP and WP:COI (i.e. using WP as a vehicle of self-promotion), but that is understood and can be looked after. I would just raise another issue: the user has a tendency to grossly misinterpret facts and statements to his convenience, ranging from yes/no answers to complex scientific arguments. To me, this is one of the most important "not to" for a wikipedian of his area, and the sole reason for my confronting Aoganov. I would encourage everyone not not be blinded by the titles and check this issue whenever appropriate.
  
  Regarding myself, I have completely refrained from editing the boron topic during most of the conflict. These 2 days, I took a liberty to update boron and allotropes of boron. Everybody is welcome to have a look and comment. I understand that the mere fact of my editing of the gamma-boron topic irritates Aoganov and I shall reduce that to the absolute minimum (of correcting others edits) for the sake of peace. That said, I do not believe that prosecuting on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors is a good example for the future. I trust people and wish to be trusted. If there are concerns about any my action, please raise them and I'll answer as straight and honest as I can. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am grateful for the support and trust of WP editors. And I would really appreciate if the boron topic ban could be imposed on Materialscientist. Anyone who has corresponded with me knows that I am very straightforward and, unlike Materialscientist, do not have any tendency to distort facts. Even when facts are tough (like sockpuppetry, which I am still not sure I understand what it is), I face them and admit them. Facts on boron are not tough - not for me. And I've been watching Materialscientist's editing of boron pages, and while his recent edits look much better, I remain suspicious. Now he talks about "independent" structure solution for gamma-B: just looking at submission dates of the two groups' papers (our paper is 2 years earlier), and taking into account that the other group had our results during these two years - what kind of "independent structure solution" is Materialscientist talking about? I suggest a mutual topic ban, only this makes any sense. Edit wars have two sides, as was stated above. Artem R. Oganov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.95.70 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Enough! We can point to three places where you have distorted facts here, starting with your claims to have never edited except under your own name and to have never edited prior to 2009-05-08. This sort of attack on Materialscientist and misrepresentation of your own actions is exactly what you should not be doing any more of. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• As I said in the AFD discussion, don't take Aoganov's description of Materialscientist's edits as correct, and don't take xyr word for who Materialscientist might be in real life. Materialscientist has, quite rightly, not been drawn into a dispute as to who xe may or may not be outside of Wikipedia, nor claimed any involvement in the external dispute on either side. Xe asserts that xyr only involvement here is as a Wikipedia editor interested in materials science topics. I've yet to see any evidence that the true other party in the external dispute has actually been drawn into editing here. This is a good thing, of course. We don't want that external dispute being brought here, and it is best that we prevent it from doing so now, before we have a Bogdanov-like dispute on our hands.

  I reviewed a lot of the edits when this first came up at the Incidents noticeboard. From what I saw, Materialscientist's actual edits have been misrepresented by Aoganov. For example: Materialscientist's original edits to Boron back in January were actually in good faith, from what I can see. There appears to be no ulterior motive; they were a simple good faith introduction of new information and subsequent attempt to improve that in response to a point made on the talk page. Much of the subsequent fuss and bother has stemmed solely from Aoganov, initially via sockpuppets and eventually via this account. For example: Xe has been claiming for weeks that Materialscientist didn't credit any sources for a diagram that xe uploaded. But, as I pointed out recently at User talk:Mav#Re:Boron, Materialscientist in fact did credit Oganov's paper (and others), within 15 minutes of the original upload — which is a fairly reasonable time for filling in the relevant fields of 7 {{cite journal}} templates, I'm sure everyone will agree — with a further update that same day. It's not good that people are taking the accusations at face value, without comparing them to the actual edit histories.

  Thehelpfulone and EdJohnston (and possibly ThaddeusB too), you are basing your decision on what Aoganov says to have happened. Don't. Reality is somewhat different. And it has been like this all along, alas. Look at the actual edits. I leave Mav and Stone to speak to the nature of Materialscientist's edits in general, but as far as what I've reviewed of this specific dispute, xyr behaviour has been quite different to that of Aoganov, with no sockpuppetry, no repeated denials of sockpuppetry, and no outing. Any notion that the two editors warrant a single blanket remedy for both is not justified by the actual edits that each has made.

  As to Aoganov's block, I think that the solution is simple: Thehelpfulone, you've just been a hair too helpful. You blocked all of the accounts for the sockpuppetry, rather than blocking all bar one. I suggest that you simply unblock the one, making that one Aoganov, which is both the seemingly best choice on name grounds and the account that the editor xyrself clearly wishes to use. You didn't block xem for something other than the sockpuppetry, after all. As Mav suggests, and as I think no-one will disagree with, if harrassment of other editors, or attempts to introduce personal off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, resume in any way, editing privileges will be revoked again. And that includes any further contributions like the one immediately above. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I have striken my comment about Materialscientist, which was based on what the other involved editors (not Aoganov) said and not personal experience. It does take two to edit war, but that doesn't mean he was not being rational about the topic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, I agree with you with regards to unbanning Aoganov, as he seems that he might be able to make some positive contributions, and has admitted to all his sock accounts, which is why I agreed to this idea in the first place (of a topic ban + unblock). The Helpful One 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I have been notified, must be because I blocked a sock of this guy or something. I don't really care what happens as far as block/unblock is concerned, but all commenting are advised to read over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GFZLab/Archive which contains the full case history and make a determination from that. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the recent edits of Boron and Allotropes of boron by User:Materialscientist and did not see any problems. So I'm withdrawing my suggestion that he also be considered for a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also looked at the edits of Boron and Allotropes of boron, Materialscientist seemed to be making positive contributions, so I am also withdrawing my suggestion that he be placed under a topic ban. The Helpful One 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to here that edits of Materialscientist look also OK to others. The problem with the discovery of gamma boron will not go away so we should watch the pages and try to get all informations on priority out of the articles. If in sometime from now a book is written about this case, or a journal article is published I have no problem to add the controversy. --Stone (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on Thrikkunnathu Seminary, please

There's a lot of reverting going on there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the place for this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Public BLP watchlist

There is now a bot running to compile a list of articles reported to the BLP noticeboard to make a problem-BLP watchlist. The list is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist and the watchlist is here. Mr.Z-man 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration required due to 3RR

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected for 24 hours and both users warned. hmwithτ 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, A while back I added a cited bit on the Fonejacker article. It has been deleted by another IP user, and I have reinstated it; however, this has now happened three times and I don't want to violate the Three Revert Rule. Consequently may I ask another user to arbitrate as they see fit? The content in question is currently not there since the IP user performed the last edit; you'll find it one down in the history and it refers to Kayvan Novaks' comment that he may not be doing any more of the show. Thanks, --82.25.66.205 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope some action can be taken on this as a matter of urgency. --82.25.66.205 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, you can post these issues to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. hmwithτ 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin's opinion and intervention

Hi, would someone please take a look at my editing on Hatch Park and Evelyn Dunbar, and the conversation about them at User talk:MasterVerbosity? I came across the first article randomly, found some material that seemed to be lifted directly from this website and elminated it and cleaned up the article. This lead me to the second article, which also had the same material in it, and was, frankly, in terrible condition. I cleaned it up, removed the copyvio and some other material that seemed irrelevant, and left a note on the talk page of the user who I determined had added the material to both articles.

Comes today, and the editor responds, rather tartly. It turns out he is the foster-son of Evelyn Dunbar, and is incensed that an "ignoramus" such as myself had "insulted" his mother and father through my editing of his domain. I pointed out the COI problem and NPA policy but neglected to mention rules about "ownership" of articles. He claims to have writen the material I thought was a copyright violation for the publication where I found it. I pointed out the problems with this, but he wants the article on Dunbar deleted. I've pointed out that once posted, his contributions are no longer his to control, and that an article has to go through a process to be deleted, etc.

Now, rather than continue to get in deeper with this editor, whose response was clearly emotional, I'd like to disengage from my discussion with him, and let someone neutral determine if I went too far in my editing, if my interaction with him was perhaps too brusque, and to provide him with whatever answers he needs from this point on. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted this at AN/I, but moved it here as there is no real "incident" at this point, and no particular hurry. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to weigh in. When talking to potential infringers, I almost always use the templates for copyright problems just because they have been engineered in a rather velvet glove/iron fist kind of way. The "no thanks" template generated by the {{copyvio}} is better (if long) because it allows for the possibility that the contributor is the copyright owner. (It's inappropriate, though, when the material can be easily removed.) {{uw-copyright}} does not explicitly allow for that, or link to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but it does rather straightforwardly note that the material has the appearance of a copyright violation with necessary links and explanations. (And the requisite block advisory. Very compact. :)) Removal of the text was the right thing to do. Until permission is verified, we can't published it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(With coffee before me :) User:MasterVerbosity didn't understand much about Wikipedia and was editing the article(s) with his own notions about how things were/should be. Hopefully he's learning that personal attacks are not on here. The COI is not a big worry so long as he follows policy. Likewise his having mistakenly put text he'd written elsewhere into the article. His sharp comebacks at the outset of learning about Wikipedia are understandable and can be wholly forgiven if he settles down within a few days. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I have enough caffeine to be safely unleashed on the world now. :D It took me a while to finish my note. I agree that he may settle down. I addressed him also on the civility issue, hopefully in a tactful enough manner not to escalate tensions. I'd welcome review: User talk:MasterVerbosity#Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I think both you and Ed Fitzgerald have dealt with this wonderfully. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to you as well for stepping in and calming things down. I generally think that a personal note is better than a template, but you're probably right that I would have been better off using one of the copyright violation template - I'll do my best to remember that in the future.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly no one can fault you for leaving a personal note. :) I usually do, too, with most matters, but sometimes I think the impersonal copyright template may be a little easier to take for some contributors. I've been known to leave two notes with the one that {{copyvio}} generates (can never remember what that's called): a personal note saying something like, "Hi. Noticed this issue. Apologies for the "form letter", but it's got some useful links that might help you address this concern" and then turning the template into a subsection. The template by itself has met with some objections from experienced contributors, but that combo (so far) has not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly sounds like a good strategy to me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal community ban request for Nimbley6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per obvious consensus here, Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) is now community-banned. — Aitias // discussion 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked user, blocked, I believe, for disruptive editing largely around Scotland and Scottish topics (Nimbley6 may have been known historically as Bennet556 (talk · contribs)). Since being blocked Nimbley6 has continued to edit using a vast array of sock puppets, using both registered usernames and dynamic IP addresses in the 78.*.*.* and 91.*.*.* ranges. Numerous editors have tried unsuccessfully to engage with Nimbley6; some have elicited promises that any disruptive editing was inadvertent, some have received promises that the sock puppetry will stop, others have simply received denials that there is any socking occurring.

Various approaches have been attempted to mitigate the continuing disruption: Scotland has been semi-protected several times to prevent disruption; several other articles have likewise been semi-ed for the same reason - a number today alone, with (and this may surprise those of you who recognise me from WP:ANI!) no request from me; registered socks have been reported at WP:SSP and - more recently - at WP:SPI; registered socks have been reported at WP:ANI; range-blocks have been considered (and rejected as impractical - there would be too much collateral damage); articles created have been sent to WP:AFD; and other edits have been reverted.

Following a discussion on my talk page, I believe that Nimbley6 is effectively community banned. I would, however, like to request that this ban is made more formal, i.e. that it is confirmed here. This is so that all future edits by Nimbley6 socks can be reverted on sight, in order to deny the sock master any gratification. Alternatively, I for one am at my wits' end, and would welcome any and all suggestions for handling this serial sock puppeteer.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• If no administrator is willing to unlock the pillory, in it he shall remain. Endorse, albeit as a formality at this point because he's de-facto banned. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, as someone who only recently got in touch with a small part of this user's problematic behavior. Uncommunicative, persistent editing against consensus, abusive socking. Effectively banned already, I support making it official. Amalthea 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have seen enough reports at AIV to conclude that this is a persistent and unrepentant user of socks designed to evade the ban and to continue disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support As mentioned, the user is already effectively banned. It should be official. hmwithτ 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support I counted 55-60 socks between those two accounts. If you've got that many socks and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ban for life. The level of disruption is tremendous – egregious sockpuppetry, egregious vandalism, you name it. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support strongly. All previous attempts where getting nowhere other than produce a lot of(unneeded) work for other editors, especially for User:This flag once was red who kept more than just an eye on this on a daily bases. It's time to give him/her at least some rest (so s/he can enjoy the cookies I placed on his/her page).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:37, 31 May 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.

my user page

Resolved

please delete all the history of my user page. thanks.--Behzad123 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to have one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I had already deleted it :) ÷seresin 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, you're quick. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Same request: user page deletion

Resolved

Hello, could you do the same with my user page (only the user page not the discussion)? I marked it for speedy deletion 2 days ago, but it's still there, thanks and best regards, --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you marked it for speedy deletion, then a minute later unmarked it and put a plain request for deletion in its place, so it didn't turn up in any categories, so no admin would know you wanted it deleting. I've gone ahead and deleted it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I got a bit confused about your deletion templates, I am used to the Spanish way. I have created the page again (my motivation was deleting the history), thanks a lot, --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 10:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder banned

Guido has been banned by arbcom by a vote of 10-0 for editing incompatible with the project. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#User:Guido_den_Broeder_banned. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Rorschach test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been home to a content dispute that has been in progress since 2005 regarding the display of File:Rorschach1.jpg (an inkblot used in the test) in the article. It is claimed by some that the viewing of the inkblot could damage the results of a test the viewer might one day take, and as such, Wikipedia should protect the reader from the image somehow. Based on the above linked review, I have determined that community consensus rejects this notion and supports the display of the image in the lead section of the article. I submit the report for review and ask for neutral eyes on the article and dispute. –xeno^talk 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely approve of the image in the lead. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason as long as the image represents the subject. We also do not disclaim spoilers. While I can appreciate the sentiment of the argument, it does not apply to our standards. Keegan^talk 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Echo Keegan's statement, and also props to Xeno for working that summary out. I appreciate a lot of work must have gone into preparing that. Ironholds (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you add me to the supporters of including the image in the lead? Verbal chat 08:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a lot of effort, by the looks of it. I hope this moves us toward a resolution, one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Impressive work on that compilation! I briefly stepped into the middle of that a year ago (already?!) to enforce consensus after one of the debates, which you have presented in your review. My opinion then was simply to try and gauge consensus. I do fully side with that consensus, and believe the image should stay right where it is. I am not surprised that the debate rages on, however. Like the Muhammad images, it is going to be a controversy here until Wikimedia shuts down the servers for good. Resolute 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to note that the report has been refined after some requests for clarification were were made. See Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum for details. –xeno^talk 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An interesting argument for the suppression of an image, but really, now, content disputes lasting years over a few ink blots? Sigh... props I guess Xeno for not walking away and finding something better to do :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What makes the intensity of this dispute so puzzling is (1) that it's not very difficult to get ahold of these images -- I found a book containing the entire set at my local public library, & (2) even though I examined these images when I first saw them, I found myself reacting to this image as if I never saw it before. -- llywrch (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noting here for transparency that I have contacted the 60 users upon whose talk page comments this conclusion was based. Example of message left: [1]. –xeno^talk 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

application

Resolved

 – Bukubku accepts continued topicban. //roux   15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was topic banned by Administrator Fut.Perf. on 21 January 2009. So I expressed my opinion here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic ban). Then Administrator Shell_Kinney ordered me like that spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed.[2] I obeyed her order for months, and I have not edit the areas from 20 January 2009. Certainly, I made mistakes, and I caused people problem, sorry. I asked her to release the ban on 26 May 2009.[3] Then she recommend me to ask Future Perfect at Sunrise. So I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to release the ban. Future Perfect at Sunrise replied like that Sorry, I am currently too preoccupied with other issues to give further attention to your issue. If you want to have your ban lifted, I recommend to take it to the wider community (best post an appeal at WP:AN); if admins there agree to lift it, they are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned.[4] Please release my ban. Because my edition[5] remains on Comfort women for months until now, it tells us my edition is not bad faith. And I tryed to talk at Talk:Comfort women when I was banned. However, I admit that I have tended to revert editions before the ban done, sorry. I mend my rough behavior. I keep promise, trust me. Please release.--Bukubku (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Per AGF? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Given the level of sniping and finger pointing that's going on here makes it a bit difficult to sort, but the comments from my talk page still stand. While Bukubku did wait several months before requesting to remove the ban, I don't see anything that he did during those few months that would allow me to evaluate whether or not his behavior has changed. I think the responses to Caspian blue in this thread are an indication that Bukubku has not learned how to handle disputes and its likely that removing the ban would lead us right back here. And on that topic, Caspian blue really ought to consider that his comments in this thread reflect very poorly on him as well. The two of you either need to handle your dispute like grown-ups or find a way to avoid each other. Shell babelfish 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for cool judgment. I need more time and more contributions. I accept your comment, because you formerly told me I need months. But you think I need more time. If you think so, that right. Thank you. Please give me advice. In addition, my Internet access provider is not the one which Caspin's claim of cherry blossom. I don't use socks.--Bukubku (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Shell, as your comment, I may have toned down my wording a bit. However if you had been falsely and constantly accused of "racist" (such verbal attacks are immediately blockable by any admin) and various nasty things by Bukubku, I don't think you can be much patient of such user. He has a history of harassing me and tried to justify his unwarranted blanking. Instead, he inserted many original research and distorted "history" and "facts". As you noted, his first response to my opposition was making personal attacks. Thus his behavior even confirmed you not to unban him. Checkuer said there is a chance to proceed for Checkuser on him. Similarly, when a checkuer looked into a notorious block-evading long-term vandal whom Bukubku helped, the result was inconclusive. However the vandal in the end turned out to be the same sockpuppeter that I've known for a long time. The vandal used various sock ISPs including "internet cafe's" and behavioral evidences were more plausible for the case. If Bukubku wants more investigation, I could formally request for Checkuser on behalf of him.--Caspian blue 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I have been called many inappropriate things, including a racist during my time here. The difference is in dealing with it. The both of you should seriously consider finding a way to avoid each other completely. Shell babelfish 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I don't use socks OK? And I never use internet cafe. What is the racist? How many times, do you want to say me racist. Please don't say others racist.--Bukubku (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You first accused me of racist and then authors that I used for references as such. If you need diffs, I'm happy to provide evidences to fresh up your memory. Moreover, you're requesting Rlevse to checkuser on you so far even via Email. I do not understand your contradiction. Regards.--Caspian blue 00:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I didn't accuse you as racist. I said Japanese is not racist. I am not Racist. How many times, do you want to say me racist? Please don't say so.--Bukubku (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, since you're strongly denied what you attacked to me, I feel obliged to provide diffs. I have not got any apology from you for that either. Regards.--Caspian blue 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I don't racist. I didn't say racist. Do you understand? DO NOT SAY OTHERS as RACIST, please.--Bukubku (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Caspian blue you also wrote in Edit summary menory can be withered, but records are not.[6] What is menory? Please don't say others racist.--Bukubku (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) GTBacchus told me calm down in my page. It is right. I don't say more. My edit summary comment is not good. Sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) If you want to evaludate my typo, please check your first sentence. Here are your attacks; Your horrendous attack and forum shopping 1,attack 2 that I inserted racist contents based on anti-sentiment to bash ; thus that is a "racist" (You mentioned the now-gone stalking/harassing site in your diff[7]) and Your various attack including my ethnicity ->A 3rd editor criticized your false allegations and attacks Your attacked authors of racist. I just found these from two pages, but I recall you accused me as such on other places too. If you want more diffs, I can fulfill your request. Regards. p.s You seem to think your such activity here is helpful for your unban. --Caspian blue 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Bukubku should not be unbanned from his indef.topic ban Bukubku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic_ban Strongest possible oppose for the unban' See these are "some" of disruptions that Bukubku has caused to the community. His indef-topic ban is a very much generous decision by Future given his falsehood to Korean related articles. He not only harassed me by calling me "racist" several times because I restored his massive blanking of referenced contents that he dislike, but also by forum shopping to admins (including emailing), so he tried to make my reputation bad. His "bogus ANI" and "horrendous attacks" can be seen in his reports. Bukubku knows Future has no time taking care of Bukubku's recent edits and activities because of the Macedonian ArbCom case. I'll show why Bukubku should not be free but be sanctioned more. His insistent and false usages of primary sources that scholars define "unreliable" are all disruptive. His habitual lying to attack me such as accusing me of a liar (his lies were revealed, he never apologized to me), and harassed me whenever I corrected his misuse of primary sources. He admitted him doing wrong so deleted some of the sources that he used, but he deceived me as if he deleted all sources as if he uses two different types of primary sources. See below; Talk:Empress_Myeongseong#Misusage_of_primary_sources_by_User:Bukubku Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research Talk:Joseon_Dynasty#Bukubku_and_ADKTE.27s_disruptive_edits Talk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori Reminder One of the topic-ban conditions is that if Bukubku evades his ban by using "socks", he should be indefinitely blocked. And I have a suspicion that Bukubku broked the restrict. So I request Checkuser on him. Before Bukubku had disrupts Korean related articles especially Empress Myeongseong, some anon with Mesh Isp appeared to insert "unreliable sources" to the article. See the edit summaries. After the anon's insertion, Bukubku created his account and and then his wiki-knowledge was way beyond newbies'. Comparison between edits by Ip user and Bukubku to Empress Myeongseong Mesh Ip user Official Gazette of Korea[8][9][10] Bukubkju's edit Korean Official Gazette[11] Request for Checkuser Recently there are tendentious edit warring going on Cherry blossom. Bukubku appeared to edit the article, and his edit does not breach the ban (not to edit any Korean subject or mentions and not to leave to such articles' talk pages)[12]. However, a Mesh Ip user 220.144.194.227 (talk · contribs) appeared to edit and gave this insulting agenda 6 days after Bukubku appeared.[13][14] "South Korean's lie", that is what Bukubku has used to attack me and Korean editors. Given the previous appearance at Cherry blossom and the similar edit summary, and agenda, and Ip, I'm pretty sure the anon is Bukubku. Besides, after he has got topic-banned, his edit to English Wiki is hugely decreased, so we do not examine how he has been improved himself. All his noticiable behaviors is to complain about his ban to Future, or protest somebody's breach of a Arbcom probation. Moreover, if the anon saying "South Korean's lie", indef.block is what Bukubku would deserve, not his freedom.--Caspian blue 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Caspian blue and me had some troubles. I'm sorry. I apologize to everyone. Sometimes I made mistakes. Sorry. I regret what I has done beyond my translation skill. Sorry. However..Cherry blossom? I only insert picture explanation.[15] Is it wrong? Talk:Imo_Incident#Massacre and No Original research is not my OR. Do you know Boston Massacre? The casualties were less than Imo Incident. But I don't know correctly massacre mean how many casualties. Someone teach me. My talk inTalk:Korea_under_Japanese_rule#Togo Shigenori is wrong? Certainly, my words was not polite for Caspian blue. So I mend my attitude. What is the racist? What is the socks? I don't want to take advantage of Fut.Perf.'s busyness. If Fut.Perf. want me to wait his time, I would wait him for months. I am not cowardice. Please, don't insult people. Well, Caspian blue was blocked as his harrassment of other users in April 1, 2009. I don't want to create with your new drama, sorry.--Bukubku (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Your harassment and disruption led your "indef.topic ban" and I can back up your racist attacks with diffs. As for my block, another user was blocked for the same case, and you intentionally forgot to mention about it. You're the ONLY ONE that has been INDEFINITELY BANNED in the history Future's banning editors because of your massive disruption. He has either banned 2 or 3 months, not indefinite time. I request the checkuser, so if you're innocent, you don't need to worry about. However even if you're not the Mesh anon who insulted Koreans on Cherry blossom, there are plenty of evidences that should not endorse your unban. However, you falsely accused me of a sock without any evidence because you wanted me to ruin my name. B'crat warned you for your insults to me. I gave the valid evidence in which is of course no insult to people nor you. You mislead this thread as if you're editing constructively. Since you're requesting for unban to the community, as I'm also one of the community members, I do not approve your unban. So behave nice. Moreover why your activity is hugely decreased since your ban? --Caspian blue 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Caspian Blue has been blocked by Future in the past for edit warring on the same article on Comfort women, and harassment of other users. Plus has been blocked by other admins for 3RR and edit warring on Korean and Japanese articles. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Well my blocks by Future are related sockpuppets from 2channel and I shot my feet by requesting Future to look into cases. He blocked me together with socks and others for making noise. In the interests of transparency it should be noted that Canterbury Tail has edited Japanese related articles. Canterbury Tail's first comment shows that he did not do research at all.--Caspian blue 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Yes I have edited Japanese related articles, but not edit warred and not gotten blocks on it. My original comments still stand. What IPs did before the OPs account was created is not the subject of this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I have not revert more than 2 times per day even thought I was blocked for edit warring. You're entitled to your comment so does mine. Please respect my opinion. The diffs of a Mesh anon's edit are to show that Bukubku may evade his ban by using a sock ip. He is not allowed to edit anything Korean subject. So my checkuser request is valid.--Caspian blue 15:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here is Shell Kinney's comment about your unban request.[16] I'm concerned that you seem to have mostly stopped editing since this discussion in February and I don't see anything in your editing since then that would indicate that you've learned to handle disputes. I'm not sure that you're going to get the outcome you're looking for here, but as I said, please bring it up with the person who placed the ban. Thanks. Shell babelfish 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC) You're misrepresenting her comment too.--Caspian blue 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Caspian, are you Fut.Perf.? And I have already been checked by Checkuser Rlevse when Caspian blue asked Rlevse. Don't forget your action. You are be rude to Rlevse. Everyone ask Rlevse, please.--Bukubku (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is Shell Kinney's comment. So I asked Fut.Perf.. Is it wrong?--Bukubku (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I highly respect Rlevse unlike your numerous rudeness to him User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Unfair, and my request for checkuser is regarding the mesh anon on Cherry blossom. And you meatpuppeted the notorious sockpuppeter, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) back then when I requested a RFCU on you. Since you're requesting the Community's approval, as I say, I don't allow as such. --Caspian blue 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC) That's good idea!! I edit Cherry blossom, only one time. I don't use socks. It's good. Please check Cherry blossom. And please stop insult others.--Bukubku (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, I ask Rlevse to checkuser on you and the sock Ip on Cherry blossom since you're requesting it.--Caspian blue 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, both of you have made your case, please stop now. Let people look over the material and come to a decision. Canterbury Tail talk 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Ugh. This does not look like it will end cleanly or amicably. Taking a first look at the evidence (& AGF), each side is a bit sloppy in how they present it. On one hand, Caspian Blue's cite puts Shell's opinion in better context than Bukubku's. On the other, Bukubku did edit the article in question only once under this user name. Pending useful comments from Rlevse &/or Shell, is there any objection to Bukubku being allowed to contribute to the articles in this area by contributions to the Talk pages? (By that, I mean other than by Caspian Blue, whom we can assume will object?) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Caspian blue and Bukubku should both know that CU can't be used to prove innocence. CU is also not warranted here based on the evidence in this thread, but perhaps with more evidence it would be. The issue at hand is "Do we un-topic ban Bukubku?". The ban was "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies". I'd have to say "No" because of these reasons: 1) few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles 2) it is readily apparent his combative nature has not waned and 3) I see no effort resolve disputes on the Korea-Japan articles but rather a lurking desire to "correct" the articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for comments. Llywrch, I don't intend to colorize Shell_Kinney's comment. OK look her comment, this is the link User talk:Shell Kinney#Hello Rlevse, 1) I edited mainly "home turf" since I have participated Wikipedia. Is it wrong? Now Caspin claim my edition of Cherry blossom. I don't use socks. And If Cherry blossom is related Korea-Japan, many article about Japan become relate Japan-Korea. Because most Japanese and Korean culture or history are overlaped. 2) My attitude was not good, I admit my former tendency. 3) I want to use talk page rather than revert. 4) Canterbury Tail's comment I see no reason why not, but if a POV returns then consider a longer, or permanent, topic ban if the community decides it's necessary. Until then, they've been a good editor, no real issues, I see no reason not to AGF.[17] If community think my POV returns, community should topic ban me. 5) Why only my ban is indefinite period? Caspian blue's ban is 6 month. And I didn't personal attack like. My opinion is not match Rlevse's. However I respect Rlevse. Rlevse dealt with me fair all times. So what should I do? Please, guide me.--Bukubku (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Namdaemun Bukubku, this is about YOUR UNBAN request from the indefinite topic-ban, but you're quick to attack me again. That has nothing to do with me. However such behavior just prevents you from releasing your indefinite ban. Your edits back then were all disruptive, so you're banned by Future accordingly for your disruptive editing to Korean articles with selectively chosen sources to shift the war blame to Koreans. Future said that your edit and intention are "cheap" and "disruptive". You also edited Korean articles unrelated to Japan and your countless edit warring with various editors are all vivid in my memory. There are many good topics unrelated to Korea that needs editing and expansion. However what did you do during the 4 months? Moreover, you have abused AGF and if you're changed, why you have posted the image on user box? (diff) This user is interested in History of Korea WP:IncidentArchive383#Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs) (See the gallery too and the socks's edits) Rlevse saw the image once when socks from 2channel disrupted the Namdaemun to bash Koreans with the image over multiple language Wikipedias when a fire incident occurred to the Gate. Unlike other history userboxes on your page, you created the userbox instead of using existent ones that shows those who are interested in Korean history such as User:Historiographer/Userboxes/History of Korea and User:Mizunoryu/Userboxes/Korean history I wonder why you use the image? You have nothing to show your improvement, but BATTLE ground attitude here and engages in NPA. You need to wait more after you can show you're improved by editing constructively.--Caspian blue 01:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Please, stop machine gun. I like old picture, so I used old picture. I am very careful about using the picture. The picture was photographed in Joseon Dynasty period. If I had hostility, I would use burned picture. And there is other old good picture, but the one is Japanse period, so I didn't use the picture. Please, don't tell me bad. Japanese Period Namdaemun Present Period Namdaemun --Bukubku (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) If you think your above personal attacks could help your unban, keep continuing. You're very good at it so far. Why do you think that the burn-down Namdaemun image has to do with the one that has been used on your user page and socks from 2ch used to vandalise the article of Namdaenum? You also inserted the poorest image to the article of Joseon Dynasty regardless of the fact that there are obviously much better images taken before 1910 out there. Your introduction of the new image here shows that you have no interest in editing Korean related articles with neutral view. --Caspian blue 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) FriedC upped new clear image on 19:07, 28 May 2009. I haven't known until now. I changed my user page image now. I don't have any intention. Please, don't accuse me. New image upped on 19:07,28 May 2009 --Bukubku (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Back on track: support/oppose lifting Bukubku's topicban I do not wish to put words in anyone's mouth so I am not summarising the predictably tangled mess above. This bickering has gone on long enough, so without making this a poll, please indicate support for or opposition to lifting the topicban, as asked by Bukubku. To make it easier for admins to gauge consensus, please keep statements short. //roux   04:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Redundant. Already three editors (if counting Future's comment, 4 editors) disagree with Bukubku's unban because he has nothing to show for improvement. Sometimes, "disengagement" is helpful for making less drama.--Caspian blue 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I accept dismissal, because 2 Admins told premature. Future Perfect at Sunrise entrust other Admins. Caspian blue is not Admin. Thank you everyone's comment.--Bukubku (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

