Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive134

The WP:TOV discussion might do with some comments, if anyone is inclined. To better form consensus. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry all I am good with on Wikipedia is editing; I dont know all this admin stuff so I hope someone can help and sort this out. Its a bit of vandalisim; a bit of an edit war; and in need of protection as well (new users and vandals like to get their hands on this page). I like to keep an eye on and edit silent star pages. One such one is the Rudolph Valentino page. A new user who seems to have been involved in several edit wars before named User talk:Kevin j started adding lots of little information in hundreds of small edits; citing a fan site the first time. He left me a dirty message when I reverted one edit as it wasnt citeable and did not fit where he put it (I however left his other ones). I responsded calmly and rereverted the same edit.

The next day there was another series of small edits; he left me another nasty message before he did them saying his source was such and such book. I looked at the new edits and found them acceptable but in need of a little copyediting. So I moved some paragraphs around to flow better and took out one unciteable and hard to prove statement (whether he would have transitioned talkies or not; for certain that users statement is untrue for Valentino by his recordings had a strong Italian baratone voice). He left me ANOTHER nasty message trying to goid me into a talk page mud sling with him but I didnt reply. He then reverted my edits saying they were 'crap' and 'not cited' though all I had done was cleaned his very edits. I reverted them again but HELP please!

I have worked on many obscure pages and beefed up many silent star pages including Olive Thomas and Jack Pickford. This guy seems to do nothing but annoy people. I want some protection to the page, him to quit harassing me, and another editor to take a look at the edits that have been made and feel free to judge for themselves. Thank you. --Thegingerone (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to examine this in great detail right now, so to kick things of for other admins, this diff seems to set the tone between Kevin j (talk · contribs · logs) and Thegingerone (talk · contribs · logs) with regards to this article. While I have not yet checked all sources added here, one that jumped out at me was this one by Kevin j as a citation to describe Valentino's voice: the source discusses a seance that Valentino apparently took part in 36 years after his death. At the moment I cannot play the audio file on this page, but I cannot help but be a little sceptical about the validity of such a source.

By looking at both users' talk-pages, it should also be noted that neither participant here has an absolutely clean record in disputes like this. - 52 Pickup (deal) 10:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that this was a senance, but it also gave people a good description of Valentino's squeaky voice that had aired on old broadcasts. Senances are a lot of time cons that alter a person's words from old speeches. I intend to use more recordings, and this was only my first one.Kevin j (talk)

Since LeithP was the one who recommended that I face a topic ban on this noticeboard, how can he have the final say in the matter. As I see it, the community was divided - with Desione and Bobby Awasthi siding with me. If the decision had already been taken unilaterally by LeithP, what was exactly the point of this entire circus? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This refers to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:DemolitionMan thread above, if anyone needs background. Leithp 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears Ronmotel closed that, not Leithp. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, Leithp declared the topic ban, and Ronnotel officially "closed" the thread about 45 minutes later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence, isn't there an obvious conflict of interest here? Two admins discuss on their respective talk pages, bring the issue on the noticeboard and take the decision despite at least two other editors besides me disagreeing. How is that a consensus? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure why the thread about User:DemolitionMan was mentioned here. Relevance? The admins don't overlap, neither do the editors involved.
• Someone mistakenly deleted the header for the User:DemolitionMan thread. I've reinstated the thread below (for the record).--RegentsPark (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• The conclusion about Valentino's 'squeaky voice' needs a reliable source. An editor listening to a recording is not enough.
• There is nothing about any of this on Talk:Rudolph Valentino. Talk is always good, when changes may be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to do wrong, I am trying to add information about myself which is true and I fell worthwhile Please help This is a message I got after making a few changes..

The addition you made to Portland State University is reverted because it needs a Wikipedia article already written about him. The article should follow biography guidelines, assert notability, and source his association with PSU. Thanks. —EncMstr 07:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, since you might share his name, you should read conflict of interest, and neutral point of view. —EncMstr 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Please stop adding yourself to articles as you have here, here, here, here, and at Portland State University. If you are notable (doubtful going by the very few hits on a Google search for "Dennis M. Knable") start an article (though do read WP:AUTO first) that meets WP:BIO, then link. Otherwise your repeated actions come across as vandalism. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmknable"

Explained on User's talk page. This is not an admin issue. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given this user a uw-v3 warning for repeatedly adding himself to articles. Being a Royal Knight of

17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu and I had a discussion and we decided to remove my warning, since the user hadn't edited since the previous warning. Corvus cornix_talk 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This edit appears to be a cut + paste move. Can an administrator repair the article histories? Thanks, скоморохъ 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit so that the edit history remains at the original page. Please discuss on the talk page and utilise Wikipedia:Requested moves if needed. Thanks, mattbr 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are several examples of Orangemike (talk · contribs) hardblocking accounts simply for having promotional usernames just today: [1] [2] [3] [4]. This is not appropriate, as the hardblock is only to be used in the case of usernames that show a blatant disregard for the username policy. Accounts with names that are promotional are in most cases created simply misguidedly, in which case a soft block is appropriate, but not a hardblock, as this prevents legitimate editors from editing or creating accounts with appropriate names.--

20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have any examples of you trying to reconcile this with Orangemike first would you? John Reaves 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...or informing him of this thread? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Orangemike about this thread and agree it should have been discussed with him before raising it at any noticeboard. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make an alternate template for use at UAA which would provide "hardblock" and "softblock" links with the boxes filled in, but it caused trouble for the bot. The default parameters for the block link are for a hardblock so this could have been simple user error. (nevermind, block reason was filled in) —Random832 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just informed him of this thread and apologized for bringing it up here before addressing him personally.--

Rose

21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody did notify me, thanks; no problem, Rose, we're all trying to do the right thing here. I thought that hardblocks were the appropriate treatment for spammers? If I am mistaken, obviously I will stop doing it posthaste; but I believed I was doing the correct thing in protecting the project from the marketing mavens who are constantly flooding us with their spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was rather surprised that this was brought up at the noticeboard, without getting in touch with Mike first. Anyway, I digress: it's probably best, Orange Mike, if we bump down the username blocks to soft in the future? It's not a huge deal—if any editor does get fouled by the off-kilter block settings, I'm sure they can email the folks at Unblock-en-l for assistance. Having said that, it is bound to put some people off creating a new account (too much trouble, etc.), so just watch this in future, if possible. Moving onwards, I'm tagging this as resolved: not a big deal, Mike's taken note, no need for any further action. Best regards,

§

21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, a company name alone isn't the same as the user being a spammer. —Random832 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If an accounts edits amount too nothing but spam it should be hardblocked, but at least one of the accounts that he blocked today has good contribs. Personally, I think that if an account has no spammy contribs and just a promotional username we should

Rose

21:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not, I thought, been hardblocking folks who looked like noobs, as opposed to promotional/role accounts. The only one of the examples Rose listed that's even marginal is the John Wooden fan, and his edits were all related to Wooden and Wooden's "Pyramid of Success" stuff. Still, when in doubt I'll soft block. Glad the whole thing came out calmly. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Isn't there anybody watching WP:AIV on a constant basis? For example: Today I issue IP 85.60.53.190 a final warning at 21:52 (my time). He ignores it, vandalizes some more, and at 21:56 I report him at a virtually empty WP:AIV. It takes another 10 minutes (while the IP does three more disruptive edits) before he's finally blocked. Earlier this week the same thing happend when I reported another IP vandal (67.36.182.26, I think.) Took also over 10 minutes after the WP:AIV report, while the vandalizing just went on in the mean time.

Similar thing happened with Timtime77 today, which is clearly a vandalism only account. He vandalized (once) after the last warning and my report at WP:AIV, but nothing happened at all. I feel pretty stupid when I issue last warnings that don't appear to mean much.

Something else I don't get: user Eric D Knapp. I report him to WP:UAA/BOT because he edits an article to include an external link to Eric D Knapp's book (that you can get on Eric D Knapp's website). When I recently reported the TheOperaCritc, Xunantunich, and MedicineHorseProgram for similar edits and usernames, they got blocked indefinitely. But Eric D Knapp gets a friendly story about possible COI problems instead.

