Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394

IZAK not assuming good faith

Earlier today in an AfD IZAK left a post which very clearly violated WP:AGF and turned the AfD into a battleground in the most inappropriate place possible. He specifically wrote, "and it is upsetting to see that he does not wish to do things that will enhance contributions on Wikipedia rather than disgruntle editors."[1] I respectfully request that administrators review his behavior and intervene appropriately. Bstone (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. No "battleground" of any kind was created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band) and the hyperbole used here is ridiculous. Nothing that I stated or did goes against assuming good faith. The only thing that I have been consistently requesting of Bstone that I wish he would get instead of resisting, and he does not like it, see User talk:Bstone/Archives/03/2008#REQUEST x 3, again. and User talk:IZAK#Re: REQUEST x 3, again., is that when nominating articles for deletion that he please notify the appropriate deletion notice boards which would be a common courtesy that can only help Wikipedia and all Wikipedians. Anyone is free to read the discussions cited by Bstone above at [2] and see for themselves. Bstone is requested to kindly not read every request that is made of him as some sort of "violation" of AGF rules. His request to "administrators review his behavior and intervene appropriately" is totally out of proportion and is hard to fathom at this time. Administrators are requested to please see to it that he work to assume the same WP:AGF that he expects of others. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I await for the admins to review IZAK's uncivil and lack of AGF behavior and respond. Bstone (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IZAK is using exterme GF in his editing. To level such an accuastion against IZAK is a good comic relief... Zeq (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly second that. Though I don't agree with IZAK about everything, I always admire his civility and good faith assumptions. Is this perhaps an April Fools' Day joke?? Keyed In (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a joke of any sort. IZAK clearly assumes that I am here to do things which will harm Wikipedia. What else is the meaning of, "it is upsetting to see that he does not wish to do things that will enhance contributions on Wikipedia"? The meaning is plainly obvious- IZAK assumes I am on Wikipedia in bad faith. Furthermore when he writes, "rather than disgruntle editors". The meaning of this is obvious- IZAK believes I am here to upset editors and frustrate efforts. With a plain reading of everything, it is clear IZAK does not assume good faith. And no- this is not a joke. Unless, of course, IZAK is joking. Bstone (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think IZAK's behaviour is an exemplary case of assuming good faith. All he's saying is that he's upset because you repeatedly refused to make an effort to notify interested parties of AfDs, after he pointed out why he felt it was important, and even offered to do the drudge work for you. He has remained polite and respectful at all times despite your curt responses and apparent refusal to discuss the matter. Contrary to your accusation above, IZAK has made no statement about why you are here, just that he's upset about your position. If anyone here has violated WP:AGF, it's me. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IZAK's behavior is anything but exemplary and bringing up a Judaism related deletion debate in an AfD about a rock band is the most improper place possible. As fas as listing AfDs in the areas IZAK has demanded, administrator Keeper76 clearly stated I am not obligated to do so almost two months ago. I have the greatest enthusiasm for this project and for anyone to consider otherwise is wrong. For IZAK to state so and create a battleground clearly and plainly violates AGF. Bstone (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Worth reviewing before forming an opinion is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2. I haven't fully read it yet myself. GRBerry 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed that, I am concerned that this appears to be another flare-up of an old dispute in which both editors were acting sub-optimally. Reviewing the history of this specific incident, it is clear that no wiki-stalking occurred. The two editors will encounter each other repeatedly if they both remain active, and need to learn to work together. I don't see how to make that happen, and this is really just a minor skirmish in the intentionally unresolved conflict between deletionism and inclusionism. I can't see any reason for any administrator to act here, so I won't be acting. GRBerry 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

administrator is abusen

The administrator User:ChrisO is abuse and covering his friends and there opinion to the Serbia article. He is gone so far to go in edit war.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a messy situation, Chris restored the map with the UN recognized borders while other users want to use Kosovo's declaration of independence as a source for another map, I would say this was RFC material but seeing the ammount of controversy that the declaration itself has produced AN/I is probably a better place for commnity consensus. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is no longer a part of Serbia. I favor the map that Hipi Zhdripi included in the article.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish it was as simple as that. The situation as it stands is that about 30 countries recognise Kosovo as an independent state, while the UN and the other 160 member states (including, of course, Serbia itself) regard it as still being part of Serbia. There is no agreement in the world at large about how to represent Kosovo's current status on a map - indeed, if you were to look at it as a matter of pure numbers, the great majority of states and international organisations would endorse the Serbian POV. This presents a difficult issue for us, obviously. I don't personally endorse either side's perspective but it's certainly not a good idea to make such a provocative change without any discussion. Hipi Zhdripi unfortunately doesn't discuss his edits and constantly accuses others of bad faith, which is a major reason why he got topic-banned in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a fair summary of the situation, which I agree with. Orderinchaos 01:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on Servia vs. Kosovo, but I’m not seeing abuse of the tools there. Semi-protecting the page against anonymous POV pushing (note: you can still edit, though I advise you to be careful – chances are if you say he’s edit warring, you’re probably doing the same) and reverting to a reliable source seems perfectly valid. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I should point out that Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-time problem user who was topic-banned from Kosovo-related articles for a year following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. He's recently returned to Wikipedia following a long period of inactivity. Although he has been somewhat disruptive again, I've not taken any action against him on this occasion but I've left a reminder on his talk page concerning the general sanctions applied in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. Separately, the article that he has been editing recently, Serbia, has been the subject of very frequent edit-warring and nationalist vandalism following the independence of Kosovo - I've just semi-protected it to cut down on the disruption. (This doesn't affect Hipi, as he's a long-established editor.) It would be helpful if other editors could watchlist the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that currently the article is in a badly vandalized state. In the first paragraph it links to the "Sucker River" and other inaccurate geographical features, this should be fixed but I don't know the name of the actual river or the other geographical features.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you see why I semi-protected it... Thanks for the heads-up; restored to a pre-vandalised version. I thought I'd caught it but evidently not. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion over the map has been pretty light, so I don't see a particular need to jump past dispute resolution for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Hipi's edits, he hasn't discussed it at all. Using article talk pages would seem to be a good start... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ChrisO, but this is not the firs time that you are covering the group of Serbs and presenting me as "war maker". You have blocked me yes? I didnt have experience with Wikipedia rules. Every time wen it was edit war in Kosovo article you have protected the page in Serbian version. I'm my self administrator, and I know how it is. My friend you are covering a group of user´s. And I know that you are going to be involved in this problem.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never blocked you (check your log) and I'm certainly not "covering" for anyone. The fact that I've been accused of being pro-Serbian by Albanians and pro-Albanian by Serbs suggests I must be getting something right. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You can come as new user in sq.Wiki I don´t have to block you, I need only to provoked you. The rest are going to do the other administrators.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 36 Stats that don´t accept this map. There are all English spooked countries that don´t accept this map. ChrisO, thanks your covering the Wikipedia in English is saying something else the government witch speak English as official language. You have a embassy (USA, GB etc) in Kosovo, and the people have right to know if they need VISA for traveling in Serbia and Kosovo. With that map you are given wrong information!!! --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Chris O. Who say A mos say B- to. You didn´t give me answer and you didn´t help me to find out the rules of English Wikipedia, only you have Warning me! Your job is to help people not only to Warn them. My question is: Wat should I do? And please not it, that I have asked how are the rules and right of user in keys of a conflict with administrator.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi and everybody else to whom it applies, keep your nationalist squabbles the hell out of Wikipedia. You've made these articles effectively uneditable for anyone who doesn't have the stomach for vicious partisan bickering. I realize this is blunt but I don't care. Something needs to be done about this crap, because it's turned a wide swath of Wikipedia into a war zone and has alienated too editors who could be making useful contributions there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Raymond. There are getting to be more and more articles where the well is just poisoned again and again. Maybe I'm just dumb but why doesn't someone just put both maps in the article? Sort of a "UN + these think this, these guys think this"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the controversy over these articles merely reflects the wider controversy in the world at large. We can't expect Wikipedia to solve the world's political disputes. All we can do is keep a lid on the POV-pushing, edit warring and general disruption that the disputes cause here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The best is probably a 'Kashmiri' solution for the map, having one map which shows Kosovo borders with dotted line. Explaining the UN position vs 36 countries recognition in the image caption. --Soman (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't a compromise be reached and both maps be used. As the article is meant to be neutral doesn't it make sense for both sides of the issue to be given the same level of consideration? Does using both maps and labelling them appropriately violate some policy on here that I am not currently aware of? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Teh? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just say... We follow the Taiwan/China example. ĞavinŤing 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Secret" pages

Looking up at #Excessive cabals got me thinking about "secret" pages. I will not discuss how truly horrible, immature and idiotic I find these - that's personal opinion. I'm just worried about the amount of time and energy spent on these pages, with valuable editing hours lost to going on easter egg hunts. It's fine for people who make encyclopedic contributions to kick back in userspace once in a while. However a vast majority of users who contribute to these pages are people who think this place is something of a social network, to be utilised for making friends and showing off fancy signatures.

I'll make a list of pros and cons:

Pros

1. Good for new users learning about markup
2. Good for new users wanting to make friends
3. Good for new users learning about things like Special:Prefixindex or parsing Special:Contributions

Cons

1. Waste of time
2. WP:NOT#MYSPACE
3. Waste of server resources
4. No encyclopedic merit
5. Encourages cliquish behaviour
6. Waste of donor money
7. Encourages waste-of-time ANI posts like these

There's a list of these here. Barring objections, I plan to get rid of these within the next 24 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse This idea. MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: Great idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I hereby object. I see no good reason to remove these. The tax on server space/resources, donor money, and even editing time is negligible. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Riana, the combined time you've spent formatting your userspace equals more of a drain on resources and editing time than any secret page ever could, if that can be considered a drain. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:33, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

It's cute, but I didn't do it. A vandal made it for me on another site. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Combined time. Its present state notwithstanding. This isn't the way it's always been... far from it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:39, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

True. I have about 50000 other actions though. Few of these users do. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So it's not a waste of resources, donor money, or editing time for you, but it is for them? That doesn't sound too convincing to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:49, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely is, if that's all they're doing. Don't bother trying to make out that I'm wasting anyone's time here. My own, yes. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Riana, I think Equazcion's point was that server resources are server resources - the server doesn't care if a user page edit is made by a Stewart or a fresh account, it's the same amount of processor churn in the end. Heck, one could even make the argument that editors like you actually cause more server load, since a good portion of your edits attract readers to the articles. =P I actually agree that userspace should be edited sparingly (on an ideal Wiki, all the userpages would look exactly like mine), but the longer we keep trying to avoid calling a spade a spade (or a useless page a useless page), the sillier we all look. "Waste of server resources"? Yeah, I'm sure the farm is really being run down to its knees by Jimmy Junior's SsSsEeEcCcRrReEeTtT page. "Waste of time"? And who, exactly, are we to be telling people what they can and can not do on their free time? All of these "cons" could just as easily be applied to half of essay-space - the difference being that essay-space is funny to those who edit the encyclopedia, whereas pages like these are rather tedious. Since the goal of an encyclopedia is to further and spread human knowledge, it seems rather counter-productive to hide the Truth behind coy, flirtatious hand-waving. So, the only con with these experiments is that they're not particularly funny to those of us serious about the encyclopedia-side of things. If that were the argument offered for deletion, I would argue on the "delete" side, but this lack of transparancy is rather disheartening, and counter to a central value preached by this project. --Badger Drink (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... So you're entitled to waste your own time, and others aren't? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:03, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

And PS, good points all around, Badger. I don't think we need to be telling people what they should spend their time on, nor can we make the assumption that time not spent on finding/creating secret pages would otherwise be spent on editing. And yes, there's no way 160 "secret" pages is a drain on the servers. 1,000 pages wouldn't be either. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:17, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. I should know I use to have one of these pages. They are a complete waste of time. --Chetblong (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse: The drain on resources is a minor point to me, my reason for agreeing is this is one of those things that leads people to not take the project seriously. Redrocket (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: For most of the above reasons, including the original rationale. Orderinchaos 05:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hold no particular POV over these pages since I have never spent my time trying to find one, but nevertheless can you clarify what is being defined as "cliquish behaviour" here? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There's a sizeable group of newish editors who band together hunting for these pages, and doing little else. I could name names but it should be obvious enough to anyone having a look. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to hold a delete discussion, it should be done at MfD. ANI doesn't attract the best cross-section of editors for a discussion like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:42, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MfD's attract MfD watchers, AN/I attracts a much wider cross-sample of the community. AN/I is indeed the place to resolve policy or management issues. Orderinchaos 05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (policy). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have worded that better. We're not trying to develop new policy here. I wouldn't even favour changing policy to ban secret pages. I think it's a bit of silliness which has gotten way out of hand, needs to be checked, and once it has been, whatever happens after that can be regarded separately to this. Orderinchaos 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) K, personal opinions aside, this is a discussion to decide if a group of pages should be deleted. Ergo it is a deletion discussion. We have a place for that. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:46, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

WP:BURO. Orderinchaos 05:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: (edit conflict) These probably should be considered individually (that's what MfD is for, and they're usually happy to delete cruft). For example, User:The stuart/The Secret History of Wikipedia is harmless: three cuts-and-pastes of talkpage conversations. (Some of us would have used intermal links, but that's the learning aspect.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  I would agree that filtering of the list linked above is needed to ensure pages that fall outside the parameters we are discussing do not get accidentally deleted - there's quite a few in the list. Orderinchaos 05:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, PMA, don't worry, I'm going to actually read the pages in the list (unhappy task though that seems!) ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• We're dealing with thousands of pages here, so it would be an undue strain on MFD to knock them off one by one. Plus, that page you linked to is completely harmless and is not being discussed here. :-) east.718 at 05:49, April 1, 2008

  Yes I have to agree, putting them through MFD would be a complete waste of time and a pain as everyone who had one would come out and say they are good, when in fact they are nothing but social networking. The only way to go about it is to bot delete them all. --Chetblong (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  "Thousands"? Really? Waltham, The Duke of 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this propsal. We are in the business of writing an encyclopedia here; camaraderie is important but it is always secondary. A disproportionate number of the editors who maintain these pages do little except play their petty userspace games complete with barnstars for finding pages, invite-only cabals and so on, wasting their own time and the time of the volunteers who have to clean up after them. These useless pages are anathema to our mission, and must go. I plan on bot-deleting thousands of these pages if a consensus to remove them is attained. east.718 at 05:49, April 1, 2008
• Endorse We are here to create an encyclopedia, not play games. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong endorse → I was planning on expand MZ's list and mass MfD them, but no problem in deleting them right now. Absolutely. Also, I'd like to use this decision to delete pages not listed there in case we come across them. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• oppose It seems like the only difference between these "secret" pages and sub-user pages, is that they are named "secret page". The content of these pages are nothing you wouldn't find on a user page. Bytebear (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No the difference is you have to spend sometimes an hour or more just to look for somewhere to sign your name, therefore reducing edits done by these users to actual articles. --Chetblong (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything. People will either contribute or waste their time. many would say contributing is wasting time. Who are we to judge what one does with their time. Bytebear (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not meant to have a way to be able to waste your time, as in looking for secret pages, so if they weren't there then people would have to contribute instead of losing focus and messing around. --Chetblong (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a sweatshop. Get over it already. Bytebear (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Meh.. Does it matter one way or the other? --Carnildo (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied Riana's nomination to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#"Secret" pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:56, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – However a vast majority of users who contribute to these pages are people who think this place is something of a social network ... {{fact}}. The most important issue here is that while we're not myspace, the reality is that de facto we're actually a hybrid of an encyclopedia and MySpace, and it's one of the primary reasons why we've achieved so much success. Unlike MySpace, Facebook, Britannica, and basically every Wiki out there not run by wm, we have our content totally open for people to steal and start their own site. However, it's obvious that that's not enough— especially given the various competing sites that pay experts to edit them, they still lack the success we enjoy.

That's because we have a community. We've got silly stuff like "Secret Pages" (which aren't at all secret due to Special:PrefixIndex), we've got pointless userboxes, categories, templates, essays, and all sorts of really extraneous stuff. Why? Because people like it, and because pointless barnstars are gateway drugs to actual barnstars. Personally, I learned how to find secret pages by wondering "how do you find secret pages" and then discovering Special:PrefixIndex.