speedy?

Do these qualify as G4s even though it's userfied? It looks like "material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", given the user's edit history (re-creating the article after it was deleted, plus this). The pages were accessible through categories, but I've removed them. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 05:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI is the first impression, one can prewrite articles in user space it is common pre election to write a up likely candidates that dont meet notabitlity unless they win. It wouldnt IMHO be a speedy candidate Gnangarra 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

They're new, COI writing is not forbidden but COI editors must take the greatest care in what they do, putting the encyclopedia first, these look like good faith, policy and guideline-abiding drafts in userspace, not speedies. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly guilty of being annoying, but any editor who's never been can't have been around for long. With the categories now removed, I'd treat the text as an userspace draft.
More importantly, how is he to know when the draft can be moved into article space? --Kizor 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Denizg6

This user has posted a...slightly disturbing message. As a new admin, I was hoping to get another opinion: is this a straight delete/block for attacks? I don't want to WP:BITE, but I don't anyone mounting the soapbox with a message that suggests bad things should happen.-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider this vandalism or trolling, but it does not aid in collaboration and is likely to offend other editors (incitements to terrorism I can appreciate, but the grammar and spacing are atrocious). I would blank the page and leave the editor a good faith-laden note. Their subsequent edits should show whether or not further measures are necessary.  Skomorokh  02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, a good blanking per WP:SOAPBOX and a small warning is all that seems necessary. Icestorm815 • Talk 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are they really trying to claim that the US and France fought a war against each other, or are they just so incoherent that their meaning is too obtuse? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Could an admin restore Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie? It's being discussed at DRV and the Article Rescue Squadron is going to expand its focus onto DRV so the rescue is tag for there. -- POVbattler (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this is a new user, given that his first edit was to create a WP:RFA page for "reconfirmation" of an admin. Faking that admin's acceptance of the reconfirmation RfA, as he then did in this edit, is unacceptable behaviour. Leaving a message such as this one is a breach of WP:CIVIL. I am minded to block this account indefinitely, and require him to go back to editing from his main account, whatever that is. Any thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; whilst I was composing this message, user:PMDrive1061 blocked indef. Block appeal will be declined shortly. Bencherlite^Talk 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's some thorough detective work, but in the future you can block indefinitely on that username alone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, better safe than sorry - it was the username that made me check out what he was up to, unsurprisingly... Bencherlite^Talk 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2009 June 2

My posts for today so far were:

• Pakistan’s army is winning against the Taliban's army in Swat Valley.(The Manila Times)
• On the 30th anniversity of John Paul II's visit to Poland, the country prepares for the 20th anniversiy of the two-party electons of June 4, 1989.(NZ Herald)
• France asks the U.S. to use its spy satellites and listening posts to hunt for the lost Air France jet.(news.com.au)

However, ZimZalaBim on my talk page called them vandalism and threatened to block me. I hope nobody blocks me for working on Current events because working on Wikipedia is something to do. All of my edits have been as high quality as I have been able to do. ZimZalaBim removed the above posts, called them vandalism on my talk page, and threatened to block me. I don't believe administrator's should act that way. Chuck Marean 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I left an annotated level 3 warning regarding CM's continued insertion of trivial/inappropriate news items in Portal:Current events, despite numerous suggestions from numerous editors that he pause and think about whether his contributions to that part of the project are constructive. See related discussion here and here, and comments on his talk page [18]. I consider his actions increasingly disruptive. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does M. Marean seem to be pushing the envelope of assume good faith lately?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with ZimZalaBim that those events don't need to be in current events, as I'm unsure of their importance. But, on the other, adding them is not vandalism in any sense of the word. Wrong, maybe; bad faith, I hope not. But either way, still not vandalism. CM, you might consider going over to Wikinews, as current events isn't a big part of Wikipedia. Unless of course there're other things you do here (and forgive me for not checking myself if there are). Just, guys, don't do drahmahz. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede that my characterization of CM's edits as "vandalism" was over-reaching. I've adjusted my note on his page to reflect my greater concern about disruption. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, disruptive is a good fallback, and has the added bonus of appearing to be true as well. Please be careful of how you phrase things, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Autofellatio image battle part umpteenth

Autofellatio is sadly well-known to many of you here for the legendary issues of displaying an image of someone fellating themself on the article. I'm afraid I'm getting a bit stressed out dealing with the same circular discussion over the past several months and several RfC's. I'm going to take a break but would appreciate anyone who feels up to it looking through the current talkpage and maybe the most recent archives to see if I'm misreading this. Any suggestions to put an end to this would be welcome, I'm afraid it feels a lot like quibbling semantics when the spirit of Wikipedia is not censored seems pretty clear to me. Any help or advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You document your unhappiness, but not what the issues are with respect to creating a fine encyclopedia consistent with our policies and guidelines. What is the issue? Difs, please. Common, suck it up and give us the details, no matter how much back ache it causes. Sorry to be a pain in the neck. Edison (talk)

OK, break was helpful. Autofellatio is the ability to give oneself a blowjob as it were. Since early 2005, possibly a record, there has been various ethical issues applied that have undoubtably resulted in our current policies on what is or is not censored. I'll leave it for others to decide for themselves if there are any implications of the heteronormative mainstream culture or WP:CSB concerns.
As Wikipedia has grown so have policies evolved including the implementation of the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which really should be moved to the MediaWiki:Restricted image list, but I digress. Currently there seems to be support for at least one photo of someone autofellating themself without any masking, hide boxes, links to commons, etc. This is in part to confirm that what would seem physically impossible is, in fact, do-able. There is also a strong and broad community consensus against censorship. Previous efforts to hide the image were to use a template image link, the template has since been deleted. Over the last month an effort to find new ways to hide the image or otherwise make our readers take extra steps to see the image have been suggested and generally rejected with similar, IMHO, circular discussion. It's disgusting, Sorry, we don't censor with various nuances.
Two RfCs, the second needed because the first RfC didn't add "and don't put the image at the bottom of the page", supported that generally ... wait for it ... we still don't censor. Since then we have had more theoretical and rather pointy threads all rehashing the same issue that has been recently resolved via community dispute resolution. I started a FAQ to help ease these issues but I feel this is starting to boil. I stepped back to avoid a 3rr myself. I hope some univolved folks could look at this and see if there is some obvious steps that should be considered, a projectwide ban of all naked photos?, a policy that any image seem as objectionable should be put in a click-to-see box?, something else? I feel there is an effort to disregard both the letter and spirit of the previous RfCs but I'm in the middle of it so would appreciate some outside perspective. -- Banjeboi 08:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Short answer? RfC's are a method of determining consensus; if they were closed with a consensus that the image should remain (and remain as the primary one in the article) then removing it is against consensus and is therefore disruptive. While, of course, consensus may change it needs to be demonstrated to have changed and therefore another RfC (or other method of polling consensus) needs to be held to certify that change of consensus. I suggest that it would need to be those who disagree with the existing consensus to put such a new RfC in place. Until there is another consensus reaching process that finds in favour of removing the image, the image should not be removed/substituted/hidden or in any way displayed other than as per the current consensus.

If you wish for someone to assist you in trying to convey that consensus is to be adhered to, and that the existing consensus is that the image stays as is, and violations of consensus is disruptive and may attract warnings and then sanctions should the disruption continue, then I shall do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I initially made a few comments at Talk:Autofellatio (I am adding this link in part for my personal convenience. A few minutes ago I unthinkingly clicked the link at the beginning of this section in order to get to the talk page, and was quite shocked when I realised that my 4-year-old daughter was almost watching. This might have led to her mentioning that "this man has the same thing at his butty as you, only much bigger" and asking why it is so much bigger and why he puts it into his mouth. Which wouldn't be a big problem so long as she doesn't ask at the nursery for further information. The nursery staff might decide to err on the side of caution and inform the relevant authorities what this little girl, who is living only with her father is talking about.) Then I stopped, because in my line of work there is only a handful of potential employers, and I can't risk one of them checking what my most edited Wikipedia pages are and coming up with Talk:Autofellatio!

It is being repeated ever and ever and ever and ever again what the consensus is: That the article absolutely must have the most drastic photograph possible, at the very top, and (latest detail) not even an option to hide it after first seeing it, to allow reading of the actual article without distraction. In fact, the reason I have heard it so often now is that each time someone says they don't agree with showing the photo, they are told there is a consensus to do so. I think it's safe to say that this is indeed the consensus of the regular editors of that article. It's also safe to say that there is a certain self-selection bias at work. And there are massive assumptions of bad faith and unfounded accusations of disruption against anybody who dares to disagree with the local consensus. There were no less than two "RfCs", but it seems that WP:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex is not all that frequented, and apparently there were no efforts to advertise this further. There is also some inconsistency here between the treatment of sexual taboos on one hand and defecatory taboos on the other hand:

The editor who did this was blocked indefinitely soon afterwards.

Whereas this is simply handling disruption???

Incidentally, I can't help feeling there must have been some secret canvassing going on. It is my impression that both RfCs had short bursts of "anti-censorship" votes followed by premature closure, against a steady trickle of commenters opposing the photo. Perhaps I am wrong, but the correct way to dispel such feelings is by going out of one's way to ensure the issues are discussed widely and in an orderly fashion, not by stifling discussion and making grotesque accusations of censorship against one's opponents. I wish Benjiboi and Allstarecho would learn this. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Grotesque? Let's not go overboard, and let's not accuse people of canvassing either. What we've had in the last week on this page is a previously uninvolved editor who began a discussion about removing the image without having read the archives, and was told that we've already achieved consensus on the issue, and another editor who seems to have previously been involved coming up with yet another way to allow people to hide the image, seemingly circumventing both this article's consensus and general practice on Wikipedia. No one has accused anyone of censorship; people have stated that Wikipedia is not censored. There have been, as this section's title suggests, umpteen discussions regarding this issue. Wikipedia is consensus-based, and consensus can change, but revisiting the same issues over and over again ad nauseam is neither useful nor practical. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the consensus of 44 editors (against 75) in Archive 1? This is the only discussion in the archives that looks like a community-wide discussion to me.

As to "censorship", there were numerous RfC votes based only on WP:NOT#CENSORED, as if this was an obligation to break each and every taboo that we can legally break:

• "Oppose - We are not censored, that's the end of the matter. If you have a problem with Wikipedias policy on censorship, take it to the appropriate venue. [...] No it's not. These individual disputes on each controversial page have got us nowhere. If there is going to be change to the censorship policy it will have to take place at a central point. Not an obscure article about men who can live without girlfriends (or boyfriends) because of their unique ability to self pleasure." (Realist2)
• "Srong oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED is pretty clear and fair. Personally I may be offended at seeing people who aren't engaged in autofellatio - does that open the door for these convenient masking tools to be employed on every photo I can rally a group for? No, this will only lead to more arguments and splitting hairs and the community has somewhat reasonably sided to avoid images that are more pornographic for ones that are encyclopedic and prefer images of real people than the, IMHO, usually inferior graphics created. Apologies to the editor(s) who work on them but many are, inferior. There also may be some accessibility issues here but the policy of not censoring renders almost every other concern moot." (Benjiboi)
• "Oppose: The users who 'accidentally' reach this page from Google can presumably speak for themselves. We should not censor a page to humour the sensibilities of certain editors." (Rōnin)
• "Strong oppose: If we sacrifice the basic WP:NOTCENSORED principle here, what next? Slippery slope down which we should not slide." (ukexpat)
• "Oppose WP:CENSORED." (Dlabtot)
• "Strong oppose: we don't remove images just because someone finds them offensive, even if they were created to offend. NOT#CENSORED is clear on this: censorship of material runs against our mission of becoming a free encyclopedia that includes the sum of human knowledge. I should point out that Template:Linkimage was deleted because it was ultimately used for page 'sanitation'." (Sceptre)
• "Oppose. Why are we still talking about this? [...] No, it's because certain people fail to understand basic ideas like "not censored." This debate has been going in circles for years; it's become ridiculous." (Exploding Boy)

Each of these !votes made an implicit assumption that there is opposition against the photo only for the sake of censoring – as if that made any sense. When people censor something they do it for a reason, and that reason is rarely a general desire to censor. We don't show everything. We don't show every single photo from commons:Category:Sunflower in sunflower, even though this would be feasible. Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, and won't get one even if one becomes freely available. There are obvious tradeoffs between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. I could find no proper, community-wide discussion of this issue in the archives (except for the one in 2005 that started with Jimbo deleting a photo and in which there was a majority against the photo). And a large number of users including some of the owners of the article are refusing to discuss anything other than whether WP:NOTCENSORED is valid and worth defending. That's exactly as constructive as if the other side would refuse to discuss anything other than whether WP:PROFANITY is valid and worth defending. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that while Decapitation doesn't have a photo of a severed head, it does have a photo of several decapitated bodies. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't something for Admins to deal with. Start a new RfC. I understand you're upset with that process but, unless you want to try an ArbCom (which I seriously doubt would be accepted), RfC is your best route for gauging consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As an academic with a real name account, I am not going to edit that talk page any more for the reason explained above. And the massive, counterfactual claims of consensus that are going on at this talk page are a matter for administrator intervention. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely waving WP:PROFANITY around isn't going to help you, either. To quote that page - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers..." - so good luck on defining typical Wikipedia readers. The only comment I'd make on the Autofellatio article is that the drawing is a bit redundant given the photo. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply because the photo isn't obscene in the first place. Of course it is, for almost all readers. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's clearly obscene for almost all readers, then surely it would have consensus to be removed? Or are you insinuating that the average Wikipedia editor has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level? Or are you insinuating something else? I can't tell, to be honest, except that your argument appears to contravene NOTCENSORED (which is policy) whilst promoting PROFANITY (which is a Manual of Style guideline). So, er ...? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that the average Wikipedian has a higher-than-average obscenity tolerance level. We're mostly young, male, a bit geeky, and familiar with the Internet. That adds up to a high tolerance level for sexual content. Yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment, I simply don't understand what's going on at this article. My best guess is that there must be either a severe cultural/generational gap between me and some of the defenders of that photo, or a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity. Or is it a failure to distinguish WP from Encyclopedia Dramatica? It just doesn't make any sense, and is completely indefensible, to insist that the photo must be in the most prominent position possible. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's only in a prominent position if you're actually viewing the Autofellatio page in the first place? And if you're viewing that page, I'd guess that it's unlikely you've arrived there by accident (barring a 3,000,000-1 chance that you got there by hitting Random Article). A prominent position would be, say, on the Main Page, or on one of the Portals. Not there. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about native speakers of English, but a non-native speaker can easily come across this word in a novel with only a very vague idea of what it means. "Oh, no problem, I have internet in the office so I can look it up in Wikipedia." But this goes beyond what we should discuss here. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

...they then see the image and in a microsecond they are educated as to what autofellation is, job done and in a very efficient way. --WebHamster 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a picture paints a thousand words! --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a very simple concept. The image that most accurately describes that which is in the article is placed in the top right position. It works well for thousands of other articles, so why should it not work well here? Or are you suggesting that the image doesn't accurately reflect the article's subject matter? The fact that it's a guy blowing himself is irrelevant from an encyclopaedic standpoint. --WebHamster 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an ogg audiovideo would more fully and accurately reflect the article's subject matter. Oh wait --- that would be porn.17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It might say something about Wikipedia's reputation and integrity that our policy structure allows such an article in the first place. But we do have it, so other applicable policies apply as much here as anywhere else. That includes image use. Surprisingly enough, it's quite a popular article. More so than bread and circuses combined, and slightly more than quantum mechanics. Durova^Charge! 17:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The moustache makes me feel ill. I'd rather the drawing was in the lead (it fits the criteria given for lead image above), and any photo, a better one hopefully, could come later (no pun intended) - if it was agreed it should be included at all, after an RFC perhaps (with a choice of images or no image presented, perhaps). Verbal chat 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Resp to Hans Adler) WP:Consensus is not that which is decided upon by the regular editors of a particular page - but which is decided upon by the community by means of discussion and reflected in policy. The fact that a majority of editors within a particular prefer something does not negate consensus generally - you cannot take an article and agree between the current editors that WP:NPA, WP:Civil, and WP:OUTING does not apply within those pages and say you have consensus (well, you can try and take the consequences). Consensus is that WP:NOT#Censored applies generally across WP articles, and images that illustrate the article subject are allowed.

I find your mentions of your daughter and father relationship, and the potential of employers finding out your editing habits, bewildering and not to the point - Wikipedia is certainly not going to be edited around your lifestyle and career choices. When you choose to edit a subject you should be aware that you are doing so to the existing consensus, and if you are unable to change the consensus to reflect how you feel is appropriate then you have the choice of abiding by that consensus or not editing the article. Your choices are not Wikipedia's "problem", but something between yourself, your principles, and your interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In your first paragraph you seem to agree with my point – which is precisely that global consensus breaks local consensus. The problem is that as far as I can tell there was no attempt to find a global consensus since the 75–44 result against a specific photo in 2005. Yet the mantra that there is a consensus for a photo is being used whenever someone brings the topic up. If there is such a consensus, I want to see it. Otherwise I suspect that this is simply a case of the autofellatist's new clothes.

As to your second paragraph, I reserve the right to edit articles that are not related to my interests. Normally this is considered a good thing hereabouts. In this case I didn't even edit; I responded to an RfC that was derailed by supporters of the photo, apparently in order to avoid the determination of global consensus. Personally I think the photo is unnecessary, but I wouldn't complain about its existence. What makes me furious is the insistence that the photo must under all circumstances be at the very top of the article. That seems to be motivated only by assumptions of bad faith or the desire to break taboos. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to echo LHVU's points, our "personal" issues or views with morality, ethics, sexuality, nationality, politics, race, religion, pornography, etc. are required to 100% of the time to take a back seat to policy and the way of this website. Sometimes this can be bad, but it's the only way to keep things sane on a global website edited by 10,000+ active users at any given time. If one of us doesn't like a nasty image, then change policy to get them removed. Attempting to enforce our own views on taste and discretion are inappropriate if they go against the general tone and tenor of the website. You find the image of autofellatio repulsive or inappropriate, perhaps. What about the millions who find images of Mohammed the same, according to their religious views? Or perhaps Piss Christ? Our tastes have to stay logged out when we log in. rootology/equality 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Rootology. Writing and editing a Wikipedia article often involves choices of style and taste. Moreover, Wikipedia policy forbids unnecessary offensiveness in articles: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If the whole article was filled with photos, all-but-one could be removed under the WP:PROFANITY guideline. We always try and indicate the topic of the article with as clearer image as possible, including this photo. The whole discussion is about censorship, because some people (or even many people) will find it (maybe highly) offensive or inappropriate. Luckily, WP:NOTCENSORED deals with this issue - and makes it a non-issue. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't censor religious images, we don't censor nudity and we don't censor this. If you want to censor this, you'll need to get consensus to change NOTCENSORED. And seriously - you probably won't get it. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED; "some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Is an image of autofellatio offensive? Irrelevant. Is an image of autofellatio relevant to an article on autofellatio? Yes. Does an illustration of the act of self fellatio improve understanding of the subject? Yes (this picture shows that it is both possible and also difficult to achieve, and one does not need to read any text to understand the subject - while reading the text without the visual aid may not inform the reader to the full extent of the practice.) What are your encyclopedic objections to the image? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. WP:NOTCENSORED says: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only ...." Do you agree that policy says that?