In short: Why does it sometimes takes so long before an ignored final warning results in a block? And what's the difference between Eric D Knapp and, say, Xunantunich? Thanks. Rien (talk\stalk)  23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For one, we are all volunteers here. If you want 24/7 support with 2 minute reaction time, I can get you a quote ;-). As for the user names,

WP:U. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(ironic edit conflict) Sometimes it takes a while because we're only human. I can't be monitoring AIV or anywhere else all day long, and neither can anyone else. There's going to be small gaps, especially at times when most of the US is sleeping. Useight (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the US is 8 to 10 hours behind me. 23:00 my time is (approx) 14:00 US time. Surely you guys are awake by then ;-) Rien (talk\stalk)  23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here in North America, we do have jobs that we work at ;) Franamax (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But right now you're behind your computer, answering me. Got fired? ;-) Rien (talk\stalk)  00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm self-employed. I can't get fired. On the other hand, my boss is a big jerk. :) Franamax (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a FINE definition of volunteer. Perhaps you should read it before complaining so vehemently about the slow reaction time during some random 10-minute window.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "complaining vehemently", I'm asking a question. Thank you. Furthermore I know we're all volunteers. Do you think I get paid? I wondered if (and more or less assumed that) administrators would have some sort of "WP:AIV roster" (for lack of a better word), but that's obviously not the case. Fine, then I know. Spare me the sarcasm, there's no need for that. Rien (talk\stalk)  00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rien, I sympathize with you in that when I post to an official page, time stretches out eternally while I wait for my top priority to be dealt with. But Wiki has a lot of priorities and really, 10 minutes is a pretty short time in the grand scheme of things. All the damage can be reverted, you did your part with the final warning and the vandals did eventually realize that there is a big axe. Thanks for holding the ring, defending the wiki while you waited for an admin to step in. As a suggestion for the future, does anyone have information on the latest development of the wiki-catheter? I assume it's use will be restricted to admins. :) Franamax (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating multiple new stubs about

) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect all articles to Torture and warn the user about notability. Twelve words! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Apparently taking umbrage to wikifying. WLU (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? I come to Wikipedia to improve an article on torture to reveal modern aspects of torture currently in use. Is this a subject that some people do not want to deal with or what? HumanRightsDefender (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to redirect scrutiny away from your own misapplication of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by claiming bad faith on others who are only applying those guidelines as they are best understood is disingenuous. No one has said that the information is verboten and should never be added, however Wikipedia has clear standards of

neutrality that you appear to be unwilling to care about... Please address those concerns before assuming a grand conspiracy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

HRD, if you really feel that these forms of torture are notable and need to be covered on Wikipedia, please consider adding them

talk page to see if consensus would agree that they are notable. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C

00:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Canditates for speedy deletion backlog

Could an administrator get on this. Thanks. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, where are the administrator's "hiding"? Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here! (I will take a look and see what I can do). Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog? Attack! bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My gosh, I went into battle, came out with many cuts and bruises, and then it appears there are even more articles then there where when I started.... Tiptoety ^talk 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Phew! Got whipped into battle fury there. Well, anyway, the backlog's been reduced now, and I'm exhausted. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 05:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since LeithP was the one who recommended that I face a topic ban on this noticeboard, how can he have the final say in the matter. As I see it, the community was divided - with Desione and Bobby Awasthi siding with me. If the decision had already been taken unilaterally by LeithP, what was exactly the point of this entire circus? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This refers to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:DemolitionMan thread above, if anyone needs background. Leithp 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears Ronmotel closed that, not Leithp. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, Leithp declared the topic ban, and Ronnotel officially "closed" the thread about 45 minutes later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence, isn't there an obvious conflict of interest here? Two admins discuss on their respective talk pages, bring the issue on the noticeboard and take the decision despite at least two other editors besides me disagreeing. How is that a consensus? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As asked, how is that a consensus? Do the voices of Caucasians carry more weight or are they accorded priority according some Wikipedia policy I am not aware of? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Following a number of heated debates at AfD regarding biographies of the victims of crime, this guideline has been prepared by myself and several other editors, and is ready for wider consideration. You can view the policy at

) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

timestamp to keep from archiving a bit longer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, User:Rgoodermote completed a RfA and wrote his acceptance statement, so I transcluded it and users started !voting. Now it appears he was not planing on actually having an RfA for another week and was just using it to work on answering the questions. I told him a better place for that was his userspace and that he should probably withdraw. He has sense asked for it to be deleted, but I am not sure if I should as there is some content, and users have !voted. Not sure if there is some un-written rule or a policy that would help me.... Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Looking at the withdrawn RfA, I see the following:

• About 3 answered questions, with 10 more that are unanswered, with open spaces waiting to be filled.
• 3 opposes, the first of which is yours.

I must be missing something, because it looks like you transcluded a clearly incomplete RfA and then !voted against the candidate. Like I said, I must be missing something, because there's no way that's what happened, right? Antelan ^talk 07:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chlipala (talk · contribs) blocked for a month due to editorial comments on talk page

Could someone who isn't cranky like I am tonight take a look at the edits by User:Chlipala, please? He's been adding numerous links to YouTube submissions he's created to a range of musicians and similar articles. I think it's starting to lean into spamming, but I may be wrong. I'd appreciate other thoughts, please... Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the link for the editor, but have got a zero contribition list. Is this the correct editor? LHvU (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The link was wrong. It should have said Special:Contributions/Chlipala. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

His links seem to all be to copyright violations, so spamming or not, it's not allowed. Deadeyearrow has already left a note on his talk page to that effect. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And now he's kvetching on his talk page and is going right back to it. It looks more like spam to his specific videos to me, I'll try again. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted them, and left a couple of warnings, amongst them

WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this has gone unnoticed for so long, but we have a five week backlog at

. I've been working on them myself for the last several days and I just knew someone was going to show up eventually to help, but no one has.

I've been in a solitary mood for a few weeks, and I got January 15 through February 3 done alone and I've cut the backlog from 45 days down to 35, but I know when I'm licked. I need help. It's not as popular as AFD, but it gets bogged down and this is the result. We were very close to a two month backlog, and it kind of flies in the face of all our words on free content and copyright infringement.

Another problem we've got there: the

was changed to allow speedy deletions of blatant copyright infringement with no assertion of permission. The steps are so confusing and contradictory as to be almost useless, and I think that's why new (and old) admins stay away from copyright problems like the plague. I'm working on changes to the advice page, and of course everyone's welcome. I haven't yet put my changes in, but I need to stop now to, like, sleep.

If you are familiar with the copyright rules and process and can help, please take one of the log days, i.e.

06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added speedy notices to the ones on the 4th and 5th that are obvious copyvios and not notable in of themselves or low quality. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been tied up with some things, but I intend to get back at these today or tomorrow.--

talk • contribs

) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoring deleted images..?

Could an admin please restore this image for me:

Image:Giant Panda Auckland Zoo.jpg and if possible restore it to its pride in place in the Auckland Zoo page...

It was deleted fast, as in one day it was there and next... Poof..! I hadn't logged on for a day or two and would have disputed its deletion... The reason I was given for its deletion was that it was decorative (in the page history or on my user talk page)... It was afixed in the history section in the article, in fact in the paragraph detailing how important the Panda's display was in the zoo's history and the image was of the Panda's on display...

I apologise if this page is for admins to post to each other (if I'm not supposed to post these requests here please could a kind soul point me in the right direction) or could an admin have a look at the image, non-free rationale etc and tell me why I'm a moron...

This new editor is getting quite disheartened by trying to follow the rules and having his articles vandalised or hard uploaded images deleted with some "higher" users disregard of discussion processes and 'ahem' notifications...

Kind regards and keep up the great work that the cheating undergraduate students don't even know goes into running this site that makes their assignments so easy... ZoofanNZ (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. I think we can figure this one out. If you need help in the future,

WP:MCQ are more specialized, but any user may post to this page. MBisanz ^talk

08:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your pains... I have responded in kind on your talk page...ZoofanNZ (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please 76.17.200.196 immediately. He's vandalizing a page a minute now. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. In future, please go to

WP:AIV to report vandals. - 52 Pickup (deal)

15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This was the first time I made a report. I will go there in the future. Americasroof (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem regarding the relevancy of materials being posted on several articles about WebCT, University of California, Irvine, Capella University. Another user, Spellmanloves67continues to place materials about a lawsuit that does not seem relevant to the articles. When I've tried to chat with him, he seems to get very angry. I've noticed that he has been warned many times before as evidenced by the archived versions of his talk page. He also continues to erase his talk page so it is not possible to continue a discussion. I really am not sure what to do but wanted to ask for help here. Thank you very much.Sxbrown (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I will pop over to his talkpage, and see if we can limit those articles that has the link. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Spellmanloves67 has once again added the non-relevant material to the WebCT article. Again, he refused to discuss it on the WebCT talk page. He also stated on my talk page that he "can concede the other areas but will not on WebCT" even after this matter was moderated by LessHeard vanU. Is it possible to lock the article in order to prevent further vandalism? Thank you for your help. Sxbrown (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While this dispute was moderated, Spellmanloves67 continues to restore material that is not relevant to the article on WebCT. He has been very angry and has a history of erasing his talk pages in which he has been warned [Spellmanloves67]. It also appears as if he is now using other login names Lavalamp405 and 75.134.128.140 to make changes to the article. Could someone from Wikipedia help? Thank you very much. Sxbrown (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, something freaky just happened. When I roll over my links on top, they move to the left, and will not go back until I go to a new page. Whazzzup? Bearian (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you make any recent changes to your monobook.js? Or maybe one of the scripts in there has broken--I've had that happen before, and it can be a mess. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whenwith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.107.171.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Lady of Pain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reversion of valid edits, removing tags requesting citations, and reverting, all with some extremely abusive edit summaries. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

One of the usernames banned, no other contributions from the other two.