If something needs to be deleted because it's abusive, inflammatory, disharmonious to editing, or is overly resource consumptive, then mfd it. Otherwise, I'm of the belief that we should simply leave people to their own devices, instead of saying that we simply "don't like it because it's silly, so delete it." Of course, I could just be crazy, so feel free to ignore me :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the user subpages are fantastic. They're clever and are done by hardworking editors who contribute productively the (Main) namespace. However, these "secret" pages fall far outside that category. People can claim, and they'd be right, that the server space and resources are negligible. However, the principle should stand. People donate to the Wikimedia Foundation because they feel that our goal of creating a free online encyclopedia is a noble one. If these editors were spending an equal amount of time contributing the article namespace as they were creating barnstars and signatures for themselves and one another, I'd have no issue. But that's not the reality.

The web is a very big place with literally thousands of venues for this kind of thing. A sense of community is great, and should be encouraged. On the other hand, there are entire sites devoted to social networking. Have some fun? Sure, absolutely. Waste time, energy, and resources for crap like this? No way. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also the element of mission creep. I have a long-standing problem with people whose primary contribution to the project is to play games in the sandbox or to play hide and seek with user pages; this seems to me to be straying a long way from the intended focus of the project. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's aware of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages correct?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not Bebo. With the proviso that individual pages can perhaps be exempted if a case for retaining them is justified. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

keep these pages, they're just a bit of fun. Wikipedians have a reputation for being anal, we don't have to conform to that stereotype at all times.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pfft - back in the day we learnt markup by being beaten until syntax bled from our wounds and made friends by being one of the last few alive. This new generation is nothing but slackers. Really though there is a policy that says they should go (WP:NOT#MYSPACE). Unless the page is being used for effective collaboration with the aim of improving the encyclopedia I think it should go. Note I italicised "aim" because I doubt anyone made a secret page with the goal in mind that they could educate noobs on how to use the prefix lists. You! - Crank dat Soulja 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't care about "secret pages", oppose deleting all pages on the list above. Please make sure you don't delete pages that just happen to have the string "secret" in the title, for example as a substring of "secretary". If you want to delete the pages, I would suggest writing a nice explanatory note, give owners some time to complain and then delete them. Try to cause as little unnecessary tears over useless subpages as possible. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Partial oppose - At least one of those "secret" pages appears to have useful stuff - the user's to-do list. That was after just glancing at a couple of them. Others may be useful. Would normal procedure involve examining the contents of a page before deleting? In any case, it seems most reasonable to notify the creators of these pages and give them time to respond if appropriate. Waiting just 24 hours seems not long enough as many users don't edit as often as we regulars do. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – A few points:
  • Many editors maintain guest-books, where other editors go and sign. Have these been discussed before? Although many editors keep both a guestbook and a secret page, it could be argued that for many editors the so-called "Secret Pages" actually function as guest-books.
  • Secret pages are subpages of editors, and they should be treated not only by examining the pages themselves but also by examining the contributions of their owners. It has been mentioned already, but I though I'd repeat it here. Useful contributors should be allowed more latitude if the "Secret page network" is to be pruned.
  • True, some people are abusing this Wikipedia meme, if I can call it that (it is obvious that it has become a phenomenon, or it would not be discussed here). However, many others just spend some free time looking for secret pages, and some others are drawn into editing by beginning in these backstage non-editing activities. I agree that we should not let this get out of hand, but a wholesale banning or massive deletion of secret pages is unacceptable, as it is bound to upset numerous users, including many useful editors, not to mention the many useful pages (whose existence has been noted) that might also perish.
  • True, most secret pages are not well hidden at all. However, many of them are, and this does help improve not only some of the skills of those looking for them, but also the skills of editors wishing to have their own secret pages. I do have one myself, so please allow me to use myself as an example. The page is mostly humorous, I spend no time in its maintenance, I am an active contributor, and I have tried hard to make the page unplottable (while still respecting some rudimentary etiquette). Only two people have found it in two months. It has a negative effect neither on me nor on others, and its being well hidden motivates other editors to refine their knowledge of Wikipedia's tools. I believe that my secret page, while not exactly beneficial, at least it is not detrimental to the project. And I believe that there are many pages like this. I find no reason to restrict the liberty of editors in good standing to engage in some extra-editing activity in their userspaces if they are not causing any real trouble in this way.
• Waltham, The Duke of 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• The autograph pages should also be removed, preferably with a blunt instrument. As far as improving "skills" is concerned, the only real skill needed is Special:Prefixindex. The time spent developing skills for looking for secret pages would better be spent developing skills for looking for encyclopedic sources. If someone found a source for the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Pence Automobile Company Building in downtown Minneapolis, for example, it would be much more of a benefit for the encyclopedia than someone finding User:Elkman/Super secret hidden page on wheels! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, but there is a trick for the Prefix index, and some have already discovered it, to most of the page seekers' dismay.
• In any case, your example about sources does not appeal to me one bit; I hate searching for sources. (I got the point, though, don't worry.)
• I'll state my basic argument more clearly: if one is lazy, not having secret pages to look for will not turn one to an industrious editor. On the other hand, they are a pleasant distraction for working editors for when they want to have a break. And we shouldn't really attack respectable and helpful editors for a harmless page they might have in their userspace. If they help, they should be allowed an extra toy or two (which are enjoyable because they enhance the sense of belonging to a community); in a sense, they've earned them. Waltham, The Duke of 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per the necessity to look at them on a case by case basis. Though penciling in something in Userpage/Subpage policy pages redundancy of the creation of such pages wouldn't hurt.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Special:prefixindex anyone? And there's an undelete button if there is any salvageable content. —Crazytales (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And how do you expect people to know what should be salvaged if most of them can no longer see it? Waltham, The Duke of 22:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Next thing you know we'll be deleting autograph books, too. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your point? There are many who would like the autograph books to be deleted too. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• WTF? We don't make these decisions in ANI. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

keep the secret pages - I see nothing different between secret pages, user boxes, or actual user pages. They do no harm, they use a tiny tiny fraction of available resources - compare the size to that of 10 unrequired images. Also why alienate editors from wikipedia? someone is having fun with secret pages, they are logging into wikipedia on a regular basis to do so, who knows, when secret pages become boring for them , they might start editing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong forum In general, I think they are a very poor idea. But if we're going to have a new policy it should be discussed more widely by the general community. As for individual ones MfD is the place. DGG (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

Hi, I recently blocked User talk:Mr. Wheely Willy Guy as a probable WoW sock and for violating the username policy. He is now requesting unblock, I'd like some review of this. I would think it a safe bet that someone who knew nothing about Wikipedia wouldn't choose that as their username. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More likely is an imposter.--MONGO 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well judging by the fact that his unblock request was denied, and then his talk page deleted and SALTed I would say that people agree with your block. Tiptoety ^talk 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict}Hi. (I'm not an admin)Why did Ryulong just delete the userpage as non-controversial cleanup? In fact, it is possible that he knew nothing about Wikipedia, see Wheely Willy. He also requested a username change. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Astro. His edit history was just playing in the sandbox, a legitimate removal of an adjective, and correcting some vandalism. I thought the policy was clearly that we block on edits, not on the names that people choose. Saying that someone picks a name that is similar to that of a vandal and thus should be blocked forever is a very good way to drive off editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted the talk page, and it is no longer protected. It appears he was attempting to use {{unblock-un}}. --Random832 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And, I'd just like to note... THIS IS WHY WE HAVE WP:BITE AND WP:AGF. That is all. --Random832 (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Wheely Willy is a popular book series! This user did absolutely nothing wrong, and when he asked why he'd been blocked, he was told that he'd registered a "blatantly inappropriate username, and [was] well aware of this." At this point, many users would have simply given up and left Wikipedia, but this one requested a new username. And what happened next? The user's talk page was deleted (purportedly "housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup") and protected against re-creation! When it was restored, two administrators asked the editor to specify a new username (so that the request could be fulfilled), and then another came along and declined it, indicating that "we have no reason to suspect [he is] not [Willy on Wheels]" and that "there are no positive edits from [his] account" (which is patently false).
This is one of the worst failures to assume good faith that I've ever seen on this site. Utterly shameful and embarrassing. —David Levy 04:09/04:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I feel bad for Mr. Wheely Willy Guy, just bad luck in picking a username combined with someone's quick trigger. I hope he doesn't leave Wikipedia. Useight (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I will publicly say that I am sorry for declining his unblock request. I clearly was wrong on that one, and have no excuse for it. I will go unblock him now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it first. Still, I am quite sorry about the whole mess I am uniquely and solely responsible for in this case. This was entirely my bad for declining the unblock request. In the future I will try to be more conscientious about these unblock requests... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He'd already been unblocked. The template remained in place because two previous sysops requested that he fill in the requested username.

And hey, don't beat yourself up over this. It was an honest mistake, and you've obviously learned from it. I hope that the other sysops responsible for this unfortunate chain of events (for which you certainly aren't solely to blame) also learned from it. —David Levy 04:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do too, and I've left an apology (on behalf of the community) on his talk page. —David Levy 04:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the first book was written in 1998, maybe the original page move vandal was inspired by the same thing? That would be ironic, wouldn't it? Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's possible, but I subscribe to this theory. —David Levy 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• FREE PICTURE REQUEST. I can't remember where the page for this is. See here. Willy's calendar of appearances is here. Anyone available to go and take a freely licensed picture, or failing that to write to the owner and ask if we can have a freely-licensed picture (or two) for the article? Preferably one of the dog in its K9-cart. The first book cover may still be justifiable if no pictures are available of the helium balloons incident. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skampoe

Resolved

 – Afd closed, article deleted and protected.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this AfD and associated article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skampoe and Skampoe. There's a clear case for snow and I'm asking for someone to look into an early close because the article has started to get ridiculous with strange off-wiki picture links. I'm guessing some of this strangeness is related to this [3] and I think the sooner it's gone the better. I mean, really, "The exact location of The Notorious Skampoe has never been found although many claim to see him over the horizon every time he exhales. He often leaves clues to his whereabouts in the form of I BE WHERE IM @ This phrased has puzzled scientists from across the globe for years." It serves no purpose to leave the AfD open at this juncture.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If it han't made it into AfD I'd have been inclined to go by speedy delete with {{db-bio}} or {{db-band}} or {{db-nonsense}} or maybe even {{db-vandal}}. Probably too late for that now though. Loren.wilton (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not. There's nothing that says you can't apply an appropriate tag while an article is at AfD. I'm going to place a g3 on it and see what happens.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Too late, someone already closed the debate while I was tagging. The article is gone.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments

Resolved

I wanted to go thru and restore these comments that were removed by Orderinchaos. They appeared neutral and are on wiki (transparent), so any removal appears disruptive. Especially since the editor removing the comments has already been engaged regarding this. For clarity I'm talking about the edits like this. I won't restore them unless there is a consensus here to restore them, I do not wish to war on them. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They were canvassing - it was a clear case of sample bias, as was/is being discussed at the page where the discussion was taking place. 22 users were canvassed who had supported one side of the debate at some point in the last two weeks, to contribute to a "survey" whose questions were faulty and loaded, while at least 9 users who had expressed contrary opinions were not contacted. WP:CANVASS clearly says, under "Votestacking" - Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote.. This is almost a textbook case. There is no mention anywhere of neutral wording mitigating this.

That being said, I did overreact by getting into an edit war over it. It is not much of a basis of an apology to say for offline reasons I was having a bad night, but being told "please read up on what canvassing is" in an edit summary where I was reverted without even so much as a talk page notice by a fellow admin, especially when they had replied to a page where I had just quoted part of the guideline directly, really did push me past my tolerance point. In retrospect I would have taken two deep breaths, walked away from the computer, posted a strongly worded notice to the aforementioned admin's talk page and left it at that. Needless to say, I do feel a little silly having just done what I tell people I mentor never to do - should probably follow my own advice next time. Orderinchaos 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense, and I think the best thing to do is for me not to champion for the reinsertion of those comments. Additionally I don't think this will happen again. Order, thank you for responding. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I've learned from it as well. (I did notice another section way down on the guideline which pretty much precludes what I did, I know now for next time. :/ ) I do apologise to anyone I offended with my actions this evening. Orderinchaos 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dotsod1

Why no one welcomed this user? Special:Contributions/Dotsod1. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a tedious task. Why didn't you do it? Useight (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's not a new user given that his only action has been to file some AFDs... Don't recognize him yet, but I have watchlisted his talk page. Oh, and I welcomed him as well. I mean, AGF requires at this point that we don't take any action since he has done nothing wrong per se, but he doesn't look like a new user. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gruntlord socks

Resolved

 – most are already blocked, I blocked 6e and 6g

. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Compare Gruntlord6d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gruntlord6e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They appear similar. Gruntlord6d has been blocked, so if not already, please block Gruntlord6e. I notified Kralizec! about the vandal, but I haven't checked if anything had been done yet. Could someone either warn the vandal or block indefinately? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Also please look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gruntlord6, they appear very similar, anyone want to file a checkuser/suspected sockpuppets report?. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism from Wikimedia Foundation IP address

Resolved

I reverted some vandalism just now from User:208.80.152.185, and was surprised to see that WHOIS shows this address as registered to the Wikimedia Foundation. Is there anyone specific that I should report this to? NawlinWiki (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• LIke this? That's the IP that shows when you make an anonymous edit through the secure server. 208.80.152.185 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one who sees a fundamental problem with that? So the secure server is basically an open proxy? EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We're in the process of renumbering our IP space. I've added the new IP to the internal proxy whitelist, so the forward headers should now be properly processed. --brion (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just going to say its probably a glitch and I was reporting it when it was already fixed. Oh well. Thatcher 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP removing warnings

I'm sure that policy is that an anonymous IP can't remove warnings from their talk page, even though I can't find it. Apparently, a lot of other editors agree, because this edit war is getting ridiculous.Kww (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, everyone is allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. In any case, it's certainly not worth edit warring over. I do agree with not allowing them to remove the ISP template, but I don't see why the warnings themselves should be forced to remain. --Onorem♠Dil 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what WP:USERPAGE states, but does an IP fall under WP:USERPAGE, it is not theirs, as they do not have an account. Tiptoety ^talk 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be able to remove warnings just like anyone else? If the IP is static, then they should be treated like a registered account, in that they are allowed to remove warnings after they've been read. If the IP isn't static, then the warnings are being forced to remain so that uninvolved editors have to see them. I don't see the point. --Onorem♠Dil 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is to make it easier for vandal fighters to address the appropriate warning level.Kww (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere, probably on this page, that IP editors are not allowed to blank talk pages because they do not own them. Of course, that calls into the question the wisdom of putting warnings on IP talk pages in the first place, but oh well. Redrocket (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If the reason is based on making vandal fighting easier, then why can registered accounts remove current warnings? (Not questioning whether or not that's the reason...just asking because that would make even less sense to me.) --Onorem♠Dil 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The theory there is that a registered user is a single, discrete individual, and their removal of the warning constitutes their acknowledgement that they read (or at least became aware of) the warning. In the case of an IP, it is possible that one user was warned for shenanigans, and then a subsequent user was assigned that IP and removed the warnings. The warnings are supposed to remain as an indication of vandalism from an account for whom the user cannot be determined (the IP). In all cases, however, the warnings remain in the history - which is why my edit summaries when warning usually read something like "uw-blank1" or "vandalism warning (3)" or some such, so that - even if the warnings are removed - it's still clear when and how severely the ip or user was warned. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IP's don't fall under Wikipedia:User page. While there is a person editing behind the IP and he/she deserves all the consideration and respect as any other user, however IP's are not given the same latitude under WP:USER. Blanking or trolling of a shared/dynamic/proxy/TOR/ect IP talk page is vandalism. A users page is devoted to exactly one person. An IP page refers to anyone using that IP, which may well be many people. Wikipedia offers wide latitude to "registered users" to manage their user space as they see fit such as delete warnings. However, even pages in user space still belong to the community, IP's are not considered userpages.--Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hu12. It's okay to blatantly harass IP editors, because they're not real people. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I didn't think Hu12 was advocating blatantly harassing anyone. Or did I misunderstand the discussion? -- Why Not A Duck 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brought this up at Village pump (policy), seems clarification may be needed - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:User_page_and_IP.27s --Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Treat IPs with the same courtesy as other editors and let them remove warnings.
2. Review the page history before giving a vandalism warning.
3. When giving a vandalism warning leave a discriptive edit summary for the next person to see.
4. Stop bringing up the removal of IPs removing warnings.