If there were an automatic, reflexive need to illustrate everything at Wikipedia with a photograph, then please let's get right to work at necrophilia, anal sex, abortion, and thousand of other articles that currently have no illustrative photograph, and then we can get to work on Disembowelment, Execution by burning and the like.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it says that - which is why I gave the breakdown on why that image was appropriate for that article. As for the other subjects, I am not certain that there are free use images available (I am surprised if there isn't for anal sex or disembowlment, and equally if there are ones for abortion or necrophilia) but there is also the matter of how the illustration or lack of same effects the understanding of the subject. The photograph fulfills the requirement in a way that a drawing or other representation cannot, yet in the sister (sic) article of fellatio a drawing suffices because of an acceptance of the common frequency of the practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, many people would find the image offensive. It is extremely obvious that the article would be no less accurate or informative if the image were at a less prominent spot in the article. Therefore, the present format violates WP:NOTCENSORED which bars use of images in a way that is needlessly offensive. It's very simple.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ... not to forget that both photos (it keeps oscillating between the guy with the silly moustache and the guy with the vibrator) also seem to demonstrate that it's a niche subject. Granted. I can accept the position that a photo should be there, because it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is denying the obvious fact that this is in the area of tension between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY, and categorically rejecting the slightest compromise such as putting the drawing first. It's hard to assume good faith when confronted with this stubbornness, rather than the desire to spite editors with a different background. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have a picture for anal sex? If you give me a couple of hours, I can make one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could get to work on those last couple that I mentioned?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We have featured pictures for public indecency, guano, and circumcision. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind.[19][20] Durova^Charge! 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Those two images would be fine. The latter is not a photo, and the former is not a close-up of a live tortured person being disemboweled, which is the primary meaning of the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well they happen to be the best resolution versions of the respective subjects that the Library of Congress makes available. In order to get a photograph of burning at the stake it would be difficult to locate something other than a theatrical stage depiction. Could certainly get hangings, though. Durova^Charge! 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If I go out and burn someone at the stake (in keeping with my image), and upload a close-up photo of it to the corresponding Wikipedia article, I somehow doubt it will be greeted with the same glee found at the Autofellatio talk page. Anyway, I wasn't simply suggesting removing the image at the Autofellatio article. It obviously doesn't have to be at the top of the article to keep the article accurate and informative. In that sense, the current format of that article is blatantly contradictory to Wikipedia policy.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed we have had photos of hangings; the one I'm thinking of was removed not because of "obscenity/profanity/shock" issues, but because it as a copyvio. Just wondering, what term primarily means "a live tortured person being disemboweled"? I see that definition below a comment that mentions anal sex, guano and circumcision. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's below a comment that says: "And am working mostly on text content this week, but will keep the suggestions in mind." See the links at the end of that sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, I have contributed over 200 featured pictures, most of which are restorations of historic material. They cover a wide range of subjects and approximately 2% deal with hot-button subjects. Overall that's probably about the right balance. This happens to be a thread about another sensitive issue, and (at least theoretically) I would indeed support a featured picture candidate if the resolution, composition, photographic quality, etc. were of featured picture standards. Every now and then we get a low quality 'shock' image nomination, which quickly fails: FP standards are strict. But the nature of the material itself is irrelevant so long as its use is encyclopedic. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me, Durova; I support the use of a photo in the Autofellatio article, and have supported other explicit photos (and opposed some too). Exploding Boy (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It might surprise you what Wikipedia does use, and even features. This video, for instance, was taken just a few years ago. Due to the circumstances it is not a close-up, but three human beings die in it. It ran on the main page and received only one complaint. Durova^Charge! 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, Durova. The video you point to would not have been considered obscene by a majority of people anywhere in the world during the Victorian era or any other era. In contrast, there are photos available on the internet which --- even today --- a majority of people would consider extremely offensive.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically this: at FPC one of our criteria is whether the image is encyclopedic at the article it illustrates. With regard to the subject of this thread, yes, the image there is highly encyclopedic. It would be hard to imagine anywhere else on the project where it would be suitable, but at that page it does an excellent job of illustrating the subject. The value of having the article itself is more debatable than the illustration. But that would be a different discussion. Durova^Charge! 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a by the by, we have a photo of a decapitated body: (File:KetchumDecapitated.jpg), and it's used in an article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the example. I was thinking of that but couldn't remember the name. Durova^Charge! 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not offensive at all. You can barely make out what's depicted in the photo. Here's a quote from Jimbo Wales: "In general, I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often 'either/or' with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling... seeing what they can get away with."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So explicit photos are fine as long as "you can barely make out what's depicted" in them? Interesting--but non-policy-conforming--approach. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A vivid close-up photo of Daniel Pearl's death (or anything similar) would be completely revolting at Wikipedia, and would never last a minute here. Maybe a year or two from now, though, at the rate things are going.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"It's completely revolting" is not a valid reason to remove, or not to include, an image, according to our policies. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. If there's an "equally suitable alternative" then the image can be excluded.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We've already established that there is no suitable alternative, and being objectionable is not grounds for removing an image. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we've established that you don't think there's a suitable alternative to having a graphic, vivid close-up at the top of the article. But perhaps a more reasonable attitude might be: of course putting the image lower in the article and putting the drawing at the top would be equally suitable, OR of course it would be equally suitable to leave the image at the top but give readers the ability to hide it while they read the article, OR of course it would be equally suitable to use only the drawing in conjunction with a link to the gallery at Wikimedia Commons, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there's no need to get personal: I'm not the only one who thinks that. We've had pages of discussion and RFCs on that point. Second, the current consensus is for the image to be at the top; again, not just what I think. Finally, it's been explained to you by several other users why having a "hide" option isn't acceptable. Once again, not simply what I think. Your very language ("graphic, vivid close-up") shows how much the image offends you; that's unfortunate for you, but, based on our own policies, not grounds to remove it from a Wikipedia article. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You say "the image offends you." Whether the image offends me or not is irrelevant. I have urged that we keep the image in the article, but in an equally suitable way that will likely be just as informative but less offensive to people generally. I don't go around editing Wikipedia articles so that I personally will enjoy reading them more, and it's not helpful for you to personalize this by attributing motives to me that I do not have.

In Wikipedia's abortion article, for example, I suggested to include an image of what is aborted in an induced abortion without proposing the kind of graphic photo that I personally might prefer; I never proposed a graphic photo of a dismembered fetus, and instead suggested a much less offensive black and white drawing (that I even offered to hide in a toggle box). Of course, that proposal of mine was rejected, and the abortion article still does not have any image of what is aborted in an induced abortion of a fetus. Since Wikipedians generally have grotesque double-standards, the status quo will likely remain in that article, as well as the article that we have been discussing here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find WP:APPEALTOAUTHORITY OR WP:THEGODKINGSAIDIT on the policy list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonono, I was simply quoting an average doofus who once in a long while says something sensible.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page? I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies. --WebHamster 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, it's some kind of political thing.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said that? You did notice the lower-case "c" didn't you? --WebHamster 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• • WebHamster, would you consider withdrawing that four-letter epithet? Its use is not necessary here. Let's discuss autofellatio in as dignified and genteel? terms as possible. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote what I meant to write, it didn't appear by accident. --WebHamster 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster block review

Resolved

 – Unblocked by blocking admin

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: WebHamster is blocked 24 hours for some combination of WP:CIVIL, WP:DE, WP:TROLL WP:BAIT and WP:NPA for the above discourse, and their comments on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) Personally I consider the word "fuck" above totally acceptable. But there is something really offensive on the article talk page: "This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking." WebHamster, if you feel the need to engage in personal attacks against those who support moving the picture down a bit or other, similar "censorship", could you please make sure that you use formulations that can also be applied to open-minded European atheists like me? Thank you. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Using profanity is not a huge problem. However, profanity coupled with personal attacks against other editors reveal that the words are being used to cause hostility and disruption. It's the hostility and disruption that are the problems. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) WebHamster has requested a review of their block. I'd request that there be no unblock without consulting me. I have posted diffs to User talk:WebHamster below the block notification. Before commenting, I'd ask editors to please review things thoroughly. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC) What the fuck? The block should be lifted immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) What the fuck indeed. I am in complete agreement with Cameron Scott here. As is iridescent, who said as much on WH's page, and she's pretty much always right. //roux   22:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The block wasn't for saying "fuck". Notice how we're all saying it? It was for being personally uncivil, repeatedly. Characterizing ones opponents as "spouters of bullshit" is not conducive to collaboration. WebHamster should know that. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Good block, I say. I would never cite WP:TROLL for any reason (unless I wanted to feed trolls), but otherwise I agree that WebHamster has been uncivil well beyond the use of the word "fuck", and responded aggressively to those who suggested he tone it down. Characterizing anyone who suggests moving the image a "bible-belter", and talking about people spouting their conservative philosophies... ever hear of "comment on the edit, not the editor"? It's quite possible to dispute someone's arguments without insulting their person. In fact, it's more than possible - it's expected. Take a collaborative tone, and you get blocked a lot less. Big surprise. Twenty-four hours isn't long. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Due to the edit conflict with the block notice and the subsequently added heading it now looks as if I am opposing the block. I am not. It's appropriate for "conservative philosophies", "bible-belter", and not withdrawing the former on request. These were all completely unwarranted personal attacks. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This block is ok, I read these as personal attacks along with some unencyclopedic pointiness as to the kerfluffle over the image. The f word has nothing to do with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Poor block. we don't block people for their language. A warning would've been enough. Black Kite 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think he was blocked for saying fuck. He was blocked for snarkish comments about editors rather than about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Since when do we block people for snarky comments? (apart from Giano, of course). Black Kite 23:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) That's correct, Gwen. The language issue is negligible. Repeatedly characterizing those who disagree with him as "bible-belters," who are "spouting bullshit," after being asked to tone it down... that's a problem. Black Kite, is it your position that such rhetoric is appropriate, in a content dispute? I'd be surprised. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Whereas Hans Adler was so much more civil in his insults (i.e. "a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first, showing no respect for the encyclopedia's reputation and integrity" and "The idea that WP:PROFANITY can't apply because there is no typical WP reader is only slightly more intelligent than the idea that WP:NOTCENSORED can't apply"). Are you going to block him as well, or is the use of language the only thing that matters here? Black Kite 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Am I going to block him? No, I don't tend to block people, except for simple vandals. I prefer using other tools, and there are plenty of other admins willing to push the block buttons. I agree that "a bunch of people are trying to change the world by changing Wikipedia first," etc., is inappropriately personal, and Hans would do well to avoid such rhetoric. It's not conducive to collaboration. He managed to avoid upsetting any admin who was willing to block; WebHamster didn't. Hans also didn't engage in an interaction where someone asked him to cut out the personal rhetoric and he reacted aggressively. Reacting that way is a pretty good way to make a situation much worse, and to get blocked. WebHamster should have known that when he woke up this morning. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) So our definition of "blockable" is "upsetting an admin" now? I can't see that in WP:BLOCK anywhere. Black Kite 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC) No, and I didn't say that. Read again. It turns out I'm not "defining terms" at all; I'm talking. I know what the policy pages say. You and I both know that in reality, nobody gets blocked until some admin sees them do something that they consider block-worthy. In actual practice, admins are not robots, and blocks are more likely when you manage to piss off people with blocking buttons. I'm not saying that's ideal; I'm saying it happens. People who don't upset admins get blocked less, de facto. Do you disagree? This is part of why I seldom block anyone besides a simple vandal. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) No, I agree with you actually; I'm just pointing out that an admin ought to be able to point to a very clear reason for blocking someone apart from a few mildly pointy comments. If you're going to block people for claiming that pro-censorship views might be construed as "bible-belt", then our block buttons are going to be very busy indeed; and as I mentioned, I could easily block Hans for the same reason (not that I will be, of course). Black Kite 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) First you'd have to convince me that any view being espoused is "pro-censorship". I know what the word "censorship" means, and that's not what anybody here is suggesting. That's beside the point. I think that, in a perfect world, Jehochman would have found another admin to push the button, and they would have cited different diffs for it. However, I think WebHamster was far enough across the line, enough times, that the block makes sense. One can take a combative tone, and some of the time, this is where it leads. One can refrain from taking a combative tone, and one's life will be better. If you don't wanna hit the pavement, don't step off the edge of the roof. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC) You know, people don't get tickets for speeding. People get tickets for getting caught speeding. Millions of people speed without getting tickets. Also, people who know how to talk to the cop, get out of tickets. Is that "good"? I wouldn't make that claim, but I'd say it's real. If you try to live in a perfect world, you'll run into a lot of posts in this imperfect one. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This block is ridiculous. Jehochman took offence and lashed out; he ought to be blocked himself. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) If I'm understanding the sequence (which is spread over at least 4 pages), WH was blocked for disruptive editing, WP:CIVIL, WP:TROLL and WP:BAIT (both of which are only essays, not policy), and WP:NPA based on the following 3 edits plus their comments on the blocking admin's talk page: I wish someone would make their minds up where they are going to spout their conservative philosophies. You did notice the lower-case "c" didn't you? This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking While some of their edits weren't civil, I'm not sure this user's edits really fall under disruptive editing. The second diff (re: small c) in particular doesn't strike me as problematic at all. So what we're left with is comments that some are reading as personal attacks, plus 2 posts to Jehochman's talk page, here and here, which personally don't strike me as problematic. In addition, most people are saying that the use of the word "fuck" wasn't a problem. I'll reserve judgement on whether the 2 comments constitute personal attacks, but I do think the blocking admin should probably have requested another admin do the blocking. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) It's at Talk:Autofellatio where I've been seeing the "spouting bullshit" language. Refraining from that kind of language is easy, constructive, and a Good Idea. I agree that it is generally better to get another admin to block, if one is oneself the target of personal attacks. It makes everything much cleaner. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I based my comment on what the blocking admin gave as their reasons for blocking, which were the above 3 diffs plus the posts on their talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, that makes sense. I think that citing WP:TROLL while doing anything is a terrible idea (and I just noticed that he struck that here - sorry if I seem to harp on it). Nevertheless, I think WebHamster was acting in a combative manner, insulting other editors, and will do well to cool his heels for a day. It's a lot better here when people refrain from acting that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I never cite WP:TROLL, the whole notion is too flaming for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'd say The Naked Ape's one thing, pornography's another, WebHamster canny fucking knows what I mean and calling good faith editors bible belters is a wanton personal attack, so unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Gwen, but I really don't understand that comment. Can you explain? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The pith is, I guess WebHamster is being pointy about nudity on en.wikipedia and slipped over the edge today with personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think that bible belters is an awful insult, it's a bit uncivil at the most, at least in England it wouldn't be. It's often used here (in a neutral way) to describe Christian fundamentalists. I'm a bit 50 / 50 with this, Webhamster seemed to be looking for a fight and Jehochman said if your lookin for a fight then have this, and blocked him. It was an easy way out, it would I think have been better if Jehochman had got another uninvolved admin to take action. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)) For starters, who says anyone's a Christian fundamentalist? Comment on content, not editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify Gwen, I was commenting on the expression bible belters and its status as an insult, and I was in no way associating the expression to any editor. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) Yes. The worries are a) it's still a put down, b) how does he know those editors are fundamentalists and c) his opinions about fundamentalists have no sway on the topic at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I totally agree that he had crossed the line and was incivil, my point was only that he was not so wanton...An editor got away with the edit summary the other day of...Eat shit and die!..Which I would say was far worse than Webhamster's comments. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) Stuff gets missed all the time here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Stuff gets ignored here all the time, most particularly the poor behaviour of administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC) An admin left an edit summary which said "Eat shit and die!"? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) An ex-administrator, who was neither censured or blocked for the outburst.[21] --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks go to Jehochman for starting this subthread. The specific sequence that I sought review of is as follows: Jehochman edits the f-word out of WebHamster's post to this noticeboard.[22] WebHamster restores his original post.[23] WebHamster follows up at Jehochman's user talk with a request that Jehochman refrain from altering WebHamster's comments.[24] Jehochman replies "Would you prefer that I block you for disruption and incivility?"[25] WebHamster replies "I would prefer that you left my comments the fuck alone, but I will remain civil and not tell you where you can stick your threat".[26] Four minutes after WebHamster's reply, Jehochman posts a block warning to WebHamster's user talk.[27] The same minute as the warning, without further action by WebHamster, Jehochman blocks WebHamster for 24 hours.[28] One minute afterward, Jehochman notifies WebHamster of the block with the post: "Since you asked for it, you are blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing."[29] The diff Jehochman cites in the initial block notice is the insult that WebHamster had posted to Jehochman's own user talk. Now although I don't subscribe to the notion that difficult editors can force recusal by insulting administrators, it isn't best practice to give a warning and then an immediate block after the warned editor's most recent post. Shouldn't an administrator wait for a reaction first, in the hope that warning would suffice? And whatever other actions WebHamster may have taken, it is unlikely to deescalate the situation by posting "you asked for it" with a link to the an insult that was directed against the blocking administrator. Plenty of eyes were already on the main thread; surely it would have been better for Jehochman to have posted the objectionable diffs to the noticeboard for review by other administrators, rather than by acting in a manner that raises reasonable doubts upon his objectivity. If Jehochman is in fact dispassionate then please excuse any appearance of slighting his conduct: the important thing here is to uphold best practices. DurovaCharge! 00:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I'm fairly sure that WebHamster has given up for the night (it's after 1am here in the UK), but given Durova's sensible summary of the situation, if he did post an unblock request based on the above, I'd probably grant it. In fact I'm thinking about unblocking anyway, and am only hesitating because of a few good points made by others above. Black Kite 00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I did cringe when I read you asked for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, I ran across WebHamster a few days ago, and after attempting a more-or-less civil discourse I became the target of some pretty gross incivility from him and his cohorts (at least one of whom spoke on his behalf in this thread). If you zoom out and take a macro view of WebHamster (and pals), a pattern of incivility and misleading statements becomes clear. While I haven't investigated the entirety of the circumstances surrounding this block, the attitude and comments leading to his block seems entirely consistent with what I'd expect given my experience. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) I think, Blaxthos, that your talk page gives the lie to your sanctimonious claptrap. How many people now is it who've complained about your prissy behaviour? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I dislike controversial blocks, and though this one had some support, there are enough concerns that I have decided to unblock. Please read my comment here to WebHamster. Thank you all for your feedback. Jehochman Talk 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you, well spoken. DurovaCharge! 01:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Would someone remove the autoblock on WebHamster's IP please? He still can't edit. DurovaCharge! 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) It's taken care of now, thanks. DurovaCharge! 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I, for one, think it's disgusting that someone would take a picture of themselves sucking themselves off just so they can put it in a wikipedia article. Scholarly diagrams are a better choice for this kind of thing. I consider this kind of pic to be right up there with the many, many, many pictures of penises that are continually uploaded to commons. Jtrainor (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How to handle "secret evidence" on SPI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Based on on-wiki evidences and CU result, it was determined by Avraham that Gwinndeith is a sockpuppet of Molobo. The conclusion was not determined on the basis of secret evidences, thus there is no need to publish it. Full stop. Those evidences were collected by Sciurinæ; if anyone wants to see the secret evidences, please ask Sciurinæ. This case is over; there is no point in wasting time here. AdjustShift (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

At this SPI case several editors have referred to secret evidence (just search through the case and its talk page for the word secret). This has raised various questions and criticism (ex. [30]), as editors who have not seen the evidence are in the dark and not considered competent for full discussion ([31], [32]); further questions have appeared on why the evidence has been made available to certain admins not related to SPI/Checkuser/Arbcom: [33], [34], while others, like myself, cannot even get a straight answer if this evidence will be made public, and if they can see it. I am particularly disappointed by cryptic replies by AdjustShift, admin who has adopted the case, when I asked him if he can pass me the evidence: my request, cryptic comment 1, my request 2, cryptic comment 2). I find this very puzzling, and I find AdjustShift conduct in this case rather poor (the case was supposed to have been closed a week ago anyway: [35]). I would like to ask what the community thinks about the practice of having "secret evidence" available to selected editors without clear criteria who has access to it? PS. On a less grandiose note, I'd like to suggest that to alleviate the bad atmosphere at this particular SPI, the evidence should be made available either to everyone (my preferred choice), or at least, to all admins that request it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The "select group" to handle the confidential part of the evidence are the arbitrators, CU clerks and the functionaries.[36] [37] Uninvolved administrators are also welcome but no one connected to you. Please don't try to obtain it for your year-long instant messenger buddy ([38]) behind my back again.[39] Sciurinæ (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do explain which part of the "select group" is User:Deacon of Pndapetzim ([40])? I have no problems with more eyes (including Deacon) analyzing this evidence, but I'd like to know what criteria are being used to pass this info to editors who are not part of SPI/Checkuser/Arbcom. I also resent your bad faith accusations like "behind your back" - the case is so messy I am not sure who created this secret evidence. If it is you, then please, do send it to me - you can consider it an official request. If you don't want to send it to me, I am asking you the same thing I asked of AdjustShift: please explain to me clearly why I am not eligible to see this evidence, and why Deacon is. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deacon does not rule on the case. But there is no likelihood that he would give the confidential part of the evidence to Molobo. You must be kidding to give it to you. No connection to Molobo or you is the logical and obvious requirement. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the impression one gets is that you "shopped around" for an admin who would inclined to view your secret evidence favorably but not appear biased against Molobo. Deacon obviously fails the latter criteria. On the other hand an admin unfamiliar with these Eastern European topics - in which case simple correlations in edits that arise due to common nationality may appear as evidence of sock puppetry - would be just what you needed. This whole mess stinks to high heaven.radek (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, its just as Radeksz said: the evidence is available only to those who argue that Molobo is guilty, but not to those who give him the benefit of the doubt. Why bother at all with "evidence"? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Relax, Piotrus. The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this here. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. As far as I know, I'm not going to close the case. The clerks interfered, and told me that the case will be closed by a clerk. See [41]. If clerks wouldn't have interfered, I would have finished the case yesterday (before 6:00 UTC). AdjustShift (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you please erase some of things you have said about me? Here I said that I will close the case on 29 May. If the clerks wouldn't have interfered, I would have closed the case yesterday (before 6:00 UTC). I also said that I will not take actions without publishing the secret evidences.[42] AdjustShift (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this case is still open is the least of my concerns, and I accept your explanation that it is not fully your responsibility. But I still ask you why are you still keeping the "secret evidence" secret, and why is it shared with some editors who are not part of SPI/Checkuser/Arbcom but not with others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Uninvolved administrators are also welcome but no one connected to you"

"Uninvolved" includes user who together with Scinurae engaged edit-warring against Polish users(including me)[43] known for his long history of conflicts with Polish editors[44]. Example of edit warring

• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]

"I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences" Why was a user with frequent conflicts with Polish users and me trusted to judge the "super sekret evidence" ? --Molobo (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I for one am sick and fucking tired of this nationalistic bullshit leaking all over the project. New proposal, effective immediately: any editor who refers to another editor's nationality in a pejorative way is immediately topicbanned for a year from that subject area. Do it a second time and it's a permanent ban. Same goes for chronic nationalistic POV-pushing. We have put up with this insanity for long enough. As for the 'secret evidence', Piotrus, calm down and be patient. //roux   17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be integrated into WP:NEEP. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I've been relaxed for ~2 weeks during which a group of editors kept commenting on what great secret evidence they have which is all the proof needed and nothing else kept happening. I am sorry, but secret/staged trials don't create a relaxing atmosphere for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would request then another person to handle this case, as AdjustShift wrote clerly that he is not neutral in this case and supports side of Scinurae. He seems inexperienced in conflicts that went on the Wikipedia involving those two users and overall situation regarding disputes and manipulating evidence(AdjustShift is only from August 2008. He also has hown prejudice against Eastern European editors: Yes, editors fight. But, these Eastern European editors, they fight whenever they get a chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANixeagle&diff=292727346&oldid=292724930 I will trust a neutral, experienced clerk. Somebody who from the start congratulates one of the sides and states comments based on ethnic profiling is not somebody that I can trust to have just judgment. --Molobo (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't discriminate against anyone. Eastern Europeans, Asians, Africans ... we are all humans. I'm talking about the attitude of certain Eastern European editors on en.wikipedia. Yes, some of them fight whenever they get a chance. I judge people on the basis of merit, not on the basis of where they come from. Some Americans are good, some Americans are bad; Some Germans are good, some Germans are bad; and so on. AdjustShift (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't discriminate against anyone. Yet some admins are allowed to see the 'secret evidence' (including ones with history of conflict with Polish community on Wiki) while others denied.--Molobo (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deacon has no "history of conflict with Polish community", only with you, Piotrus and co, who do not represent Poles in general. Deacon does not decide the case and never intended to, nor would I want him to do. He would not have contact with you or Piotrus so there was no problem with leaks. And stop using a plural -s for one person. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deacon has a quite well documented history of edit warring with Polish users(and noted by Arbcom) which you joined, as wll as using incivil comments against Poles and Poland in general(which again was noted in the Arbcom you took part in). You certainly decided to give him your "evidence" and he certainly decided to become active in assisting you. "only with you, Piotrus and co" and with Space Cadet, Tymek, Halibutt and others, do we want to check who are the top Polish users on Wikipedia and how many of them were in dispute with Deacon ?...--Molobo (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's just not true that I have any extensive history of conflict with the "Polish community". A few users who happen to be Polish or friends of Piotrus went on a smear campaign against me (including your likely sockpuppet Koretek), and are still on it, after I launched an ArbCom hearing against Piotrus last year (Piotrus 2, now "Eastern European disputes"); but since 2006 when I innocently strode into the page of a Lithuanian monarch, I've had almost no edit-conflict with any Polish user aside from the one with Piotrus last year (which was about medieval Russia), that was mentioned in the ArbCom hearing. In fact, aside from some medieval history topics (I'm a medieval historian who likes these topics), I almost never see Polish or any other eastern European articles which you, Piotrus, Sciurinae, and others edit. And I see no more of Polish nationalists than I do of other nationalists in other parts of wikipedia. This whole topic area is a minuscule part of my content interest in this encyclopedia and you guys are far less important to me than you seem to think; and in fact if it weren't for the results of the smear campaign I would be active in the area as an admin (which is what I was trying to do when I launched Piotrus 2). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Eternal investigation

I have expressed my concerns regarding the "secret evidence" in this case before. AdjustShift has reassured me that the secret evidence would be posted, but unfortunately, that has not happened, even though at least two deadlines have come and gone. Neither has a final resolution been posted.

I do not understand why a sockpuppet investigation would take such a long time. In theory, it should be a relatively simple process. In practice, this single case has gone on for weeks and weeks, and the related dramu has grown to be a significant wikidramu source. This is obviously contrary to Wikipedia's purpose -- that of building an encyclopædia.