While doing backlog clearing at

22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could use some help restoring aging as well. Start with the grey hair, yes? Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

^talk

00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the content this user keeps using is typed as if the Rudolph Valentino page is a fan site. Also, the user seems to be one-sided and thinks while The Dark Lover is a reliable resource, Valentino: The Superstar is not. I am also sick of the vandalism this user has presented on different Wikipedia pages, like People To People. I want justice, and this user deserves to be blocked. Kevin j (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All I see so far is a content dispute, and content disputes, by definition, have two parties. Neither is necessarily more at fault when discussion is foregone for an edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if the two anonymous users

) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked the first IP for 24 hours as it is obviously only being used for trolling and abuse. The other IP only has a couple of edits (though one of them is longer than all the other IPs edits put together) but I will keep an eye on it. Black Kite 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion at DYK#Changing_DYK_process on ways of slightly widening the scope of DYK. Please have a look. It would be helpful if a few more admins and other experienced editors could chip in. - Neparis (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

According to [10], the website Mytino is a confirmed virus. Don't know about that, but the article Mytino is currently a CSD candidate and might want to be taken care of if it's true. The two users involved in editing the article are User:Singleliu and User:74.220.207.67. --Nsevs • Talk 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry for boring everyone again with this guy, but I'd like to work with him. I've just been through his contribs and I can see there's some useful stuff there to help the encyclopedia - the problem is his disruption and trolling. I'll be honest from the start - I'm not his biggest fan. I would however like to work with him and act as his mentor, but obviously under strict instructions as follows;

"Lir is placed under community parole. If any of his edits are seen to be trolling, uncivil, assumptions of bad faith or any other form of disruption, he may be blocked for upto one week by any administrator. After 3 such blocks, the maximum block length is extended to one year/indef. He is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite and is expected to abide by his jurisdiction. Further, he is limited to one account and anymore evidence of sockpuppetry will result in an immediate indefinite block."

I realise that he's been an idiot with the socking, but there does seem to be some good in him and hopefully I can knock it out of him. I'm not scared to block him myself, and I would expect him to follow exactly what I say. Anyway, just putting that out there. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found his lack of restraint in the last attempt to be very frustrating, but I support trying again. If somebody wants to seriously write article content, as Lir does, we should try whatever we can. That being said, if he screws this one up, he should be blocked for at least a year before he gets another try. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this for years, Lir might be the first time I ever heard about ArbCom. You can try, Ryan, and I know that Lir has submitted great content. My philosophy in this case is the motto, "If you go looking for trouble, you will find it." Collaboration and compromise is not censorship and that's something he has to accept. That's really all I have to say about that. Keegan^talk 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even as I think that we ought to keep an eye on Lar—I've always been a bit leery of adults who like LEGOs—I think the instructions read better were they directed at Lir. Joe 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Keegan^talk 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe! You

blockhead, how could you say such a thing? As for the confusion about instructions applying to me? It's always been said I don't follow directions well, and there was confusion about Lir/Lar as far back as my RfA (see question 6) All that said, and with a tip of the hat to Ryan for willingness to try, no, I don't think this unblock would be a good idea. ++Lar: t/c

23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan notice that I offered to unblock him if he agreed to a similar set of terms and he refused instead telling me i should unblock him and take my case to arbcom to get authorisation. That completely disregarded the fact that I didn't block him in the first place. He has also treats DR like a quasi legal system. However if you can get him to agree to those terms, I don't see why he shouldn't be unblocked - they are very similar to some I provided. However, make sure he really understands the terms, or I will be first to reblock. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Ryan, I think you're being highly optimistic. I have no hope at all that Lir can become a useful editor again. I did have hope when it came to the lifting of the ban recently, but he did nothing to suggest that he has any intention at all of helping the encyclopaedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Is there an section where I can put in my vote on this or whatever? Seriously, why do we want to unblock someone that's caused enough hassle to have been blocked for three years? All that will happen is that a month down the line we'll be back here again discussing whether to ban him again. His ban was so long in the first place because he kept on socking, vandalising, disrupting etc. And he comes back and we want to keep him? Good grief. No. No content is that valuable that we need people poisoning the environment and causing drama as much as that. The harm he's done to the Wikipedia over the years far outweighs any possible good content we might get out of it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a bad idea. I can't think of a single instance when one of these admin-led quasi-paroles was successful, and I can think of at least one where it was demonstrably unsuccessful, to the point of disruptive. Mere days ago he earnt himself a re-indef-block, mere days after finally expiring a multi-year ban lengthened repeatedly by his own interminable intractability. There is no evidence that an unblock will cause anything other than further heartache, and before long we'll have yet anohter thread here discussing the block, with someone claiming they thing just one more chance is all it takes. The end of the road was back there somewhere. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not therapy; for anyone. Splash - tk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents of this edit (removed inexplicably by the 'single purpose tagger') are interesting. Splash - tk 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting certainly but why would someone create a sockppuppet account in order to accuse others of being sockpuppets? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure this is a such a great idea. Ryan, I know you've worked miracles before, but Naerii is right. We can do without Lir. Any worthwhile content he might contribute is not worth the price we will have to pay - the disruption he will inevitably cause. Moreschi (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Um, no. When an umpteenth chance lasts less than 48 hours, there is no chance umpteen+1. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please no, I'm getting flashbacks. I don't think this is a good idea at all. And the idea of having to cycle through three one week blocks is rather "sigh-some". I was all for giving Doc's unblock a go but all he did was prove that he hasn't changed one iota since his banning. I would be really surprised if Lir even agreed to this or took it seriously beyond seeing it as an opportunity to resume his trolling and disruption. With utmost respect, Poss - you know I adore you - but this just seems to me like a very bad idea. I think that people who haven't been around all that long and don't realise how much disruption Lir caused back in '04 and '05 should look through the Arbitration pages and his old talk page archives and see that his recent behaviour is pretty much what led to his Arbitration case. It's not like he just came back feeling disenfranchised and pissed off and will get over it with a touch of mentoring. This is what he does and how he behaves. Sure, he makes a few good edits to mainspace articles but he is too disruptive and has made it clear time and time again that he has no intention or desire to do anything but troll us. Sarah 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm the one who reblocked Lir after Doc's attempt at giving him yet another last, last chance. If you do go ahead and unblock, I would recommend that you arrange in advance a complete prohibition to claims of censorship, one of his favorite trolling baits. — Coren ^(talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose Ryan's proposal, if only based on the statement "knock it out of him". I doubt that, given my relatively short familiarity with Lir's personality, any method that includes any suggestion of force will achieve desirable results.

Aside from that, it doesn't seem like Ryan actually has very much in common with Lir. On the other hand I share interest in the discipline, propose collaboration on articles, and integration of Lir into an editorial team, and a Wikipedia Project. Aside from the fact that there is way too much writing to do within the project to worry about all the other issues, there are competent admins in the Project that are able to deal with any situations which may arise, and be able to evaluate Lir's probation over a period of 6 months, which I think is a significantly longer period to evaluate a person's intentions and abilities then a day.

Coren, while I appreciate your statement, I think the approach used in mitigating Lir's behaviour, and in community's ability to emphasize, has been less then ideal. While several editors above have expressed Lir's return from a negative perspective, I think a bit of positive thinking would not go astray, right? Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article! Surely that seem to indicate good intentions? He also starts to express his opinion on Wikipedia on his user page. So what? Do you think New York Times reporters are going to use Lir's user page for an expose on Wikipedia? I looked at it when I first read his declarations on the article talk. So the guy has issues with authority, tell me something new! The page had nothing to with the article, so I wrote to him. Lo and behold, beyond the facade was an editor with actual knowledge of the article subject, good sources, and willing to, even impatient to contribute! For crying out loud, does every 'tree' need to be uprooted to 'plow' a Wikipedia field?! I for one would be shocked if anyone returning from such a long ban had no feelings at all to express on the experience. Bitter and twisted people often suppress feelings and thoughts, and lie low, hatching plots. I don't see Lir doing this at all, so enough with amateur psychoanalysis, characterisations and labels. This isn't some TV drama. --

talk

) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article!

Wrong. His very first edits were as an IP , and they were to build his User Page as a billboard against The Evil That is Wikipedia and How I Have Been Done a Great Wrong. His very first edit was "I am the Lir. What I've realised is that the Wikipedia has been overrun by a bunch of morons. I used to care -- now I don't. The idea of a Wiki is a great idea, but the Wikipedia is überghey...", and his very first article edit doesn't come until after nearly three months of soapboxing. He's not really here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter. However, lets try an experiment. Lets ban you for a year for a reason you don't agree with, and see how you feel about it later. I am not supporting Lir's behaviour, but I do understand it as typical of individuals in similar circumstances in the real world. Believe it or not, but Lir's behaviour since his most recent unbanning was normal! You just failed to recognise it as such. Did you expect a placid angelic-like Lir singing praises of those who banned him? If he did, that would have made him a liar, and anyone able to lie to oneself, can lie to others, those being Wikipedia readers. I would rather an editor called me a moron a hundred times then he/she write one lie that will be read by a thousand. Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie. I can live with that. Chill out Calton. Allow me to explain to Lir why calling people names, and living in the past is not healthy. Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned because currently he is still running on fight/flight instinct.--

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Lir = IP, and its editing is his editing. The rest of your comments make even less sense: he was blocked for a year, yes, and his behavior is what led to the constant reblocking and the additional 19 months of block time.

Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie.

I'd say trying to hide your identity through sockpuppets counts as lying, but let's leave that aside. You believe that jackass behavior and trolling is okay if you're sincere, do I have that?

Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned

So his not understanding why he's doing something wrong is a reason NOT to ban him, do I have that? You've officially gone through the looking glass. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you constantly hit someone over the head ("constant reblocking") to prevent behaviour, but behaviour change is not internalised as justified, the only thing that will change is the punshment avoidance strategy (not to get hit). You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing.

Using sockpuppets (in this case) is not lying, but rather evading being constantly hit over the head.

Well, I didn't know there was anyone watching me...officially. Is 1984 your favourite book?

Lir understands very well what he did wrong, but seemingly others like to constantly remind him of this and make a point, a very large point, of showing him they don't have any intention of letting him forget. There is all this great talk of "Wikipedia community". Do you know what a community looks like, or do you live in front of a screen? A community is not judged by its firewalls alone. Community also welcomes, appreciates, understands, etc. All I have heard is "defending community". Let me spare you the time; lets have a welcoming interrogation committee so no-one will ever get banned. May I remind Wikipedians that we are a part of the freedom of information community, so lets not become the paranoid brigade.