Saves a whole lot of time and effort. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate to do this, but flaws have to be pointed out

Copied from village pump

I do not think an IP should be allowed to remove warnings unless they are static and at the same time not shared (I.E. Company, School etc). This is because when a user warns an IP it is seen by all users on the network. When a user warns the IP, everyone on the network or who gets the IP sees the warning. The potential for another person other than the vandal to remove the warning is high so in the end the vandal could not get the chance to read the warning and think it a fluke. So the next time they receive a "You Have a Message" bar they will think it a fluke and ignore it. Those warnings are designed to stop the vandal in his/her tracks. So if they are not receiving the warnings because some one else removed it the warnings fail in their purpose. It really does not matter if they are remove after a block has been placed or the vandalism stops after a long period. Because you can check the history. But how long a period really depends. I think 3 days.Rgoodermote  18:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rgoodermote  18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but if someone else on the same IP reads it, then the user who vandalised won't see the new messages bar at all. —Random832 (contribs) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just do not really see the need for making a big deal out if it. If the user gets reported to AIV for actual vandalism (not removal of warnings) then hopefuly the admin knows what they are doing (they did pass RfA and all) and will check the talk page history. If they see they have been properly warned.....then what is the issue. And for recent change patrol guys, one thing I used to do is notice that if the talk page was a blue link there was something there before, and it was probably a warning, I would check the page history and give them the appropriate level of warning. Just takes a few extra seconds of time.... Tiptoety ^talk 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That it is not a problem. We know the warning was there but the vandal won't also. Also they will get, a lot of vandals go to other pages afterwords thinking they got off scotch free. As soon as they go to another page and yellow bar appears they double back to see what it said. This is an observation I made when watching a group of kids vandalizing (while I reverted their edits and gave them the warning). Another thing is that the vandal at the same as the person who blanks the page gets the bar. Rgoodermote  22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to step away from this conversation. The same for the one at Village Pump. Just before some one tells me to get some tea. See Ya guys. Happy Editing. Rgoodermote  01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone that does some recent changes patrolling but is not an admin, and is new enough to remember having made the first few edits as an IP before considering it worth getting an account, I have a couple of opinions on this area, and I'll be different and say what they are:

1. IPs sometimes represent people, not vandals. If someone makes an IP edit, it may not be the same person as the last vandal that racked up 3 warnings and a final warning in 2 minutes -- 5 days ago.
2. IPs are sometimes newbies, who will make a mistake through lack of knowledge rather than deliberate mallace. Sometimes this will get caught by a recent changes patroller and a warning will be issued. Depending on the tool being used, this is quite likely to be an automatic warning issued by the tool, and the patroller isn't directly picking the warning level.
3. If that vandal 5 days ago got a final warning and moved on to a new IP, the newbie isn't even going to get warned for his error. He is going to get blocked, for an infraction past final warning.
4. I would suggest treating IPs as though there were actual people on the other end, and only some of those actual people are vandals. We let vandals remove warnings from their talk pages if they bother creating a throw-away account. We also let constructive users remove warnings for infractions from their pages, and it is considered to be acknoldgement that they have seen the warnings. (Not acknoledgement that they will heed the warnings, just that they have seen them.)
5. I would suggest two things: A) IPs, like real users, can remove warnings and other cruft on their talk pages. Because while they are logged in, it is their page, not some arbitrary shared page. It is only a shared page when nobody is actually connected by that IP address. B) There should be a bot to clean final warnings off IP talk pages within -- pick a number -- 1 hour after the warning is issued, so that it doesn't sit around stale and bite some other innocent person. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

:But it isn't "their" page. It is only associated with them, and only while they have that IP address. Let me illustrate the problem:

• Editor A makes a series of inappropriate edits using IP 1.2.3.4
• A disconnects
• Admin X issues a sequence of warnings including a final warning to User Talk:1.2.3.4
• Editor B connects and is allocated 1.2.3.4
• B reads and deletes the warnings - which you suggest is okay
• B makes various contribs and disconnects
• A connects and makes more of the same edits
• Admin X, blocks A.

Notice that A has no idea why they were blocked, because B deleted their warning messages. That's a potentially good editor lost, because they didn't get the information they needed to become a productive contributor. We must certainly treat IP editors with courtesy and extend good faith to them - and that's why they should not be able to delete warning messages from IP talk pages.Moving this to the village pump. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive cabals

This debate has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Great Cabal Debate. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SteveBaker

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

---

Resolved

Since it is the April Fools' Day, I issued a false vandalism warning to User:SteveBaker to see what is his response [4], but I later removed the notice and explained the message [5]. He told me that I have done "horrible wrong". There are other processes going on to celebrate the day Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber 2 which involve vital administrative process. Leaving someone a joke message is quote funny when I explain the cause behind the message. Will anyone care to this. Thanks. What are the best ways to celebrate the day. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't force people to have the same humour than you do... I fail to see what we are supposed to do here? -- @#$! ^*#!@ 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right here. I did not understand this. I apologize for this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this is tagged as archived and resolved without there being ANY discussion or account of my side of the story. I can only assume this is User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's attempt to head off a possible complaint from me. I do not consider this matter resolved until I get an apology for this user's ridiculous behavior in which at least a couple of Wikipedia policies were violated.

Sometime this morning User:Otolemur crassicaudatus (someone with whom I do not believe I've had any prior contact) dumps a vandal-4 template on my talk page. No explanation - nothing. The only thing I'd edited that might possibly warrant such a thing was a couple of comments on the front page discussion page - and after I checked to be sure I didn't accidentally do something horrible there (I hadn't) - I asked politely on his/her talk page to either explain the vandalism accusation or remove it if it's in error. I note from earlier remarks on his/her talk page that this person has misused the vandal-4 template at least once in the past.

I get a reply saying it's an April Fool joke...WTF? I complain in vigorous terms that these templates are not there for playing jokes and that someone's good standing could be seriously harmed by such a thing. Since removing vandalism tags from one's own talk page is frowned upon - I again request that it be removed - and this time I ask for an apology (in order that in future someone who finds a vandalism template in my talk history will understand what happened). After a second protest, this user does indeed remove the template - leaving behind an edit summary: "I have never seen such humourless person before". I certanly do not find being accused of vandalism (with a -4 tag no less) funny - particularly because it comes from someone with whom I have no prior history - friendly or otherwise. I've had several people award me barnstars specifically because of my widely appreciated humor (cite: My user page) - so this too in an unwarranted and insulting bite. Reputation is everything on Wikipedia - and as an editor in good standing with 10,000+ edits and two FA's to my name - I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism and then of having a lack of humor - on this or any other day. I have still not received an apology. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus should be sanctioned for two instances of WP:NPA (once for the vandal-4 tag and again for his bite in the final edit remark) and should arguably take a WP:VANDAL tag of his own because misuse of tags is itself considered vandalism. To quote from WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."

This user needs to be made aware (in the strongest possible terms) that Vandal tags are not playthings.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Got to agree with SteveBaker there, there is no way this should have been resolved without allowing his input. This is flagrant abuse of the vandalism templates, not in any way funny, and I agree that something should be said to Otolemur crassicaudatus. This is out of order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissa's DeathAngel (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This user needs to be made aware (in the strongest possible terms) that Vandal tags are not playthings. Nobody, and I mean nobody, cares about vandal tags. Most experienced editors and admins will tell you that a personal note, hand written for the situation, is much more effective and usefu then an impersonal, sometimes bite-y template.

Reputation is everything on Wikipedia - and as an editor in good standing with 10,000+ edits and two FA's to my name Wikipedia is not an RPG, you're not trying to level up your reputation, no one cares if someone slapped a vandal tag on you for April Fools day. Not funny? You're right, there was no thinking behind the humor, the joke is juvenile, obvious and unfunny. It's slapstick, and not really good slapstick. Remove it and forget about it. You're attitude seems to be implying that you're taking this much, much to seriously. Good lord. -M^ask? 01:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Steve Baker deserves an apology from us. This was clearly not done maliciously, but it certainly offended him, and I can understand that. With April Fools Day pranks I usually restrict them to people I'm in direct communication with or who are clearly in the spirit of it all, I think people have a right not to participate or be involved. Orderinchaos 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that self-archiving with apology here would've been acceptable if it had been accompanied by an apology to SteveBaker. Instead, the last attempted communication I see is the removal of the "joke" section with an edit summary stating that OC has "never seen such humourless person before"

An apology to the user for the joke should be all that's needed to resolve this. Whether the problem was that the joke wasn't funny (it wasn't) or that the target overreacted (they did) isn't important. --Onorem♠Dil 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 'only people im communicating with' part completely. and that the user who posted the warning should probably apologize. I don't do april fools jokes here anymore (haven't since 05 or 06 i think), but if you get caught in the crossfire, you dont come here demanding sanctions and warnings. It just isnt that important. We're not talking about mediawiki-space incidents, its user talkpage notes. That and the attitude displayed in his response post was just completely absurd. Thats really the main point i was addressing :) -M^ask? 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake. I did not understand that it will be inappropriate. I apologize for my edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It's wrap - thanks to everyone. SteveBaker (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

User:NewAtThis at AfD

Resolved

 – Socking confirmed

NewAtThis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a rather rough run at AfD lately with a number of his nominations attracting some attention because they're clearly notable:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Terra
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beanie Buddy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homer Ezzell: speedy closed, nom rationale worth reading
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taourirt
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Wishnow

or due to his choice of words in the nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovan Smith This one has some interesting history with a number of *socks.

There are also some dubious page moves. I don't think it's bad faith on the user's part, or I'd like to hope so, but messages on his/her talk haven't had much effect. Perhaps needs to be taken under someone's wing before it gets even more out of hand? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

no bad faith at all. i'm just very frustrated by how i keep getting told what to do. oftentimes it contradicts itself. i only nominated articles that i thought should be deleted since they were not sources and they were on topics that weren't of enough note. a few of them have been deleted. and when it's been pointed out to me that something was indeed notable but it was just not at all sourced, i stepped back and took down the deletion.NewAtThis (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into semantics, but "a few of them have been deleted"? The results have been: speedy keep as you claimed it to be a hoax when it wasn't, undecided, but leaning towards keep since you claimed it as a hoax, this one may be deleted, but again you implied it was a hoax when it wasn't, still in progress, nom withdrawn after again claiming a hoax, still in progress but again claiming a hoax, still in progress but leaning towards keep, still in progress but leaning towards keep, still in progress leaning towards speedy keep after false claim of original research, still in progress without leaning either way, but you did make a somewhat uncivil response to someone trying to tell you the proper process, still in progress leaning towards keep with another false claim of original research, still in progress leaning towards keep with yet another false claim of OR, another still in progress with more false hoax claims and OR claims, and another still in progress with another claim of OR. --Smashville^BONK! 15:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that these are all in the last 5 days for a user who registered 13 days ago. --Smashville^BONK! 15:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention wholly odd Afd!votes such as this, in which he cites his own tenuous article (at AfD itself) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Note: User:NewAtThis seems to have gotten upset by the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayelle (lesbian), and seems to be losing her cool a bit [6], [7]. The AfDs mentioned above may be a WP:POINT reaction to the Gayelle AfD. I'm not sure what the best tack is to calm her down, but if someone does... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've speedily closed the J Stalin nomination as being redundant and in bad faith. If the editor persists in abusing AfD process they should be blocked. This is also suspiciously sock-puppetish, and reminds me of the User:Boomgaylove fiasco. Wikidemo (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I linked the check user since once I saw CA rapper, something rang a bell. Not saying he is, and it's not enough for a check user but something smells fishy, albeit not quite ducky TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't think a new user who's first (and almost only edits to date) are commenting in or nominating articles for deletion isn't weird enough to warrant a checkuser? HalfShadow (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some turned down as fishing for far less, and it's only the one that's super suspicious, others are just, questionable. I'm willing to try if it's not going to be a pointless listing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not fishing - it has all the hallmarks of a boomgaylove sockpuppet. Incivility, accuses others of harassment and stalking, quick (and often imperfectly formed) nomination of articles for deletion, article moves, interest in Bay Area and gay articles, obsession (yet again) with the J Stalin article. Someone has already claimed this is the same editor as an anonymous IP. A he claiming to be a she. But no hurry. If he/she has decided to launch a new round of sockpuppets we'll have plenty of time to find and clean them up - just block if they become abusive.Wikidemo (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Add to the similarities - same AfD arguments and tactics as Boomgaylove liked to use: citing the WP:LOCAL essay, claiming (utterly falsely) that coverage in sources is not substantial, denigrating weekly free newspapers as "trash" and not "legitimate" by way of saying they are not RS, claiming sourced negative information is a "libel" concern, throwing around policy terms without understanding what they mean. The editor's AfD arguments at J Stalin are a rehash of the unsuccessful arguments the sockpuppets made the last +/- four AfD attempts on this article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent for legibility}, RFCU filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NewAtThis. We'll see what happens TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Jessee and Arbetarbladet for apparent evidence of posting as both NewAtThis and 68.27.12.1. Most damningly, Arbetarbladet had the AfD tag added by 68.27.12.1 but the actual nomination is written up by NewAtThis. - Dravecky (talk!) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to the Request for Check User, which is getting more obvious. I didn't have too much interaction with Boomgaylove but knew of the user TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• ETA, he was notified of this dicussion but it appears to have been removed, albeit not by him. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have been canvassed by User:NewAtThis on my talk page to reconsider my deletion endorsement of Gayelle. The replies in the AfD to deletion endorsements have progressively gotten more shrill and uncivil, to the point of calling other editors witch hunters. The tone of the AfD noms subsequently made make it difficult in light of the evidence to assume good faith. DarkAudit (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• User:NewAtThis has nominated a fresh batch of clearly notable articles for deletion today:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atle Antonsen‎
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tompall Glaser‎
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannu Karpo‎
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Clemens von Baumgarten

--Canley (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the interest of being completely fair, NewAtThis has already withdrawn the Tompall Glaser nomination after a WP:HEY (there is at least one more example of the editor doing this). But such easily-cleaned-up articles should really never be nominated in the first place (AFD not being cleanup &c.). --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• NewAtThis has also relisted the Gayelle AFD xerself. Like many of this editor's actions, by itself this may not be strictly out of bounds, but it's one more example of flailing about to the point of being borderline disruptive. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• As a frequent visitor to AfD, and as the user who did a WP:HEY job on Tompall Glaser (see above), I've seen NewAtThis around about. Even though Tompall meets multiple criteria of WP:MUSIC quite easily, this user still told me that they don't think he is notable. Said user also suggested on my talk page that I "take a look" at J Stalin, an article which was AfD'ed twice in February by two (now indef-blocked) socks and clearly appears notable. I politely informed NewAtThis that even more than a month later, placing a third AfD would be disruptive. In short, I think that, despite the flurry of questionable AfDs, this user is indeed new at this and simply needs to learn a few more things about Wikipedia policy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I spoke too soon. This is clearly disruption per all the evidence, and we may have a sock on our hands here again (esp. given the obsession with J Stalin). I wasn't aware of all the other evidence before just now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the data already in this thread adds up to a verdict of disruption. The editor himself gave a clearly unsatisfactory response above. My count is that NewAtThis submitted 8 AfD nominations on April 1st alone. (There is not even a semi-plausible program explaining why such a campaign is needed). Using up the community's resources with unnecessary AfD debates should be considered bad faith editing. We could request that NewAtThis not open any new AfDs until some of the existing ones close with Delete. If he does not immediately agree then I think we're already in block territory. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what at the fuss is about. The people at this project seem too sensitive and unwilling to deal with someone who doesn't know everything. Everyone's tone comes off as very condescending. Maybe I should just leave, I hope that makes you all happy that I won't be "disrupting" anymore. *frown*.NewAtThis (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in my defense its worth mentioning that i don't know how an article could possibly not be original research if there are not sources at all in it. And I still think some articles are not notable, is that a crime..to have an opinion? or am i forced to say, yes sir, it is notable?NewAtThis (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You might try to do a little research before you nominate articles for deletion. Deor (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict) If sources can't be found, then it may be original research. While Google doesn't have the answer to everything, it has established the notability and sources for many articles you sent to AfD. Just because sources aren't present doesn't mean they don't exist. If nothing else, a google search may prove an article you find is indeed verifiable, and you can go from there. There are also a number of tags, including {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}} which you can use to mark articles where notability isn't clear or you can't find sources. There are other tags, I hope someone will give you a link because I can't find the list. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• and now we've moved on to creating nonsense, therefore creating more work, as EdJohnston stated above. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The operative term you're looking for here is 'taking the piss'. I think enough time and good faith has been wasted here. HalfShadow (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm cranky and it's getting really old. Trying to hold back snark in two of his AfDs. Can you be 'taking the piss' if it's not remotely funny? I know the phrase from my time living in Australia but it's not that common here in the US so I'm not intricately familiar with its use. More moves in the last two min TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(Only since you asked) taking the piss can mean either to poke fun at or to take liberties, an employee turning up half an hour late every day could be described as taking the piss, and nobody's smiling. Someoneanother 07:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove notes those socks nit-picking about accents on Spanish-language words, see NewAtThis' edits: [8] [9]. quack quack Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

and defending what is quite likely his/her own article TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could block this user for disruption and/or sockpuppetry. Two more AfDs in the last few hours (I did a nonadmin speedy closure on both). Every hour this account is active wastes several hours of other wikipedians' productive time. Wikidemo (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave final notice. Any further violations will result in a lengthy block. Moving on, what about Alchemy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? seicer | talk | contribs 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Seicer. Ugh, what a mess. I've been cleaning up after NAT all morning, might as well move on to this one now. Never a dull moment in WikiWorld, huh? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Alchemy12's seem to be fairly harmless, or am I missing something? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I was reading far too much into it. seicer | talk | contribs 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Resolved, sock confirmed TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk protection