Sockpuppet investigations should not be a kind of sword of Damocles, to be hung above heads of controversial editors. If AdjustShift is unable to draw accurate conclusions from the available evidence, he should pass the case on to a more experienced checkuser, or if the evidence is insufficient, he should just close the case. After all, the evidence won't magically grow via fermentation -- or does it? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, please read before speaking. One of the clerks is going to close the case. AdjustShift (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that a final decision has been made? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how does this compute with your promises that the evidence will be made public days before the case is closed so that Molobo has a chance to defend itself... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your answer clearly shows that you are my sockpuppet. While IP check won't show anything, we edit the same pages and same topics. Sciunurae will be able to provide "super sekret evidence" that you are me, Deacon will reasurre he saw it and it is 'strong'.--Molobo (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about continued harassment

For over a month I am being harassed by user Scinurae with false accusations and "secret evidence" being sent out to people who were in the past in conflict with me. This disturbs my edits on Wikipedia and I considered it harassment bordering on psychological torture as I can neither respond or defend myself to 'secret evidence;. I ask Admins to stop this.--Molobo (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt and secret trial seem to be the case here. Unfortunately I cannot find a relevant policy which would justify such an approach, but I am sure it can be wikilaywered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no false accusations or harassment on my part. And for Christ's sake, at least get my name and the date of the opening of the case right if nothing else. I already told you those last time.[49] Continuously misspelling another user's name despite complaints is the only obvious candidate for harassment. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider your continued false accusations(posted even today),incivility, personal attacks and conspiracy theories as harassment. While in the past I was willing to just ignore the random emotional attack on me by you, if this continues I will ask for intervention.--Molobo (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Close this drama-mongering

This thread is completely pointless fest of tendentiousness from the usual suspects. Evidence such as the evidence against Molobo is not uncommon, and is being handled by Avraham, who will close the case when he's come to a decision on the matter, not when buddies pressure admins to do so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Before you close, do answer how and WHY you, an editor unreleated to SPI/Checkuser/Arbcom, got hold of this evidence. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind again the per rules of this procedures http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance 1. Do not post private information, emails, logs, etc. on the wiki that are not already on the wiki (if this is a problem, ask before posting your case). 2. Remember to stick to verifiable evidence (usually diffs), and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from evidence. Do not debate the issue, or respond to others' attempts to do so.

You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.

I am once again forced to remind people that 'sekret evidence' which anybody can manufacture is unacceptable. --Molobo (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also answered that ... [50] Sciurinæ (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly an "answer" but another demonstration of your continued incivility and personal conspiracy theories which you constantly use against my good name, which of course coincided with my dedication to description of Nazi Germany atrocities, which you opposed.--Molobo (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually first topic in that link, paragraph 3 and 4. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fragments of your "answer"

• one has to repeat oneself endlessly when talking to you
• you and Shade2 are one and the same person
• you were maligning me
• you used and still use for smearing
• you tend to exaggerate, make up and change contexts
• if you'd actually read what I write
• you'll overlook it because it's in a collapse box in the middle of the page and repeat it until the next millennium

I thing this is enough to judge your responce--Molobo (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The "drama" is here because of the total FUBAR that this case has become. And the main reason it has become that way is because of attempts to use secret evidence of unverifiable quality, access to which was only provided to those who were judged sufficiently antagonistic to the accused (+ the admin) and obtain a ban based on such sketchy procedures. Other reasons included the mishandling of the case by the original admin and questions about his/her neutrality. The only way to end this drama is to start over and do this right. Close the current case with no ruling and let Sciurinae restart the case with the secret evidence made public and let's follow procedures.radek (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I asked the editors to make comments on the talk page of SPI/Molobo. I was expecting the editors to comment on the evidences against Molobo. But, soon it turned into a nationalistic conflict. Instead of concentrating on the evidences, the editors turned it into a mini Eastern European fight. I didn't "mishandle the case"; certain editors who participated in that discussion didn't behave reasonably. As far as my "neutrality" is concerned, I don't judge people on the basis of where they come from; I judge people on the basis of merit. AdjustShift (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If the evidence is enough to ban Molobo, get on with it, otherwise, apologize to him. Either case the evidence should be made public, as there is no reason for it not to be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Avraham made the decision based on the information posted on the SPI page, and his CU result. Please read his explanations here, here, and here. If anyone has any questions regarding Avraham's decision, they should ask him. AdjustShift (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo/Archive. AdjustShift (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reform Wikipedia:Confidential evidence

Perhaps we should use this opportunity to do something useful, like try to reach a consensus on Wikipedia:Confidential evidence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As a clerk, I can assure you that checkusers are looking into this. Please be patient. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what kind of evidence should be kept secret even from Molobo himself? Was it his private email communication sent to someone Molobo believed was his friend? Was it private information hacked from his computer? Would a spyware evidence be admissible? Yes, we need an official policy about this.Biophys (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I should hope no admin/bcrat/etc would consider compromising a user's private computer as legitimate behavior, even in trying to investigate issues threatening the 'pedia. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I agree. hmwithτ 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why not? An evidence submitted by an agent provocateur from police would be admissible in a court. A secret wiretaping might also be admissible in a court. But we need some rules. Biophys (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing particularly magic or confidential about the confidential evidence, and nothing, so far as I have seen, that is not derived from on-wiki sources. I suppose "confidential evidence" is really a misnomer, it is more in the nature of an analysis of publicly available evidence, where the analysis itself has been kept private while several people have looked at it to assess it's strength and reliability. I see no reason why disclosure would not eventually be appropriate (other than, if true, giving Molobo information to become a smarter sockpuppet user next time). Thatcher 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That latter point is a concern, Thatcher, but I concur that there would be no release of confidential information should this be posted. But there would be a lesson that future sockpuppets, especially Molobo, could learn from. As a checkuser who is tasked with checking these incidents every day, I prefer to hand sockpuppets as little information about their flaws as possible. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I sympathize with your concern - releasing this evidence might make it a little bit easier for future sockpuppets to carry on their business. But look at the other side. Now that this precedent has been established, even if this particular case has been decided 100% correctly, you will have another case soon where someone wants to make use of "secret evidence" for the same supposed reason (not let the accused know). And look at how much of a mess this case was. Do you want to go through this again and again? Do you want other admins to go through this again and again? Basically every time someone tries to use "secret evidence" there's gonna be a huge stink (as there should be). And it will be this messed up FUBARed situation all over again. At the very least, regardless of the decision made in particular here, there needs to be a general guideline established to prevent messes like this from happening again.radek (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• The case was described poorly but there was nothing especially unusual in how it was handled. A user contacted the Functionaries mailing list with a list of behavioral characteristics suggesting two accounts might be sockpuppets. The checkuser evidence was inconclusive, it was evaluated carefully in private before anything was said in public, eventually a decision was made. It appears that Scurinae is concerned that if Molobo is allowed to know exactly what the behavioral characteristics are, that he will be better able to conceal future sockpuppetry, and so is being cautious about who he shares that list of characteristics with. The final decision to block/ban was based on the total of all the evidence evaluated by several checkusers. What was unfortunate in this case is that the existence of "Secret evidence" was to some extent exaggerated. Thatcher 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Actually, it appears that most of the "confidential" evidence is publicly available on the SPI case page. What I don't see on the case page amounts to a list of typographical and grammatical similarities which, while interesting, adds only fractionally to the determination that they are sockpuppets and would would not prove the case by itself. Thatcher 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was apparently misled by statements of Scurinae and others above like "Deacon does not rule on the case. But there is no likelihood that he would give the confidential part of the evidence to Molobo. You must be kidding to give it to you.". I thought that was something significant.Biophys (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If the "secret evidence" isn't "all that" (despite assurances to the contrary by Skapperod who started the case, by Sciurinea who gathered the "secret evidence", by Deacon who's got in for Molobo and perhaps most importantly, by AdjustShift who was in charge of the case) then I don't see how it can be that useful to potential sock puppeteers anyway. If it's just a bunch of typos I'm sure sock puppeteers will try and be mindful of making typos anyway. Additionally, usually the confidentiality is kept in order to protect a person's privacy - but here this should be up to Molobo, unless (or particularly) like Biophys asks above, if there are emails he sent to himself that he may not be aware of.radek (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, that's a matter of opinion. By themselves, the editing quirks that Molobo and Gwinndeith share would not be enough to establish sockpuppetry. But they are interesting clues, and they are something that non-checkusers can pick up on and refer for further investigation. It's a bit like a burglar who smokes an unusual brand of cigarette. Finding that brand at a crime scene it not enough to prove who did it, but it makes it worth a deeper investigation. Additionally, if a list of those quirks was published, I could see them being adopted deliberately by certain editors in order to sow confusion. Thatcher 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Enough! It's a shame that we have some editors who are defending a sockpuppeteer. Shame on them! I think ArbCom needs to watch the activities of people who have a habit of defending disruptive editors/sockpuppeteers. These people are liabilities to this project. Really. The final conclusion was not based on the secret evidences. Thus there is no need for me to publish those evidences. I've not broken any promise. Those evidences were collected by Sciurinæ. I promised him that I will not publish his evidences on-wiki without his permission. If you guys want to see the secret evidences, please ask Sciurinæ. I can't post Sciurinæ's evidences without his permission. Please don't waste any time here. The case went off-track for sometime, but in the end it was closed properly. There is no need to waste any more time here. End of the story. Please go and do something constructive for the encyclopedia. AdjustShift (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry AdjustShift but first of all, for the most part nobody's defending a sockpuppeteer but rather raising very legitimate concerns about how this process was conducted. Even if I, personally, was 100% convinced that Molobo was in fact using a sock puppet, I would still object to how this case was carried out. For what it's worth I would make the exact same objections if the accused party was Thorsten1, Skapperod or Sciurinea (and in fact I've stood up for people I've disagreed with in the past, when I thought they were unfairly targeted [51]) and I can promise right now that if any of them, or anybody else for that matter, find themselves accused and "tried" (and yes I know this isn't a court room and these aren't trials ... excepts for all intents and purposes they are) based on "secret evidence" I will defend them as much as I am defending Molobo's right right here. Per that quote (not really) from Voltaire. Second, you did promise that the evidence would be eventually released, and at the time you did not make this conditional on Sciurinea's permission. The argument at the time was only over whether the evidence should be released prior to the ruling - so that Molobo could defend against it - or afterward. Third, while some editors and admins might feel this discussion is getting excessive, yelling "shame" at people who have very legit concerns about how this case was handled - and accusing someone of sock puppetry and then banning them for 1yr is a very serious thing - or telling them "that's enough" basically appears like attempts to sweep some very serious procedural mistakes and errors under the carpet. "Case is closed, move along, nothing to see here". radek (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So now on one hand Avraham is claiming that he evidence isn't published because it would make the alleged sockpuppeteer become smarter and harder to catch and on the other AdjustShift claiming the evidence can't be published because Sciurinæ doesn't allow it. So which is it? It's either A or B you can't have it both ways. Loosmark (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, Loosmark, that is not really logical. AS is not willing to release it because he gave his word to Scurinæ, and he is a man of his word. I am not willing to release it because 1) I was requested by AS that I would not release it outside of the functionaries list without authorization from ArbCom 2)I have not had that authorization from ArbCom, and 3) I would personally counsel AGAINST ArbCom authorizing it due to it helping Molobo. Different people, different reasons. I am afraid this is approaching wikilawyering now, and is becoming unhelpful. In a nutshell, you have two paths you can take (not exclusive either, you may take both).

1. You may ask Scurinæ for his evidence, and if he refuses you may petition ArbCom in this case.
2. You may bring up a discussion about how SPI runs and if changes should be made.

However, further hair-splitting and wikilawyering will seemingly only engender bad feeling, which no one here wants. At least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AS is not willing to release it because he gave his word to Scurinæ, and he is a man of his word. Really? Interestingly awhile ago his word to Scurinæ wasn't really a problem:

I can assure everyone that I'll not take actions without publishing the secret evidences. I strongly believe that transparency is important. AdjustShift (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki evidences will be published few days before the final verdict is passed. WP editors will be given a chance to look at the evidences and respond to it. AdjustShift (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Loosmark (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I take actions without publishing the secret evidences? No, I didn't. The case was closed by Avi. He closed it on the basis of on on-wiki evidences and CU result. The conclusion was not determined on the basis of secret evidences, thus there is no need to publish it. At the end of the day, the case was closed properly. AdjustShift (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The member of the Arbitration committee Ban Subcommittee for June are Casliber, FayssalF and Roger Davies. The appropriate place to discuss handling of SPI cases is WT:SPI. Otherwise, we are done here. Thatcher 22:43, 1 June 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.

Request for a redirect

I would like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile,_Alabama_mayoral_election,_2009&action=edit&redlink=1 to be redirected to: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Mobile_Municipal_Elections,_2009 Which is currently a work in progress. I would also like to know how you get things to cite in articles where they have the small numbers next to them.--Genovese12345 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to make a redirect (redirect command) for the redirect and Help:Footnotes for referencing. MER-C 08:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Parina

Hey, could somebody take a look at Parina for me, the user Prem1812 has made a page about a girl he likes and keeps removing the speedy deletion template. Cheers --Noosentaal^·talk· 10:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this has been resolved now. Regards --Noosentaal^·talk· 10:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it and the two others and WP:SALTed them; also got the multiple picture uploads, but he's moved to Commons (File:Parinarao.jpg) to reupload the picture. I'll issue him a final warning. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for your help! I hope the final warning does the job. :) --Noosentaal^·talk· 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue

The Queues are currently empty - could an admin with some time please try and fill them in? The prep areas are all well and good, but we're going to have a real problem next time the update time comes around. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

More extensive copyright infringement, advice needed

• Martim33 (talk · contribs)

The Wikipedia:Copyright violation procedure was not written in mind of single contributors infringing to multiple pages. Yesterday, User:Piotrus pointed out to me at my talk page a problem with User:Martim33 and suggested I might want to take a look at his contributions. I am doing so at User:Moonriddengirl/Contribution check Martim33, but this is a slow process. I have found copyright infringement in most of the articles I've looked at so far to which this contributor has significantly added text. Since we very seldom see action mobilized as swiftly as it was with User:GrahamBould, we lack a good process for swiftly dealing with such problematic content. I'm not talking about blocking the editor, who had not been issued a copyright warning prior to this and who has not edited since this problem was discovered. I'm talking about swiftly pruning unlawfully displayed text from the project. Given that this user is known to piecemeal paste sentences and paragraphs from previously published, copyrighted sources (book and web), what's the best, swift approach? Should we blank every article he's contributed to, as we did with User:GrahamBould pending review? Should we revert those articles to which he's contributed text (as opposed to templates) to the versions of articles prior to his additions until these additions can be reviewed, either through some formal process or by the regular contributors to the articles? Meanwhile, there is another contributor pointed out by the same user who found these problems who needs a thorough contribution check, given his verified history of placing copyrighted text in Wikipedia. And User:GrahamBould is still not finished. WP:COPYCLEAN definitely doesn't have enough manpower to keep on top of this kind of thing. Very likely, I'll have to launch some kind of proposal at WP:CV for handling these issues, but that's going to take some time...and this is here and present now. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No ideas, I take it. :) Well, I've posted some at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations, in two sections: one on cleanup and one on rehabilitation of offenders. I'm going to publicize the conversation at the usual points, but if you can, please come by and help devise some kind of policy for addressing these situations. Copyright conversations typically draw few contributors, but what's needed here is logic and an understanding of the Wikiway, not encyclopedic knowledge of copyright law. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll follow up there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Anymore? I have since posting this found yet another multi-page infringer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested edits to protected article: Greece

The edits are here: Talk:Greece#Requested_edits_to_the_article. There is a relevant discussion in the talk page also. The hat link fixing edit (#3) is minor and should be done. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The first of these produced an long discussion; it is inadequately sourced. See Talk:Greece#Freedom or Death. This appeal is forumshopping, by an editor who has declined to supply secondary sources for his proposed edit to a protected article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, its probably not really forum shopping, but the note is definitely not needed. The {{editprotected}} template (already used there) is sufficient to attract an admin to review the proposed changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing against using a tertiary source if no secondary can be found. I am sorry I have never encountered the word forumshopping before. That isn't what I did since at least one of the edits was very much legitimate. I believed this was the way as I don't really know any other administrator of Wikipedia that is not involved at the Greece situation. I thought this to be better than randomly asking an admin since this could be admins knowledgable of the subject matter. If you see above I also requested the help of some admins on unrelated issues. If however this is thought to be an inappropriate way I didn't think of it that way. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict re:) I didn't know that the edit-protected template automatically notifies admins, hence this post. Sorry. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I also tried to help a new totally unexperienced IP editor with his concern of the lack of a Mythology section[52] (see proposed edit #2). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Shadowmorph didn't realize that WhatLinksHere on {{Editprotected}} is not watched, then this is not forum-shopping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

National History Museum

I have moved the page that was at National History Museum since there was no indication of primary topic in English (it was the Malaysia one). I also performed several moves/title changes to the articles mentioned there in a spree and some from the National Historical Museum page. I hope I wasn't too bold to putting some order on those museum articles. Could some admin like to check out whether I have left anything (histories, etc) at a place it is not supposed to be? ThanksShadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Glanced through, couldn't see anything technically problematic. Thanks for the hard work! ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, well done! Kingturtle (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, well done. User F203 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Article involving the Tiller tragedy that is not getting a lot of oversight policing

Resolved

 – Whatever404 opened a section on the talk page. The discussion can continue there.

I gotta work so no time to help fix this, but Operation Rescue (Kansas), which was a poor article to begin with, is getting a bit of POV-based attention today. An experienced user might want to watchlist this. Like I say, I've gotta work so I don't have the time. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, & while this is a hotbutton issue, (1) Whatever404 has been rewriting the heck out of it, & after just a brief glance IMHO seems to have markedly improved the article, & (2) it doesn't help the situation to put comments like this on your reverts. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, but it seemed that after Whatever404's editing, the page actually did became unbalanced with too much negative information (IMO). However, I think some of that information should definitely remain (most of it, actually). We can take this to the talk page, where Whatever404 has started a section to discuss the changed (Talk:Operation Rescue (Kansas)#Rewrite). hmwithτ 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That description of events ("the page became unbalanced") does not make much sense to me, because perhaps 95% of my editing was simply moving existing material around. I interleaved the duplicated material at OSA and OR and moved it to History of Operation Rescue, and then performed a similar sorting of the remaining material between the three locations. I introduced barely any information at all. Perhaps my edits improved readability and made it possible to scrutinize the material, but I don't see this as a situation of me having introduced POV. Whatever404 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Llywrch. I actually had been planning that rewrite for weeks, and it was only when the Tiller tragedy broke that I finally went ahead and did it. I'm glad you find it to be an improvement. Whatever404 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, "oversight" means having something removed so the public can't see it. In the rest of the world, "oversight" means some sort of policing and review by another person. That's why I changed the title to avoid confusion. User F203 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User Page in violation of WP:SOAP

The User Page of editor GHcool contains many entries concerning the State of Israel. Do these entries not constitute a blog and thus violate the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy? What can be done about it? I have notified the user. (The user also has subpages giving his opinions on topics such as Zionism and The Lebanon war. What can be done about this, if anything should be done? Gavin (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Having political positions on one's page is one thing. This seems to be a bit more than that given how much space he is using. On the other hand he is making helpful contributions outside. Maybe someone should talk to him politely and suggest he move the subpage content off-wiki? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Could an admin head over to WP:AIV and maybe work on the backlog? Thanks! Nburden ^(T) 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up. Bot now blocked. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447

Would appreciate some more eyes on Air France Flight 447. My opinion is that there is a lot of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL going on there; others (including at least one other admin) disagree with me. I'm not pushing my point of view, but rather would appreciate others taking a look.  Frank  |  talk  19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well...you can always remove any WP:OR (or at least at {{cn}} tags) or WP:CRYSTAL. I'd recommend, given the nature of the topic, discussing any changes on the talk page first, though, to avoid drama and possible an edit war. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well the talk page is worse than about 3x the size of the article... :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Sofakingwetoddit

Is using another editors user's talk page as his own. --Abce2|AccessDenied 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and welcomed. User claims to be Staecker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll AGF for a few more minutes, but if/when they revert me, they can go. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it helps which way you AxF at all, note that the username is "So Fucking Retarded". –xeno^talk 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Blocked the sock, someone else got the other. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Abeer Qassim Hamza

The page has been redirected by a user. There is a long ongoing discussion on the TalkPage that shows there was no consensus at all to do so Now. First i have reverted the redirection. But the page is redirected again. In fact the page, TalkPage, and history has been Just deleted. The outcome of the AfD is still under discussion and is going to deleting review. Please help me to lift the redirection because so there is no quality merger possible. Iqinn (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, car crash alert. Right, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was closed with the decision to merge the article into Mahmudiyah killings. However, Jauerback (talk · contribs), the nominator at the AfD, shouldn't've been the one to do it - and certainly not a merge-by-redirect. That said, just undoing the redirect and then starting the AfD discussion all over again, this time on the article's talk page? No, that shouldn't happen either. However, either way, there's no administrator intervention needed - this is a content dispute. WP:DR is down the hall. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply - undoing the redirection would not necessary start AdD again. That could be done in the deletion review section of Wikipedia. A simple redirect could bring us back fast to a state where we could wait the outcome of the deletion review and based on that perform a merger in a good way. If you still think WP:DR is the better way i will trust you and go there. Thanks for the help. Iqinn (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hhh - There is another crash. The redirection brings people to the wrong page. Coming from Abeer's link on the Mahmudiyah killings and other topic related pages, they are redirected to Mahmudiyah killings. As they search for Abeer's information and looking for the TalkPage to work on the ongoing discussion they click on the redirection link at the top. What brings them to the wrong page! Abeer Qassim Hamza an older page that says the talk page and history has been deleted. That's why i said above the page has been deleted (very similar names). People needs to be redirected to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi with the banner of intended merger, the history and the TalkPage with the ongoing discussion. That is a headache. I think that needs help of the administrators to fix quickly as it could lead to the wrong impression information had been lost. Iqinn (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected Abeer Qassim Hamza to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. This is a temporary measure. This did not require use of admin tools. This is not an endorsement of any attempt to overturn the AfD merge decision by discussing the merge in other forums until a forum can be found that agrees not to merge. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI, I didn't merge the article by simply redirecting it. I actually did merge it, but it was reverted for further discussion on the talk page and a possible DRV, which I didn't oppose. Whether I should have been the one to attempt the merge or not is another discussion, but I don't feel that there was anything wrong with that. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for page protection

To the administators. Could you please protect Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi until the discussion over a merger and the deletion review process has finished. This has been agreed on by a large group who are involved people. WP:Talk:Abeer_Qassim_Hamza_al-Janabi#Article_for_deletion_review) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I will check for now, but in the future please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Block Request

User:65.23.223.119 is persistently vandalizing a series of pages, and I've adden the warning templates up to Level 4, but I'm not an admin so can't block -- not sure if this is the right place to request a block, but one is needed at the moment.

Australian Matt (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So I take it those tennis players weren't really on huge winning streaks? Blocked, WP:AIV is the best place to get many admin eyes on future such ongoing vandalism. –xeno^talk 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok - will post notices there in future - thanks! Australian Matt (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Could we have a a few more admins than usual keep an eye on AIV? With the implantation of bot reports for the abuse filter, there seems to be a report coming in every minute or two. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

About every 30 seconds (==crapflood). I blocked the bot and notified the owner, since the bot was clearly hindering the very process it was intended to help. Either the bot needs to be changed or the reporting mechanism needs to be changed; either way, flooding genuine admin-attention matters with stuff that doesn't seem to problematic won't do. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the block, per the rationale by Redvers (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Has there been discussion and/or consensus about blocking users and IPs that have triggered the abuse filter multiple times, but have not actually successfully edited? It's a reasonable argument that such blocks would be preventative, but one could also argue that the abuse filter is doing the preventing.... -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Preventative blocking seems to be being given as a reason for flooding AIV, but since the IPs have often triggered hidden AFs, there's no way of knowing what was going on unless you're a member of the minority of the minority (AF privs and an admin). This is Not A Good Thing on so many levels. I don't think a bot can judge this; and even if it can, the flooding is a Bad Thing. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. We're supposed to wait until the users manage to bypass the filters before we're allowed to block them? What's the point of even having it then? Frankly, that's just mind-boggling. As I said on my talk page, anyone can view the abuse filter log and the details of each log entry. Any admin can grant themself the abuse filter right to see private filters, though that's not really necessary as there's public descriptions of each filter, and the details of each hit are public. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And, for the third time: You're not addressing the substantive point - either the bot's operation needs to be modified so that the crapflood doesn't happen, or the reporting mechanism needs to change. Flooding a vital page with null reports of activity that didn't happen is simply making vandalism prevention harder, not easier. The problem is with the bot or the reporting mechanism. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am working on it, having to repeat myself in 2 places is slowing me down a bit though. Saying that they're "null reports" is just totally wrong. Just because the user wasn't successful doesn't mean they weren't trying to vandalize. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're working on it, but, again, either the bot's operation needs to be modified so that the crapflood doesn't happen, or the reporting mechanism needs to change. The problem is with the bot or the reporting mechanism. The other issues are secondary. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than repeating yourself, can you give an example of a bad report? Then we can discuss how to modify the bot's operation. Wknight94 ^talk 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's only so many times I can write the word "crapflood". The bot was crapflooding AIV. AIV was being crapflooded by the bot. The problem was AIV being crapflooded and the bot was doing it. The bot needs to not crapflood AIV any more. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So the problem is that the abuse filters are too effective? I'm not just going to report less because there's too much vandalism. If you think certain things shouldn't be reported, please make some suggestions that I can actually implement. But just saying "don't report as much" isn't very helpful. Mr.Z-man 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about defining "crapflood"? You're sure they weren't legitimate reports and not "crap"? You checked some? You can tell they weren't trying to vandalize? Point one out please? Wknight94 ^talk 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked all of them. C.20. I blocked one. The rest were crap. Every one I checked, the bot added two more. It was impossible to keep up with. Whilst I was doing it, the bot continued to add more, all of which were also not blockable. The problem is the crapflood or the reporting mechanism. Whilst I was cleaning out the crapflood, I wasn't blocking actual vandals, and others were diverting to complain on the bot's talk page or on this page. The crapflooding or the reporting mechanism is faulty. One or both needs to be changed. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, except for your complaints, everyone else on my talk page was being reasonable and giving useful suggestions. Mr.Z-man 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the AF log for 82.37.108.113. Mr. Z-man, can you tell if that is four separate edits or four logs on two edits? Can your bot tell? Regardless, the point of the bot is to find when someone is trying to vandalize. In this case, the IP was trying and even mixed in some successful vandalism. So do folks prefer to change the settings the bot uses for reporting? Maybe wait for five distinct attempted edits? Or 10? Or maybe a combination of attempted edits and successful edits? None of the above? Wknight94 ^talk 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the timestamps, the first 2 hits were from 1 edit, then there were 2 more separate save attempts. Note that if a user is warned, but ignores it and tries to save anyway (regardless of what action, if any, the filter takes after the warning), it counts as 2 separate attempts with different timestamps.