What has Lir done wrong? He decided to create a user page that may be seen as undesirable? You Calton live in a country notorious for public scandals over deeds by public officials. You come from a country where morals of presidents have been found wanting. On a scale of Wikipedia "sins" within the thousands of user pages, does Lir rate public enemy #1? You (plural) have treated him as one, and he obliges every time. What a surprise. You'd rater have editors writing articles who will cower every time they are challenged...not. (Japan excepted; a different culture there)

Have you banned Lir because he consistently shows POV, uses OR, never cites sources? This is what I am saying, did you ban an editor, or his personality? If it the later, its only because you failed to 'connect', and seemingly never tried. You are the community "shoot first, ask questions later" cop. I had to connect, because I have the intention to collaborate with him. It all comes down to purpose and motivation. It seems too me Lir's most recent banning was

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are talking such rubbish because you don't know Lir and we do. He tells he only wants to edit articles, he is lying and you are naive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing. - Actually, banning him outright seems to have solved everything neatly, without Wikipedia having to act as his therapist. As for the rest of your strange and tangential moralizing -- well, it was hard to read, what with my eyes constantly rolling. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No unblock. I had my doubts about letting him come back after reading his history, and after this past weekend, it's obvious he's too unstable for Wikipedia.

12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that he is threatening to sock (in an email to me) but they all threaten that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir joined Wikipedia in the early days, back when there were few rules, only Jimmy Wales could ban people, & we tried to talk the problems & disputes out. Lir couldn't handle even that permissive environment. People with a lot more patience than I tried hard to mentor Lir; it didn't work. So he was banned, & the only reason he wasn't banned for good then was that the software didn't permit it. I'm honestly amazed that he avoided getting blocked again as long as he did this time around. -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep him banned, forever. Lir has much to contribute by way of trolling and headache, but nothing useful besides that. His antics predate many of the users on this page who now so naively want to unban him, not realizing what they are getting themselves into. Much as he might need one, Wikipedia is not his therapist. Raul654 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it. How much are you willing to bet that as soon as he strays from the confines, he'll start yelling for the restriction not applying to him without arbcom sanction, yell and shout as soon as he's blocked about censorship and cabals? — Coren ^(talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck was Lir banned for in the first place? It seems that the RFAR was a mess, and he was only re-banned after he sockpuppetted, but I've got to tell you, I would sockpuppet too if I was unfairly blocked and no one was listening to me. It seems that Lir constantly talk about corruption and the cabal. THE CABAL EXISTS, there was evidence in that secret mailing list story that I just read. Of course most of these admines responding keep him banned are probably part of the cabal. I can say that Lir seems to have thrown some personal attacks but most were misconceptions and several personal attacks have been thrown at him too. Therefore, a new RFAR seemsto be in order. I would personally do it myself but I don't know that much about the case. Editorofthewiki 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see. This is going to be nowhere near the complete history, but it should give you some idea of what his wonderful personality is like: He edits with an extremely distorted view of reality. He got into many, many edit wars, ruining a number of good articles, frustrating other legitimate users involved in them (causing several to quit), and Lir used many sockpuppets (in the days before checkuser and finding them was hard) to do so. When banned, he would use sockpuppets to duck the ban. He lies constantly - having conversations, then claiming he did not have them, then somehow remembering that he did in fact have them; claiming to have several adminsitrators and bureaucrat sockpuppet accounts, etc. On one occasion, after one editor (

Woo Suk Hwang research scandal). Oh, and Lir also filed a false police complaint against Phil Sandier (aka Snowspinner), claiming that Phil's fictional stories on his blog showed he was unstable and posed a danger. The police gave Phil a hard time, but after a story on boing-boing appeared showing their harassment, they went away. I'm sure I've omitted lots of stuff, but that should give you an idea of the kind of person you are dealing with. Raul654 (talk

) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this decided by consensus? ( I would be one of those opposing). Dapi89 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Communuty bans are typically decided by the lack of admins willing to unblock. So far no admin has been willing to do that and my recent experience with lir leads me to believe that he is still very much the same problematic user that he ever was and would strongly advice against unblocking at the present time. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Dapi89 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is no one willing to unblock because of the realisation they would find themselves under scrutiny of the above-mentioned cabal? In any case, there seems to be a propensity for dealing with the past rather then the present. In the current case, what was Lir banned for?--

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen: I don't really know much about the Lir case. I was just looking at wikipedia pages and did a very small amount of reasearch and most of the evidence against Lir is years old. It also says according to his unblock he is blocked from unblock en 1, which of course was the decline reason. I'm not sure whether that's possible--

I personally believe it does--but I think that Lir herself should be able to have something to say about the above. I believe he should be unblocked to submit something below or file a request for arbitration. Editorofthewiki

01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir should be given a fair hearing, so that he can be found guilty or innocent; that is the only logical way to handle banning policy. It seems to me that for several years, Wikipedia has had a very clear and established policy that an individual could only be banned through the dispute resolution process, which still exists; first you must tell someone that you feel they did something wrong and try to resolve it with them (Lir has bent over backwards complying with every demand made of him), second you must request mediation in the case of article disputes (has Lir had any recent article disputes?), third you must request arbitration (this was not done), and finally the arbitration committee is to issue a resolution and give an explanation. The only traditional exception to this policy has been in the case of "clear and obvious vandalism", which does not apply in this case, as Lir has not vandalized anything.

Unfortunately, some users have tried to circumvent the entire existing system of policy, and have thus came up with the notion of 'community consensus', which does not apply in this case, because six users have requested that Lir be unbanned, and therefore consensus does not exist. So, lacking consensus against Lir, he still deserves a hearing. It should also be noted that Lir is currently banned from the mailing list, from IRC, and from his own talk page; it is thus shameful that he is not even allowed to try and generate support for his cause, and it is even more disgraceful that he has nevertheless found such support, and yet that same support is simply being ignored by those who continue to claim that there is "consensus" against Lir.

Of course, advocates of the "community ban" will assert that any administrator who wishes to unban Lir should feel free to do so; however, first of all, Lir was already unbanned in that manner, and he was then immediately rebanned without any chance to rectify whatever grudges are held against him. Clearly, the community ban policy cannot succeed, as there will then be an 'edit war' over whether or not to keep Lir banned. Meanwhile, there are administrators who want to unban Lir except that A) they know Raul will find someone to immediately reban Lir, B) they are afraid of being persecuted by Raul, and C) they feel that there was never any kind of public community vote in support of this 'community consensus' policy, and it is therefore ridiculous to have to fight against a rule of "consensus" for which there is clearly no consensus.

At the very least, considering the lack of community consensus, Lir should be allowed a chance to respond to the allegations against him. We have all heard Raul give unsubstantiated evidence about what Lir supposedly did years ago, and he has thus clearly indicated a long-standing grudge and personal bias; but none of that should be in the least bit relevant to the present situation.--

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 08:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you be happier if I said it was true? (It is.) Your idea that Raul654 is "persecuting" anybody is utterly laughable. I didn't think anyone actually believed Lir when he spouted that stuff. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The update's five hours overdue, in need of an administrator to do it. I don't have the time to do it myself else I would. Wizardman 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. It shouldn't be getting this bad, maybe we need some more frequenters of it. Wizardman 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What about adding the status update box from

Template:Did you know/Next update to the top of one of this page of AN/I? Since only admins can update the page it is obviously an "admin issue" and considering the traffic of both of these pages, it would go a long way towards keeping the updates happening in a timely fashion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine

02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily do that, although could parserfunction magic make it appear in

^{[omg plz]}

 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New ArbCom Clerk appointments

The

) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brad! :) Daniel (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers ;)

§

07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all arbs for their vote of confidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope they prove better than that fellah we had to promote out of harms way, a little while back... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could have an early closure of this AfD? This article has no chance of surviving, but discussion with the original author seems to be dragging on, and not going anywhere. I'm not fussed if we wait out the 5 days, but the discussion is clogging the AfD page a little ;) -- Mark Chovain 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a discussion as a monologue. Still, he seems like he's trying to improve the article, so I believe we should let the discussion run its course. - KrakatoaKatie 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats more like a book than a AfD. Tiptoety ^talk 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An exceptionally boring book, at that!

Gladys J Cortez

12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to the talk page of the AFD. --Fredrick day 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking comment on an incident that is nothing but an extraordinary outcome from the inconsistent application of policies and administrative philosophy.

• At 18:34 GMT, March 12, User:Piotrus was reported for violation of
  WP:AN3.[11]
• User:TigerShark blocked User:Piotrus at 23:05 GMT, March 12, 2008 (see block log) and reported the block at WP:AN3 at 23:07 GMT.[12]
• At 04:20 GMT, March 13, having served little more than 5 of the 24 hours, User:Piotrus' friend User:Zscout370 unblocked User:Piotrus with the following rationale: "I looked at the diffs, both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism. Just work it out". No unblocking message with the unblocking rationale was posted and there were no reference to a rationale being an outcome of a discussion that took place elsewhere (we still old-fashionedly assume that whatever takes place at IRC, the wiki-actions need to be justified onwiki, save exceptional (OTRS, RFCU) cases.