Resolved

Does anyone else have a problem with this, would leave him a message, but... Tiptoety ^talk 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected - he's only a new admin so probably didn't realise. I've left him a little note to explain. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the "new admin" excuses is being overused in his case, take a look here. Tiptoety ^talk 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It does unfortunately look like he's got some quick learning to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears we have a problem with blocking as well. Maybe one of his old Admin Coaches could leave him a message, or offer a little more coaching? Tiptoety ^talk 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, these seem to be singular transgressions, and fairly good-faith mistakes at this point. I don't see where this is a problem until he shows further issues. Sometimes the mop is a bit clumsy to use at the beginning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel that when I do try and communicate my concerns to him he blanks his talk page and leaves, returning without continuing it. Tiptoety ^talk 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is concerning. April Fools perhaps, but I think this use of the admin tools is probably a bit too far. 87/3/3 reminds me of someone else recent, but hopefully this won't turn anywhere near the same way that one did (not least because I supported this one, and that one, and I don't want to get suckered again!). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I sure hope that is not the case. And I can assure you that all those blocks and out of process deletions/protections where not because of April Fools. Anyways, it appears that he learned from his mistake? Tiptoety ^talk 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like this, but I'll take it up with him some other time if it's a really big deal. Resolved is fine here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of Archtransit...John Reaves 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Role account

Resolved

BIOEE278WIM2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently created their userpage with the statement "Hi all, we're an evolutionary biology class at Cornell University with a special mission in mind: fill gaps of knowledge about evolution!" Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#'Role' accounts says other than when used by the Foundation, the account is likely to be blocked. FYI, please block or disregard as appropriate. --12 Noon ^2¢ 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a friendly word suggesting invdivdual accounts with user pages identifying as class project participants would be a good idea. Prior to blocking, give them a chance to do it the WP way. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a nice note. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to help as well, best foot forwards. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's now only one person on the account, and the students should be getting their own individual accounts. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:EBDCM unblock review

This user has been requesting unblock for several days without a response. I declined that request as a pragmatic judgement that apparently it wasn't going to be granted. However, I would like to see some discussion of the situation. Mangojuice^talk 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive388#EBDCM for a previous discussion and also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EBDCM Mangojuice^talk 03:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser in question is pretty weak; however EBDCM is quite vociferous in his edit warring at articles relating to chiropracty. I would support an unblock in contingent on that unblock was a topic ban against editing ANY articles relating to chiropracty at all. If he agrees to stay away from the articles he edit wars over, then I see no need to keep him blocked. What says everyone? Would a topic ban be a reasonable solution to lifting the block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is a full topic ban necessary? What about a 0RR restriction? Mangojuice^talk 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that he wishes to return to constructive editing. Please remove the indef block. Bstone (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been an editor on Chiropractic, can someone point me in the direction of the edit war that he was allegedly a part of? I thought EBDCM was banned for evading a block (based on a weak CU). Is this incorrect? I have seen some excellent contributions by EBDCM towards Chiropractic and it would be a shame to see him topic banned. Especially in the light of his work over at Chiropractic_Canada (which he basically authored) and Kinesiology. DigitalC (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit more, the question is whether EBDCM was editing as User:64.25.184.27. That user reverted repeatedly over a particular change, and EBDCM reinstated that change after the IP was blocked for edit warring. A checkuser on the two came back as "plausible" -- they share an IP range. Also, the IP editor was active during relatively tight holes in EBDCM's edit pattern. So there are lots of things that link the two together. It seems to me that whether or not the sockpuppetry allegation is true, it's probably time to unblock. After all, EBDCM has remained blocked for almost 2 weeks now without apparently evading the block. And logging out to edit isn't exactly as abusive as registering new accounts. Furthermore, the abuse caused by the IP's edits (and whatever minimal disruption was caused by EBDCM's single revert) is (1) not that big of a deal, and (2) no longer a current concern in any case. The rest of this case would come down to EBDCM's behavior once he was blocked... which also really hasn't been that bad. Mangojuice^talk 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So is he unblocked or not? Bstone (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the indef block based on the previous consensus at ANI.[10] Before reaching a consensus to unblock, please keep in mind that the question is not limited to "whether EBDCM was editing as User:64.25.184.27" but also "general disruptive editing" as User:Moreschi noted in the original thread, including unfounded accusations against other users. If someone wants to unblock I won't wheel-war over it but I don't think unblocking would be a benefit to Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeping this block in place will harm Wikipedia by preventing a good editor from contributing. Bstone (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether he's a "good editor." A lot of people have made rather convincing arguments that his content contributions don't outweigh his disruptive behavior. See the original thread ANI thread as linked above. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Addendum: This recent tirade by EBDCM ("you guys can keep blowing each other on the sidelines" is one of the more pleasant remarks) doesn't exactly lead me to entertain unblocking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess I see hope where you see none. His contributions have been useful thus far and I for one appreciate them. Bstone (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Useful contributions or not, rampant poor behavior is never warranted and his clear disregard for other editors leads me to believe that he just doesn't work well with others. Too bad. seicer | talk | contribs 12:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, my assessment above was not taking the incivility issue into account. However, when I looked around, I got the idea, mostly, that all the incivility occurred in response to being blocked. Can someone point out some evidence of incivility before the blocks? Or some solid evidence of disruption at Chiropractic? EBDCM has repeatedly demanded to have an explanation for the conclusion that he has edited disruptively... I for one would like to see some that doesn't depend on the sockpuppetry allegation being true. Mangojuice^talk 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have used "poor behavior" in lieu of the vague terms that I had previously used. We have blocked indef. on much less than what EBDCM has done. He has been given a chance previously to demonstrate that he edits in good faith, that he respects other user's viewpoints, however, he has consistently shown little regard for other editors. And judging from his latest tirade, he hasn't calmed down one bit. Perhaps time off can force him to realize that his editing practices are unsustainable for Wikipedia, and move on. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this block should be overturned. Has the fellow actually come up with a coherent explanation, or even an apology, about how an IP that geolocated to an area very close to him came to edit-war vociferously for him, to help him evade 3RR and general scrutiny? He does have a history of disruptive editing, and there is no doubt in my mind that the evidence for abusive sockpuppetry is strong. Go back over the ANI thread, please. Moreschi (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole "geolocation" thing is specious. IPs from the same range will often geolocate to the same place, namely, a server farm for the relevant ISP. What we have is a very weak checkuser result of "possible" vs. the coincidence that two people in Ontario might have similar opinions about Chiropractic(e?), which I don't really find that suspicious. Show me the evidence of disruptive editing actually coming from EBDCM or his confirmed IP address. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out, for instance, that 64.25.184.27 is one of several hundred IP addresses that appear to geolocate to the same street in Timmins, Ontario. It's clearly a building where servers are housed, not EBDCM's personal residence. Really, that geolocation told us nothing beyond the checkuser result: that EBDCM has used an IP that shares a /24 (i.e. first three numbers) with 64.25.184.27. Mangojuice^talk 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will further point out that, unlike the many chiropractic colleges in the United States, Canada has one english speaking Chiropractic College - located in Ontario. As such, there is a higher density of Chiropractors in Ontario than in other Canadian provinces. EBDCM's viewpoints on chiropractic are directly tied to that College, and it would not be difficult to imagine another Chiropractor from Ontario editing WP with a similar viewpoint. As I have mentioned elsewhere, unless the CU comes back confirmed, I believe allegations of sockpuppetry should be dropped. DigitalC (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn block. - Here we have an essentially newbie editor who made the unfortunate mistake to begin his Wikipedia career editing at a "war zone" topic (Chiropractic). The contributors there can often times be downright unpleasant; not every editor, but there are a few prone to great incivility. EBDCM as an Evidence Based Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine has provided a unique and much needed perspective to this article. As an editor who has worked with EBDCM at Chiropractic, I can assure you that he has behaved with rather remarkable civility in the face of much taunting. I have personally seen other, much more experienced editors call him "anti-scientific" and a "quack" among other things. I think we can all understand his frustration and why he has lashed out. We have all been newbie editors and have all felt that same frustration when others who know Wikipedia better than you do, use they greater knowledge with venom against an editor with a different POV rather than using their knowledge to instruct the newbie editor. Finally, the evidence of sock puppetry against EBDCM is extremely weak and the evidence of incivility/disruption is rather minor before he was banned. What is evident just by reading his current talk page is the taunting of other more experienced editors, baiting the newbie EBDCM to react poorly. The indef block should be lifted and those baiting EBDCM should be warned. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep blocked per previous ANI discussion of his incivility to other users, plus the strong checkuser evidence. special, random, Merkinsmum 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Umm.. the checkuser result was "possible" - not strong by any stretch, it's about as weak as we can get. Mangojuice^talk 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn block with topic ban. Keep him away from Chiropractic articles for say 6 months. Watch him on other articles that might be controversial. He plays nice, remove the topic ban. Win win situation for everyone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think 6 months is too long for a topic ban at this point. DigitalC (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think EBDCM has the potential to contribute good content here. It's unfortunate that chiropractic is a war zone. That said, his approach was (and is) highly irascible, which is understandable when you feel your profession is being attacked but totally counterproductive when editing a controversial article. Pragmatically speaking, unblocking should not be predicated on correcting a Great Injustice, or forcing apologies, etc. It should occur if there seems to be reason to believe that EBDCM will contribute constructively and civilly to Wikipedia. Right now the unblock requests and rhetoric are focused on the injustice of it all, which is inevitably an unsuccessful way to get onself unblocked.

  I would suggest the following: EBDCM takes some time completely away from Wikipedia to cool off and relax - no talk page blogging, no... colorful descriptions of what's happening on the "sidelines", etc. After a week or two, if he feels he can put this behind him and edit constructively, then we unblock him. I think 1RR is a reasonable condition to apply (in fact, one we should all probably adhere to). That doesn't mean the block was "just" or "unjust", but it may be a way forward. MastCell ^Talk 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblocking with restrictions and further review after six months to see if those restrictions are still needed. Blocking is a (lets all say it together) last resort, and even more so regarding indef. blocking. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above commentary there is no consensus to unblock. We should not unblock when consensus has not been achieved. Moreover, there is no evidence EBDCM will be a constructive editor. The block should remain based on his past[11][12] and recent behaviour.[13] EBDCM falsely accused me of spamming his talk page in his edit summary when I made a sincere effort to give him a chance to convince me he should be unblocked.[14] Since there is no consensus to unblock and after repeated requests for unblocking was declined,[15][16] the last resort for EBDCM is e-mailing WP:ARBCOM. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's completely false there, Quack. Any admin is free to unblock, which is how we define a community ban. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Scarez

We seem to have a problem with this user and the only reason I'm here is because of a well-meaning user who's policing the AIV page. In any event, User:Scarez seems to be a bored little kid who has made all of four edits in more than two years and whose last edit was pure nonsense and reported as such. It has been suggested that I report it here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind; we seem to have put an end to it. The nonsense is gone and I'm pretty sure the user's been scared off, at least for now. Later, all.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Scaring off of users is rarely a good thing. The aim here is to tap users with a cluestick to get them to become productive, rather than scaring them off. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 08:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was intended to be a bad joke on his username. Orderinchaos 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it was. Sorry about the mix-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of general interest

moved to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Timestamp. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback

Resolved

 – User has been warned. No further action necessary for now. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk to User:BillCJ about this edit, which goes against MOSDP but the person rollbacks my civil comment. Can someone step in here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the MoS. Just move on. Honestly. It's not worth the time and effort to argue over which article gets linked or whatever - the reader is going to end up in the same place either way. Seriously, if I see one more dispute over a retarded MoS issue I'm going to scream. -- Naerii 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility, Naerii. Notified and warned user. While I think the first edit is fine, that rollback doesn't seem so. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor use of rollback, not worth taking it away over just that but if a pattern of such use emerges it should be revoked. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK: On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred. -- Naerii 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - WP:ROLLBACK: The rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Wikipedia as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits, usually vandalism. I plan to revert him if he doesn't give a good reason to counter MOSDP, as dabs have a MoS of their own. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad use of rollback. However a quick glance turned up no other uses which were questionable, so maybe he should just get a note to be more careful rather than having the permission removed. Friday (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Explanation - Impulsive use of rollback on my own talk page, as button is right below "Undo". Had to go to bathroom, and forgot to explain when I got back. My summary would have been "Moving on". I'll be more careful with the Rollback. - BillCJ (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is that, a learning experience. Ahhh...resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SPA

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Raul654 Brusegadi (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Special:Contributions/Sea_Hags, broke WP:3RR and probable User:Scibaby sock. Can anyone take care of it? Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

German WP

Resolved

 – these ranges blocked

If the stalker that I brought up here is vandalizing David's userpage on German WP, can the other IP ranges he's now using be blocked by admins on English WP? I ask because this is where the IP ranges were initially blocked and I have no clue on how to report this on the other site. Here are the IPs the nut is currently using. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not sorely mistaken, this was resolved above with three rangeblocks (two for two months and the other until Ragnarök). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPs that vandalized yesterday and today? I know the IPs blocked in the discussion I linked to were from last week. I haven't been reading ANI, so I'm not sure if we're talking about the same IPs being reported. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#David Shankbone/Michael Lucas stalker above. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I don't watchlist the page. I didn't know this had already been discussed. Cheers. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Decorative non-free content

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here...take it to fair use review. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Another edit war has started at Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) over the reintroduction of decorative non-free content (image fails WP:NFCC). Matthew (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have told you three times now to take these matters to fair-use review; that is what it's for. You need to stop edit-warring. Since NFCC is highly subjective, there is a distinct possibility that you may be wrong in this case. I invite anyone to review Matthew's comment on the talk page, and review the image that metthew replaced with a totally inadequate description. — Edokter • Talk • 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:FUR is the correct venue for this, not ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, the article is now protected on the wrong version (that being the one including the debated image). Since clicking undo doesn't seem to, hopefully the parties can resolve the issue by talking. My mistake, it was a different episode that was protected. I do still hope that the issue can be resolved by discussion. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1

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

---

Please continue this at Wikipedia:Squabbles and general whining.

---

Tony1 (talk · contribs) specializes in being rude on WT:MOS. He has made remarks over the last two months about And PS, you might like me sometimes, as you imply, but I don't ever like you (he took time for a spelling correction but not for second thoughts), poor, deluded fool, sabotage, dirty hands, andI treat your entries with contempt; all these are to different users. He has now declared, after saying Well, please don't use your own ignorance as a new benchmark for WP, that I have no compunction about being rude to you, Anderson.