I'm almost done implementing some of Luk's suggestions. Rather than having a list of filters to ignore and one to report immediately for, it will have a list to report immediately for and another for filters that can be considered vandalism. So rather than requiring filters to be excluded from the count, it will require each filter to be explicitly included. I've also moved the filter lists to a wiki page that admins can edit - User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. The bot will load the lists on startup, and then every 5 minutes while running. It will also wait for 10 hits for filters in the "vandalism" list before reporting to AIV.

The changes won't affect the reporting to the IRC channel and the lists will not apply to IRC reports (though this can be changed if desired.

I'm working on a way to detect multiple hits caused by one edit now. Mr.Z-man 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to thank Z-man for his work on this bot. Let's try to cut him a little slack here, yes? He didn't have to write it. –xeno^talk 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion on my talk page and here, the operation of the bot will change.

• Users won't be reported to AIV until 10 hits in 5 minutes.
• Rather than excluding certain filters, it now uses a list of filters to include when counting hits
• The lists are in a public config page - User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. The current lists are from comments by Luk and Wknight94 on my talk page.
• Multiple filter hits from the same edit attempt (that is, where the username and timestamp for 2 hits are the same) will only be counted as 1 hit.
• The reporting to IRC won't change and won't be affected by the filter lists.

-- Mr.Z-man 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot based on the above. Thanks again for your work on this. –xeno^talk 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, very nice job! And kudos to almost everyone for their patience. Wknight94 ^talk 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And if it wasn't for REdvers, we'd not have a bot that was operating functionally and correctly per policy and guidelines. I don't know what the fuss is about, especially since a bot was operating without bounds and throwing out null or unenforceable entries. Don't be a dick about it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Except all of the ideas I implemented I would have done anyways and were suggested by other people on my talk page, and all but one was suggested before the bot was blocked. If anything, having to reply here just slowed me down. I would also note that since I was online at the time, blocking it wasn't necessary. Had someone asked me to, I would have stopped it. In any case, I fail to see what policy the bot was violating. Last I checked, annoying an admin isn't against policy. The bot was not operating without bounds, the bounds it was using were just found to be too loose, which is the point of the trial, to determine these things. Mr.Z-man 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The last bit of my statement was in reply to "...And kudos to almost everyone for their patience..." seicer | talk | contribs 03:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which in turn was in reply to the unnecessarily belligerent rhetoric here. Why is the first message from Redvers on Mr. Z-man's talk page a block followed by hilarious crapflood complaints over and over. Why not "hey, could you turn off the bot until it works a little more cleanly?" Some attempt to understand what was happening and how to fix it? That's the trouble on the AN pages - too much comedic posing and too little constructive administration. But, I'm a dick so of course I would say that. Wknight94 ^talk 03:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks to Z for kicking ass on this bot. rootology (C)(T) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Thanks again, Mister Z! -- Luk ^talk 07:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Redvers, that wasn't the best of bug reports. Please read How to Report Bugs Effectively. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to Mr.Z for having acted admirably upon the request; the bot reporting will make much more efficient the dealing with those users. Cenarium (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I dislike rude bot-masters at least as much as anyone here, but in Z-man's defense, I'd like to point out that responding to discussion threads while simultaneously trying to fix a bot will make anyone, er, "belligerent". Let's cut him some slack, & also keep the discussion about his bot on his Talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection review

Resolved

I just indef-semi'd a couple of articles and would appreciate feedback from other admins as to whether it might be a good idea to do a few more; a look at their recent history will give an indication as to why I did it, and why it might be a good idea to do related articles... thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see these protected for a year and then re-reviewed when they expire. –xeno^talk 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would indef fully protect ?, it's a redirect prone to vandalism, but not semi the others at all: insufficient vandalism/disruption - it was almost null edits. Even considering the background, it's not worth it. Cenarium (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Both articles should be Unprotected — the level of disruption does clearly not warrant an indefinite semi-protection. — Aitias // discussion 17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants semiprot either (from a CU perspective). -- Luk ^talk 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I figured it'd be a good approach to cutting off our special friend's most recent clever attempts at self-aggrandizement, but if y'all think it's a bad idea, unprotect away. *shrugs* Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with unprotection. Protecting forever would be exactly what they wanted in the first place. If it persists and you feel strongly, maybe an abuse filter would do the trick. Wknight94 ^talk 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If I could figure out how the abuse filter worked, I'd suggest it. Never mind; unprotected. I'll skip to the 'I' in 'RBI' next time. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno changing block settings

Can we get some feedback in regards to this? This is a direct spin-off from the horrific BLP abuses on Catherine Crier, that are so bad that Thatcher indefinitely semi protected the talk page, and Deskana the article fully indefinitely (which cannot be undone without Oversight approval). Apparently, Grawp has taken to abusing this BLP wildly. Go look at it's edit histories for all the hidden revisions. I asked Thatcher here about the situation, and minutes later got a Grawped here. Its a known fact now that Joker is Grawp, and that Grawp has been taking after the Crier article. To the point where I guess even the Crier reps may know about Grawp now, whose real identity is known.

I blocked the IP as a likely open proxy per every reasonable common sense duck test you can imagine--it's a known fact that Grawp breathes open proxies on trojanned and zombied Windows boxes and who knows what else, which is why he's unstoppable. I discussed this with Xeno here and apparently I didn't hit save fast enough (it was still open in a tab on my firefox) to unlock the editing of the talk page, so he shortened the block expressly against my written request that he get consensus. I never ask for my admin actions to not be undone, and go out of my way to say "Do what you need with them," so

1. I'm a bit miffed that he didn't do this, and I ask for both admin actions to be reviewed
2. I'm furious that I know now we've only been doing waste of time 24-31 hour blocks on these hordes of BLP-abusing proxies

If we block them 3-5 years--it's not abusive to IPs. They can ask for an unblock any time. rootology/equality 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP didn't make any BLP-violating edits, so 3-5 years seems entirely abusive to me. I checked for a proxy and found none. Seems like a standard 4chan-style distributed attack. The IP will be onto someone else shortly - it probably already is. If the target articles are locked down, what more can the IPs do but ask admins why they are so serious? –xeno^talk 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But, if Root is right, you appear to have undone first and discussed after. That would be wheelwarring. Perhaps better to say why this isn't wheelwarring? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I discussed first and then implemented a compromise when he terminated the discussion on his last word. Further, his words weren't matching his actions (an issue I see now has been attributed to tabbed browsing, this could have been resolved with further discussion, but alas). –xeno^talk 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on since apparently all the actual edits have been oversighted into the void, but in general 4chan style attacks that involve repetitive behavior can often be good targets for the abuse filter. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to pen a filter but by the time I had it sorted, they were on to something else =] –xeno^talk 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't operate on the basis of blocking every innocent IP until they request unblocking (and as of a few minutes after they are used they are likely to be innocent users). Long term blocks on short term IPs are not effective or helpful to anyone. Not every IP which clicks on the links Grawp posts on /b/ is Grawp or an open proxy - it's far more commonly a board invasion. These IPs are extremely unlikely to be used by the same users again, so long blocks are simply not appropriate. See WP:IPB for more information on block lengths for IP addresses. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This sums up succinctly my thoughts on the matter. Our default position is to block IPs for a reasonable amount of time appropriate to the offense, incrementally increasing the length as they re-offend. Not to jump immediately to a multi-year block on the back of a single juvenile vandalism to an admin's talk page. –xeno^talk 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to block an IP for years at a time. And the "zomg BLP" scare tactics being employed here aren't particularly appropriate either. Please stop, Rootology. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Folks here have it right. The IPs that make the Grawp-ish attacks are just following instructions on the 4chan website to click a link provided by grawp and then click save. It is rare that any of them will actually be Grawp or open proxies. Block for 24 hours and submit to WP:OPP for checking if you want to be sure. And it is usually good to semi-protect whatever page is being attacked by the /b/tards for around 24 hours. (Although, with the amount of traffic on /b/, 3 hours is probably enough.) As for the rest, just follow the standard Grawp response, revert, block and ignore. Thatcher 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that janitors on /b/ give invasion threads and the like short shrift, and will often delete an active thread if it involves invading another site. Don't even bother blocking - just hunt for open proxies amongst the IPs (not likely since 4chan bans OPs as well) and semi the affected pages indefinitely unless there's a very compelling reason not to. Also, in re Grawp's RL identity being known - not so. Grawp is an ED collective; I'd wager pennies to pineapples that J.D.H. has nothing at all to do with its most recent actions, especially given that Grawp has taken to harassing him as well. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I go to CheckUser, is there any point if I do...?

Tempdude (talk · contribs) and Tom harryson (talk · contribs) are obviously the same person. The thing is, Tempdude began his Wikipedia career by changing the sockpuppet tag on various blocked accounts to claim that they are sockpuppets of Amorrow (talk · contribs). Based on that alone, it's clear that they are someone who knows ancient Wikipedia history and have come here with some sort of agenda. Is there any point in trying to go to Checkuser to see if it can be determined who they might be, or would that just be rejected as fishing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since both accounts are now indef blocked, a checkuser will not be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but there's obviously an agenda here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a checkuser would only be carried out if there is strong evidence to suggest there are further socks. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

@Who then was a gentleman?, If you're just idly curious which troll this was, then no, don't bother. Half of the long-term trolls are the same people as the other half anyway. Or maybe all of the LTA cases are actually just one person. Who cares. No one is (or should be) keeping track. Wknight94 ^talk 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's got a sock farm going on, it might be good to know about, would it not? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts were created a few minutes before attacking. Checkuser would have been no use even beforehand, let alone now. There's no sock farm. Just get some short-term semi-protection in place and be done with it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Created by which IP and which useragent? Checkuser would be invaluable in making sure there aren't more lurking under the hood. //roux   21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for being vague, but if those accounts are what I think they are, someone else has already checked them. If they're not, then they don't need checking. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no sock farm.. And you know that how? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Move it along, people! Both accounts belong to a banned user and were CU'ed more than two hours ago. If you want to get a quick check, go to WP:SPI or contact a CheckUser instead of posting here. End of discussion. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. What wikidrama was there? All I wanted was a civil response. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both "sides" here are reasonable positions. There is often very little to gain from checking simple vandals; if they really have sleepers, they can be blocked when they start vandalizing. However, sometimes there are things that can be learned. Any editor should feel free to contact a checkuser or make a report in the "Quick Requests" section of WP:SPI, and the checkusers will decide whether it is worth their time to look it up. Thatcher 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested redirect concerning protected article

Resolved

I had asked about this prior, and the reason I had asked it is because the article I wanted re-directed was a protected one and so I couldn't edit it myself

I want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile,_Alabama_mayoral_election,_2009&action=edit&redlink=1 redirected to

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Mobile_Municipal_Elections,_2009

My work in progress article on the same subject.--Genovese12345 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the correct title? It doesn't appear to be (or ever have been) protected. – Toon^(talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• When I try to redirect I get this response

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genovese12345 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, blacklisted for some odd reason. I've created the redirect. – Toon^(talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question

Resolved

Is there anyway to block a user from looking at your contributions sections, say, if you think a user is specifically going through all your contributions for whatever reason and you don't want them to do so?--Genovese12345 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No. — Aitias // discussion 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, please consider posting such questions not here but rather on the WP:HELPDESK. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the sounds of it you should read (particularly the second paragraph of) this section of policy. It has some useful information. – Toon^(talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible "good hand" account of banned sockpuppeteer?

I believe User:K'Anpo is a "good hand" account of User:ECW500.

I came into contact with K'Anpo on Talk:WrestleCrap, where he unreverted my reversion of an ECW500 sock's post to the page, claiming the sock's point was valid. Fine, I figured, the sock did have a point. But then today I noticed that K'Anpo has been removing SSP tags from ECW500 socks. Repeatedly [53] [54] [55].

Because ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks, has already used User:CrueBall (contribs) as a good hand account, and because it seems odd to me that an account that only goes back to March 27, 2009 would take such an interest in a banned user, I'm bringing this to the community's attention. McJeff (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a "good hand" account? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:GHBH. hmwithτ 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I've never run across that terminology before. Good cop, bad cop thing, basically. That makes sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is rather suspicious and I reverted the removal of the sockpuppet tags since the accounts in question were determined by CheckUser evidence and both the User:Hippies Little Brother and User:Nina Eve Slabber accounts were both protected for awhile over removal of the tags. The K'Anpo account has not been active for 8 days now, so blocking is probably not necessary. You are welcome to file a CheckUser request on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It may have been a good idea to try and bring me into this discussion. I used to edit as an IP, and have previously reverted vandalism on Wrestlecrap and RD Reynolds. As far as reverting a sockpuppet's vandalism, the user above falsely accused some IP editor of "vandalism" and then reverted said IP's comment on a talk page where the IP complained about vandalism! User:McJeff then got the IP temporarily blocked and removed his comment from the talk page, and then went and removed the very vandalism that the IP was complaining about in the first place! I merely reinstated the comment on the discussion page, and assumed good faith on User:McJeff's part. As far as removing tags, well, in the cases of User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me, we have been over this in excruciating detail before. I never REMOVED tags, these vandal-only accounts had ALREADY BEEN TAGGED on their discussion pages. I merely removed the second, redundant tags from the userpages. perhaps it would have been better to remove the discussion-page tags? Or maybe to just have ignored User:McJeff's ignorance? User:McJeff knows this very well, as I explained it to him before at least twice. As far as the other 2 users are concerned, yes I have removed some tags. I clicked on the "contributions" tag on their pages, and was surprised to see that although these people were obviously vandal-only accounts, none of their vandalism was in any way shape or form connected to RD Reynolds, Wrestlecrap, or Pebbles Cereal. Unless there's something that I'm completely ignorant of, it seemed the correct thing to do, as they appear to be wholly unrelated to User:ECW500. If one checks the "suspected sockpuppets" page, one now sees that User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me are both now listed twice each, which I guess makes User:McJeff happy, but in no way convicts me of being anything other than a Wrestlecrap fan. K'Anpo (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, see the discussion pages and useraccount pages of these blocked sockpuppets. I explained there perfectly clearly what I did, and why, but now those explanations have been removed. If one checks Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees that both User:Bryan Alvarez and User talk:Bryan Alvarez are there as are both User:Youse can't see Me and User talk:Youse can't see Me, effectively adding up to four different sockpuppet accounts of user:ECW500. Perhaps someone else should remove the redundant tags, because after I did and explained why, those superfluous tags were readded, and my explanations removed. K'Anpo (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I can't help but notice that User:K'Anpo wasn't actually notified about this thread, and yet that after 8 days of inactivity, he found it instantaneously. Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts, I see K'Anpo's abrupt appearance in this thread as yet another something suspicious about this user.

Also note this diff where K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me of being connected with the sock farms.

Requesting that someone other than myself file a Checkuser, as the last time I filed an ECW500 related checkuser it was declined as "no need". McJeff (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do no always log in to post comments/edits, but I come here most days to READ and see changes etc. When I feel the need to edit something, or make discussion points only then do I log in. This was clearly such a need. Note that User:McJeff has been blocked TWICE before, once for removing points from discussion pages. I do not mind that when he has removed my comments from his discussion page, but clearly an administrator did mind as he blocked him for it! When he removed the IP's points from the Wrestlecrap discussion page, he went one further even accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet of ECW500. As noted above, and elsewhere, I removed the "sockpuppet" tags from the vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages, as THEY WERE ALREADY TAGGED AS SOCKPUPPETS OF ECW500 and I felt it was silly to tag the same vandalaccounts twice. That's it. As far as the other two, after checking their "contributions" I discovered that they had never vandalized RD Reynolds or Wrestlecrap. Apparently someone worked out that they ARE sockpuppets of ECW500, so it's my mistake and I apologize for that. However we need to understand someone trying to remove duplicate tags, and being genuinely ignorant on one hand, and on the other someone maliciously trying to brand others as socks using only half-truths. User:McJeff showed that I removed the tag from say User:Bryan Alvarez' one page, but never showed that I had already tagged him on his discussion page. Had he done so it would have been obvious that I was merely removing a duplicate tag, and NOT trying to "cover up" anything. Using my comments on his discussion page(in which I admittedly did go overboard being rather emotional at the time) as further "evidence" is equally strange. Also note that one of ECW500's banned socks is called User:Mcleff, and he is tagged on his discussion pageUser talk:Mcleff, and not his user page. If one views the Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ECW500 one sees the first two vandals User:Bryan Alvarez and user:Youse can't see Me each still appear as two separate socks(totalling four)! All I was attempting to do was make them one sock each. If User:McJeff has problems with that, okay, but that doesn't make me a sock any more than it makes that IP, and it probably won't stop him removing people's innocent and valid comments from discussion pages. K'Anpo (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, the "sock of ECW500"'s "vandalism" was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWrestleCrap&diff=286469096&oldid=285908360. Just because User:McJeff claims that this IP is a sock of ECW500 does not make it so, any more than his claim that I am. This was even discussed at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_68#WrestleCrap_article_filling_up_with_cruft.3F where I pointed out the same topic on Talk:WrestleCrap. In User:McJeff's eyes that makes both me and the IP who raised it in the first place "socks of ECW500"! One needs only to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMcJeff to see who the real disruptive editor is. K'Anpo (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So, does lying about someone's block record count as "disruptive"?

Just for outside clarification, I've been blocked once in 4 and a half years on wikipedia - for forgetting about 3RR. That block was undone ahead of schedule.

Also, about "innocent" IP that K'Anpo is accusing me of having falsely reverted for vandalism was, in fact, blocked as a sock.

I hate dealing with these defamatory rants from other editors, as ignoring it makes you look bad and responding somehow always drags you down to their level. McJeff (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, the only defamatory ranting is coming from you. The IP was blocked as a sock, only because you hounded them and once again showed half-truths and facts, without stuff such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floater320&diff=prev&oldid-286461060

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lacksjdasfd&diff=prev&oldid=287605323

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bananasgorilla&diff=prev&oldid=287605627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ADementedSon%diff=prev&oldid=287794722

The IP was "blocked as a sockpuppet" because of the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bryan_Alvarez&diff=prev&oldid=286600411

however someone has already made the edit(as the IP did explain) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk3ABryanAlvarez&diff=286600385&oldid=286485900 which User:McJeff "forgot" to mention when he reported the IP as a sock. The IP explained this at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User_talk:41.245.171.28 It was AFTER this that User:McJeff deliberately deleted the IP comments on the Talk:WrestleCrap page, and I reverted the comments about the "WrestleCrap Radio Cruft".

As for myself, my edits include http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youse_can't_see_Me&diff=prev&oldid=287073352 and I left explanations on the User:Bryan Alvarez and User:Youse can't see Me pages that the new tags were removed only because there were already sockpuppet tags on the User_talk:Bryan Alvarez and User_talk:Youse can't see Me pages!

As far as the other two were concerned this is pure ignorance on my part as I only checked http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Nina_Eve_Slabber and http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Contributions/Hippies_Little_Brother and saw no vandalism of RD Reynolds, WrestleCrap or Pebbles Cereal. User:McJeff can twist facts, display only certain edits while deliberately ignoring others, and as we saw even get an innocent user blocked as a sockpuppet. He is also fond of removing comments from pages, which has already gotten him blocked. But why is he so interested in my edits? How was he even aware that I had made those?

In User:McJeff's own words "...ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks..." yet who is the one who trolled the site and "found" this information? I have only discovered this after wasting much time reading the logs, yet User:McJeff seems very aware of the inner workings of User:ECW500's warped mind.

It is not unusual for innocent users to be "Tagged" or "branded" such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BongWarrior&oldid=293452084

So what have we learned? That User:McJeff a previously blocked user, who has already been warned for removing other poster's comments, has already gotten one IP blocked by only displaying selected facts, and in his mind that IP "must" be a sock. When I reverted that IP's legitimate comments, User:McJeff obviously developed a grudge, and now used half-truths and out and out lies to "brand" me as a sock too! K'Anpo (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, as to the IP note the date/time of his/her blocking and the duration....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A41.245.171.28

(note also that User:Mentifisto did not regard the IP as a sock http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk&3AWrestleCrap&diff=286843633&oldid=286839123 , after yet another of User:ECW500's socks, this one called User:Marycolemanfan (and see User_talk:Marycolemanfan , making a note that Marycolemanfan is tagged as a sock on the discussion page, and not the userpage) had vandalized the same page, and User:Mentifisto reverted it to the IP's version!)

Now during that period when the IP was BLOCKED as a sockpuppet as per User:McJeff half-truths and lies, User:ECW500 struck again under the moniker User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul, making destructive edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GaryColemanFan&diff=prev&oldid=287076846 Following this obvious vandalism consistent with User:ECW500, User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul was rightfully blocked as a sockpuppet of User:ECW500.

Some notable facts are that a)user:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul vandalized User:GaryColemanFan's discussion page during the period when the IP that User:McJeff had accused of being a sockpuppet of ECW500 was blocked b)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul is indeed a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 c)User:Huey the Wrestlecrap Ghoul (ie User:ECW500 for they are the same person) falsely accused User:GaryColemanFan, an editor who has spent much time both reverting ECW500's vandalism and also having his page vandalized by ECW500, of being a sock. That's right, User:GaryColemanFan was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500 by User:ECW500 himself at a time when the IP could not possibly have been involved as he/she had been blocked temporarily thanks to the lies of User:McJeff!! K'Anpo (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that this topic is nearly "at the top" now, so I would just like to make a few more points... Having reread this discussion it struck me that User:McJeff made some startling comments on this very page, such as "ECW500 is already known to take interest in the pages of his blocked socks" and "Knowing that ECW500 stalks the contributions of people who fight his vandalism efforts". Well, I certainly didn't know that until User:McJeff pointed it out. He seems to be well aware of User:ECW500 's activities. And, as shown above, I AM one of the "people who fight his vandalism efforts". He also said that "K'Anpo, in a roundabout way, accuses me(meaning User:McJeff) of being connected with the sock farms". I never did any such thing. I merely stated that his making this accusation against ME being ECW500, after I'd already explained any prior misunderstandings, was a suspicious action. It was User:McJeff himself who volunteered the idea that there may be some connection between him and User:ECW500!

Furthermore, User:McJeff knew exactly how long it had been since I last edited. And how strange that he waited until I had been inactive for more than week before he presented this "evidence" of his (refuted above) on this page. Did he perhaps think that I might be on vacation or something, and would thus be unable to defend myself? We already know(as shown above with the IP editor, another person who fights the vandalism efforts of ECW500) that User:McJeff has already successfully gotten an innocent editor blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500, and that User:ECW500 continued his vandalism while this supposed "sockpuppet" was blocked! User:McJeff certainly did not think that I would find his attack on me, and when presented with counterevidence resorted to insults such as accusing me of "defamatory ranting" and claims that even replying to me is "dragging [him] down to my level". He never actually gives any real replies, besides boasting that he got an innocent editor blocked as a sockpuppet of ECW500. And User:McJeff certainly never thought that I would be so anal as to spend the better part of 2 hours reading through revision histories and logs connected with User:ECW500, making notes to present on this page!

As noted above, User:ECW500 has already falsely accused users, including User:Bongwarrior (an administrator no less!) of being a sockpuppet of User:ECW500. More interestingly, he accused User:GaryColemanFan of being a "good" sock of User:ECW500. Yet those are 2 of the most respected editors on Wikipedia, and both have tirelessly fought the vandalism of User:ECW500. Now User:McJeff accuses ME of being a "good hand sock" (which most people here didn't even know what that meant in a manner suspiciously similar to the way that User:ECW500 accused User:GaryColemanFan of the very same thing! We can thus see that both User:McJeff and User:ECW500 are in the habit of accusing people who revert User:ECW500's (and User:McJeff's as per my revision on the Talk:WrestleCrap page) vandalism of being sockpuppets and/or "good hand" sockpuppets of User:ECW500! We can see that User:McJeff has already succeeded once! We see that since I actually REPLIED to his accusations that he first made personal insults, let slip a few choice bits of information, and then disappeared! In fact earlier I did NOT accuse him in a roundabout way of anything. But now, as they say, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims in the duckpond....." K'Anpo (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE

(edit conflict with David's archiving) I'm marking this as archived (perhaps boldly, but hear me out, please). AN isn't an appropriate forum to try to burn an editor at the stake and it nearly never works to adjust behavior of a very longtime contributor. We have a large number of appropriate forums to discuss editor behavior on a broader scale, including WP:RFC/U (which coincidentally is how the last thread regarding this signature issue was resolved when it was brought up on this board previously).

If there are issues with Docu's conduct broadly, please use an appropriate forum. A makeshift one here really isn't helpful or appropriate. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

• Docu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE. The user's signature has no links to his user page or user talk page, and also does not have date/timestamps. Example: [56]

Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal_links: It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. (emphasis added, note "must")

I asked User:Docu about this on his talk page on 2 June 2009 [57]. The threaded discussion can be seen here [58]. User:Docu did not respond to my request to please add a link to his userpage and/or talk page in his signature.

Another user, Jayron32 (talk · contribs), again raised the issue with User:Docu, in a post to his talk page on 3 June 2009 [59]. LibStar (talk · contribs) also echoed this request [60]. User:Docu did not respond to this, and instead blanked his talk page [61].