After the unblock, the user who filed an original complaint, politely contacted the unblocking admin for clarification. From the discussions that took place later, Request of clarification, IRC unblock and 3RR comments (I am giving permanent links above and below, but please check the current versions for later updates), we can figure out the following course of events:

• Piotrus, himself an administrator, engaged in rabid edit-warring against two different editors and an IP account. He also abused his rollback privilege to revert disputed content edits and typo corrections (permalink)
• After a 3RR report ( permalink, please check for discussion updates) User:Piotrus was blocked for 24 hours by Tigershark
• User:Piotrus courted for an unblocking on the #admins IRC. ("asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's".[13]) and User:Zscout370 agreed to review it. He claimed that [by IRCPM] he strongly warned and cautioned User:Piotrus to just sit down and start discussing.[14]
• Sometime later, according to User:TigerShark, User:Piotrus contacted User:TigerShark on the IRC and said[15] "that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC" and then "lectured" User:TigerShark "on the risk of being de-admined", and that User:TigerShark "was lucky he [Piotrus] had woken up in good mood".
• Piotrus, then makes an outrageous allegation at RFCU that two of his long time content opponents resorted to sockpuppetry after their many years of WP contributions

Besides the specific instance of edit warring and rollback abuse, largely obsolete since stopped and already processed at 3RR, we still have issues that require clarification or the policies correction (disregarding, since this is an ethics issue on which opinions vary, Piotrus' usual resorting to behind the scenes action)

1. problematic unblocking, even if good faithed. It may well be regarded as OK for an admin to undo another admin's action (unblock), and often the agreement of the blocking admin is not sought (often for a reason), but this is usually done only after some discussion has taken place, especially if the admin is unblocking a wiki-friend. The latter condition rather excludes the possibility for a unilateral unblock taken without onwiki discussion (except for undoing an obvious abuse) which could potentially cause a lot of bad faith. Similarly a history of animosity is supposed to exclude unilateral blocking, save blatant editing abuse. Perhaps our policies are not clear enough and require elaboration.
2. lack of posted rationale Even in cases where unilateral unblock is appropriate, the complete rationale is needed. The unblock rationale was flatly lacking here. Neither the explanation for the unblock, nor the warning, nor the reference took place on wiki. Remember, you're not supposed to "refer" to the off-wiki discussion, exceptional cases aside, and if such discussion took place the explanation of the action should be fully given onwiki. Several policies mention the need of on-wiki rationale for wiki actions. Should we make it more conspicuous?
3. spurious unblock summary that says "both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism." This was clearly a content dispute and there were no instances of anything even in the same universe as vandalism. This can be verified by anyone who cares to check the diffs The only thing to suggest vandalism was User:Piotrus's use of rollback during his reverts (you will notice that among the content changes Piotrus rolled back were English and typo corrections, e.g. the rollback restored electional for electoral, vicinage for vicinity and Enlightment for Enlightenment.) As for "both parties" ... as User"TigerShark commented ... how is this exonerating? Anyway,
   WP:BLOCK
   does not say anything about the unblocking summaries. Perhaps because many think that common sense is enough. Is it?
4. Further, Piotrus' attacking TigerShark, boasting being unblocked, threatening and claiming one's being above policies . This is clearly a problem. Credit must be given to User:TigerShark for keeping his cool about this.
5. Frivolously insisting on checkusering. This is more serious than AGF. This is also a privacy issue. While it is important that everyone is able to request checkuser without repercussions, should there be sanctions for clearly frivolous requests? We cannot rely on checkusers' simply rejecting them. This is an abuse of their time and, largely because they lack time already, they may not be able to investigate the validity of every request to see its merit. Again, this is just common sense and perhaps follows under general disruption but it happens. Someone requested a checkuser on me for being a sock of someone who I took to arbcom. So, it happens now and then and seems like common sense is not enough.

Please see (permalinks may need updating) Zscout's talk [16] [17] and 3RR thread for the fuller context.

If all or some of the events listed are acceptable, the community should authorize them and change those policy wordings which now either suggest to the contrary or are silent (which is not good enough in view of above). If it is not acceptable, the community has to do something and cover some of these things, such as use of IRC, RFCU, BLOCKing and unblocking in the policy. Thank you for your time. --Irpen 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While a checkuser was asked, it wasn't asked in a frivolous manner. I have seen at least 5 checkusers asked for a day, and that is only when I am on. Pretty much, when I looked at the unblock policy, they listed email and other admin review to check as acceptable means. So discussion doesn't have to occur on wiki to say yay or nay for blocks and unblocks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for this Irpen. I did notice these events, and made a brief comment (as you probably saw) on

WP:AN3RR

. You are certainly correct that these procedures need clarified, esp. for guys like me who are new admins. I think many would find the way this was conducted quite outrageous, esp. those concerned with the potentially subversive role of the IRC not to mention TigerShark who, as far as the evidence is concerned, was overruled without being consulted for no apparently good reason. I do agree the unblock rationale was weak to say the least.

Certainly you're correct that no vandalism was involved, and Piotrus was besides the only one to violate 3RR. Sure other users there were reverting, but the 3-revert rule is there for a reason ... it is an absolute maximum. If 3RR is only to be apllied when only one user is reverting, you might as well get rid of it. In Reality-land (as opposed to Shouldbe-land) content disputes happen, and 3RR is good way for reducing its inevitable impact. I really think more admins ought to read Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement, and linked pages thereof, to get an idea of how and why this rule came into existence.

So I share your concern about the procedure, esp. if Zscout and Piotrus are known friends (which I couldn't say).

As for Piotrus' use of rollback, I'm sure this must have been a one-off mistake. Mis-hit the button? The alleged intimitation of TigerShark by Piotrus would be concerning, but I can't believe for a moment that Piotrus would do this. Maybe miscommunication?

But to return to the main point, indeed, clarification of policy concerning this kind of thing is indeed needed. I strongly hope this will be forthcoming. I'd also like either 1) Zscout comment on his interpretation of

Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking and explanation of how he used it in this situation or 2) the latter be changed to sanction these events. We certainly can't have a situtation where such a strongly worded policy is routinely ignored by admins, esp. in order to unblock their friends via IRC. We have to remember that wikipedia operates on trust and mutual respect between users, the fair application of policy, particularly in regard to administrator actions. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I have said about anonymous editor (whom I reverted, and the reverts were counted towards 3RR) being disruptive and trolling on several related articles. I have raised this on admin IRC, several admins commented, the consensus apparently was to unblock me and block the anonymous editor.

I am disappointed by TigerShark's behavior; he was rather incivil in his email replies to me, and apparently both misinterpreted my emails and quoted parts of them out of context. That said, I consider his behavior (and judgment) 'water under the bridge' - I don't know TigerShark well enough and everybody is allowed to err now and often. There is however another editor whose behavior is more problematic:

User:Irpen has been found in the recent arbcom

a restriction on Irpen preventing him from interacting with me. This incident represents an unfortunately common pattern (discussed in the linked arbcom): Irpen following my edits, commenting on discussions unrelated to him (but related to me) and fanning the flames in discussions involving me. I find Irpen's report here and criticism of me to be highly unjustified, and if anything merits attention, it's not how I was reverting disruptive edits of an anon and a likely sock, but his stalking of my person.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sysops do not have any special privileges regarding unblocks over any other editor. If you want to contest a block then I suggest the use of the {{unblock|''your reason here''}} option, rather than canvassing #admins for an unblock. I would comment that I believe using #admins an abuse of process, in that there is not the transparency apparent in using the unblock template - and that those admins on IRC unwilling to unblock are not represented. If I found that an admin I had blocked, in good faith, had got themselves unblocked by using such a method I would immediately re-instate the block and review the actions of the unblocking sysop, too.

I realise that people can make mistakes, but that should not be compounded by acting outside of process - if there were good reasons to contest the block it should have been made at the time using the unblock facility. You condescending attitude toward a fellow admin, Tigershark, is noted.

Whatever your feelings toward Irpen, this is a proper bringing of a concern to the Admins Noticeboard. Commenting on the history between you and this (other) admin does not begin to address your apparent disdain for practice and procedure in the manner by which you went off site to have yourself unblocked. Nothing you have said justifies your actions here.