Could someone supply him with some? It will have to be fairly strong compunction: the last time someone asked him to examine his behaviour, he responded: Dear Finell, I do examine my behaviour, every day — as I do my stools. Both are fine, thanks for asking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeowch. That's nasty. Orderinchaos 05:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Who changed my punctuation in the last quote to a spaced em dash? It's not permitted by MOS. Tony (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's what's in the diff, Tony; pity you didn't catch it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything particularly intelligent to say about Sept or Tony, per se, but I think it's useful to add that Sept's words and Tony's words can't be understood in isolation; they are a reflection of arguments that go on constantly, and loudly, in many contexts. There are ongoing efforts to attack the larger problem at WT:MoS, and that might (or might not) reduce tensions among the participants. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine if PMA is displaying an April Fools sense of humor, or if he honestly doesn't realize that his own needling of Tony1 and disruption and edit warring on the MoS pages, along with FAR and FAC pages, goes too far. I'll opt for the April Fools' joke for now. Joke or not, it's most unfortunate that PMA's extreme dislike of Wikipedia's manual of style is a constant issue at FAC, FAR and MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am as bemused by this as La Georgia and will, like her, assume good faith (or at least good humour). That said, the discussions at MOS are often a disgrace and I wouldn't like to point the finger of responsibility at any particular editor... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Astounding that so much heat and so little light can surround a page that few people know exist and even fewer have read. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Mr Vickers, the Manual of Style is not that under-read. All serious editors know about it; it is simply a matter of whether their specialty requires its knowledge. Waltham, The Duke of 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember you, your Grace, and I remember your snub. If I may be so bold to say, your Most High, Noble and Potent Prince, His Grace Christopher, Duke of Waltham, but you are a scurrilous and pompous poltroon, Sirrah. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, scurrilous edits are a large proportion of Tony's edits (I have by no means quoted all); if he behaved better, so would everyone else. Some appear to imitate him; others are provoked by him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not a large proportion but, like the stool remark, a flash in the pan. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your Grace, are you imitating me or provoked by me? Your most humble servant wishes to know. Tony (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you must know, I am imitating no one, for I am unique, and I am provoked by no one, for I am above such petty feelings. My name and title do often have a tendency to stand out, but I should not see why Mr Anderson would necessarily be referring to my person in his vague accusations. Damned be he, if he does, but this is by no means a certainty. Now, Tony, if you really are my humble servant, as you profess, do arrest Mr Vickers this instant for insulting me in this vulgar and despicable manner. Then call for my brougham; this affair has tired me and I should prefer to retire now. Waltham, The Duke of 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Mr Vickers, Sir? You provoke me! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The provocation has not originated on my side, Dr Vickers. And you should know that scientists are not appreciated on Wikipedia at any rate, so I should not be too proud of the specific prefix if I were in your grimy shoes, Sir. Intense harassment awaits you, half of which will be on my orders. Brace for the worst, I advise you, and even for this warning you had better be grateful. Waltham, The Duke of 03:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • PS: A new definition of drama is what you are watching here unfold, ladies and gentlemen of the audience. Enjoy it while it lasts. Waltham, The Duke of
    • Mr Wallham, you are indeed too kind. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The last time the community made clear its displeasure with Tony's arrogance and incivility he left for a month or so and seemed to come back refreshed. Perhaps it would be helpful for him to do the same again. It would at least give the rest of us a pleasant break from the incivility which he is unable or unwilling to control: e.g. [17]). Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggest that Parham leave, for good. What a hide. Tony (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 is an excellent editor who sometimes gets very cranky and becomes uncivil. I have no wish to excuse his incivility, but it must be recognised that it generally occurs in isolated bursts, in response to provocation. Most of the time Tony1 gets along with others just fine, and does great work. The claim that "scurrilous edits are a large proportion of Tony's edits" is in my opinion a (scurrilous?) exaggeration. Hesperian 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll second the preceding; MOS can be a difficult place to argue and keep a cool head but things there are no worse than in other areas where people hold strong views. Tony can be blunt but that's fine as you get a clear idea of what is needed to be done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't suppose anyone's noticed in this April Fool thing that you can't bring this kind of matter to this forum. See the rules at the top. Tony (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see any admin intervention required or possible. Hesperian 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Tony has too many isolated bursts to excuse. The fact that he is very intelligent and an outstanding writer does not excuse his persistent incivility and hostility, nor his attempt to WP:OWN the MoS. I wish I had time now to compile one or two dozen diffs, but expressions like "Go bag your head" and "Keep your dirty hands off" (the latter one he directed at the wrong editor) pepper his Talk page posts. He has directed many of his barbs at Christopher Parham, whose conduct is exemplary. Perhaps if a large number of admins evaluate and comment on Tony's behavior, Tony will accept their constructive criticism (even though he does not listen to mere mortals) and change his behavior to conform to Wikipedia's standards. At the end of the day, civility and collegiality are more important to Wikipedia's mission that the placement of punctuation. If that does not work, than perhaps barring him for one week from editing any part of the MoS or posting on any of their Talk pages might persuade him. Only if that doesn't work should sterner measures be considered. But his course of conduct should not be allowed to continue, despite his talents. Finell (Talk) 16:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps if an equally large number of admins start watching over PMAnderson's taunting of Tony and MoS, and belittling of MoS at FAC and FAR, everyone else could get on to writing an encyclopedia. PMAnderson, for reasons understood best to himself, seems to hate the fact that Wiki has a Manual of Style, and belittles it at every chance, at MOS, FAC and FAR. This taunting and disruption has gone on for a very long time, and the dozens of diffs can be compiled on both sides of the "two to tango". I strongly urge Anderson et al to draw a ceasefire and work consensually towards improving MoS, rather than introducing daily unilateral changes that result in acrimonious and ongoing discussion. If (as stated above) it's true that Tony gets cranky, I don't know how one would not get cranky after a year of such a steady onslaught. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is important to be clear that while taunting of another editor is not acceptable, attacking the MoS is another thing altogether, and is not in itself disruptive. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Wikipedia would be better off without a manual of style, or at least without the MoS as it currently exists. It's also perfectly reasonable to believe that FAC would be better off if the MoS was sidelined from the process. There is no problem with advancing this sort of view on the relevant talk pages. One can understand why editors who focus on MoS issues might be offended by this stance, but they nevertheless need to maintain a reasonable level of decorum. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To SandyGeorgia:

And perhaps if people who respect Tony's abilities and contributions, as I do, would stop excusing his inexcusable incivility, hostility, and personal attacks, which only facilitates Tony's misbehavior, Wikipedia might gain the best of both worlds: Tony's brilliant writing and outstanding command of English language grammar, syntax, and style, but without his behavior that poisons discussions on the MoS Talk page and even helps to defeat his own sound objectives (as happened with his MoS proposal in February). There is a sub-page in Tony's user space that is among the best expositions of how to write that I have read (and I've read plenty); I find it hard to believe that the person who wrote that is also the author of what appears above his signature on Talk pages.

I am not talking about Tony's bluntness, on display in his succinct FAC reviews (although even there, he could say the same things without sounding arrogant or dismissive or cruel). I am talking about conduct that you must recognize as uncivil, and that you would never engage in yourself, but you excuse in Tony because you respect his positive contributions. The merits of issues and one's behavior in discussing them are entirely separate matters. What Tony perceives as provocation, or even what anyone would regard as real provocation, does not justify Tony's incivility.

Tony behaves as though people who disagree with him about policy are personal enemies, and that he is justified defending himself by attacking them as enemies. There was a telling example in heat of Tony's February proposal: Someone left a message on Tony's Talk page expressing respect for Tony's position. Tony replied that he was skeptical of the person's sincerity, because the same person left a positive message on the Talk page of another editor who disagreed with Tony's proposal (Tony must have checked!). Was it Machiavelli who said, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy"? If you read the individual's comments on both Talk pages, they were not contradictory: the person was trying to make peace in a heated dispute, and was groping for consensus. Not even Machiavelli said, The friend of the peacemaker is my enemy. Finell (Talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To Parham:

I disagree with you as to policy: I believe that Wikipedia should have a MoS, that it should be consistent, and that Wikipedians should follow it. Indeed, I favor one that is more prescriptive than what we have now. But you have every right to hold and to express your opinion to the contrary; many others share your position. The issue here, however, is Tony's behavior, not which—or whose—policy is preferable for Wikipedia. Your position does not justify Tony attacking you as a "saboteur", as he did here. That is the nub of the problem with Tony's behavior. Finell (Talk) 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Finell, I do not condone incivility and I have told Tony he needs to stay above it, not respond, not succumb and stay out of it. I do recognize when taunting and belittling have gone on far too long in far too many places, and aren't doing any good to anyone anywhere, are disruptive to FAC and FAR, and that it would be hard for any human being not to react to such prolonged taunting (and I understand the distinction being made between belittling the policy and taunting the person, and PMA does aim it at the persons). Considering the extreme dislike that PMAnderson has of any Manual of Style guidelines, even though he has never garnered support for his position, I fail to see why he continues to taunt Tony1 at the MOS, FAC and FAR pages. I do wish Tony would just learn to ignore it, but that is much easier said than done, when you consider how long it has been going on. That the MoS pages are poisoned is clear. That Tony1 has worked very hard for years to try to clean them up is clear to me. What PMA's role is, other than taunting, is not clear to me; I do not know what he seeks to accomplish, but following MoS day-to-day has become very difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have significant problems with the behaviour of Parham and Finell, who should listen to those who are urging a more balanced approach, and who regard this page—as I do—as a joke. As for these attacks on me, they are not the way to achieve a resolution to the tension that surrounds MOS and the role of those who seek to retain its authority. I was willing to turn a blind eye to the totally inappropriate initiation of this page by Manderson here while it remained a joke, but now the posts are becoming not a joke, but serious point-of-view attacks on me. Please see the statement at the top of AN/I. This silly, and now nasty, page should be disbanded immediately. Tony (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• chuckles* If only Tony1 were that rigorous with fair use images, he would be one of my favorite editors, even though he dismisses whole fantasy topics as irrelevant for Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I had no hand in starting it, this item clearly was not started as a joke, even if Tony treats it as one. Look at the diffs in the opening post, and others later in the discussion. This is a proper place to seek admins' assistance in curbing Tony's persistently uncivil behavior, even if the appropriate assistance at this time may be less severe than a block. Many warnings by ordinary Wikipedians haven't worked, because Tony either ignores them, flippantly dismisses them, or attacks the "enemy". Again, Tony, this item is not about resolving "the tension that surrounds MOS and the role of those who seek to retain its authority"; that belongs on MoS Talk, or perhaps the Village Pump. This item is purely about Tony's failure to behave in accordance with this community's stated policies. If Tony will not acknowledge that his behavior should change, and will not make a genuine commitment to change it, that demonstrates the necessity of intervention by admins to uphold the community's standards. Finell (Talk) 01:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia's message seems to have been misinterpreted by both Christopher Parham and Finell. Mr Anderson has gone well beyond leaving messages in talk pages about his anarchistic views on the Manual of Style; he frequently edits it in ways that are not supported by consensus or even go directly against it. He is often being disruptive and, in discussions, disregards valid arguments and keeps reposting the same well-known arguments, clogging talk pages and flaring up tempers. His demeanour is not civil, so I don't think that he is entitled to be accusing Tony of incivility. Both of them are uncivil at times, but they are mostly so when confronting each other; this calls more for some kind of informal mediation than for any kind of administrative action. If this discussion is to continue, that should happen at Wikiquette alerts, and only if Tony and PMA are dealt as they should: as two parties of equal responsibility for this situation. And this would still not solve the general problem of the Style Curse: the mysterious effect style-related conversations seem to have on people's tempers. The Style Curse should obviously be considered a mitigating factor in this, and in other behaviour-related cases. Waltham, The Duke of 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What your Excellency calls the "Style Curse" is unique to Wikipedia's MoS. I know from experience that it does not generally happen elsewhere even in vigorous debates over a publication's style guidelines. Finell (Talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Catchy, eh? :-D

There are several reasons for this: a) we don't have a boss to make sure we behave ourselves; b) there is no specific time-frame, so there is all the time in the world to argue without hurrying about anything; c) decisions are not necessarily permanent, which means that any one who feels they have been wronged will eventually return to repeat the debate; d) not all are professionals, but most want to be seen as such; e) even if there is consensus about something, one can always go and change it otherwise, triggering more conflict; f) the Manual of Style is not strictly enforced on the majority of articles, therefore one can say whatever one wants about "current practice" and its deviations from MoS, or attempt to reconciliate the difference in a million different ways; g) in few other Manual of Style committees will one encounter a greater diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints than in this one; h) I can't think of it now, but there must definitely exist an h as well.

Do you need more reasons? Waltham, The Duke of 05:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, Wikiquette alerts is not particularly effective and will not be sufficient to deal with the entrenched behaviors and attitudes that PMA shows towards and at MoS, FAC and FAR and any editor who supports a Manual of Style for Wikipedia. I think many of us hoped that the new WikiProject to deal with the MoS would help towards keeping the actual MoS pages more stable, while moving discussions to a central place and getting more eyes on them; that hasn't happened. I go over to MoS a couple of times a week to see what's new, and I see the same old instability and unilateral changes introduced without discussion, invariably by the same parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Give it some time, Sandy... I haven't had any time to work there; now that I will, everything will change. :-D No, seriously, I do have some ideas. These things don't happen overnight, anyway. As I like to say, "Patience is the key".Waltham, The Duke of 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it came up, it should be emphasized that there is no obligation to discuss changes before introducing them. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing that entitles PMA to accuse Tony of incivility is that he actually offered some examples of the problem behavior. While you and Sandy seem quite happy to toss about accusations against PMA, you seem woefully short on actually offering any evidence that his behavior is inappropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The topic and legitimate scope of this discussion, as defined by its heading, is solely User:Tony1. So let's stick to that. I don't have experience with PMA. If his behavior is uncivil or his edits disruptive, that should be dealt with; but not here (possibly on this page, but not under this heading). Tony has lashed out at so many others over such a long period that PMA's behavior cannot be the cause of, or justification for, Tony's overall incivility and personal attacks. Would Wikiquette alerts "be sufficient to deal with the entrenched behaviors and attitudes that [Tony] shows towards" those who disagree with him? That would be germane to the only topic at hand here. MoS, its role, and Wikipedians' varying attitudes toward it are important subjects for discussion, but not here. Finell (Talk) 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody considered the possibility that Tony1 might be a sock-puppet of PMAnderson?

(opens umbrella to avoid shower of rotten tomatoes) Waltham, The Duke of 05:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Finell, that's not how it works :-) When PMA comes here and complains about Tony, his own behavior in the matter doesn't get set aside just because the heading line reads "Tony". But you're right that this isn't the place for any of this discussion, which is why I haven't taken the time to provide diffs. Want diffs? Go to the FAC or FAR archives and search on the word "cruft". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I just looked up this Finell's talk page to find out who he is, and was greeted with someone saying this to him: "What makes you talk with such tone? it kinda sounds like authoritarian arrogance. Nobody likes that either. I suggest you relax, be careful and take it easy. We're supposed to be a community, never forget that." And "... you come off as rude and have your own flaws. You are also always the first to point fingers." Oh dear. Tony (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a big fan of the term cruft, but it is widely employed here, and PMA's use of the term "MOScruft" is hardly incivil. It simply suggests that the changes being requested are trivial and not meaningful to the general readership. Though some would disagree it is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Corticopia and User:Jcmenal

It appears that these two users are edit warring across a wide number of articles all having to do with North America. (The outlines of the range of the feuding can be seen most clearly on Corticopia's contribs page, where practically every entry is a revert of a post by the other user.) Also, from the similarity of their edit summaries, it appears likely that User:Supaman89 and User:Jcmenal may be the same person (see their edit summaries here and here), while User:69.158.152.173 and User:Corticopia may be the same (note the unusual use of "parasite" here and here.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed notices of this report on the user pages of the three users and one IP I mentioned above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll just say that Corticopa has been doing this for a very long time. See the first June 2007 discussion and then following the November 2007 ANI notice, I put this comment on his page. From what I can tell, he never responds, reverts once a day for months at a time and then moves on to another article and does the same thing. Look at the silliness going on at the history of Geography of Mexico and at Northern America (disambiguation) from November to January (one revert a day, back and forth month at a time and the only discussion is from a single sentence he made 3 months earlier of his opinion). I'd say it's approaching the point for a topic ban or something. -- 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) FYI, the comment that started all this edit warring from Corticopia was from Talk:Geography_of_Mexico#Middle_America.3F.3F in October. All his edits are around the basis of the existence of a "Middle America" that he is putting in the articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Corticopa is clearly trying to game the system by moving slow enough to avoid 3RR. I suggest that we put him on revert probation and threaten to block him for being disruptive if he effects the same revert again. This is clear edit warring regardless of how fast he moves to do it. Lets ask him to stop and see where that goes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I've had conflict with Corticopia once in the past, over the article Continental United States which resulted in his being blocked for 3RR violations, and that what started me looking into his edits again was that User:69.158.152.173 reverted that article back to a version favored by Corticopia from some months ago, ignoring all the work that had been put into the article in the meantime. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried dealing with him myself and I'm almost at the "he's too much of a nuisance for any use" here routine. I mean, seriously, six months of reverting the article the exact same way one day at a time, all the while refusing to talk and refusing to acknowledge any of the ANI discussions? I'd just say a block for being disruptive, regardless of the technical 3RR violation (which is a limit, not a right). Personally, I'm too involved but open to someone else's view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd favor revert parole or a topic ban. He's already been blocked for as long as one month and has eight unique blocks, so I don't imagine any further block short of indef would have much effect. ANI has seen previous discussions of Corticopia's editing here in June 2007 and here in November 2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to say that in fact user Corticopia has had several problems with MANY users, he's been warned several times, he's even been blocked several times as well, I and another user even reported him but nothing ever happens, in my opinion he's being given too many chances already, all I'm saying is please check his history and do something about it.