I put this up here for the community to discuss - it seems highly inappropriate for an admin's signature to blatantly violate WP:SIGNATURE as User:Docu's does.

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. Before anyone says the lack of a proper signature isn't a problem, it undoubtedly IS a problem if so many people are complaining about it. And it will continue to be a problem until it is changed (and this endless cycle of complaints about it will continue) Lack of a link to the user or talk pages and lack of a time stamp is downright inconvenient for everyone who wishes to contact him, and given that he is an admin, it should be relatively easy for all users, not just experienced ones, to find his talk page without having to navigae there the hard way. He has never given any explanation whatsoever for the lack of a link and timestamp - and honestly a suitable explanation hasn't been apparent to anyone commenting on the issue before. One pigheaded admin shouldn't be the source of so many issues over something so bloody trivial. We wouldn't tolerate that from any non-admin. Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer. Viridae^Talk 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable, actually. He also ignored a request from me to change it. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • He has ignored countless requests to change it. Viridae^Talk 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous AN discussion on the subject. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the above proposal by Viridae (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a genuine problem. It seems that there have been several complaints about it, and no explanation from Docu why he does not bring his signature into compliance with accepted standards. This baffles me, because I know him as a good editor and administrator. If we obtain consensus here that he should make his signature standards-compliant, I'm ready to act on it should he choose not to.  Sandstein  09:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support a block until Docu complies with set standards on signatures. seicer | talk | contribs 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there's some excess free time around here so I'll take this opportunity to advertise Wikipedia:Alleviate negative unsourced statements. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite. Those who are playing the "no explanation" card should take note that this explanation was given five and one half years ago. It's understandable that someone might get to the point of ignoring repeated requests for the same explanation, over and over again, after five years. Please find something better to do with your time than harrassing someone, and threatening to harrass xem with administrator tools no less, for "not explaining" something that xe has already explained, long since.

  And if you don't understand the practice that some people employ of archiving user talk pages to the page history, Docu has a five-year-old explanation of that, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

@Uncle G: Are you aware of ? ... — Aitias // discussion 18:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure that a block is mandated at this point. It may be, I have not decided myself on how we as a community should deal with this. However, I think he is clearly being disruptive. It is quite important to note that he DOES occasionally use the proper signature (with a link and timestamp) in situations where he is more likely to be publicly noticed. If you check his contribs list, and look at his postings to ANI, he tends to sign his posts. On article talk pages and user talk pages, he does not. Also, it looks clear that the signature is not autotyped by the "four tildes" method, but hand typed, as he occasionally makes typos when adding it. See [62]. Thus, he DOES have a valid signature, and is willing to use it, but only in cases where he anticipates getting a lot of flack, such as at ANI. If its not as public a place as ANI, he can't seem to be bothered to hit the four tildes. Which seems rather odd to me, since four tildes takes less keystrokes than hand-typing "User:Docu" which is what he appears to be doing. That only further adds to my feeling that he is intentionally making it more difficult for people to contact him or chronologize his comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe he commented somewhere that he has a nonstandard keyboard, and the tilde is difficult to produce. –xeno^talk 13:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And from xyr point of view, you are harrassing xem over something that xe explained, and gave good reason for, five and a half years ago, without looking for that explanation first. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, no, not a good reason, actually. Even if he can't easily type tildes, there is a shortcut section below the edit box. One click on the four tildes there inserts four tildes into the edit box. (And what's with the "xyr" and "xe"? Is this xome xort of xlang that one needs to use to be politically xorrect nowadays?)  Sandstein  13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's some kind of gender-neutral pronoun that has been floated about for some time now (wikt:xe). –xeno^talk 13:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and per [63], it appears that Docu uses a Swiss German keyboard layout, as I do. The tilde is indeed produced with [AltGr]-[^], and the [^] key is just to the left of the [Backspace] key. I've never had any trouble signing my posts using tildes typed like that, as I am doing now:  Sandstein  13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Why doesn't he just use -- User:Docu, which looks exactly the same? hmwithτ 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The explanation for that was given five and a half years ago. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't a good answer. He can just press the button. hmwithτ 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the abuse filter --NE2 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is an "insert 4 tildes" link on every edit page. I hope he doesnt have a non-standard wikipedia. Livewireo (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I was about to give him a pass, per Uncle G's explanation, but thankfully I edit-conflicted with Livewireo above, who reminded me that its not 4 keystrokes, its one mouse click to sign a post. I don't think its unreasonable given the ease with which he could sign correctly that he be asked to do so. At the very least, I do highly recommend that he have the forsight to understand that people are going to find something out-of-place, and post a notice of some sort on his talk page to stop this sort of nonsense from blowing up as it has this time. But seriously, click the little signature button. It would save all of us from some grief --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't like to use a mouse, maybe someone can write a script that gives him a "sign post" button that's easy to tab to? --NE2 14:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(multi-e/c, slow to post, sorry) Users could be forgiven for not knowing that an explanation was provided five and a half years ago. I'm very interested to hear that Docu has a nonstandard keyboard and that it is "difficult" to use the tilde key. I hope that none of the other keys are difficult to use, but perhaps after five and a half years a new keyboard is in order? Alternatively, Docu could use their mouse to click on the signature button above the edit window - unless they also have a nonstandard mouse.

Apologies if I seem short on patience and goodwill in this post; it's because I took the time to review Docu's talk page history - a task made much harder considering that Docu doesn't archive their talk page, but instead blanks it with the comment "move old talk to page history" (see for example the "archiving" of this somewhat bizarre conversation). Here is an abbreviated list - I didn't catch all the comments, I only listed new sections, not other users adding their own concerns, and I only went back 1,000 edits:-

• Gary King - Jul 2008 [64]
• Quiddity - Sep 2008 [65]
• Adambro - Sep 2008 [66] and a polite follow-up [67]
• Tbsdy lives - Sep 2008 [68] (follow-up, couldn't find the original)
• JzG - Sep 2008 [69]
• TenOfAllTrades - Oct 2008 [70]
• Reedy - Apr 2009 [71]
• Stifle - May 2009 [72]
• TreasuryTag - May 2009 [73]
• Hipocrite - May 2009 [74]
• Cirt - Jun 2009 [75]

The lack of proper signature, the non-user-friendly talk page blanking, and the stubborn refusal to answer simple questions from an editor in good standing (see "bizarre" diff above) add up to a very unhelpful administrator. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF? hmwithτ 14:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If he prefers not to use his mouse to click on the 'sign post' button, I bet that a polite request at either the Help Desk or the Computing Reference Desk would turn up scads of people who could help him remap the tilde to a more convenient key on his keyboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to block him, get consensus to change WP:SIG into a policy, and prescribe a penalty for violating it. Otherwise, this has been discussed to death. Don't we have more important things to be doing besides rehashing this? Oppose block. --Kbdank71 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I too have gone to Docu's talk page to ask him to include a link, but stopped when I saw how many times he had been asked. As I noted on Hipocrite's talk page, Docu has been asked dozens of times. Clearly a fair amount of people find his signature to be problematic, and it's troublesome that he is unwilling to make such a minor adjustment. --auburnpilot talk 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to one of the unanswered questions in the thread Sheffield Steel highlighted, Docu became an admin in Dec 2003, with a vote of 6/0/0 (7/0/0 if you count the nom) --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Viridae (talk · contribs)'s proposal. This isn't AN-drama mongering (ok, not just drama mongering), the number of people who have asked Docu shows that it is innately disruptive. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Docu's been here for a long time, to the days where a few people could say "ok, looks cool enough" RfA's were the norm, as linked above. It may be tough to break long, bad habits like this, but it really is quite annoying to interact with someone without a valid sig. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Viridae's proposal. Docu's lack of a signature manages to inconvenience other editors wherever he goes. Wikipedia is a group project, where you should not deliberately be unhelpful to other editors, and mastering a modern keyboard is not difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of like the one guy at work who drinks the last cup of coffee without ever making a fresh pot, or who cuts into the queue at the photocopier. They're behaviours and activities which make things slightly easier for the person who does them, but which also tend to slightly inconvenience everyone else in the workplace. It's not something that gets an employee fired, but it creates bad feelings all around.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to handle this class of problem well. We generally feel – with some justification – that social norms shouldn't have to be codified. It shouldn't be necessary to raise an RfC over this, or threaten blocks, or write new policy, or escalate all the way up to ArbCom. Everyone involved feels silly, because after all, it's such a little thing. (Has anyone ever been in a workplace where management issued a memo reminding people to make fresh coffee and not cut in line at the photocopier? Wouldn't everyone involved both look and feel like children?)

This doesn't need a {policy} or {guideline}. A substantial number of editors have been asking for a long period of time for one editor to modify his behaviour such that it conforms to accepted practice. The change will represent a trivially-minor inconvenience (which most editors already put up with without difficulty), and will have the long-term benefit of making things a little bit easier for every other editor. It's what Miss Manners – or any good utilitarian – would do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sig is an irritation, but I'm actually more bothered by the poor, I might say willfully obstructive interaction, as highlighted in that not just bizarre but unpleasant thread. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. the sig is a relatively small thing, but what bothers me is that this indicates an attitude that is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. If he's willing to annoy other people for no good reason with the sig, what other, more harmful things, will he tend to do? The cluebat seems excessive, but in light of the failure of other means of persuasion, what's left? Does Wikipedia tolerate editors who behave this way, or not? Friday (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Dweller's point above (particularly about the bizarre discussion), and also with TenofAllTrades' coffee-pot analogy even further up. If Docu isn't going to start behaving co-operatively, in a way conducive to "building" a collaborative encyclopedia, then he has no place here. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I note in the user's most recent post he used a signature with a link and a timestamp. Is it possible he's taken on board Jayron's latest urging to use a signature and this is much ado about nothing? –xeno^talk 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, he seems to link his sig when commenting on AN and AN/I. --auburnpilot talk 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of users who've requested Docu to change his signature in the past, and to those who are now supporting an enforced change. This is ridiculous and clearly disruptive. There's no good reason for anyone to have an entirely unlinked and undated signature. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And I would also like to see this as a precedent for giving at least that part of WP:SIG more teeth. There are other users with similarly disruptive ways of signing who are similarly immune to requests to change their signatures. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think that the refusal to use ~~~~ is a reason for a block. If someone finds the lack of a link to the talk page annoying, they do not have to communicate with such a user. If Docu wants other users to ignore him, it is a Docu's problem. However as an administrator Docu has so far done nothing wrong, and I do not have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to predict what Docu may do in the future. Ruslik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2009

No, the problem is that other users may have good reasons to communicate with him, for instance if they ask an explanation about an administrator action he made, and they can't easily do so because of the lack of a link. The ArbCom has repeatedly held, most recently at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Administrator communications, that "administrators are particularly expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed". Docu's lack of a signature inhibits such communication.  Sandstein  16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of those who did not ask him to use a proper signature because it was clear there would be no constructive response. I fully agree with TenOfAllTrades' analysis. To add something new to this discussion:
  • This response is inconsistent with the inconvenient key combination explanation.
  • I think we can really expect a user who is confronted with this question about once a month to at least put an explanation on their user page or talk page. Without being asked to do so, actually. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Viridae (talk · contribs)'s proposal. I wouldn't be as bothered if this wasn't an admin, but admins must lead by example on Wikipedia. his avoidance and vague excuses for not doing it are not in the spirit of WP cooperation and project. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would want to wait and see Docu's side before anyone starts posting up any blocks. Livewireo (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It is essential for average users to be able to easily contact any administrator, including Docu. His reluctance to use a timestamped and linked signature now that it is easy to do so (e.g. click on the icon) seems POINTy to me. If there is opposition to a block over this issue, perhaps an involuntary re-submission to RFA is more appropriate. Let the community decide whether Docu's significant contributions outweight his accessibility as an administrator. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, agree with the above, the bar is now much much higher to be an admin. see his selection for adminship. [76]. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support viradae's proposal. I have also asked him multiple times about the signature, and he has been rude and evasive on the question. He seems to be getting involved in discussions on talk and project pages more, which is why people are noticing (the bulk of his activity is gnomish). The lack of a date stamp is what i find most annoying. The real problem is he's a legacy admin from a time when standards were much lower, though the solution to that problem would involve major changes to admin tenure which are unlikely at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not only does it not link anywhere, but not using timestamps interferes with archiving. hmwithτ 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Are we seriously talking about blocking Docu here? This is a user who has been an admin for nearly six years, and we are talking about blocking because he doesn't sign his posts in the way we like? Now, I agree it's a pain, I agree Docu should sign his posts properly for all the reasons outlined in this thread. I can't, however, believe that it is seriously worth blocking a respected, long-time contributor over it. We have dispute resolution methods other than Special:BlockIP. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Typing a tilde on a Swiss German keyboard with AltGr+^ is neither difficult nor inconvenient. If all of de-wiki manage a AltGr++, and all of fr-wiki manage a AltGr+2, I'd think that Docu could, too – if he just wanted to. It is a nuisance, it has been brought up often enough, and it's unacceptable for an admin. Amalthea 17:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• It is patently absurd to discuss blocking a very longstanding and productive user over something so petty as a refusal to adopt a standard signature. Is it irritating, annoying, obnoxious, or the like? Sure. But come on - block the guy over it? Patently absurd. If the community has other issues with Docu and/or his use of the admin bit, deal with them accordingly. The Wikipedia community has far better things to do with its time than play this tired tune over and over. It's a freaking signature. Shereth 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I think this discussion has moved beyond just the signature. There are other issues, ones that deal w/ his tools specifically. hmwithτ 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I don't think it is absurd. Several users have pointed out why it's important for the signature to be linked and dated, and he's been given alternatives (such as making the sig appear unlinked, but still clickable). Users have been blocked for disruptive signatures in the past. This user has ignored repeated requests and clear community consensus on the matter. That should be sufficient in itself, without even considering the separate issues. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Docu's signature is disruptive only in that it is inconvenient - it does not hinder users from editing articles. The only argument that it is actually disrupting the normal functioning of Wikipedia is the argument that it creates issues with archiving bots. Last I checked, making life difficult for a bot was not a blockable offense. I'd love to see Docu use a standard signature as much as the next person, but threatening a block over the issue seems to me an act of making a mountain out of a molehill. Docu's contributions to the project as a whole far outweigh the damage done by his unconventional signature; his continued contributions are a net positive to the project. Blocking him for the sake of getting rid of an "annoying" signature would come at the cost of losing his many and great contributions, a net negative for the project, and essentially cutting off our own nose to spite our face. I honestly cannot believe anyone is taking this proposal seriously. Shereth 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the only problem, as others have noted. Four ~ signatures also include a date and time stamp, the absense of which is extremely disruptive to talk page discussions. This is partly the reason why we have an {{unsigned}} template. Besides all this, WP:SIG is clear on the matter: your signature must at minimum include a link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After considering, I would not support a block at this time. However, per below, I think that a formal RFC to cover the spectrum of antisocial behaviors committed by Docu needs to be started. I have felt for a while that the signature issue was a non-starter, but something needs to be done about the pattern of rude behavior that seems evident in his interactions with other users. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tangental to WP:SIG issue above; start an RfC or take to ANI if there is a pressing issue, but this is starting to fall outside AN scope. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Much greater issues with User:Docu than the signature bit

To respond to Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) from above. He actually has done things which are unbecoming of an admin, and some of them are directly related to his admin powers, while others are simply about a repeated pattern of rude behavior which makes it difficult to deal with him as an admin. The question we should be asking ourselves is would he pass an RFA today with all of the following problems:

1. The signature issue (noted ad infinitum here)
2. comments like this (thanks to hmwith for pointing this out above) which are part of a continued pattern of refusal to answer reasonable questions. He either dodges questions, ignores them all together, or as above, acts rude and unbecoming. There is an exchange on my talk page where I tried (in vain) to mediate a dispute between him and another editor. He blatantly refuses to acknowledge any comment or point which does not support his position, even when such points are shown to be valid. If I saw this pattern of interpersonal exchange in a person standing for an RFA, I would not support them.
3. He has been found, by consensus, to have misused his admin powers in an impartial manner, and where he had an interest, and where he had been told before the same thing. See WP:ANI#User:Docu and AFD closes against consensus where he was shown to have closed a series of AFD discussions in a suspicious and partial manner.

I have tried to work with this user, and have stretched the limits of my ability to assume good faith, but based on what I have observed recently with him, and with other evidence presented here and elsewhere, it does not appear that he has the support of the community insofar as being an admin is concerned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support above Totally agree with above assessment, at first I honestly thought Docu was a new user with his vague responses and refusal to say whether or not he is an admin (which I have asked why he doesn't show it on his user page - no direct response to this). there's this vague exchange as well [77] the bar is now much much higher to be an admin. see his selection for adminship. [78]. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I should note that I have no problem with admins who remain admins through changing standards so long as their behavior continues to be up to the expectations of an admin. As of now, his behavior is not up to the standards. If he had passed RFA 2 months ago, and had sudden started acting this way, I would still feel that his suitibility to continue to be an admin is questionable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, the key question here is his behaviour consistent with adminship. I believe Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct is not being met. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The sig doesn't bother me. It's easy enough to get the time or talk page of the user by clicking the history tab so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. However, the obfuscational (is that a word?) conversation linked above definitely needs explanation. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• The reason the signature bothers me is that I frequently access Wikipedia from my BlackBerry. The format of the page is slightly different when viewed on such a device, and having to scroll up to a search bar and type in his user name or scroll to the bottom of the page, click the history, find his user name, and click on the link is beyond what should be required to access somebody's talk page. A simple link solves this. --auburnpilot talk 16:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But he doesn't sound particularly tech savvy so perhaps this should be explained to him. I'm really curious about the exchange above which doesn't look healthy at all - unless there are mitigating factors that we're unaware off. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing a good deal of his talk page history a few weeks ago I would have arrived at the opposite conclusion, that he is pretty savvy about these things. Drawn Some (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's only "easy" to get the timestamp when it's the last edit in the history. For longer/complex pages or reviewing back in history, it can be very difficult to figure out which exact diff is the one you're looking for. Franamax (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like his signature but he's been using it for six years and I don't think he should be hassled over it. I told him that a couple of weeks ago: [79]. Should he sign "properly"? Yes. Should he be forced to or punished for not doing so? No. I am much more concerned about his refusal to answer questions about being an administrator because I had a similar situation to LibStar's just before that interaction. I understand that it is just another set of tools and that a case could be made for it being essentially irrelevant but I believe when asked directly it should be answered without hesitation. I would like to see all administrators be included in a category of administrators or have some other uniform identification that is apparent without checking status. His status was particularly difficult to check because the record-keeping wasn't the same back then. As far as the archiving of his talk page, he clearly marks when he is saving it in the edit summary and he made the point many years ago that it was already archived in the history and there is something to be said for that. Yes, the bar for being administrator is much higher now than it was six years ago but that is essentially irrelevant until there is some procedure where all admins have to go up for confirmation every year or two which is what I would support. The people who have been around for a while are very important for institutional memory. Six years is a long time in terms of Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That he's been using the same way of signing for 6 years doesn't suggest community tolerance or support, only that he's been ignoring multiple requests to change it. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not a category, but Special:ListUsers/sysop works. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  Or just add the following to your monobook: importScript("User:Animum/usergroups.js"); //[[User:Animum/usergroups.js]]

Yeah, I understand that there are ways of checking, but you can't expect new users to be able to figure stuff like those methods out. Put yourself in the shoes of your average user. Drawn Some (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some admins might not want to "present" as an admin because it might cause people to act differently towards them, when they should not. Admins are just editors with a few extra buttons. –xeno^talk 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that but when an ordinary user asks if they are an admin, as in my case in the context of what I thought was non admin closure, there was no response to my question instead a series of vague questions in response. Admins should identify themselves when necessary not pretend not to be one when asked. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. And like he pointed out to me, you shouldn't trust someone telling you that they are an admin anyway. BTW, I tried the monobook thing but futzed it up. Anyone can feel free to fix it for me if possible. Drawn Some (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support an involuntary re-RFA (if that's possible). I have no trust in him as an admin, based on his interactions with me and other users and his recent actions at AFD and his general refusal to abide by community standards that multiple editors have complained about. Is there any editor here who would complain if he signed properly? No. Are there many editors that are vexed that he refuses to comply with a simple, courteous community standard? Yes. Is this indicative of an overall attitude that degrades confidence in his collegiality and judgement? Yes.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  No such thing. –xeno^talk 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pity. There should be. I suppose the best course is a block until he promises to change his ways on the sig, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the sequence of events here [80] following a very clear outcome in this deletion review shows a genuine attempt to circumvent DRV processes. I am particulary concerned that an admin tried to do this and not respect DRV. LibStar (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Administrator communications, administrators are expected to respond to comments, criticisms and other matters promptly and civilly, especially in regards to administrative actions and to justify where and when needed. Docu has refused to do that time and time again, simply "archiving" by wiping the slate clean on his talk page. That is unacceptable, and going on a vague, incorrect response five years ago about his handicapped keyboard is not enough. Given that Docu has come up time and time again on subjects that exceed the bound of his signature issues, especially in regards to his improper and biased AFD closures, he should either be subject to reconfirmation as administrator, or voluntary de-sysop himself lest he wants this process dragged out that could very well end at a RFC. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion makes me want to bring up WP:EQUALITY (even though I don't fully agree with it). Just because he's been doing this for a long time and has been an editor forever does not mean that he can get away with acting and communicating the way he does. He is rude and condescending to other editors, and it looks bad for Wikipedia as a whole. As someone mentioned above, if this was a new admin, less people would be letting it slide. hmwithτ 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I would support a desysop of this user—xe has made constructive contributions as a user, but the lack of communication and civility cannot be tolerated in an administrator. I would be neutral about blocking the user, leaning toward a weak support. Dendodge _T\^C 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help ignoring WP:AGF & wonder if the original complaint about Docu's signature was due to friction between him & other users -- which now is being discussed directly about removing his Admin bit. I personally don't have a problem with how he signs his posts (I don't want a repeat of the last WikiDrama over people's signatures), & if he is dis-sysopted, I believe how he signs his posts is no longer a big deal to the vast majority of Wikipedians. What I'd like to see is that either this discussion about his fitness as an Admin is moved to an RfC, or the thread "User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE" closed before this thread grows much longer. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More personal attacks + edit warring

Dear Administrators,

I have earlier reported User:Interestedinfairness for a personal attack on myself (diff here), which resulted in that user being warned. However, he has done it again, this time to User:ThuranX, by calling him "childish" (diff here). Furthermore, if you look at the history of the Kosovo article (which is, by the way, on probation), you'll see User:Interestedinfairness deleting whole chunks of referenced text that don't suit his POV pushing. Several users have accused him of POV pushing and have warned him many times to stop doing what he is doing, on his talk page. However, the POV pushing is continuing and he is turning the Kosovo discussion into a "who Kosovo really belongs to" discussion. I propose that some action be taken, as he was already warned too many times and it's not working.

All the best,

--Cinéma C 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Need technical fixup of Death.jpg and Death (DC Comics).jpg

Resolved

The histories of File:Death.jpg and File:Death (DC Comics).jpg need to be merged and File:Death.jpg deleted so commons:File:Death.jpg shows through. As it stands now, Death has a file and Death (DC Comics) has the image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages cannot be moved in filespace. I'll have to just copy the data, and cut-and-paste the history into a subpage. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems now that the Commons is obscuring the old file. Ouch. Anyone have a way to get around this? -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You got me. Maybe it's time to get a coder involved? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've manually uploaded the old file. Hopefully everything is ok now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, and the commons version of File:Death.jpg is now showing through. I've tagged this as resolved. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

help - page formatting messed up

I added to [[81]] but the formatting is messed up and the bots are faster than me in editing. Fixing help would be appreciated. Iqinn (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The report is fixed and I've commented on the same. TNXMan 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:The Pillars 02.jpg

Resolved

I would move this into article namespace but I can't. I can't remember if you guys can or not but if you can and want to that's fine. I was inclined to suggest deletion, but last time I tried to get an article in the wrong namespace deleted, MfD sent me to AfD and AfD sent me to MfD. So you guys deal with it. Gurch (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The one image/article looked like G11 to me, and the other image was clearly a copyright violation (I guess it's reasonable to believe the uploader works for them, but without confirmation...). So yeah, nuked. He's also been inactive over a year, so I'm going to assume this is the is the end of it and marking it resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old

How often does the above category get dealt with? I do a lot of other image work and I'd be willing to work on it, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy carp, that's a backlog! This may need a task force or a commission or an ad hoc committee. I'll pitch in, but this needs dozens of admins. KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On my way! :) Seriously though, all of the image deletion backlogs are getting way too big. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculously huge. I just did about 25. These are really laborious deletions because some have multiple versions which have to go, and to cleanup your have to go back to the image, edit and remove the template and save.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I will get on this as well. Mfield (Oi!) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so that you know you can remove the template in one click after deleting an image by using FileScripts. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found that and the other image related scripts, thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope to improve that so that it also helps with the actual deletion, but that will take a bit more time; I just added that functionality in ~10 minutes. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for working on this. Like I stated above, I do a lot of image work and I'm willing to help out, but unfortunately, I'm not an admin. :) Rockfang (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Einstein Page

I would like to clean up the Einstein page by starting with the "External Links" section. There are some dead links there and other I think may be unnecessary and a violation of Wiki policy on EL. I believe this page can only be edited by registered editors. How can I register? Bigweeboy (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection blocks users that are not autoconfirmed from editing. That means your account needs to be at least 4 days old and you need to have 10 or more edits to anything. You have already made one by asking this question, so see if there are any other pages that interest you that you can help and you should be good to go! Livewireo (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unprotected, has been almost a year, let's give unprotection a try. –xeno^talk 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Looking at your contributions and the age of your account, you should be able to edit semi-protected articles Livewireo (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. I have made some edits to the EL section and the changes seem to have taken hold. Bigweeboy (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Vandalism

Why are you(NJGW) vandalizing the 'Race and Intelligence' page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.250.35 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NJGW (talk · contribs) isn't an admin. Plus, you should contact them on their talk page about their edits. – Toon^(talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion folks. 86.42.250.35 (talk · contribs) wants to know why I'm telling them they are at 3rr for removing the same bit of info from an article 3 times. Please enjoy the rest of your evening. NJGW (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, directed to IP) Also, please review the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. You are making accusations with no merit. Tan | 39 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one with merit: That statement of scientific research should be sourced to something that is a little better than a web-log whose unidentifiable author is known solely by the pseudonym "Mo", and whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy thus cannot be determined. I observe that the editor without an account has actually made this point twice ("poor quality citation" "Wikipedia should not cite blogs"). Instead of doing nothing more than treating this as vandalism, edit warring back and forth over the content, and then issuing warnings, I suggest treating it as the quite valid challenge to the reliability of the source cited that it is, and addressing the underlying, and explicitly stated, problem by finding and citing a reliable source. That will stop the editor without an account far more satisfactorily than 3RR will. And it will improve the encyclopaedia, to boot. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Uncle G. here. While the IP editor is mistaken that a user should be an admin to issue warnings (they don't; anyone can) the IP editor here has a valid challenge; and as noted in places such as WP:V, and I quote "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." As the article in question is one that is likely to generate a LOT of tension over specific information, and should be scrupulously referenced to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the standard for referencing should be very high. I would support the removal of poorly sourced information at that article until such time as a valid source could be added to support it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody, anybody, please buy Uncle G a Guinness and put it on my tab. Hear, hear! --64.85.222.248 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the anon was removing information typically tagged or fixed per wp:PRESERVE, as well as referred to easily verifiable objective facts as political bias. These edits were singularly aimed at removing any evidence of controversy from the hypothesis that race governs intelligence, leading me to believe that this person is a highly POV anon. The article in question, BTW, needs a total rewrite from a sociologist. If I ever get a free month I'll do it myself (though I'm no sociologist). NJGW (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me reitate Uncle G's point. If you don't want the information removed, find a reliable source. Blogs are not generally reliable, especial for an article such as this. Go to the library, find a book, and cite it. The neat thing about that is that the problem goes away when you do that, with two benefits: a) no one gets blocked and b) the article gets better. Its a win-win! If preserving the poorly sourced information is a problem, then copy it to the talk page, and keep it out of the article, but preserved at the talk page, until such time as the information can be properly referenced. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

request

I'd like someone to take a look at this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 25#The Money Masters documentary.
cordially, Nunamiut (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just did. Now what? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it needs to be closed? hmwithτ 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

stolen pictures, info requested

I saw a stolen picture and replaced it with another picture. Looking into it, that picture is stolen, too. Given that I saw 2 stolen picture of 3, the limited sample size does show a potentially serious theft problem in Wikipedia. How should Wikipedia deal with this? Please give advice below.