I shall notify Zscout370 of this discussion, and invite their views on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I already posted above, so I am aware of this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So you have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out on my talk page, I been asked to clarify a few hours after the unblock but didn't get to it until I woke up the next morning. A lot of what you want me to say here I have already said to MK and Irpen on my talk page. Yes, off-wiki discussion happens a lot about block making or block reducing. I remember being at #wikipedia and kicking users out for asking for unblocks. Later on, I was asked not to do that anymore, so it became a place to unofficially (at least on wiki) to ask for unblocks. It's like trying to email a user, except you get more faster responses. I personally think with these articles on Eastern Europe (which I also edit), there is a lot of gaming by IP addresses and arbcom cases abound. I personally felt that it was strange for an IP address to make one or two changes, then a new account comes in and takes over. I have seen this before and other admins choose not to block in this manner. As for not talking to TigerShark, there has been a lot of decisions involving me that pretty much occurring without my knowledge. It is SOP for admins not to speak to each other with regards to blocks, or anything else for that manner, unless it is mandated by ArbCom decision (such as with BLP's). I have said all I wish to say for right now here, but I can address specific concerns at my talk page where I can focus on yall one by one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I note the allowed use of the unblock option on the talkpage, contacting the blocking admin by email, and referring the block to ArbCom. While it is noted that Piotrus did contact Tigershark on IRC, it appears that it was after the block was lifted and the discussion reported did not seem to be one of seeking clarification. If there has been the practice of not contacting the blocking admin then I missed that memo, and the policy page seems similarly uninformed. I note that #admins is an appropriate venue to discuss blocks one wishes to place or have placed, but not as a place to have ones own overturned. This is not looking great from where I am standing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zscout, I can only speak for myself here, but I don't find your explanation acceptable atm. Could you please comment on

Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking. This is policy, and it contradicts your last assertions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have said all I want to say on the unblock itself and the unblocking policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Blocking admins for technical infringements is not usually a very productive way of handling a dispute, even someone with opinions as strong as Piotrus' can usually be stopped from making an ass of themselves by some less extreme means, such as emailing them and reminding them not to make themselves look silly. So I don't have a problem with Zscout's unblock, honestly it was no big deal and was evidently done in good faith. Piotrus' retaliatory accusations and IRC comments, though, are a bit more of an issue. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Admins are not exempt from 3RR. Reverting blocks issued to admins because they are admins (which isn't what anyone claims has happened) for 3RR violations undermines the preventative value of the 3RR and of course creates an impression of unfairness. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody is. But any long-standing contributor who steps over the 3RR line and then indicates that they won't do it again, should be unblocked. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Thise of us with more than a few months' editing (and discounting the seasoned edit warriors) will normally calm down and realise we've been daft; serving out a block for a technical offence is not really required in such cases unless we genuinely think that letting the block stand will serve to prevent further disruption. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am less concerned with Zscout370's unblock - although a comprehensive unblock rationale would have been nice - than the way that the unblock was requested. If it was an obviously poor block, and I have no opinion on that although I AGF of Tigershark reasons, then it could be clearly stated in the unblock request on the blockees talkpage. I get tired of telling people that sysops have no more editing rights than other users, only for a sysop go and do something that gives admin bashers more ammunition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at it myself my problem with the unblock is the assertion that it is SOP for admins not to talk with each other about blocks. I was asked about this on my RFA last year and I am sure if I had not said that I would discuss unblocking with the blocking admin as per policy the RFA would have failed very easily. Davewild (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins must be help to a higher standard level than editors for the simple reason that admins have been entrusted by the community. If an admin edit wars and violates 3RR then they must serve the entire length of the block. Bstone (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking, "[a]dministrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Neither of these appears to have taken place here. Secondly, Piotrus was blocked as an editor. Regardless of whether the block was right or wrong, his adminship is irrelevant, because he wasn't blocked as an admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• So s/admin/longstanding editor/ and the point stands. Did anyone try to remind Piotrus before he hit the third revert, that it was time to take a deep breath? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

PS to my post above - there is one thing I forgot to add, and perhaps this point is the most relevant to those who are new to admin powers and 3RR. The 3RR rule is not meant as a punishment; it is a preventative tool. It is supposed to be used to stop an editor who shows no signs of stopping in a revert war. Now, it should be relatively clear from my contribs/page that I know when to stop - it is not that the 'experienced contributors are 3RR immune', it is that 'they usually know better'. Whether one agrees I was reverting an anon vandal or disagree, the right thing to do in such a case is to (semi)protect the page and drop me a warning I may be going to far. The wrong thing to do is to prevent me from creating content, which I do on a daily basis (right after my unblock, which thankfully happened a few minutes after I realized it, I went on the

03:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

I have looked into this case carefully. Summary and thoughts follow.

Facts of the edit war

This was an edit war via reversion, between

edit warred

.

Piotrus, an administrator, was reported to

by MK, an opposing editor who had not breached 3RR but had edit warred (as they all had).

The report was valid and Piotrus was blocked by TigerShark, an administrator since 2006, for 3RR, but TigerShark did not go beyond the obvious to see if anyone else was at fault for edit warring, probably since nobody else had been reported at 3RR. Other administrators Dmcdevit and Stifle blocked 62.212.208.65 and Halibutt respectively, for edit warring too. (MK was not blocked, although equally involved.) During the edit war, users on each side had each called each others edits "distortion" and on one occasion each, "OR" and "vandalism". Piotrus also called his and halibutt's the "preferred version" although in fact the version he called "preferred" was not the stable version at all for this article, but the new version created by Halibutt that triggered the edit war. The article had been stable from 9 March, back to 24 December (with only about 4 edits in that time), up to the point Halibutt first edited"Vilius" to "Vilna".

IRC

I have reviewed the channel logs on IRC and can therefore comment on the next step. The logs themselves are private obviously.

Roughly speaking, Piotrus states he has been blocked and that the block was placed by someone criticized for blocks at arbcom and suspected on an RFCU of IP puppetry on the article in question. He states that being blocked for reverting vandals is not good and claims that as an "experienced admin" he should be warned and does not deserve blocking. He describes the incident as possible sock IP(s) making disruptive edits and states the two users are "pov trolls" who have been parties at Arbcom, and that he knows they are sockpuppets and he is mostly sure he knows who of. Two admins mostly respond to help him,

- also decides to unblock Piotrus. In his unblock Zscout370 states "both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism".

Other comments

This was the end of the actual dispute visible to me. Discussion on Zscout370's talk page and ANI took place, in which Irpen commented. Further statements made (summed up) were:

• Piotrus to TigerShark (according to TigerShark) - "Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock)." [18]

• Zscout370 - "3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that" [19]. "If I can be frank, this is an issue that happens a lot on Eastern European articles (I work on Belarusian articles) so I know the possible gaming tactics. He asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's" [20]

Analysis

Nobody really acted well here. The four users all edit warred, and especially, Piotrus joined the existing edit war rather than (as an administrator) acting in an admin capacity, to calm it, or help it finish. TigerShark correctly acted in blocking Piotrus (in my view) but could probably have thought to check if others were

) so it wasn't just one sided; warn all four of them to cease the edit war (in fact they did at that time anyway), and perhaps drop Piotrus a note to help him think about how as an admin he could have helped better.

A weakness here was that everyone just thought in terms of

is policy too, and clear edit warring (which this very obviously was) is not okay even if it is under 4 reverts a day.

Piotrus I feel did act improperly, but this should have been caught. Visiting IRC to ask for an unblock is fine, as would emailing unblock-l be. But his descriptions of why are grossly inaccurate, his statement that he should have different treatment from the norm when in fact he has breached a more demanding standard as an admin is slightly shocking, and his description of his opponents is questionable, and in fact has now been looked at by two checkusers who feel it is not by any means evident. (It should be noted that I am

", declares the new version "the preferred version" for this article, and so on.)

Zscout370 does not check this carefully, and states that 3RR is "discretionary" and that an "IP editor" started it and that the IP then got a new account to avoid 3RR. This is fairly good corroborative evidence that he probably relied upon Piotrus, since a look at the page history shows clearly that in fact Zscout was wrong on almost every particular, and his errors followed Piotrus' description on IRC. In fact Halibutt (not an IP) started the edit war, and prior to the edit war there had been only 4 edits in the 2.5 months from Dec 24 - Mar 9... only one of those was by an IP, and that IP made one edit that was not at issue in the edit war. Also the IP that was warring, joined the edit war after its co-warrior MK, so it didn't "get a new account". Further, whilst anything can be IAR'ed, the disregard for edit warring is not really okay, and one doesn't unblock a user because some other user wasn't blocked too. Edit warring bad. That said if Zscout370 honestly did believe Piotrus then he would have been right to unblock; the problem was he essentially overturned another admins block on the say-so of the blockee, who for whatever reason did not describe it accurately... and he never checked. In any practical sense, Irpen was right to comment he was duped, but that would never have been a problem if he had done his job properly and checked (or at least, consulted).

Summary

What do I think should happen? Its a week now since the incident, and the matter is stale, the edit war over. I think those involved -- the 3 non-admin edit warriors and Piotrus -- should reflect hard on their actions, and if similar matters come up again consider that their actions may gain more scrutiny since they were not okay this time. Zscout370 who acted in good faith but poor judgement and didn't check for himself... also learn from it. I don't propose to take any action. I don't see the need right now, and we don't do "punitive" here. But there are lessons, for sure.

As always, if anything here is factually in error or unfair, please let me know and I'll correct myself. It is a complex edit war and perhaps possible that I have missed something.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

About blocking for 3RR violations I've seen several different approaches - there's the traditional block of the violator(s) usually for the traditional 24h if the violator has knowledge of the rule, but there's also been the warning of one party, the warning of both parties, the decision to block none, the blocking of both parties or the protection of the page. All of these can favour or disfavour persons and I'm not going to argue which rule is the better one and if one particular rule to deal with violations should be generally adopted at all. My point is simply that a sysop has pretty much free choice, that much is simply decided by their judgement. Again, I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but in this current situation of having more or less a free hand, I think that this power mustn't be misused under personal favouritism.

It was at least questionable unblocking Piotrus, who had then been behaving quite admin-unlike, reverting content-related changes on eleven different pages as far as 24h prior to the report were concerned, generally not marking content-related reverts (except when misusing the rollback function three times), little or no discussion and overstepping 3RR twice (once self-reverting after the 4th). (Shortly after being unblocked again, Piotrus further reverted twice at History of Lithuania.) The other circumstances pointed out throughout the topic add to it. TigerShark is a regular at the 3RR board and had no previous encounters with Piotrus as far I can see. But Piotrus and Zscout370 have had several (very friendly) ones, including when either was under fire: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] What has happened here - using a murky one-to-one IRC conversation with someone (or several?) friendly-inclined to get unblocked rather than the standardised neutral and transparent approaches - is plainly wrong. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2, your summary of events matches my understanding and is very clear and coherent. Thank you!