BTW regarding JC and I being the same person is false, a simple IP check will do it, regards. Supaman89 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on for far too long. We should really see about revert parole: if we can establish one on a community basis, we should do that; if not, we should consider seeing if ArbCom will look at it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

EricBarbour

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

I've just blocked EricBarbour indef for outing Coredesat on WR. I'm actually a little shocked it hadn't already been done, but this sort of off site behaviour is exactly what we shouldn't tolerate. A quick review would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Unforgivable. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, agreed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Such behaviour is, of course, completely unacceptable and we need to send out a strong message that such users are no longer welcome at Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse One of the worst threads I've ever seen there. Completely and utterly pointless. Majorly (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Just curious what is "WR"? Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia Review, a Wikipedia criticism site. Majorly (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • thanks for that Majorly. Probably a page I won't be visiting :o) Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I went to the thread, and it says "How's that? Name's xxx, lives in xxxxx, went to xxxxx." - x's in original text. (I'm sure it originally had the name, or it would just be silly, but he seems to want to take it back) -- And WR user "One" says that it's on his homepage. Is it really outing when someone uses their real name and the nickname in combination everywhere else on the internet except Wikipedia? From WP:OUTING: Posting another person's personal information [...] is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. I don't see how his open usage of the name on other forums and on Usenet doesn't qualify as "voluntarily provides". -- I'll also note, for the record, that User:Newyorkbrad, an arbitrator, and User:Lar, a checkuser, were aware of the thread, and could have taken action if they felt it was merited. --Random832 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, not because of the outing per se, but because he's obviously out to troll people. -- Naerii 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, this i can get behind. Besides, looking at his userpage, he clearly doesn't want to come back to help build an encyclopedia. endorsedon'treallygiveacrap - but, again, not on grounds of outing. --Random832 (contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are people routinely blocked for off wiki behavior on another website? daveh4h 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Hardly ever, sadly. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously, the outing is a non-issue, as his identity wasn't ever really secret in the first place. So it comes down to banning someone because they were mean on another site. And that's really not a good idea... -Amarkov moo! 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I was considering blocking him myself the other day, though I wasn't quite sure I was ready to deal with the influx of "zOMG HE DID IT OFF WIKI!!!!1!11" complaints. Good block - he's not here to contribute to the project, he's here to promote himself and his friends and spew crap at whoever stands in his way. krimpet✽ 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose You just indef blocked a user for off-wiki activity? No way in hell is that going to stand up. Need I remind people of the ED arbcom case? As long as you wear your Wikipedia hat while on Wikipedia, you're good to go. We do not block people when their activity on-wiki is not problematic. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Really despicable behavior. Not the sort of thing we need to condone by returning editing privileges. And I do seem to remember an admin being de-sysopped for offering to provide BLP deleted material on an off-site forum. MBisanz ^talk 06:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not banning him is not the same as condoning his actions, not by a long shot. And that situation you speak of, IIRC, was entirely a misunderstanding, and was quickly resolved. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, no, I am not coming out of retirement, and no, this incident isn't the reason for my retirement (see my my user page for that). I just now found out about this, so I figured I might as well comment. Yes, Eric outed me on WR; after all, it's not very difficult as I've been fairly well-known since before I ever came here, but still. No, I don't agree with what he did. However, I did communicate with him about it, and we were able to resolve the matter peacefully; he was fairly cordial about it and blanked most of the information (and I thank him for that). I also talked to a moderator at WR, and the thread in question was essentially removed without any further problems. Since we were able to resolve the issue off-wiki (since that's where it happened), and the information is now gone - in fact, it's been gone - I think the block is excessive and unnecessary, despite the other concerns listed here. This will be the only comment I make on the matter, but feel free to contact me via email. --Coredesat 09:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cordesat. I can think of a lot of things, on wiki, that Eric needs to improve to be a better contributor, some of which if continued will lead to blocking, but I'm not sure I support an indef in this case, for this particular action. That's not the same as approving of outing people, or collating already existing information, even if the info is easy to find... taking someone's effort to find material from 5 min to 30 seconds does no one any services and is intimidating to boot. Block him for something legit, on wiki. ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I really follow this - the guy put Coredesats details up on a public forum. They served no purpose, apart from to intimidate him. These were only punblished because of a dispute on-wiki. This is harassment in my eyes and something that shouldn't be tolerated. When someone takes a dispute off wiki like this, then they should be held accountable on-wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Except that Coredesat seems to be saying he wasn't harassed by it. Make no mistake, I think what Eric did was wrong, and I do support the general principle of off-wiki actions being something one is held accountable for on-wiki (which, by the way is AFAIK, explicity NOT policy, although it should be). I just don't think this particular one merits an indef. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lar (now we have heard from Cordesat). I am extremely uncomfortable with the way people like Brandt operate, distilling all searchable information on someone they feel has wronged them into a form where it is easily searchable and displayed there for the lazy person intent on hurting someone to use. However Eric has 1. gained all the info from a single source (AFAIK that is Coredesat's own website) and 2. Now blanked info as requested by Coredesat and the thread has been tarpitted (not google searchable and a non WR member might be able to tell me if tarpit threads are even visible to non members). I am also ambivilent about blocking people for off wiki actions - could be a slipery slope though in this case the reasoning is sound even if i disagree with ryan's conclusions of the harm caused by Erics post. Last of all Eric has stated had stated his attention to retire anyway and had not edited since. Viridae^Talk 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose:Seems to be a matter that was satisfactorily resolved between those concerned, a happening which is to be encouraged and applauded. It has now been given unwarranted and unnecessary attention by Ryan Postlethwaite's actions. I don't like the outing of people, but this does not seem to be a classic case, or even a legitimate block. Giano (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've declined an unblock for now. If you wish to discuss this, you're welcome to. Rudget (review) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I unblocked around 15 minutes ago. Given Coredesat's comments I feel leaving this user blocked would be overly harsh, despite the unpleasantness of his actions. Moreschi (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

good call, IMHO. It is how Cordesat feels about it that counts, as he considers it already resolved. Hopefully if Eric returns he will go on to do some good editing, if not I expect he will feel the mighty banhammer again soon enough :) special, random, Merkinsmum 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• oppose banning per Coredesat - it may be a bit overly optimistic to hope that Eric can become a productive editor, but I don't see the problem with giving him another chance - or letting him retire in peace, if that's what he wants to do. --Random832 (contribs) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling

Seriously guys this is getting annoying may a admin please block him? he messes around adding false information at a article that a admin protected yesterday, now he is messing in the talkpage with irrelevant and again false pictures. [18] --Namsos (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's talking about Qwl (talk · contribs), although I think it's highly likely that he's a troll considering that he's been editing since 2006. -- Naerii 22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes him, look at his first edit, all his edits are absurd. [19] --Namsos (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit shocking, a bit absurd, but I don't see trolling. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, whether a troll or not. He is disrupting wikipedia by pushing his POV. Especially the comment where he adds irrelevant images and wants them in the article... --Namsos (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting point. This needs further discussion. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 02:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, I really dislike how he wants to add that material. The images sources are biased and some of those images he has you can find on a Human rights website about the Armenian Genocide. Also we need to take into account this, Turks launching denial campaigns against Armenian articles now. [20] --Namsos (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've alerted him to this discussion; let's see what he has to say before making any rash decisions. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I already know what he is going to say...his continued denial and absurd comments. Though lets see what he will say. --Namsos (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

can i answer? i have only add pictures of deniers. i use WP:NPOV rules. Armenian Genocide article have full of photos of Armenian photos. this is bias. because some countries dont accept Genocide. i want to add deniers argument. photos are dead photos same as Armenians. these documents are WP:Verifiability & WP:No original research. someones seems nationalist blocking these photos.

i put it with reference of WP:NPOV

• A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

these pictures published by Government of Turkey. Turkey keep Ottoman Archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwl (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

--Qwl (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also i want arbitration Committe about Armenian Genocide. You can see the deniers country on Recognition of the Armenian Genocide--Qwl (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) If some countries dont accept that events as gencide. how Wikipedia accept as Genocide?--Qwl (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Qwl has been up on ANI before for this sort of stuff, see here. WP:ARBAA2 also applies. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres nothing I can do. It is up to admins to decide. He is disruptive, pushing nationalist agendas. --Namsos (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred

User:Tankred has made three misleading edit summaries 1: [21] - how can the "Slovakia" and "Kingdom of Hungary" (some basic infos) make the first sentence "too long a hard to read"??? - 2:[22] - 1 what is "double redirects"? what redirects is he talking about? Safarik was not born in Slovakia and did not died in Czech republic, this is wrong! He born in the Kingdom of Hungary and died in the Austrian Empire! This is an extremist point of view to state that he was born in Slovakia and mention it between ( )-s that well not in Slovakia, but in the Kingdom of Hungary, but it was just a part of it. This is highly unaccepatble! he just undone my edit under a false edit summary! 3:[23] - there is no source nor in English, nor in (reliable, not nationalist, newly written) Slovak, wich states his ethnic backround. his ancestry is only derivered from his name, and only that "he was of probably Slavic origin". Slovak is derivered from his birthplace. It is highly misleading to state that he was Slovak without dubt! Tankred called his undoing "links". What "links"? He undid my edit with a false summary for the 3rd time within an hour! And he also keeps deleting all my edits by pushing his essay as some kind of "guideline", but its not, and it is challenged since its creation if you look at its talkpage [24]

He made false edit summaries before too [25] --Rembaoud (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread. I really, really don't want to get into this mess but Tankred has similar conduct with User:Nmate as complained on my talk page. I've told everyone to stop complaining to me; it just seems like two camps working on reverting and fighting coordinated semi-proxy battles on each other around here. Suggest telling everyone to use talk page and block if people refuse to do so. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, look like Rembaoud has already moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#WP:NCGN, which the clerk should probably rename. Ignore the forum-shopping? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Need Eyes

Here. Now blocking for 2 weeks apiece. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest one for 48 hours as well. Feel free to up it. --jonny-mt 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended. Don't be shy to block for longer than 48; almost all the IPs used are one-offs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 07:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism by user:89.40.92.133

Resolved

The IP recently made a string of vandalizing edits on various Metallica albums, which basically involved changing their genre to either nonsensical, or wrong genres.
Diff #1
Diff #2
Diff #3
Diff #4
Diff #5
Diff #6
Diff #7
Welt^anschaunng 14:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is to warn them for each vandal edit, using {{uw-vandal1}}, etc. then send to AIV after they vandalize past a final warning. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Best place to report that is WP:AIV, I gave them a final warning and will keep an eye on them. Tiptoety ^talk 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually warned him with that when I saw the edit on ...And Justice for All (album). And just out of curiosity, I checked his contributions to find the other vandalisms. I will do as tiptoety says if he vandalizes again. Thank you, Welt^anschaunng 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fetch that

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week by User:MBisanz

This is an unusual case, so I thought I'd bring it here. His edits have been a real mixed bag of legit edits coupled with page blanking, original research, questionable changes to existing articles regarding facts and plain old incivility. His hot button seems to be global warming; he's arguing with another editor over an OR essay. I'm stopping short of accusing this user of trolling, but my "spider sense is tingling" for sure. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll publicizing RL identity

[26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funtan (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I note the details have been removed. You can contact WP:OVERSIGHT to remove the material permanently from the edit history. Hut 8.5 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone/Michael Lucas stalker

Hey everybody - I know you guys softblocked the stalker IP range - thank you again - but can someone e-mail me privately and let me know when the softblock of the range is expected to end? Although things have been quiet on here, Commons and Wikinews, the range is still quite active on the foreign Wikipedias, such as you can see here on the German (situation is the same on the French, Spanish...) --David Shankbone 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All wrapped up. east.718 at 03:09, April 2, 2008

Does this vandal have any understanding of GFDL? Or that basic 'this work may be reproduced etc etc so long as credit to the artist is given' type language is a standard for most fair use things? Thus all DS' titles are simply making that part easier. Really, this vandal/stalker's just looking stupider and stupider. what's his point? ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that I personally just liked to see how people off-wiki use my work, and they often don't credit but just upload from the Commons or Wikipedia. As it relates to what I do on Wikipedia--I have no offsite webistes, I never direct people to davidshankbone.com where they can purchase my work, and I release the largest size possible--I could stop putting my User name in the file names. Seriously, that's not such a big deal. But I'm not going to do it now just because I don't want this person to think they are going to get me to do what they want. It's also a false issue. Their real problem, they made clear, had nothing to do with my work. I don't know this guy; they are unable to say one thing about me outside of what I myself have revealed. --David Shankbone 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, so can I ask for the range to be re-blocked and have the block time extended? Per this. Thanks. --David Shankbone 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The ranges are still blocked at the moment. This is an extension of one of the ranges, and I have blocked this too. They can be extended as necessary. Black Kite 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've reset all the rangeblocks from East718's block log for an additional 1 month. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • And I've done the same with this latest one. Black Kite 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There were close to a dozen rangeblocks of varying sizes and lengths active (full list here). I've unblocked most of them to consolidate them into three: 71.127.224.0/20, which is blocked forever, and 72.68.0.0/17 and 72.76.0.0/17, which are now blocked until June. east.718 at 17:51, April 2, 2008

Good call, East. Hang in there, David: you're very valuable to us and we're rooting for you. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I find David's image-naming system is pretty helpful. If I'm search on Commons for images of a specific subject, and one of the search results has "by David Shankbone" in big blue letters, I will know that this image probably has the highest overall quality of the bunch, certainly better than Copy_of_IMG_5396.JPG or whatever other nondescript crap might surface. — CharlotteWebb 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone, and thanks for the good words, too. I couldn't do anything I do without the rest of you. My pages are beginning to be protected on the foreign Wikipedias, which should hopefully spare everyone from the "I know what you did last summer" drama. --David Shankbone 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian names

There seems to be a user, user:Rembaoud, who finds it necessary remove Slovak names from articles and replace them all with Hungarian names. see [27], or [28], and see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovakia#This is really bad, according to the folks there, this person (or people) have been doing this for a while, and I think this needs administrative actions. The Dominator (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline something like WP:ENGVAR for languages? Orderinchaos 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:NCGN, according to which the same name as in the title of the main article about the place in question should be used in Wikipedia's articles. This default rule has been repeatedly broken by user:Rembaoud despite a warning on his/her talk page. If there is a name consistently used by English sources to refer to a place in a historical context (such as Constantinople), this name can be used too. WP:NCGN also says how precisely we can identify such a name. In the case of user:Rembaoud's edits, no attempt to identify English historical names has been made despite encouragement on his/her talk page. Instead he/she simply replaced default official names by their Hungarian version. In the edit summaries, he/she claimed that reverting his/her edit to a version compliant with WP:NCGN would be "vandalism". Tankred (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the sections Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2008/November#Application of WP:NCGN and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2008/November#Names in the lead before dealing with this. Maybe should try dispute resolution as suggested by someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovakia#This is really bad. Longstanding issue. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See also the rule at the main Wikipedia:Naming conventions page:

• "In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another." [emphasis in original]

Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another", This is what, in my opinion, Rembaoud seems to be doing, and there has been alot of discussion over this within west slavic articles, see Snezka's talk page for an example of how ridiculous these debates are. The Dominator (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:NCGN makes wiki articles historically inaccurate. The most obvious example is calling Bratislava "Bratislava" pre 1919. The name "Bratislava" was invented at that time, so, for example Ludovit Stur had never been to "Bratislava". Fact. Never. Only to Pressburg or Pozsony, or, if we really want a Slovak name, Prešporok. BTW Bratislava was a german-hungarian inhabited town[29], so Prešporok is out. On English maps from those ages, the city is called "Pressburg". Also, Liptovský Mikuláš was >>Liptovský >Svätý< Mikuláš<< in Slovak till 1952, so obviously none of those Slovaks I edited were in "Liptovský Mikuláš" pre 1952, nor in "Bratislava" pre 1919 and nor in the other present city names.

WP:NCGN helps falsifying history, and caused (and causing) a lot of tensions between Hungarian an Slovak users, therefore I suggest/advocate rewriting or (better) deleting it. I am sad to learn that as a Slovak, that the wikipedia is edited only by those, who are seemingly agreeing with the current Slovak regime.