The article is on the main page so many people read it, including me. That also means that many people saw the stolen photo.

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=File:A330-200F.jpg http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=File:F-GZCP.jpg

When Wikipedia is full of stolen pictures, it makes Wikipedia look amateurish and a project of some kids who are just copying stuff. This is bad. User F203 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, I see a similar problem about 4-5 threads up where there is a mention of copyright violations. User F203 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of processes in place to deal with copyright infringement. There is a process page for image issues at Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion that hopefully will help you determine how best to deal with these issues when you find them. If you are unsure, you can always take a matter to WP:MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)First, neither of the two images you pointed to were "stolen". They are used under a claim of fair use, regardless of whether or not the claim is justifiable. Second, if you feel a claim of fair use is not appropriate, please either tag the image using a template such as {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or nominate it for deletion. If the claim is not appropriately justified within 1 week, the image will be deleted. --auburnpilot talk 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement and theft are two totally different things. If you wish to properly enforce copyright laws, please learn something about them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually copyright infringement can be synonymous with intellectual property theft. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is a misnomer, since nothing is being stolen --NE2 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is: the value of the rights to the image. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't consider fair use to be intellectual property theft. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't steal something that the "owner" still has. Can you imagine going to the police station and telling them your TV was stolen, but it's still in your living room? It's insulting to compare unauthorized copying with actual theft. Stealing physical pictures makes you a thief, not making a copy, whether or not it falls under fair use. How would you like it if people started calling you a rapist for "raping the English language", by applying a word - theft - to a situation where it doesn't fit? --NE2 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You own a piece of land, your property. I notice that it's empty and no one's using it, so I go ahead and build a building on it. What's wrong with that? I haven't taken anything from you, have I, you still own the property? Well, yes, I've taken from you the right to do what you want with that property, and the right to build whatever kind of building you want, or none at all, if that's your choice, so I have definitely taken something from you. What I've taken is immaterial and noncoporeal, it's not an armchair or a backscratcher, but it exists nonetheless, and you no longer have it.

Similarly, when someone uses someone's else intellectual property without permission, they've taken away the ability to decide when and where that material can be used, and for what fee. Suppose that you're rabidly opposed to the Internet, you're an old fart and you've decided that nothing that you own is going to be on the web. Well, that's an absurd thing to decide, but it's nonetheless your decision to make, not anyone else's, so that when they place your image, your tune, your film, your short story, your essay on the Web, they've taken away your ability to control the way your owned material is used, your right to decide who makes copies of it - the copyright.

Now, it just so happens that under American law, copyrights are not eternal, they exist for only a limited amount of time (a time period that's gotten longer and longer, thanks to the efforts and money of Disney and their friends), and they are not absolute, there are exceptions to the rights that you control, and one exception is the "fair use" doctrine which says that for certain purposes and certain kinds of use, it's OK to make use of a limited amount of copyrighted material without violating the copyright owner's rights, so there is no "theft" involved. But, if I instead totally usurp your rights by making use of your intellectual property beyond these exceptions, perhaps even make money by doing it, I've reduced the value of your copyright, and have, in effect, taken away from you not only your control of the material, but also the ability to make money from it - and that is, indeed, theft. The fact that you can't report it to your local police station is completely irrelevant -- they won't take complaints about insider trading either, because both are civil matters and not criminal ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And, BTW, the imaginative and figurative extension of concrete words to more ethereal uses has been going on for a long time, probably since the invention of language, so complaining about it is pretty much pissing into the wind. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're making an absurd argument that taking away any right is theft. If I go door to door in a development that bans soliciting, am I stealing time from others? If I jaywalk, am I stealing the road? If I argue on AN, am I stealing bandwidth and disk space? If so, I'm a thief, and proud of it. But others may not be so happy to be called thieves, and you may want to avoid doing so in case you happen to violate BLP by calling someone identifiable a thief.

By the way, how many legs does a horse have? --NE2 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unable to stop myself, I have to note that the US Supreme Court would seem to support that copyright infringement is not theft in Dowling v. United States (1985), and yet the US federal government nevertheless adopts the term in the NET Act. This hair can be evenly divided. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty silly place to discuss this, so let's agree to disagree and not steal any more AN space or rape any more horses er...whatever. --NE2 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just Disney that pushed for or benefited from Intellectual property rights. It's also poor working artist schlubs like myself. Taking an image that I spent 100 or 200 hrs making, reproducing, and profiting from it is part of my liveliood. If you took those images, did the same thing to them, and thereby took my customers, potential new customers I'll never now meet, etc., it is under intellectual property rights laws, theft. Just because you can make cheap or free copies of stuff doesn't give you the legal right to. And just because I still retain the original, doesn't mean something hasn't been stolen from me.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What Disney pushed for what the extension of the period of rights well past the point where an individual would benefit from them - but a corporation would. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Harassment/edit warring

72.66.109.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has continuously removed content or reverted to his own favored version of the articles he has edited, and harasses editors who don't agree with his POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

That is totally untrue. I have started the section titled Juggalo on the WP:BLPN noticeboard. Please read the Juggalo talk page, my extensive edit summaries and also the BLP noticeboard. I have really and truly tried to talk this out with Ibarnoff but he continues to edit war and ignore the opinions of other editors. I have had a pretty constructive conversation with both Martin and Metropolitan90 (from the BLP board) about why I think the Juggalo page has a BLP issue. All I am trying to do is follow wikipedia policy the best I know how, but Ibaranoff is completely harassing me. Please suggest something, maybe some form of mediation. Thank you. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• You can find my comments on this issue at WP:BLPN, primarily at this diff. Based on what I have seen so far, I do not believe that Ibaranoff24's accusation of harassment and edit warring by 72.66.109.24 is justified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:V and especially WP:BLP, when an editor has made a good-faith challenge to potentially libelous matierial, or other material which may violate the BLP policy, the material should be removed until the dispute is resolved. BLPs are a serious issue, and we can leave some nugget of info out of an article until we are sure that the the nugget is factual and adequetly sourced, then so be it. We aren't in a rush here. Lets get it right rather than get it NOW. Otherwise, since this thread appears to be an extension of an existing thread in another location, we shouldn't split up threads. Let us allow the WP:BLPN thread to play itself out here and not divide the issues up among different forums. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It is clear that this individual is not editing in good faith. He has repeatedly reverted any edit that he disagrees with, insults other editors and tells them that they make "zero sense", removes content from talk pages, and claims that he has support that doesn't exist. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I no longer assume good faith from Ibaranoff. He has been edit warring, harassing me on my talk page, ignoring other editors and been pretty uncivil in general. It looks like I do have some support and to be quite honest, a lot of your arguments really don't make any sense. If you would have just talked this out instead of continuously reinserting BLP violation material, we could have had this hashed out a week ago. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor clearly does not understand Wikipedia's policies, repeatedly removes content, harasses other editors, and makes false accusations that are directly contradicted by the fact that he himself is behaving in this manner, not the editors he accuses. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I would like to point out that the IP editor has been editing the talk page comments of other editors, which is against policy. Until It Sleeps 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: 97.86.82.130

The Technology director has requested that their ip be blocked. I know that blocks are not to be used as punishment, but the IT Director has requested we do so. The E-mail is a follows:

Andrew, I don't know why anyone should be editing anything on the Wikipedia page from our school. My advice would be for you to go ahead and block our IP address from the editing options for the Wikipedia. It is not possible for me to determine who has done the editing at this time. To my knowledge there is no need for anyone here to be editing. Please feel free to contact me if you have further problems or questions. Thanks,

Cathy Zoulek Technology Director Shelby Public Schools

The talkpage can be found Here, along with the e-mail I sent.

Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked for nearly as long as it has been assigned, so in the absence of a crystal ball there's probably not much to be done here. If it's still assigned to the school after the block expires and the vandalism continues then it will be quickly blocked again. Thank you for taking an interest in stopping the vandalism but I tend to find these emails to school admins generally unhelpful to both the schools and Wikipedia. It's much better for everyone to simply block them if they're vandalising. Complaining about vandalism from schools is like complaining about rain coming in through an open window. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have them email OTRS. Nakon 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cat Mandu#Cat Mandu

Should this cat have his own article, as he was once joint leader of a political party? Or am I just being overly hopeful? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Original article. Redirect seems fine, but was he lolnotable? rootology (C)(T) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A joke political party nominated a cat as its leader, and you want a seperate article on the cat. Really? What more needs be said about the cat than what is already noted in the article on its owner? Does the amount of text occupied by the cat in the article necessitate that the information needs to be spun off into its own article? I mean, seriously, why?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke party, they actually had some legitimate political viewpoints. And yes the cat fulfils the criteria for WP:N, there are RS on in the article plus there's no shortage of paper round here. I think the original article should be restored. In fact I'm tempted to do it mmyself. --WebHamster 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I LOL'd!  – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We do have an existing article on Pigasus, for comparison. So long as we don't pretend that these animals had actual political positions, I don't see a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I long for the day we see an NPOV-citing edit war that we must "respect the party's view per NPOV" that "the right honourable feline" was indeed the councillor from Kittyshire. rootology (C)(T) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about time a decent pussy was sat on the front benches. --WebHamster 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added 3 independent reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage. Do a Google News search; there are lots of sources to choose from. I also removed the prod tag as the article now satisfies WP:N. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User pushing comments under different identities

Resolved

 – referral to correct board

On the Caroline Flint article there has been a fair bit of reverting, additions have been added by first an IP.. [[82]] who then logged in as Pfgpowell [[83]] and then an account was created under the name Derjederman [[84]] This user had been reverted by me and other multiple editors, I have tried to talk to him, to no avail.. what to do? (Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

I have left notice of this post at all 3 accounts. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Refer to SSI board? User F203 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Injunction

11:10, 30 May 2009 1111tomica (talk | contribs) m (10,536 bytes) (moved Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia to Coat of arms of Macedonia (country) over redirect: The name of the file and the name of the country were changed.

This move contravenes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Temporary injunction. Could an univolved administrater move this back and report at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions?  Andreas  ^(T) 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

calling a cucumber

Resolved

 – Closed as without consensus to overturn deletion by Jayron32. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

could someone calm and sensible please review, and maybe close this discussion (a deletion review on departed arb. sam's bio). Thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ah go on... someone's got to. (aren't I demanding...) Privatemusings (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes on a touchy BLP DRV, please

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd

This needs more input. rootology (C)(T) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I closed it. It was 2 weeks old, and the discussion was going in circles. It has been quite long enough. There was no widespread support for changing the current situation, so the article will remain deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse Jayron32's closure of the DRV. There is no evidence the article would have been kept at AfD, and the arguments for relisting it were not convincing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You do realize that a deletion can be out of process and contested as such even if it will likely be deleted at AFD? DRV is not about arguments whether an article should be kept or deleted but whether the deletion that happened was within policy. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I believe this is a proper application of WP:IAR as going through the process for process' sake is not necessarily a good thing. As the article has been deleted, and it is extremely unlikely that the article would be kept if the AfD was reopened, I see no reason to reopen it and undelete the article just to close it as delete and delete the article again in a few days. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A convenient way to circumvent the need for a majority at AFD. 14 people objected to the out of process action, compared to 16 people carrying on the AFD behind closed doors. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not for use against consensus - only if the rules make no sense and everybody would agree. Agathoclea (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • This article was only created because the usr was a prolific wikipedian. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Didn't the subject create it before he became a prolific Wikipedian? --NE2 15:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Incorrect. It was originally created on 21 July 2005 and the subject objected on 8 August through the first AFD. It was kept on that AFD and only deleted on 23 May 2009 on the second AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, but it was still before he became a prolific Wikipedian, right? I have no opinion on whether it should be kept, but I don't think SqueakBox is correct about why it was made. --NE2 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Given that xe has no contributions since 2005, it's a bit late in the day to ask at User talk:62.254.64.14 why xe created the article. But as I pointed out at the first AFD discussion, it wasn't original writing on xyr part. Xe just copied and pasted, word-for-word, what was on User:Dbiv at the time. And the text was taken from a section on that page entitled "Wikipedia entry if there was one". So the assumption of good faith leads to the conclusion that the editor without an account was trying to be helpful. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with an IP editor

Hi,

**Advance apologies for all the diffs, just trying to provide enough evidence. But if you look at the relevant parts of the talk page and the article history it'll be clear**

I am here to ask for admin assistance with 68.111.167.64 (talk). The editor is causing myself and User:Aboutmovies a lot of problems with edits to Intel Corporation. The IP editor is very keen to include a speculative comment without sourcing that is OR. I came to the page after a request for a third opinion (Taking the case). I gave that opinion, and then reinforced it which disagreed with the editor's opinion and they then tried to create an ArbCom case that has been refused and yet still the editor makes their non-consensus changes which I revert, and then ask them to stop at their talk page. The editor doubted my neutrality in the ArbCom case creation and is now assuming bad faith in Aboutmovies, here.

I have tried to welcome this editor and suggest paths to help. Instead I am ignored and the editor carries on regardless. To me this is a clear case of an editor unable to accept that both policy and consensus is against the edit. I don't know if the answer is page protection, a block, or someone telling me I'm being unreasonable, but I'd like to sort this out please as I am tired!

I will notify both the IP editor and Aboutmovies once this is posted.

Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an involved party here, I will further explain some of the editor issues. As pointed out above, they not only assumed bad faith by asking about my any bias I may have, but they apparently ignored my earlier response where I said I didn't work for them or have any pecuniary interest in the company. Then you have this set of accusations on the Intel talk page about my revision of most (but notice not all) of their changes. Specifically, I didn't revert the Bill Gates related "quote" other than to move it, so their accusations are simply unfounded. This has been going on for about a month, and I would like to focus my resources elsewhere, as I think would Wikipedia in general since the editor at this point is wasting our time and resources at Third Opinion and ArbCom in addition to the talk page itself. A semi-protect might be enough to get the person to engage in productive dialogue/get them to understand Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If this user continues to revert the article to include his preferred sentence without opening an RfC, an edit warring complaint at WP:ANEW might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For those that knew him

For those of you who may remember User:Titch Tucker, I noticed tonight a post on the Help Desk; and it appears that we have a new member to our family. User talk:Wee Tuck has expressed an interest in helping us build the 'pedia. Nothing that requires any admin action, but it's nice to post something pleasant to these boards too. — Ched :  ?  05:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

calling a cucumber

Resolved

 – Closed as without consensus to overturn deletion by Jayron32. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

could someone calm and sensible please review, and maybe close this discussion (a deletion review on departed arb. sam's bio). Thanks :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ah go on... someone's got to. (aren't I demanding...) Privatemusings (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes on a touchy BLP DRV, please

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd

This needs more input. rootology (C)(T) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I closed it. It was 2 weeks old, and the discussion was going in circles. It has been quite long enough. There was no widespread support for changing the current situation, so the article will remain deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse Jayron32's closure of the DRV. There is no evidence the article would have been kept at AfD, and the arguments for relisting it were not convincing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You do realize that a deletion can be out of process and contested as such even if it will likely be deleted at AFD? DRV is not about arguments whether an article should be kept or deleted but whether the deletion that happened was within policy. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I believe this is a proper application of WP:IAR as going through the process for process' sake is not necessarily a good thing. As the article has been deleted, and it is extremely unlikely that the article would be kept if the AfD was reopened, I see no reason to reopen it and undelete the article just to close it as delete and delete the article again in a few days. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A convenient way to circumvent the need for a majority at AFD. 14 people objected to the out of process action, compared to 16 people carrying on the AFD behind closed doors. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not for use against consensus - only if the rules make no sense and everybody would agree. Agathoclea (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • This article was only created because the usr was a prolific wikipedian. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Didn't the subject create it before he became a prolific Wikipedian? --NE2 15:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Incorrect. It was originally created on 21 July 2005 and the subject objected on 8 August through the first AFD. It was kept on that AFD and only deleted on 23 May 2009 on the second AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, but it was still before he became a prolific Wikipedian, right? I have no opinion on whether it should be kept, but I don't think SqueakBox is correct about why it was made. --NE2 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Given that xe has no contributions since 2005, it's a bit late in the day to ask at User talk:62.254.64.14 why xe created the article. But as I pointed out at the first AFD discussion, it wasn't original writing on xyr part. Xe just copied and pasted, word-for-word, what was on User:Dbiv at the time. And the text was taken from a section on that page entitled "Wikipedia entry if there was one". So the assumption of good faith leads to the conclusion that the editor without an account was trying to be helpful. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with an IP editor

Hi,

**Advance apologies for all the diffs, just trying to provide enough evidence. But if you look at the relevant parts of the talk page and the article history it'll be clear**

I am here to ask for admin assistance with 68.111.167.64 (talk). The editor is causing myself and User:Aboutmovies a lot of problems with edits to Intel Corporation. The IP editor is very keen to include a speculative comment without sourcing that is OR. I came to the page after a request for a third opinion (Taking the case). I gave that opinion, and then reinforced it which disagreed with the editor's opinion and they then tried to create an ArbCom case that has been refused and yet still the editor makes their non-consensus changes which I revert, and then ask them to stop at their talk page. The editor doubted my neutrality in the ArbCom case creation and is now assuming bad faith in Aboutmovies, here.

I have tried to welcome this editor and suggest paths to help. Instead I am ignored and the editor carries on regardless. To me this is a clear case of an editor unable to accept that both policy and consensus is against the edit. I don't know if the answer is page protection, a block, or someone telling me I'm being unreasonable, but I'd like to sort this out please as I am tired!

I will notify both the IP editor and Aboutmovies once this is posted.

Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an involved party here, I will further explain some of the editor issues. As pointed out above, they not only assumed bad faith by asking about my any bias I may have, but they apparently ignored my earlier response where I said I didn't work for them or have any pecuniary interest in the company. Then you have this set of accusations on the Intel talk page about my revision of most (but notice not all) of their changes. Specifically, I didn't revert the Bill Gates related "quote" other than to move it, so their accusations are simply unfounded. This has been going on for about a month, and I would like to focus my resources elsewhere, as I think would Wikipedia in general since the editor at this point is wasting our time and resources at Third Opinion and ArbCom in addition to the talk page itself. A semi-protect might be enough to get the person to engage in productive dialogue/get them to understand Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If this user continues to revert the article to include his preferred sentence without opening an RfC, an edit warring complaint at WP:ANEW might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For those that knew him

For those of you who may remember User:Titch Tucker, I noticed tonight a post on the Help Desk; and it appears that we have a new member to our family. User talk:Wee Tuck has expressed an interest in helping us build the 'pedia. Nothing that requires any admin action, but it's nice to post something pleasant to these boards too. — Ched :  ?  05:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asian Para Games

Could somebody please have a word with User:Aryana300 re Asian Para Games - adding comments and email address to article, repeatedly. Disembrangler (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Her English is terrible, and I don't think she understands. I certainly can't understand her comments, except the part where she says she's going to come back every day. I left her a note asking what her main language is, and maybe we've got someone who can translate once we know what that is. KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be advisable to do a rosetta stone thing, where you translate the message into several asian languages. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick blocking query

Resolved

Starter for ten: If I indefinitely block an account with autoblock enabled, what is the duration of the autoblock? CIreland (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

24 hours. MER-C 10:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Per this, prevent account creation and autoblock both last for 24 hours (except in the case of autoblocks on dynamic IP pools, such as those used by AOL). Nja²⁴⁷ 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the autoblocks will reset if the software detects someone trying to get around it. TNXMan 12:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New article on Paul R. Traub

Can we use court documents etc. as sources as much as the above article does? Or can we only use secondary sources? I'm concerned because the editor of the above article has something of a vendetta against the man in question, and the article isn't exactly... neutral, as far as I can tell. Could I ask for some opinions from other admins? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of court documents. Testimony in a court case counts as a primary source. A judge's summation, however, ought to count as a reliable secondary source. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If its an indictment or something written, used only to show that it happened, I should think that there is no sourcing problems. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no vendetta or COI on this subject matter. After Marc Dreier's arrest around the same time as Bernard Madoff which is where I began, I began researching these two players. check my contribution history for my interests. One thing forks into another, and tangentially I found unsavory behavior by other members of the firm of which i contributed all to the page. then traub hired a pr agency see: User talk:Saylorcompany and see: User talk:W Cwir at Saylor to delete all but a promotional advertisement which is how mr. cavalry left it when he locked the page. free referral service for his new digs. which is against WP policy. My sources include documented Judge's opinions. no indictments here. everything is sourced conscientiously and dililgently. Mr. cavalry makes pre-determined negative deductive conclusions about others; it is probably his nature in general, but he doesn't like it when it is reciprocated. The Golden Rule should apply. My suggestion before administrators attack contributors is to check their contribution history and see where their interests lie. mine is in legal issues and justice in general: the american way.

kindly unlock the Marc Dreier page and delete the junk that remains under the section: "traub, bonacquist and fox". as it stands, it is moot, irrelevant to the article, and free pr for business for traub and his associates. besides his property is being auctioned and he is about to be sentenced, and it should be open for submission of updates. ms. saylor has been blocked indefinitely. she is the one who exhibits a COI, and loves the final edit as it stands. her work is completed: free advertising for Paul R. Traub. and that's my final answer.

Furtive admirer (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael ortiz

I'm concerned about this account. The account in question is clearly not Michael Ortiz, but was simply a role account meant to memorialize him, which is blatantly not allowed. Should this be blocked as an unacceptable account? Michael ortiz (talk · contribs · logs) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I don't think any blocking is appropriate unless it's persistently recreated. Tan | 39 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hillsborough

This man's hate-crime murder apparently ignited the San Francisco LGBT community to organize and politicize. Could someone userfy this to me? -- Banjeboi 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Really no point- the original author describes it as an "eyewitness account". It's entirely original research, no sources, no nothing. It reads like a short speech that would be given to children to explain how horrible a neighbourhood was- it doesn't even mention "Robert Hillsborough". J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. You can have a copy of it if you like, but there really is no point in providing it. There is not a single line that can be reused for a new article nor any real information. To quote the VFD discussion: "Reads like the introduction to a murder novel". Regards SoWhy 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• … and it gets the subject's name wrong. I agree with the above. The deleted content is worthless dreck. One can do better from a standing start. I also suggest Murder of Robert Hillsborough, since this person's life and works are not the subject, and are barely touched upon by sources, but his death and its consequences most definitely are. Equally, John Cordova is a similarly bad idea for a biographical article, but that person can be covered, in proper context, in an article about the event as a whole. Uncle G (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I think a library visit might be the key here so cheers for looking for me. -- Banjeboi 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Constant deletion

The following has been moved here from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard — Gavia immer (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris56o User talk:Chris56o wont stop changing an edit several wikipedia users that have been working on transformers have left it there but he wont stop please warn him or block him from the page thank you! AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected to stop the edit war, but both Chris56o (whose name is a bit problematic, isn't it?) and AcesUpMaSleeve ought to be blocked for violating 20RR. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted template in the combo box in the upload form

Resolved

Not sure if its the correct place to report it... but there is a removed template available in the license combo box in the upload form, for stamps, those are in the public domain (Template:PD-stamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). The template was deleted after this deletion request, and now it should be removed from the upload form.