Regarding 3RR, I personally am not of the opinion that users involved in content disputes should be terrorized into not reporting 3RR violations. A large chunk of the reports on

are users reporting their content dispute "opponents". WP:AN3RR is the main instrument by which 3RR violations are monitored, the rule itself enforced and thus the "electric fence" upheld. Do we really want to cut the hand that feeds it, or rather, cut the power to the electric fence?

Frankly, contrary to what some people state, the 3RR blocks are punitive. Their punitive nature acts in practice as a deterrant and thus protects wikipedia. Thus it is not the case that "punitive" and protecting wikipedia are mutually exclusive. They shouldn't be merely punitive of course, but that is not what's [usually] stated.

At some stage in the last year or so someone or a bunch of people have moved on from 3RR as the main way of limiting content disputes to punishments for "edit warring". The discourse community made up of a number of admins has resolved that 1)edit warring to the limit of 3RR is "gaming the system" and 2) that gaming the system is "bad". My own view, human beings will always game any system, and they'll game any new system introduced to prevent "gaming the system" and so on ad infinitum. Our civilization is built on gaming the system! If the 3RR system is not limiting enough, refine the system rather than preach about the old one being "gamed". The new way of dealing with content disputes, leaving interpretations of "edit-warring" and resulting punishments at the "discretion" of admins is the worst possible. The admin community ... and I'm speaking now as a member ... is not competent or trustworthy enough as a corps for this. Such freedom for admins causes more trouble than it's worth, e.g. vandal-zapping admins blocking good content creators for reverting IP troll and vandalism because they didn't put the effort or (frankly) don't have the intellectual skill to detect the nuances of a content dispute.

So in relation to M.K., I cannot have agree that he outght to have received any more than a warning. TigerShark handled the 3RR violation, and blocked for this

) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, sorry, but that gets a TL:DR here. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with most of FT2's analysis but I do refute the suggestion that I did not check the edits of other. The article history looked like this at the time I reviewed and blocked. My analysis then, and now, is that over the previous 24 hours Piotrus had reverted 4 times as part of a content dispute (as opposed to addressing vandalism etc). In the same period of time, I cannot see another user reverting more than 3 times, apart from Halibutt (who was already blocked at 10:48 that morning) Some users had groups of edits so that their edit count was higher than 3 (e.g. the 3 edits from Halibutt between 10:12 and 10:44), but I would consider each group as a single revert. On this basis, the number of reverts, in the 24 hours before Piotrus's 4th revert at 17:07 on the 12th, would seem to be:

• Piotrus - 4
• 62.212.208.65 - 3
• Halibutt - 4
• M.K - 3

In terms of how recent the reverts were - Piotrus's last revert was at 17:07, 62... made their last revert at 13:41, Halibutt's was at 10:44 (albeit that they were blocked at 10:48) and M.K.'s was at 9:39.

Looking at the ongoing trend, from March 9th (4 days), the number of reverts was:

• Piotrus - 5
• 62.212.208.65 - 5
• Halibutt - 7
• M.K - 5

So, on the whole, this was not a rampant edit war with large numbers of reverts by individuals. The only editors that actually violated 3RR were Piotrus and Halibutt. I blocked Piotrus and would also have blocked Halibutt if they had not already been blocked. 62... and M.K. may have touched the 3 edit limit, but just once, did not have a lot of reverts over the whole period and, by the time of my review, had not reverted for a substantial amount of time.

I would also like to point out that at the time of my review, neither 62... nor M.K. were in danger of violating 3RR. They could both of have reverted right then, because in the preceeding 24 hours they both only had one revert each.

Further, in my opinion, M.K. did not need to be warned as they had raised the report at WP:AN3 - so were aware of the 3RR policy (I do not consider the warning as a threat, rather as a notification that the limit exists - which M.K. must have known).

Those are the facts surrounding by review of the edit war, as I see them. I would hope they do support the assertion that I did review the situation, and may question how closely the situation was reviewed by others.

As for my opinion on the other matters, Piotrus clearly knew the 3RR policy (having been blocked previously in regard to 3RR) and had violated 3RR. The block was therefore good in my opinion, and this seems to be the general consensus. Certainly the only reasoning that Piotrus provided to me for him not being blocked, was based upon his experience and the amount of content he contributes. From the FT2's IRC analysis, it seems that the email to me was not the only place that Piotrus tried to use his experience as a reason for not being blocked. At best I would consider it irrelevant, and at worst his experience makes violating policy even more unacceptable. It would seem that at least one other editor considers that there is some special privilege from experience to the point of not be subject to policy as much as the next editor - I strongly disagree with this. I was also unhappy with Piotrus's email to me, especially claiming that admins get de-sysopped for acting in the manner I did.

I do not consider Zscout370's unblock to be justified, partly due to the facts raised in my analysis above, but also because the reason for unblocking given was clearly against policy. The fact that he did it without consulting me is not ideal, but going against policy so clearly is far more worrying.

I think that is all I have to say for now. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the outcome, if any? Is this case closed, or was it just archived? I had noticed this "4 equals 3 for some" incident. I was very displeased with several aspects of it, but I was not surprised, which is the most unpleasant aspect of it all. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Before we start any conversation about an edit war, I would like to first address who exactly has been trying to preserve this policy. That is what I have been doing with every edit I have made to the Rudolph Valentino page. This user has been typing bias content in the Rudolph Valentino article, like that: he was the only lead actor in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: that he was a better onscreen lover than Douglas Fairbanks; that he came to America with $20,000.00 in his pocket; and that some facts were unproven rumors. Singing voices also do not determine one's natural voice. For example, look at Jim Nabors. He had a Southern drawl but still could perform opera quite well. This user deserves to be blocked for violating the NPOV policy.Kevin j (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this issue may be suffering from multiple posting. See above at #Rudolph Valentino page. Both User:Thegingerone and User:Kevin j have requested help at User talk:EdJohnston. I gave 3RR warnings to both about Rudolph Valentino, and someone else has full-protected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, you have a lot of good criticisms of the article, and the edit ideas you have are useful.

Edit wars, however, are not useful. Please use Talk:Rudolph Valentino to make your points. Please work with other editors involved to get the language right for the article. Collaborate and be civil. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk

) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia Gone Topsy-Turvy All of A Sudden? I have no intent to slander anybody, but it is ridiculous the way you keep labeling us as both equally on tract. Read the pages we have typed on the Rudolph Valentino page. The user Thegingerone does vandalism to this page by writing like it is a fan page, and has written many bias content that is unproven.Kevin j (talk)

What? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Once Again, I'm Asking has Wikipedia Gone Topsy-Turvy? I personally find it prejudice the way you administrators have been labelling me as equally at fault as Thegingerone. The user Thegingerone damages the Rudolph Valentino page with POV vandalism, and continued with it on the Pollyanna page, where the user said that the film Pollyanna was the main turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Read the page histories for yourself. The user deserves a block, and I wish you people would not act with bias accusations against me and assume I'm just as at fault when I am not. I care for the NPOV policyKevin j (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has not gone tipsy turvy. This is just a common content dispute, and the reason why you may feel that we are placing the blame on both of you is that you are both edit warring. Please let us work this out without continually commenting on our behavior. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For the Third Time, Has Wikipedia Gone Topsy Turvy? No, this is not a common content dispute, it is an issue pertaining to POV vandalism. I know the vandalism policies and I know about the NPOV policy as well. The user does do it, and you administrators should take a good look at the content in page histories.

Once again, I personally find it prejudice the way you administrators have been labelling me as equally at fault as Thegingerone. The user Thegingerone damages the Rudolph Valentino page with POV vandalism, and continued with it on the Pollyanna page, where the user said that the film Pollyanna was the main turning point in Mary Pickford's career. Read the page histories for yourself. The user deserves a block, and I wish you people would not act with bias accusations against me and assume I'm just as at fault when I am not. I care for the NPOV policy. Also I'm am not whinning or demanding for my want. Bigotry is unacceptable.Kevin j (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting on this page. The matter is being handled. You are being disruptive. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As the issue is being handled, it is generally improper to ask the same question three times when you are not satisfied with the answer you receive the first and second time around. I strongly recommend that you let it go. I won't say that raising concerns is in itself disruptive, but - in this case - making new posts on old issues is not productive. I'll add that, if you truly believe that the admin in this case was wrong to warn you, the best way to prove that he/she was wrong would be to edit productively from now on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this user is having trouble with Wikimarkup? He's allowed to post here. I removed the equal signs and replaced them with bold. Three posts just became one conversation. No comment (as I've not researched) as to his complaint or any complaints about him. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the edits of

). Given this, I think any edits this chap makes to Perso-Turkic articles could do with a little extra scrutiny.

And while you're at it, the same applies, for a different set of articles, to Marcos G. Tusar (talk · contribs) (Slovenian, see here for more information). Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

DesktopBSD logos and artwork is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License. Austria. See in http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=76, see

) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, use {{db-i3}} to tag such images. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Shooke (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let the head administrators of the site know, the article for Lewis Black's show "Root of All Evil" has been changed to "Lewis Black's Root of All Evil." I noticed though, that instead of Lewis, his name was spelled with a typo and instead the article is titled "Lews Black's Root of All Evil," and "Lews" needs to be changed to "Lewis." I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but looking through wikipedia's millions of pages to find where to correctly post it was hell to find, so I'm hoping this works.