It is good for nothing, but for creating tensions, and falsifying history. Delete it. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Rembaoud has already started another section here at [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tankred]] complaining about User:Tankred and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#WP:NCGN. Forum-shopping? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much what it was called before - it has been called Bratislava for about 90 years, if it's referenced in a German article there's nothing wrong with having [[Bratislava|Pressburg]]. Orderinchaos 10:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Better, as [[Pressburg]]. But that's exactly what a couple of editors have been edit-warring over at the cited article, so maybe you and I had better see if we can put some Orderinchaos by making sure it remains in the article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See this edit removing the Pressburg from that [[Bratislava|Pressburg]], Orderinchaos. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, keep the content dispute away from here. Go follow dispute resolution and do something to settle this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility block - review requested, if you please

Resolved

 – Block looks A-Okay, Tiptoety ^talk 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know blocks for incivility can be a little controversial, so please review this one. See also here for more details. Moreschi (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

endorse. User was warned. User ignored warning and persisted in personal attacks. Seems like a good block to me.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. To be honest, I would have blocked him for the first one, which is far worse IMO. Black Kite 16:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, [30] is disgusting. -- Naerii 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's nasty. Endorse, and ensure that he knows if he does something like that again he's out of here, I'd say. Racist statements like that are really beyond the pale. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why such a block would be controversial. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He's lucky Moreschi saw this before I did. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JeanLatore

Resolved

 – for now, no other comments

Please keep an eye on "new" editor JeanLatore (talk · contribs). Comments such as [31], [32], [33] and [34] should not be tolerated. I've given him a WP:CIVIL warning on his Talk page, but the ease with which he roams throughout Wikipedia indicates that he's probably not really a new user. Corvus cornix_talk 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The above poster is obviously out to harrass and defame me. Look at what he posted on my talk page: [35]. JeanLatore (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That was in response to this comment. Yes, it was childish. But JeanLatore's edits speak for themselves. Corvus cornix_talk 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, with comments such as the ones provided in the diffs above, you're probably treading on thin ice. I'm not threatening you, not by any means, but please please remain WP:CIVIL here. Such comments really are inappropriate. It's one thing for Corvus to be sarcastic, but it's quite another to refer to another editor's existence as pathetic. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New editors might refer to another editor as "illiterate motherfucker", but they don't create their own Talk page with {{welcome}}.Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-legal threat

Resolved

 – User adviced and unblocked. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nukeh made this comment [36] on another user's talk page, saying "I have no associations with icr.org or its principals. But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation." I'm not certain if this counts as WP:LEGAL or not, so I brought it here for admin attention. Redrocket (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He's saying he thinks someone else will sue the guy, but doesn't imply that he is going to take legal action. That's no more a legal threat than someone saying "don't run like that, you'll get yourself killed" being a death threat. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a legal threat in my book, even if a veiled one. "They might sue you" might be a legitimate warning, "you are going to get sued" is not. Most crucially, I can't see that he's even bothered to identify concrete issues that he thinks are defamatory, beyond the fact that the article may be understood as critical of the theories espoused by that organisation. For that reason, I can only assume his legal talk is a mere attempt at intimidating his wiki opponents in a content dispute. That's the stifling effect our NLT policy is designed to counter. I've blocked him, feel free to review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't speed, you'll get a ticket." Seems pretty neutral to me. Bstone (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of no legal threats is not the actual threatening but the chilling effect it will have. Believe me, I had a time when people were threatening that the government of a nation could be suing if they didn't get the content they wanted (stupid but why not). Those kind of statements deserves one hell of a warning, and I'd suggest a block until they have learned why they cannot say things like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf, your "book" is wrong, and apparently you do not understand WP:NLT or our blocking policy. Someone starts a thread because they are unsure if something is a legal threat. I respond saying it shouldn't be considered one, you respond saying it should, and then block? Do you not understand the point of taking things to ANI for discussion? Someone needs to unblock this user and slap Future with a trout. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To Ned: If you read the block log, you'd find that I had made the block decision before you posted your first comment; I had no intention to ignore other people's opinions. I have no problem if there is now a consensus for unblock, given the user's recent statements. It seems they will still need to be watched for tendentious editing though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, people sometimes do block first and then go to discussion to ask for review. If Future was unsure, then the tone of his comment should have been better. However, Ned, I have to disagree with your view. Someone saying "I think we'll have legal problems unless we do this" eliminates all ability to have an equal discussion. It's an upper hand that is completely unrelated to the content at issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

An indef block for someone saying "I think we'll have legal problems unless we do this" is not what WP:NLT is was made for, not by a long shot. This same kind of statement is said all the time in fair-use debates, as well as many others. If I say "I think Bob is going to sue you for doing this" I am not making a legal threat. I might be ignorant and completely wrong about my speculation, but it most certainly is not covered by NLT. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This one really flirts with the line of a legal threat to me. And the user seems to have as little an understanding of NLT than some admins are alleged to have. Maybe unblock after 72 hours with a stern warning of "Last chance"? MBisanz ^talk 07:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be taken as either a hastily worded reference to legal worries or a legal threat. I'd say an educational warning would be enough for now, block if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Why block at all? It's unlikely the user thought the comment would be problematic or a violation of anything. They've already asked to be unblocked and said "...Please unblock, and I will not edit that Article or respond to comments on user pages until this issue is fully reviewed..." making the block serve no purpose. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with an immediate unblock if he realizes that using potential legal problems is not a way to argue for your view. I'll go back to the last similar case I dealt with. There, the user threatened "I might go to the FBI and let them decide" which could arguably be not a direct legal threat, but the effect is exactly the same. Unfortunately, I blocked him but I immediately unblocked once he realized that threatening others are all is not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So AGF means nothing? Nukeh seems to honestly believe that legal action could realistically be taken. He's not going to take action, and he's even offered to not talk about it. Why is he still blocked? -- Ned Scott 08:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Ok, the current unblock request he's made satisfies me that he has no intent to make a legal threat and is merely making the "this could be a legal problem" comment. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the tone of "I will agree to being blind to editorial problems with defamation of nonprofit religious institutions and their principals" should imply something more, but I'm not going to do it now. Unblock him if you want, but it was still Future who blocked originally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I dropped Future a talkpage note, but seeing as he hasn't been on for 1.5 hours, I'm guessing he's either sleeping or at work. I'll give it another 10 minutes and then unblock. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked per reason and given that Future did not object. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A message which apparently aims to produce a chilling effect via direct or implied threat of legal action can reasonably be interpreted as a legal threat, I would say. Hopefully this will no longer be a concern, going forward, once the user is reminded of other options including WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:NPOV. Will leave a message with them in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of messages can produce a chilling effect that wouldn't warrant an indef block. I would hope that we could at least warn the user when they're in this gray area, when no direct threat has been made. I really don't think it's to much of a stretch for someone to honestly feel this way, and to believe it's a fair statement to make in a discussion. We should try to talk with the user first and explain to them why it's generally not a good idea to make those statements. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For what it's worth, I see this as no more a legal threat than the copy-vio tags that get plastered everywhere. Should editors posting these be warned and blocked? No. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User demands that editors reveal their personal identies before he will respond to them on his user talk page

See User talk:Ldemery#I do read this page; I do not respond. Certainly users have the right to ignore talk page messages (although that is extremely poor etiquette and doesn't help the project), but this demand seems unacceptable. Is there anything actionable here? Note that this seems to be a continuation of the drama described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive136#Extreme ownership issues; editor claims GFDL revoked and demands article deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you already did what was appropriate- left him a polite message explaining why this is not a reasonable demand. Until he's actually disruptive in some way I don't see that anything else needs done. Friday (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you personally bothered by this? Until the user actually violates a Wikipedia policy, this is a non-issue. (e/c) I don't even see how this can be addressed - the demand might not be "reasonable", but it's certainly not actionable. Tan | 39 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not inherently disruptive. If he starts edit warring because he's unwilling to talk to people, then we can block him for edit warring, but not talking to people is not against any policy I'm aware of. --Tango (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The moment (s)he actually gets into trouble, there'll be very little (s)he can do to get back out of it. But they're not in trouble now, are they? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bigger concern for me is the whole pattern of behaviour which is turning increasingly disruptive. Ldemery has been quietly working on the List of town tramway systems‎ and related set of articles for about two years, and was pretty much the only contributor for a long time. Now that some other editors have started working on them, there are some severe ownership issues emerging, with some extraordinarily petty behaviour. On the List of town tramway systems‎ in Japan in particular, he was unhappy with some of the other edits to "his" article, so his response was to demand deletion of the article by revoking his GFDL contributions. After the AfD nomination was speedily kept, his next step was to "dismantle" the list by removing many sections for reference reasons. That was never an issue before, so it certainly looks like a petulant response to not getting his way now. In the meantime, DAJF (talk · contribs) has been more than patient with him and trying to constructively engage him in cooperative editing. This latest demand seems to be a response to that.

Now just in the past few minutes, he has made this edit to Calton (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Calton had responded to the AfD a couple of days ago, and that is his only engagement with Ldemery that I can see. Now, I can't imagine that Ldemery's proposed article about his Wikipedia experiences will be notable, but his notice to Calton seems like harrassment to me. At some point, all of this must be considered disruption, shouldn't it? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure. But you need to build a case based on the specific policies he is violating, not on some strange "demand" for his personal reply criteria. Tan | 39 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Um I could help out, if he wants personal names...I edit with my personal name. Hell I already gave out my home town, school and location. Rgoodermote  18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing are some specific guidelines that he's violating. Threatening to create mainspace articles on other editors in response to a content disagreement is way outside the bounds of acceptable conduct here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - I've read Ldemery's notices and it's not altogether obvious that he's referring to a Wikipedia article. My initial (and current) impression is that he was going to write something off-wiki. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See also the case of Pioneer-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and compare with the conduct of Ldemery, particularly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of town tramway systems in Japan and Talk:List of town tramway systems in Japan#GNU Free Documentation License revoked; this article must be purged – for how we have dealt with users who attempt to withdraw, revoke, or cease to recognize that their contributions to Wikpedia are licensed under the GFDL. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Um right, never mind then. Didn't see those. Rgoodermote  18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified this editor of this thread, since I did not see a link here on their talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at his recent contributions. I'm not sure what he is up to but I'm tempted to revert him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, his recent contribs appear to be hinted threats and foreshadowing of disrupting wikipedia to make his point. Danger. Redrocket (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them all and left a note on his talk page. Note thjat I have always edited under my own name so he should theoretically respond to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I also posted on his talk page, since I also use my own name. I think I arrived late, however --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call, Theresa. Users are not required to answer talk page messages, but refusing to speak with fellow editors is indeed not a way to foster collaboration, is it? This whole thing seems like a WP:POINT taken from Citizendium. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it. I reverted him at User talk:Igorberger --Kbdank71 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He reposted it. I think a block may be in order. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him that I will block him if he continues. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked this account. This is unacceptable behavior. Crum375 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say this was a bad block because he hasn't done anything since the final warning left by Theresa. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this was a good block, since blocks are there to protect wikipedia (and wikipedia editors). He can always appeal, and if he understands what he's doing is harassment, he can be reinstated. We don't need him continuing this behavior across every talk page that crosses him. Redrocket (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True but I can't bring myself to care enough to undo Crum375's block though. If Ldemery responds on his talk page then it will be different. But for now. I'm happy to let the block stand. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Theresa, you've nailed my thoughts on this matter exactly. I'm not adverse to an unblock, but am willing to let it stand even though as I've stated, the editor in question did not do anything after the final warning. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He can't respond. Assuming he follows his own self-imposed restraint. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Moreover, the demand is disruptive in the context of WP policy and consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(OD)For another example of why this behavior is harassment and dangerous, check out the discussion below on "Subject of article is emailing me". Redrocket (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey is back in violation of ban

Moved to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Jeff Merkey is back in violation of ban 02:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BJBot tagging images as orphanned even though they appear on articles?

The following images have been tagged by User:BJBot as orphanned even though they are in use on articles:

Image:Thousandsonslegionbadge.gif and Image:Emperorschildrenbadge.gif.

What is causing this? For some reason, the 2 articles they are used on aren't listed in their linked files.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm if you look at the links at the bottom of the image description page, the article pages do appear. But if you look at "what links here" they do not. I've no idea why. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it due to the way they are inserted via a template? Only I don't want to have to keep removing the notices.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We had a similar problem reported at WP:MCQ a few days ago - see here. My bugzilla report on the subject doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been random errors where the image says its not being used but it is. (the file links section is empty). if you do a null edit to where the image is being used and one on the image it should resolve that. it might have been the cause, along with the image being tempararly removed from the page due to vandalism or a change to a template. β^{_{command 2}} 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blood oil

Abdicrm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was busy inserting this into both Puntland and Oil exploration in Puntland. They were reverted several times and I noticed that they were warned while I followed up with a 3RR warning. After they persisted, and following two more warnings, I blocked them for 24 hours. Tnxman307 asked if he had reverted again would he have been violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. My reply was that no he wouldn't. I take a broad interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and feel that companies are entitled to the same consideration as real life people. Valid, sourced criticism should be allowed but unsourced attacks should not. However, others may not feel the same way so I bring it here for review. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good block. One could also argue Abdicrm is attempting WP:POINT and WP:SOAP #1 --Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your block was definitely on target - persistent and wanton breaching of WP:NPOV for the purpose of WP:POINT needs to be addressed immediately, especially when the subject is a commercial company/entity. I certainly agree that WP:BLP can be translated to companies, organizations, and groups. With regards to the other editor's query about potentially violating 3RR himself - nope, not when the editor is maintaining a level head against what can be construed as vandalism. WP:IAR. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject of article is emailing me

Last year, Edward McSweegan (who corresponds to Emcsweegan (talk · contribs) here) objected to his article being on Wikipedia. Investigation revealed that the article was heavily plagiarized at the time, and also raised some significant WP:BLP issues. The article was sent to AfD as a result. However, after a heavy-duty rewrite by yours truly, enough was found to justify keeping the article. Many of the original edits were oversighted as well.

Well, last week, McSweegan emailed me, again objecting to his article being on there due to claims it stalked and harassed him. As a procedural matter, I sent the article to AfD again as a procedural matter, but consensus was reached that he was notable enough that the article shouldn't be deleted merely at his request. Today, he emails me again to point out a couple of inaccuracies--and implied that he'd been in touch with where I work. I've already spoken with Mike Godwin and forwarded him the email, and he also suggested that I raise the issue here to see what ought to be done from here. I apologize for being a bit alarmist here, but the fact he somehow got ahold of where I work hits a bit too close to home for comfort. Blueboy96 20:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Appropos of nothing, your situation and a similar one that happened to me once upon a time are good reasons why the requests and threats issued by User talk:Ldemery above should be considered as such. Redrocket (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy, has he been contacting you through Wikipedia's email system? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, regular email. Blueboy96 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Than I wouldn't know what we could do. A block here with email revoked wouldn't help here if he's simply plugging in your email address. Another admin might very well know what the SOP for situations like this is, but it's beyond my ken at the moment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly you need to cut off all contact with him. Do not reply to any more of his emails. Secondly you might want to consider forwarning your place of work. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think I'd tend to first say to him "I'm not comfortable with you contacting my workplace. Please don't do that again." Then, I'd cut off all contact. - Philippe 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just sent him an email telling him not to contact me again, and to direct any questions about his article to the Foundation. Such is life being an admin ... Blueboy96 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what OTRS is for. :-) - Philippe 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:FactsAreFacts

Sorry if I'm jumping the gun by coming straight here with this issue; I'm a little new to this editing-conflicts thing, and I wasn't sure if there was a discussion to be had or if this was just a straight disruption question.

This guy, FactsAreFacts (talk · contribs), seems to be only interested in defending one version of the article on Roger Chapin, who's notable mostly for running some veterans charities of questionable (and questioned) merit (first two Google results after his Wikipedia article: [37] and [38]). To make a long story short, he's blanked the page, his last few edits have been just reverting the article back to basically a copy-and-paste job from this official profile, and the edit summary on his last edit, his second reversion of me and the fifth-ish straight reversion in two days, reads "Whoever is trying to destroy Roger Chapin is a coward of the worst kind. Show your face!"

Sorry again if this post was shorter than necessary, sorry if it was longer than necessary, and, for the record, if this turns out to have been pointless, it was worth it for that last bit.