--drhlajos (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This was the correct place to report this, I have now removed it from the dropdown menu. Thanks for bringing it to someones attention. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolving a suspected SP issue

I'm involved in an issue concerning a user whom I believe is using multiple accounts to obscure a conflict of interest and to give the illusion of broader-than-actual editorial support for a collection of related articles. I've had a dialog with the user; he or she denies knowing anything about the account names I've identified though had once admitted to editing under multiple identities. Is this the sort of issue that should be pursued at WP:SPI? Thanks, Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of thing is handled at SPI. Be sure to list diffs as evidence. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gnawing" on unregistered IP's and new editors has to stop (even if they are tasty)

I would like to see essays like Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal merged into the behavioral guideline of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. As it stands, the guideline does not explicitly mention that unregistered IP's deserve as much respect as we offer registered users, but rather skirts around the issue. The story told by 69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) (and my recent experience with Lfstevens (talk · contribs) is a common one. This kind of behavior is responsible for driving many new contributors from Wikipedia, including experts in their respective fields who may not understand the technical aspects of the site, but can help write and source articles better than established editors. I'm posting this on the administrators' noticeboard because 69.226.103.13 has observed some bias against IP's coming from the noticeboards. Contributions by new or unregistered editors (with the exception of obvious SPA's, socks, and the like) are important, and we need to stop encouraging (or ignoring) blind reversions, attacks, and disrespect of their valuable contributions. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I will second this, erring on the side of caution is good - who knows if we're scaring off the next Lord Emsworth? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does Lord Emsworth come into this, sorry? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the top of this list - I suppose I mean potential person who ends up doing something similar. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Lot's of good stuff in the essay Wikipedia:IPs are human too as well. This proposal probably doesn't belong here though. MickMacNee (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for the sentiment. I'm sure 69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) would have become one of WP:VOLC's most valuable contributors if they had continued editing. -- Avenue (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. In addition, WP:BITE should also address the following problem that arises in some areas of Wikipedia: When a new editor comes and threatens the current equilibrium between POVs, the majority POV editors immediately suspect them of being a sockpuppet, without any supporting evidence. In at least one case a promising new user was mobbed as "clearly a sockpuppet, probably of A, B or C, or else someone else" for several weeks based on no reasonable evidence whatsoever, and this continued even after a strongly negative checkuser result (due to the editor editing from a very unlikely country). --Hans Adler (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not that I'm for biting newbies, but this essay provides a bad example of this problem. The editor who reverted the anon IP was a sock puppet of a banned user. (Said user had been banned a few months before this incident.) And even if the reverting editor had not been banned, this reversion is, at first look, too ambiguous & trivial to make the point of this essay. Sometimes editors revert other editors by accident, for example, & it could have happened here -- which is why I looked more closely at the incident. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RTV, deletion of user/talk pages

What happens in the case of indef blocked users? Can their user or talk pages be deleted? I've been asked to delete someone's talk page who has been indef blocked but my understanding is that as they are not in good standing that should not be done. There's a related situation also at Amerana (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

They cannot use WP:RTV as a reason for that requires good standing. Indef blocked users may be deleted per CAT:TEMP but in the case you mentioned the page should probably be retained with a {{sockpuppeteer}} template for tracking purposes. Regards SoWhy 13:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless there was wanton sockpuppetry, these accounts are deleted after a few months either way and RTV is often granted straight off if the indef blocked user asks for it. This said, I've seen wheel warring over RTV far too often (even with the wheel wars though, RTV is almost always the outcome). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ariobarza is also asking for deletion. I'd rather not get involved in a wheelwar. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's some reason to keep the pages (ongoing discussion, concerns regarding sockpuppetry, and so on), I usually don't argue over it either way. Quite often (almost always?), it seems at least one admin is willing to delete on RTV grounds, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Courtesy blanking might be a happy medium. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User requesting unblock using {{helpme}}

Resolved

 – User editing outside user talk page, unblock looks to be done. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At User_talk:Kafka_Liz#Autoblock. Please review, thanks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Should work now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A merged article

Continuation of recent archived discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#A_merged_page

The page Sydenham, Warwickshire was recently merged into "Leamington Spa". The merge was formally listed as a merge proposal on the article pages and recently at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The discussion was closed by an editor who proposed the merger and who was involved in the discussion being in favour of a merge. There was some on-going discussion and the merge was then completed. I am questioning the merge, because I feel that this merge is not without controversy, the "votes" being 3 to 2, and also because the wiki guidelines indicate that an uninvolved administrator should be asked to close a controversial merge. Also, I there have been a number of edits initially on my talk page regarding aspects of the merge, which I perceive as undue criticism and which I am becoming uncomfortable with. I have copied the discussion on my talk page to Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire, where the discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus isn't a vote. There were no good arguments from the "no merge" side, the obvious choice was to go ahead with the merge. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Views from anyone uninvolved with the discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jenuk1985 - consensus was reached, with no adequate reason given against merging, and no attempt in 1 year to reach notability. This argument is moot - by removing the merge banners, Snowman had already subverted the process. As per guide above, further discussion of this issue should continue here Talk:Sydenham,_Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Views from anyone uninvolved with the merge discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at the situation as a completely uninvolved admin, having read the discussions on the talk page and looked at the sources referenced in the article, I agree that there is a consensus to merge. Arguments opposing the merge did not address the issues raised in a way that was well grounded in the inclusion guidelines; the arguments to merge were well made and well grounded. Editors' own testimony carries little weight without support from reliable sources, especially those which point to things "being obvious". See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

  I would note that the RM should really have been closed by an uninvolved editor (to avoid these sort of disagreements), and I would advise everyone to avoid using the word "vandalism" to refer to others' edits, as it rarely does anything but cause friction. – Toon^(talk) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • An administrator who knowns Warwickshire and who was not involved with the merge discussion had considered the merge discussion and he says that he would not have merged the page and gives reasons; see Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire. I think this shows how controversial the merge is, and not that any administrator is in error. I agree with both the administrators who have commented on the merge that this merge should have been closed by an uninvolved administrator, and so I suggest that the merge is undone and the merge discussion can be continued prior to being closed appropriately. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything above from Toon. I add, that I am unhappy that the same editor who inappropriately removed the merge banners from this process (and another now merged article) without closing either merge process continues to claim the process was not closed appropriately. The timing of the closure was prompted by that action. Please note that I consider this [85] attempt to involve another admin is a clear case of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum_shopping, after receiving a consensus opinion above from an admin. I would also like the POV forking as discussed to be looked into if this process is to continue further. Widefox (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • All of my edits are made with the intention of improving the wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I would like the edits of Snowman to be investigated as disruptive editing - canvassing (Forum shopping), POV forking, inappropriate removal of merge banners on several articles, reopening of an archived admin discussion, and attempts to recreate a merged article under a new name [86]. I am willing to open this as a formal procedure if needed, so please advise on my best action. Widefox (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Your best action, Widefox, is to listen to what both Toon05 and Keith D have tried to tell you subtly, and what I am now telling you explicitly: Your ad hominem arguments aren't going to wash; your closure of your own merge discussion in your own favour was highly inappropriate; your mischaracterizations and assumptions of bad faith have to stop, now.

  Snowmanradio has, as far as I can tell, informed exactly two people on their talk pages of the merger under consideration, one asking for sources and one asking for third-party input. Xyr search for an independent third-party opinion, especially in light of the fact that you acted as nominator, most vocal proponent, and closer of the merge discussion, is to be commended, not mischaracterized as "forum shopping". Third opinion is what we do around here. Xyr continuing an Administrators' Noticeboard discussion that was not closed, but simply archived for inactivity by a 'bot, is not "disruptive editing", but again what we do around here: discussion. And xe has a legitimate grievance against your repeatedly calling xyr good faith edits "POV forking" and "vandalism", and de-railing the continued discussion onto the subject of Snowmanradio xyrself instead of the article at hand.

  Snowmanradio, re-creating Sydenham, Warwickshire at Sydenham, Leamington would not be wise. Don't do it. Your best course of action is to find sources documenting this subject. I note that one your purported "forum shopping" edits, here, was a request to another editor for such sources. Currently, you remain empty-handed. Before you do any renames, reversion of mergers, or anything else, I suggest that you make a proper efforts to find independent and reliable sources documenting this subject, in depth.

  However, note that you are arguing about what many readers of this Noticeboard know as a subdivision. Subdivisions are very rarely documented in depth by the world at large, and so very rarely will satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. They are usually documented by the world at large solely as passing mentions in the context of a larger subject. As an encyclopaedist, you must accept that if that's how a subject is documented outside of Wikipedia, that is how it should be documented within Wikipedia. Human knowledge is lumpy and uneven, and Wikipedia should incorporate it as it stands, without attempts on the parts of encyclopaedists to somehow redress what they think to be an imbalance by mis-representing human knowledge. Notability is not a blanket.

  You must also accept that "I have been there and I can confirm XYZ" and your own personal interpretations of what is on a map are both not acceptable at an encyclopaedia where all content is to be verifiable and free from original research. Remember that readers do not trust you. You, like everyone else here, are nothing to them except someone with a pseudonym on a WWW site. If you want to demonstrate a statement of fact, such as the type of housing to be found in a subdivision, find and cite sources that make that statement. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the parts of User Uncle G's comment that are especially addressed to me; I think that there is a lot of wiki wisdom in what was said there. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am on record above that I agree with everything Toon has said, so yes Uncle G I have listened and agree already, both with his and now your wise words. My frustration here, which I apologise for if simply coming out as an ad hominem, is that no consideration has been made to the context of this merge process closure - that being prompted by removal of merge banners. I also bow down to Uncle G's much more refined way of saying what I have said about issues with the article, and want it noted that I have pointed out where possible refs for notability may be found. My frustration is that a merge process of 1 year did not generate much comment until actually closing it. Seems that's a bit of a Catch 22 that I am left responsible for. I still stand by the opinion that consensus can be argued, and I agree (again) that closing by another party would have been wise. I agree that my style was wrong here, but fully stand behind the issue that no reasonable counter argument to the merge process has been made, which is what consensus is here. Widefox (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget that User Keith D, an uninvolved administrator, wrote on Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire to say that he would not have merged the article. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, one could make this all go away by, instead of trying to indict your opponent in this case; to instead solve the problems that led to the merge in the first place. If indepth reliable sources can be found; then the concern that led to the merge happening becomes moot and everyone is happy. There is no need to accuse others of bad faith or wrong doing if we just work to correct the concerns and make articles compliant with WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

An anon editor has been blocked for edit warring on this article. He has now circumvented this block with another IP - WHO IS reports the same address for both IPs. I'm posting here to report a violation of a block, but would also like to report his abuse to other editors - ie, labeling them fascists, racists, and white supremacists. If admins do not want to take action, then any advice would be welcome. --Merbabu (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - the original IP used was 70.112.199.223. They are now using 24.28.76.193. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - looks like an admin has stepped in. Hopefully that's it for now. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the article for a week. A check user investigation of the IP might be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is Hkelkar. If you see a pro-Hindu IP originating from Austin, Texas, chances are it's Hkelkar. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, there's a name I haven't seen in a while :) Daniel (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Those e-mails

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

After the rash of The Dark Knight-themed emails, I set up a filter on my Gmail account to send these e-mails to the trash. I recently checked my Gmail trash bin and found that I had received one of the Dark Knight-themed spam e-mails from Rigaudon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rigaudon, however, appears to be a user in good standing and was never blocked. The e-mail is the same as the other accounts created on other projects to spam the e-mail themed after the aforementioned film. I've never even heard of Rigaudon until I checked my e-mail tonight, but it appears that the user may be a good hand account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on, e.g., [87] [88] [89] and a bunch of followup diffs, it looks like our User:Rigaudon has someone else using his name on other Wikimedia wikis. I don't know whether that was especially resolved one way or the other, but the enwiki user looks legitimate (and a valuable contributor at that); I'd bet it's the other claimant causing any trouble, especially if the email was dated toward the end of May. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was, and thank you for the clarification.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the person you're thinking of. That's not me. See also here. Rigaudon (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure because I wasn't sure what was happening.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A merged article

Continuation of recent archived discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#A_merged_page

The page Sydenham, Warwickshire was recently merged into "Leamington Spa". The merge was formally listed as a merge proposal on the article pages and recently at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. The discussion was closed by an editor who proposed the merger and who was involved in the discussion being in favour of a merge. There was some on-going discussion and the merge was then completed. I am questioning the merge, because I feel that this merge is not without controversy, the "votes" being 3 to 2, and also because the wiki guidelines indicate that an uninvolved administrator should be asked to close a controversial merge. Also, I there have been a number of edits initially on my talk page regarding aspects of the merge, which I perceive as undue criticism and which I am becoming uncomfortable with. I have copied the discussion on my talk page to Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire, where the discussion can be continued. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus isn't a vote. There were no good arguments from the "no merge" side, the obvious choice was to go ahead with the merge. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Views from anyone uninvolved with the discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jenuk1985 - consensus was reached, with no adequate reason given against merging, and no attempt in 1 year to reach notability. This argument is moot - by removing the merge banners, Snowman had already subverted the process. As per guide above, further discussion of this issue should continue here Talk:Sydenham,_Warwickshire. Widefox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Views from anyone uninvolved with the merge discussion will be welcome. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at the situation as a completely uninvolved admin, having read the discussions on the talk page and looked at the sources referenced in the article, I agree that there is a consensus to merge. Arguments opposing the merge did not address the issues raised in a way that was well grounded in the inclusion guidelines; the arguments to merge were well made and well grounded. Editors' own testimony carries little weight without support from reliable sources, especially those which point to things "being obvious". See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

  I would note that the RM should really have been closed by an uninvolved editor (to avoid these sort of disagreements), and I would advise everyone to avoid using the word "vandalism" to refer to others' edits, as it rarely does anything but cause friction. – Toon^(talk) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • An administrator who knowns Warwickshire and who was not involved with the merge discussion had considered the merge discussion and he says that he would not have merged the page and gives reasons; see Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire. I think this shows how controversial the merge is, and not that any administrator is in error. I agree with both the administrators who have commented on the merge that this merge should have been closed by an uninvolved administrator, and so I suggest that the merge is undone and the merge discussion can be continued prior to being closed appropriately. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with everything above from Toon. I add, that I am unhappy that the same editor who inappropriately removed the merge banners from this process (and another now merged article) without closing either merge process continues to claim the process was not closed appropriately. The timing of the closure was prompted by that action. Please note that I consider this [90] attempt to involve another admin is a clear case of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum_shopping, after receiving a consensus opinion above from an admin. I would also like the POV forking as discussed to be looked into if this process is to continue further. Widefox (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • All of my edits are made with the intention of improving the wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I would like the edits of Snowman to be investigated as disruptive editing - canvassing (Forum shopping), POV forking, inappropriate removal of merge banners on several articles, reopening of an archived admin discussion, and attempts to recreate a merged article under a new name [91]. I am willing to open this as a formal procedure if needed, so please advise on my best action. Widefox (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Your best action, Widefox, is to listen to what both Toon05 and Keith D have tried to tell you subtly, and what I am now telling you explicitly: Your ad hominem arguments aren't going to wash; your closure of your own merge discussion in your own favour was highly inappropriate; your mischaracterizations and assumptions of bad faith have to stop, now.

  Snowmanradio has, as far as I can tell, informed exactly two people on their talk pages of the merger under consideration, one asking for sources and one asking for third-party input. Xyr search for an independent third-party opinion, especially in light of the fact that you acted as nominator, most vocal proponent, and closer of the merge discussion, is to be commended, not mischaracterized as "forum shopping". Third opinion is what we do around here. Xyr continuing an Administrators' Noticeboard discussion that was not closed, but simply archived for inactivity by a 'bot, is not "disruptive editing", but again what we do around here: discussion. And xe has a legitimate grievance against your repeatedly calling xyr good faith edits "POV forking" and "vandalism", and de-railing the continued discussion onto the subject of Snowmanradio xyrself instead of the article at hand.

  Snowmanradio, re-creating Sydenham, Warwickshire at Sydenham, Leamington would not be wise. Don't do it. Your best course of action is to find sources documenting this subject. I note that one your purported "forum shopping" edits, here, was a request to another editor for such sources. Currently, you remain empty-handed. Before you do any renames, reversion of mergers, or anything else, I suggest that you make a proper efforts to find independent and reliable sources documenting this subject, in depth.

  However, note that you are arguing about what many readers of this Noticeboard know as a subdivision. Subdivisions are very rarely documented in depth by the world at large, and so very rarely will satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. They are usually documented by the world at large solely as passing mentions in the context of a larger subject. As an encyclopaedist, you must accept that if that's how a subject is documented outside of Wikipedia, that is how it should be documented within Wikipedia. Human knowledge is lumpy and uneven, and Wikipedia should incorporate it as it stands, without attempts on the parts of encyclopaedists to somehow redress what they think to be an imbalance by mis-representing human knowledge. Notability is not a blanket.

  You must also accept that "I have been there and I can confirm XYZ" and your own personal interpretations of what is on a map are both not acceptable at an encyclopaedia where all content is to be verifiable and free from original research. Remember that readers do not trust you. You, like everyone else here, are nothing to them except someone with a pseudonym on a WWW site. If you want to demonstrate a statement of fact, such as the type of housing to be found in a subdivision, find and cite sources that make that statement. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the parts of User Uncle G's comment that are especially addressed to me; I think that there is a lot of wiki wisdom in what was said there. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am on record above that I agree with everything Toon has said, so yes Uncle G I have listened and agree already, both with his and now your wise words. My frustration here, which I apologise for if simply coming out as an ad hominem, is that no consideration has been made to the context of this merge process closure - that being prompted by removal of merge banners. I also bow down to Uncle G's much more refined way of saying what I have said about issues with the article, and want it noted that I have pointed out where possible refs for notability may be found. My frustration is that a merge process of 1 year did not generate much comment until actually closing it. Seems that's a bit of a Catch 22 that I am left responsible for. I still stand by the opinion that consensus can be argued, and I agree (again) that closing by another party would have been wise. I agree that my style was wrong here, but fully stand behind the issue that no reasonable counter argument to the merge process has been made, which is what consensus is here. Widefox (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget that User Keith D, an uninvolved administrator, wrote on Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire to say that he would not have merged the article. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, one could make this all go away by, instead of trying to indict your opponent in this case; to instead solve the problems that led to the merge in the first place. If indepth reliable sources can be found; then the concern that led to the merge happening becomes moot and everyone is happy. There is no need to accuse others of bad faith or wrong doing if we just work to correct the concerns and make articles compliant with WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

An anon editor has been blocked for edit warring on this article. He has now circumvented this block with another IP - WHO IS reports the same address for both IPs. I'm posting here to report a violation of a block, but would also like to report his abuse to other editors - ie, labeling them fascists, racists, and white supremacists. If admins do not want to take action, then any advice would be welcome. --Merbabu (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

PS - the original IP used was 70.112.199.223. They are now using 24.28.76.193. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - looks like an admin has stepped in. Hopefully that's it for now. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and semi-protected the article for a week. A check user investigation of the IP might be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is Hkelkar. If you see a pro-Hindu IP originating from Austin, Texas, chances are it's Hkelkar. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, there's a name I haven't seen in a while :) Daniel (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Those e-mails

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

After the rash of The Dark Knight-themed emails, I set up a filter on my Gmail account to send these e-mails to the trash. I recently checked my Gmail trash bin and found that I had received one of the Dark Knight-themed spam e-mails from Rigaudon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Rigaudon, however, appears to be a user in good standing and was never blocked. The e-mail is the same as the other accounts created on other projects to spam the e-mail themed after the aforementioned film. I've never even heard of Rigaudon until I checked my e-mail tonight, but it appears that the user may be a good hand account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on, e.g., [92] [93] [94] and a bunch of followup diffs, it looks like our User:Rigaudon has someone else using his name on other Wikimedia wikis. I don't know whether that was especially resolved one way or the other, but the enwiki user looks legitimate (and a valuable contributor at that); I'd bet it's the other claimant causing any trouble, especially if the email was dated toward the end of May. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was, and thank you for the clarification.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the person you're thinking of. That's not me. See also here. Rigaudon (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure because I wasn't sure what was happening.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

It's in need of some admin attention and unfortunately it's just about bed time for me. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee has declined your application for sleep privileges. Please continue editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we call that Arbitration Communism? :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this "sleep" thingie you people are talking about? I want one too! SoWhy 07:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia memes

I went looking for a page of Wikipedia-related memes and couldn't find one (surprisingly). So I decided to write one at /Memes. If anybody knows of a page documenting these or if they have more to add to the page I started, feel free to point me in the right direction or edit the list. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Handling of multiple-article infringement

Hi. Those of you familiar with my work know that I've been active in trying to organize copyright matters on Wikipedia, having been squatting over WP:CP for almost a year now. :) The new project WP:COPYCLEAN (join! help you! </advertising plug>) is proving very helpful in this respect, but one element for which we are still trying to work out processes is the handling of multiple-article infringement. Jimbo told the press in 2006 that when we find a problem, we check the contrib history of the problem editor. I spot-check the history of every contributor I identify at WP:CP; when I find more than a few issues, I do a full contribution check. Sometimes this means checking hundreds of contributions. Sometimes, it means many thousands. Sometimes the contributors in question are blocked for copyright infringement. Sometimes they are not. Prior to the establishment of WP:COPYCLEAN, I brought these matters here. My thought had been now that the project exists to do it there, bringing in other admin assistance only when a contributor proves resistant to acknowledging copyright problems.

A question has been raised at WT:COPYCLEAN about the handling of these investigations (welcome to read and join it; it's already long. :)) Two issues prompt me to bring it up here.

First, one of the questions is whether it is proper to list these investigations at a Wikipedia Project. While I think that any contributor can help with investigating and cleaning up copyright concerns, I can see that it might be better to manage them at a process board. I wanted to get initial impressions to making it a subpage of WP:CP. I don't care where they can be listed, so long as they can be tacked somewhere while cleanup is ongoing.

Second, one of the questions is about the appropriateness of keeping listings hanging around, given the potential of embarrassing multiple-article infringers. I'm sensitive to this concern and we have tried to address it in project guidelines, but I am of the belief that we need a good archive point for these where they can be accessed, since many of these contributors are not blocked and it may be necessary in the future to check their contributions again. The records of these investigations are useful in showing what has already been checked, since it takes many hours to verify and there's no reason to have to duplicate that process if more problems are discovered in the future. (Also, being able to show that we have checked these contributions could be helpful in demonstrating due diligence if Wikipedia is ever challenged about contributory infringement.) This could be another good reason to put it as a subpage of WP:CP, since archives will exist at a process page. Is there a way to address the practical need of accessible records without creating a permanent embarrassment for a potentially good-faith multiple-article infringer? This will probably wind up at VP, but I thought to collect some initial thoughts before trying to propose a workable solution. Thanks for any input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put a nutshell above, since I suspect I should carry a caution label: "Likely to run long." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hey MRG. Couple of quick comments: I think your idea at housing it beneath a noticeboard is a good one. As for the second question, after a certain amount of time, perhaps the report could be courtesy blanked & renamed, or somehow "deletion-archived" so that it can be later reviewed if need-be but allow the person to continue with their (now-entirely GFDL compatible) wikicareer without a subpage hanging around. That should balance most of the concerns you raised. –xeno^talk 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for feedback, Xeno. :) I think I will propose moving it to CP. We might need to review the whole "check back" idea to see if it can fit with policy for the courtesy-blanking. Coming up with approaches that cover everybody's concerns always make things nicely complicated. :) Meanwhile, I might investigate to see how and for how long tickets are archived at SPI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

problem of User:Kansas Bear

this guy supports terrorist organisations such as PKK, ASALA and other anti-Turkish groups that makes crimes against humanity. this gus also attacks pages about Turkish and Turkic civilization. You can close credit to this user. because he/she/it is aganist humanity.--94.54.228.174 (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nota Bene: User is a blocked personal attacker and has at least once stated:

i just hate you

He has also no reference whatsoever of whatever he edited on various turkey related articles. Gsmgm (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal, just for transparency

Through a random chain of edits, I noticed those of Special:Contributions/68.60.198.175. There are two edits, one is vandalism, the other I think was probably me.

The vandalism occurred mid evening (local time), 17 Dec 2007. At the time I was living in Chattanooga and sharing internet with four other room mates (long since moved, long since not sharing internet). My only edit for the day was here, which to my recollection reflects my work schedule. I have not edited without being logged in since '05.

There is no issue to deal with here, it is simply an "incident" from a long while ago that I would like to make public upon finding it out nearly 18 months later. Keegan^talk 07:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I haven't made an IP edit that did not mark me in the edit summary since '05. Less than a half dozen, and that second edit from the IP was made on Christmas morning at around 2 AM and probably was me tweaking my essay and didn't notice I hadn't logged in, IIRC the cookie expiration was new. Other than that, yeah. Happy editing. Keegan^talk 07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares? :-) I usually use my talk page for purely inane conversations with myself. Though this thread is arguably better than any other currently on the page, so.... --MZMcBride (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually talk to you for purely inane conversations in general. When my cat talks to me it is more informative than dealing with you. There's nothing more disinteresting to me in my life then hearing your thoughts and or feelings, and they surely may be valued on Uncyclopedia. Everyone cares about what you think, so you think, and I suggest you crawl back into your hole. I say good day, sir. Keegan^talk 08:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that a lengthy block is required here. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any long blocks, but this large one is pretty.. --Versageek 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hope that Keegan & MZMcBride are friends. -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he is a friend, more of an lolcat. Keegan^talk 07:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i can haz running joke? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can haz a good try. Keegan^talk 07:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sisyphus :O --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cared about Sisyphus. For some reason you are unable to stay on topic, which is my concern for my reputation on Wikipedia, because it is the most important thing on Earth. I don't konw who you think you are, but my username is everything. Learn your wiki, child. Keegan^talk 08:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is srs business. I think the community can "good day sir" you if you can't understand this fundamental principle. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice, you win this one. I still expect my dollar. Keegan^talk 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, DFTT -- but there was this shiny hook lying there that looked so nice & tasty... -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)