Thanks! Wikimancer (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As he'd been fully warned regarding WP:NPOV and was also past WP:3RR, I blocked him for 24 hours. I'll add the page to my watchlist in case he comes back tomorrow without having familiarized himself with our policies. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassing by Nmate

I am reporting uncivil behavior, personal attacks and harassing on the other user's talk page by user Nmate [39], [40]. User MarkBA decided to retire from editing Wikipedia but he is persistently harassed by the user Nmate. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread and warning him about incivility. If he continues, warning him yourself and go to WP:AIV. It is much more effective than requests here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you could take future issues with this individual (or others) to the WP:WQA noticeboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks from User:Sarah Lynne Nashif on Me

User_talk:Iwilleditu#Your_username To save time her user page redirects to her talk page automaticly. Took me a while to notice. IwilledituTalk :) 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Use the warning templates and report them to WP:AIV. This is not the place for every single incident. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW? I read your username as "I willed it tu"...and wondered who was getting the inheritance. Gladys J Cortez 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat a comment I made just above. You could take future issues with this individual (or others) to the WP:WQA noticeboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting account

Resolved

 – Probably a sock, but until they do something 'wrong'...

Have a look. Special:Contributions/Ninthlocal1985. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously somebody's sock, but the question is, whose? And is it someone who has been shown the door? HalfShadow (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, nominating List of I Ching hexagrams 1-32 for deletion is probably a good thing. I don't see anything too out of the ordinary -- just hasn't learned the ropes, perhaps. seicer | talk | contribs 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing out of the ordinary in their very first edit being "Taking it to AfD"? That's not the way newbies behave. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, they're not doing anything wrong, but I always get a little curious when someone comes out of the gate doing something like nominating articles for deletion. HalfShadow (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do as well. But you can't block based solely on suspicion. Find some evidence first. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's actually claimed they needed to be. There's no actual rule against socks, it's just a lot of them tend to be people who have worn out their welcome. Perhaps an informal eye could be kept on him/her for a day or two, just to be sure? HalfShadow (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, this is clearly a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Same thing happened previous day. Special:Contributions/Dotsod1. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither account seems to like unencyclopedic lists. Both seem somewhat deletionist so far, their AfD noms are getting mostly keep comments and Special:Contributions/Ninthlocal1985 notes knowledge of something which happened a year ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say- my first edit on wikipedia was that I discovered vanity pages from someone I knew and loathed, so I first 'corrected' one, then AfD'ed it, evil I know lol but my point is people can be very motivated to start editing if they see rubbish on wiki, especially if it is a subject they feel strongly about. Even if this is an ex-user, give them a chance to prove their worth (or lack thereof if they act wrong) before blocking them please. a)because it may just be a genuinely new user, b) because the person might have turned over a new leaf and be able to contribute to the wiki- and I include in that removing bollox from the wiki.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

as to "the knowledge of something that happened a year ago" -all he says, in a second afd debate for an article, was that an AfD took place a year ago- well anyone can see a previous AfD easily enough and the date thereon.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, although these seem to be socks with a deletionist bent (no true harm in that) I think it's safe to assume good faith so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I informed the two editors of the discussion. Maybe they'll volunteer their identity :) Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here with the intent to mention this above; I thought it looked a bit reminiscent of User:NewAtThis from the past few days. Another sock? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that for a minute myself; the date certainly matches. Could just as easily be a coincidence though. HalfShadow (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet better than even money that Dotsod1 and Ninthlocal1985 are the same person pushing the keys, however as been noted; they aren't doing anything overtly wrong. Running two accounts (or likely more) is not in itself illegal, and neither account has yet been shown to do anything untoward, other than to prove that neither is an account of a truly new user. Unless we can show conclusively that a) they are being disruptive, b) they are abusing the multiple status, such as by votestacking, or c) they are socks of an already blocked user, then we can actually do nothing. I should note that c is the most likely answer, but without a sockdrawer to put them in, there is nothing blockable, and on the surface, the AFDs themselves seem to be valid; they do seem like deletable articles... Still, something to keep an eye on. It is suspicious, even if not outright blockable yet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SatyrBot tagging rollback/cleanup

The bot User:SatyrBot got a bit enthusiastic and tagged several hundred Talk: pages with the text '{{WP Australia |class=Stub |importance=}}', edit summary: 'User:SatyrBot adding WP:AUS WikiProject banner (S42)'. I've notified (and hopefully stopped) the bot via a message at User_talk:SatyrBot#WP:AUS additions to talk pages. A percentage of the changes have already been reverted in ones-and-twos by other editors, eagerly watching their pages. I tried to do a larger-scale rollback but hit the throttle limits; so this is probably best handled by an admin. —Sladen (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, editing its talk page should stop it as it's an AWB bot (I think). However, I'm curious as to why you think it should be stopped, and indeed, rolled back? This task has been discussed at WP:AWNB, we've agreed on what should and shouldn't be tagged, and we've agreed for the bot to go ahead. What exactly is the problem (so we know what we can do about it in future)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This wholesale tagging appears to have been done based on grepping solely for the word 'Australia' within an article. I first noticed this via Talk:Freestyler (song) page (a pop song, by a Finnish band). I suspect in this the case, the bots rules need tightening slightly; something that would probably be done more reliably from a clean slate. (Some percentage of that set of edits appear to getting reverted anyway, manually and slowly). —Sladen (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) signed retrospectively

No, not grepping. It is tagging everything in the Category:Australia subtree. Unfortunately some sub-categories are not within the scope of WP:AUS, and these have had to be detected manually. Hesperian 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this also on a few submarines of a class that served with multiple navies including the Australian, but the bot was tagging those of the class which did not serve in the Australian Navy. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to find that discussion you've noted above to investigate further, was the following exchange what you had in mind? (Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 29#SatyrBot tagging WP:AUS). —Sladen (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a few more with the bot's name in the title ("SatyrBot, again", "SatyrBot (3)" I think...). We discussed the category mentioned by Hesp below, and other such things like that, and agreed they shouldn't be tagged - seems it slipped through in this case. Hopefully Satyr will be even more careful next time! :) Again, sorry 'bout this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AWNB#SatyrBot.2C_III - an error was found, but I think Blnguyen reverted all of them.
Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_29#SatyrBot.2C_again - I saw a similar error (but for someone born in Australia) and the individual case was reverted. Not sure how many others were tagged via that same logic. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that a message on the bot's talk page does indeed stop the bot. There has been extensive discussion and refinement on the bot's tagging scope at WP:AWNB, but it looks like Category:Number-one singles in Australia slipped through. Hesperian 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If I need to run the bot to *remove* any banners let me know. The bot is taking a short break while I try to track down why it's removing {{talkheader}} in rare instances. If anyone wants to review the categories that the bot is working on for WP:AUS, they're listed at User:Moondyne/AU categories. The bot has completed through Category:Premiers of Tasmania. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko back again

Resolved

 – the exit is this way....

This time he's Editor126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Getting pretty tiresome.Kww (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him... Already one step ahead of you. I would invite anyone to review my block, but this was clearly a Soccermeko sockpuppet, based on: 1) His talk page postings display the exact same sorts of grammar and spelling errors as Soccermeko 2) He creates the same exact uncited articles about spurious Nicole Wray albums, that are unsupported by any references at all. That he does it in exactly the same way shows that this is likely Soccermeko. However. I would like someone to compare the two, and confirm my block. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was doing that while you were blocking him. Looks good to me, with orange sauce. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One step ahead? I wasn't aware we were racing, but I had reported him 6 minutes before your block, and that was after I had already rolled back every edit he had made and put {{db-banned}} tags on all of his articles.Kww (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no race. I just have all of the Nicole Wray stuff watched due to having dealt with Soccermeko before, and when he comes up again, or what LOOKS like him again, I just block on sight. I only commented here to bring my block up for review by others. I meant no offense by the 'one step ahead of you' comment, and in the future, if you rather I didn't handle any more Soccermeko blocks and/or deletions, or if you feel that I was in error in handling this one the way I did, let me know. I can unblock him if you feel uneasy about my blocking... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I need to put smileys on my comments (even though I hate the damn things). I'm thrilled with how quickly you blocked him, and implore you to stay on the case and block him again as fast as he shows up. I can do the drudge work of rolling things back, but I have no mop to whack him with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

No problem. I just hate to block without cause, or to move too quickly, lest I bite a new user who is caught up in something they have no idea about. Again, which is why I came here for review... But its all good. I will continue to act with all due speed, as well as due dilligence, in this and all admin actions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Demob (band)

Elcock007 (talk · contribs), who may be Terry Elcock, is making massive changes to Demob (band), replacing a sourced, wikified article with an unsourced text dump that changes some of the history of Terry Elcock's association with the band. Once he got several warnings about repeatedly mangling the article, he quit with that account, but now anons have picked up the torch and are repeatedly reverting to his preferred version, even using the same edit summary. Should I just make an WP:AIV report every time I encounter one of these anons? I don't see protecting the article as an option. I reported this to WP:COIN several days ago, then went back for more help, but haven't gotten any. Corvus cornix_talk 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection seems an adequate temporary stopgap, at any rate. I've given two weeks to let dust settle and flush our anonymous contributor to the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 21:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict fail! Seicer sprotected for a day just seconds after mine. If that ends up being too short, we can always increase it. — Coren ^(talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I didn't realize that. I'll retract mine; I wanted to dig into and see if was more than meets the eye, and block/tag any offenders, but I was pulled away at the last minute. seicer | talk | contribs 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone engaged with this editor to discover whether there are any BLP issues that need to be dealt with or have we just chased away the subject of a BLP when they dare to change an article that concerns then? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Corvus attempted to discuss it at User_talk:Elcock007#Demob (band) and requested that the changes be discussed on the article's talk page, then templated when the behavior continued without discussion. So, I would say an attempt was made - the user either ignored it or was unaware of how to navigate talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry on Vegeta?

Now Lord Wilkes (talk · contribs · logs) has re-added this cruft, the same cruft that was re-placed by several blocked users: Richard Cobb (talk · contribs), Larry Hanes of Raleigh (talk · contribs), and Pefiny Sam-Romio (talk · contribs) (though note that the first account has not been blocked despite being a single purpose user). Anyway, should this account too be blocked or should I assume good faith? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for adding cruft. That's a good one. --Pixelface (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, if you see Lord Wilkes block log you will notice that he was blocked as a very obvious sockpuppet of Larry Hanes of Raleigh, who was previously blocked by Nakon. I don't block for adding cruft or for being a inclusionist, otherwise the majority of this community would be blocked, among them half of the parties in the 'character and episodes' arbritation case, including you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, did you not read the diffs? I know what I'm doing man ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Lord Wilkes the sockmaster (since that account was created first) or Richard Cobb (since it has the most edits)? And User talk:Larry Hanes of Raleigh and User talk:Richard Cobb should probably have block notices on them if those accounts are blocked. --Pixelface (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

personal attack/harrassment by Levine2112

Resolved

 – No personal attacks and no harassment. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[41][42] <-- Here is background information on Levine2112's behaviour.

Levine2112 stated: This needling of EBDCM needs to stop now. I agree with MastCell that EBDCM should take a Wikibreak for a week or two and then come back striving not to take the bait from those trying to elicit a poor response from him. I encourage QuackGuru to leave EBDCM alone.[43]

Levine2112 falsely accused me of needling and baiting EBDCM. This disruption by Levine2112 needs to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Use the warning templates and take it to WP:AIV. I would suggest a different tact than attacking everyone who disagrees with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are keeping challenging EBDCM, you must admit. You brought up the previous threads on ANI to him again, and kept on at him on his talk.special, random, Merkinsmum 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that such a situation should go to WP:AIV at all. Try WP:WQA or WP:RFC user. Also, sometimes it's better to just ignore so that it doesn't escalate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's 'vandalism' about it? special, random, Merkinsmum 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's simply not. Allegations of vandalism gets tossed around a lot way too often. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No vandalism, no personal attacks, and no harassment. I encourage QuackGuru to leave EBDCM alone. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by User:Wassupwestcoast

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

---

To deletion review with you! --Haemo (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This admin deleted an article that was under active discussion at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living dinosaurs) as WP:CSD#G1, even though he had already expressed his opinion at the AfD discussion. I and another user both left him a message on his talk page questioning the decision to short-circuit the process, and informing him of what WP:CSD#G1 actually says. As deletion review is a slow process, and I'm concerned that this may be an abuse of his administrator tools, I am also posting a notice here. Thanks. —BradV 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh... the article was clearly going for WP:SNOW delete anyways, and I don't see this as any real abuse of admin powers. Admins deserve the assumption of good faith as well, and while I personally would not have closed this one early, and also while I personally would not have stretched G1 to cover this article, this seems like a good faith WP:IAR case, as well as no-harm-no-foul... The article would have been deleted anyways, and the admin in question is hardly one who has been known for "abuses"... This seems a good-faith, though out-of-process deletion, and I don't think it deserves any attention at all... No big whoop, IMHO... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is an instance of WP:SNOW. Are you saying that there is no way Wikipedia could write a valid article about Living dinosaurs? Did you notice that the deleted article contained 14 references? Or the 50,000 ghits? This is a case of steamrolling the discussion. —BradV 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC with comment below) Well, the words "living dinosaur" are likely to result in many google hits. The existence of those google hits does not mean that Wassupwestcoast needs to be reprimanded for making a good-faith move on an article that, based on the opinion of many editors, was nothing more than original research. If someone can recreate a substantially different Living Dinosaur article that other editors will agree does not violate original research policies, by all means they can do so... Additionally, the proper place to have a deletion reviewed is deletion review, and while I cannot speak for other admins, I personally can see no reason to carry on this discussion here as there is no action to take against Wassupwestcoast for this, and I would not overturn a deletion unless a proper deletion review was done at WP:DRV. That is my opinion. Other admins, or indeed any other editor, is free to give their own personal opinion on this matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, in this instance, the admin was referring to the swing of consensus as the basis for the WP:SNOW argument, but G1 was a bit harsh. Has this topic not been covered in an article on cryptozoology? If the content is referenced, but consensus doesn't point to getting its own article it might be able to find a home (in a shortened form) in an existing topic.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that the AfD process can continue. This action by this admin was completely inappropriate, as it served no purpose but to short-circuit the process and achieve the result he wanted (I already quoted WP:STEAM). There is a reason AfD's are supposed to last five days. —BradV 03:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have all confidence that the folks at deletion review will overturn his premature closure, provided that you don't place too heavy an emphasis on assumptions that Wassupwestcoast was trying to move in bad faith on the article. This is at worst a difference of opinion, and claiming impropriety where there is no evidence of any, is a bad idea. Since you are so keen on following process, perhaps you would concede that the proper process is to leave a neutrally-worded request at WP:DRV to have the deletion overturned and the AFD reopened for the requisite 5 days. If we are in no rush to close the AFD early, then we certainly should be in no rush to short-circuit the process with regard to DRV, now should we? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly fair. Because one editor makes a unilateral decision to ignore process and close something early it has to sit in oblivion for five days? If it was properly closed according to policy, yes, but this wasn't. Besides, that's what AfD is for in the first place. —BradV 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So, to use your words, you want Wassupwestcoast to let the article sit in oblivion at AFD for 5 days? Seriously, you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want others to follow process you can't summarily ignore process yourself. If you really disagree with the closure then bring it up at DRV and it will be overturned. There is enough evidence that I would support an overturn personally, provided that the process you claim to value yourself is followed. Your other main point, that Wassupwestcoast acted in bad faith, is entirely unsupported. It is possible for people to arrive at different conclusions in good faith, just as you and he have in this case. No need to claim he is abusing his powers or anything, just that there is an honest difference between two rational people. Thus, there is no administrator action against him necessary. All that is left is to take it to DRV... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There really aren't that many ways to read WP:NONSENSE. And as a fan of process, I'm asking that other people follow process, and when they don't, their actions get reverted. I think that's quite reasonable. —BradV 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ANd the place to get that action reverted, according to process, is WP:DRV, and not here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually no policy against an administrator deleting an article under a speedy criteria while the article is at AfD, it might be bad form, but that's up for debate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There's at least one good overview of the topic in Jerome Clark's Unexplained!, which, despite the exclamation point in the title, is a very sober and objective guide to cryptozoology, UFOs, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review seems like the way to go. It's not an unreasonable request, but like Jayron says keep it neutral and cool in regards to the admin's closure.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that G1 would apply in this case. The article was comprehensible and not patent nonsense, and while I think that the article is too OR to be kept, I think it should have been more prudent to keep the AFD going. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't like it? Take it to deletion review. seicer | talk | contribs 03:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound even close to a G1 to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely. Though there is no IAR nor SNOWBALL option in the pickdown menus. He may have been grasping at straws for the closest match. I personally would NOT have chosen that option from the pickdown, but I can see why one would... We do not know enough to assume any bad faith on Wassupwestcoasts part at all, and DRV is the appropriate forum to have this deletion overturned. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this actually has been at DRV since before this thread was started. So if anyone wants to voice their concerns in that forum the discussion is already started.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.