Lews Black's Root of All Evil

PS - I hope this is all correct this time.

28:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is notification that I have blanked the article

) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added back the filmography, as that seems to be completely uncontroversial. I feel this blanking was draconian, and have said so to Sceptre (on IRC). Simply removing the ridiculous 'controversy' section would have dealt with any real BLP problem. By comparison, I supported Sceptre's blanking of Hal Turner, which really did have issues. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to announce this here. John Reaves 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fair notification. If I just went around stubbing articles without telling anyone, I'd get blocked. This way, I'm keeping my intentions totally transparent. Will ^(talk) 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, will watchlist it. Note to J Milburn: No, not draconian. Normal practice in egregious BLP cases, we don't know if there's subtle vandalism embedded in the other content. Good editors are always welcome to reintroduce that material which complies with policy. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that- as I said earlier, I agreed with Sceptre's blanking of Hal Turner. However, I refute completely that this is a serious enough case to warrant blanking. (On another note- gah, draconian, not draconic. Too much D&D...) J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I understood you intention. I choose poor wording for some reason. Just seems like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would be a better place. John Reaves 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. If you do check, it's crossposted there too :) Will ^(talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sickero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User (who mentions on his own Request for Adminship page that he knows he has "had problems in the past with vandalism") made a large unsourced addition to the Norteños article which I largely wrote. I specified that the information was unsourced/unreferenced, but he undid the changes without any explanation or addition of a reference [28][29]. Now he insists on stalking me by randomly undoing any anti-spamlink or anti-vandalism/unreferenced edits that I make. Diffs for at least four different articles include [30][31][32][33][34]. Not sure if there is a better place to report wiki stalking, but there you have it, retaliatory undos. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in at least a couple of those diffs, Sickero makes the SAME changes you make after ANOTHER IP reverts your changes. Check, for example, that

Gladys J Cortez

13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone restore Lost (TV series)? I think it got accidentally deleted while we were fixing Grawp's most recent page moves. I've been trying, but the restore screen keeps timing out. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That has well over 5000 edits, it shouldn't have been deletable even in error, or is this a loophole/bug? Gimmetrow 07:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. Still no luck, I've tried every method I can think of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This may need a dev. Would there be any support to move-protecting most featured articles? Gimmetrow 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh oh, redirects to that page are getting deleted under R1 now. Gimmetrow 07:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This may require a developer or system admin... Also, I restored the redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Crisis averted. East718 got it back, somehow. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent this to AfD yesterday but I must have been asleep. It appears it's a copy of Haze (video game) with a few changes. There are more details at the AfD. Can someone take a look and close this out early if they agree. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently I created

) 13:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you drop a list of all the templates historys you want merged and the one you want it merged into on my talk page and ill work on it? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 CompletedI merged {{

Zelda games}} into {{The Legend of Zelda}}. If i missed one, let me know! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider}

13:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've run across DaughterofSun (talk · contribs) who is spamming various user talk pages with User:Felipe Aira/Campaign. I've been trying to figure out where the list of editors is originating from, but I can't figure out the common denominator. Some editors left the message are active while others are not. I'm a bit torn on what to do about this. On one hand, it's spam. On the other hand, it might be an official campaign by a sister Wiki. So I'm looking for some consensus on what to do with this. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they all have a user category relating to the Philippines on their userpages. I don't see that it's doing much harm when (so far) about 18 editors have received the note. Splash - tk 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Aira (talk · contribs) sent it to about 18 editors, but DaughterofSun has sent it to over 250 editors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several entries at

) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All cleared. Mr.Z-man 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this here, but my request at

04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rodhullandemu. :) faithless (^speak) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps adding to well-known Arab female singers that they are the girlfriend of a person...with his own name. Also adds that he is the friend of a lot of famous people (Like president Sarkozi). It also looks as if he is useing IPs to do the same; check the contributions of:

• 212.72.2.83 (talk · contribs)
• 212.72.18.59 (talk · contribs)
• 85.154.8.5 (talk · contribs)
• 85.154.10.236 (talk · contribs)
• 82.178.92.105 (talk · contribs)

I cannot find a single positive contribution, and some of the vandalism has stayed in the articles for weeks. Can some admin please look into this? Regards, Huldra (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI. / edg ☺ ☭

13:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes,

• Qaisalkhonji (talk · contribs) started adding "Qais al-Khonji" to List of Young Global Leaders, + he was the friend/boyfriend of a lot of rich and famous people. When that was reverted, he started using IPs.
• 85.154.8.142 (talk · contribs) ..yet another IP he is using. Keep searching for "Qais al-Khonji" to find new IP´s. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My User Name is "David in DC" I have edited the The Awareness Center extensively and been involved in some heated conversation there.

Someone with the User Name "DavidD in DC" recently blanked both the article and its talk page. Others have reverted this vandalism.

I have posted a challenge on the talk page of "DavidD in DC" and asked him to change his handle.

I have posted a note on the Awareness Center's talk page, alerting editors in an effort to stymie this joker. Can you do more, please?

I first posted this request to the UAA board and was directed here by Rudget. David in DC (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked DavidD in DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and indicated that I'll unblock if he wishes to edit constructively following a new choice of username [36]. Splash - tk 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. David in DC (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no need to unblock that account with the similar username if he chooses to edit constructively under another username is there? It's best to let it lie dormant for the reasons David in DC chose to post this dicussion. Lradrama 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure my memory is not at fault:

) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Log/delete ? -- KTC (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Doesn't allow prefix or "wild card" search which is waht we had. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have opened the question of a topic ban against a disruptive editor at ANI under the subject "User:Justpassinby". The only other administrator who has weighed in agrees that this is appropriate, but given the nature of the conversation I'd appreciate additional feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User has subsequently been indef blocked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys and girls, just stumbled across Image:DennisMortimer.jpg which User:Chasetown07 claims is entirely his own work. Amongst his other contributions are Image:Peter Withe.jpg (which has a curious similarity to this) and Image:Dwight Yorke Aston Villa.jpg (which vaguely resembles this). I'm just curious how we've dealt with this sort of thing before? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unless Chasetown07 is a professional sports photographer and has been since at least 1982, these aren't his own work, The Dennis Mortimer one comes from [37] by the way. I presume we just delete these through
  WP:CSD#I9? Black Kite
  17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Rightyho I'll work my way through them and remove them appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User DbelangeB, contribs Special:Contributions/DbelangeB, has been creating pages with useless or otherwise meaningless content for some time. For example, the article Copalindrome describes a construct which is completely redundant, and serves only to confuse readers of the subject (it is also content-less and unsupported by fact). User has described himself as a clever troll (in those terms) who aims to disrupt the Wikipedia project.

Contributions by this user are generally of little worth, and while they may not count as explicit vandalism, they do not contribute meaningfully to these pages.

I respectfully submit that this user be carefully investigated. I can say that I know this person, and he has admitted that he has no good intentions for the Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.51.61 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 Mar 2008

FYI, above account is a

WP:SPA.--Nsevs • Talk

02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:129.97.51.61, please stop attacking other users. I have seen the contributions of User:DbelangeB and he is trying to help the project. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have seen? He recreated an article that was later deleted as patent nonsense (created it twice). He uploaded an image that was deleted as an attack iamge. He created a second article (Chelophilately) that was also deleted as nonsense. He is trying to help the project? Prove me wrong. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am seeing some apparent good-faith contributions, such as this, this, and this, minor grammar and wording fixes all. The deleted contribs, including some speedied articles, are less than encouraging - but do not themselves signal a bad-faith contributor, but an inexperienced one. I note, also, that the last of these was on 6 March, two weeks ago. I presume that you have a diff or link to the comment from this user indicating that they intend to troll? I'm not finding it in their contributions. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one who made the allegation that this user intends to troll. Ask the IP address for that info. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that image can be considered an attack image. See my response on DBelangeB's talk page for my reasoning.

I noticed this complaint just now, when looking for additional information about this user. I have filed an open sockpuppet case against DbelangeB at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DbelangeB. nneonneo (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your sockpuppet notice and informed him about this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator or editor take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Threats_of_violence, see if consensus is there or now, and the likelihood of it forming... or not? Thanks in advance, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A second pair of admin eyes would do some good here actually, it looks like there is the beginning of a small scale edit war over placing the rejected or proposal template on this policy. Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching it again, for at least a couple of weeks... or longer :) NonvocalScream (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Their behaviour might provoke me to threats of violence. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, under the proposed plan, I would have to take the seriously. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Per a thread on my talk page, we have over 300 links to this "news site" which looks legit but if you read the disclaimer turns out not to be. The disclaimer says:

Disclaimer: Many of the stories on this site may or may not contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Where ever and whenever possible The Post Chronicle™ sources and or includes the name of the author/owner and gives them full recognition for the excellent and invaluable work they do. The Post Chronicle™ make such information available because of it's newsworthiness in our efforts to advance understanding of: free speech, the free press, environmental issues, political practices, human rights, economics, democracy in general, science, political and social issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. The Post Chronicle™ accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of The Post Chronicle™. We run banner advertising in order to cover the operating costs of delivering the material.

It's also being used as a source for critical material in

.

It seems to me that per

, this needs to go. It's more than I can handle in anything like short order, and may be a good candidate for anyone with good AWB skills or a handy bot.

We also need to consider what, if anything, to do about Smokefan2007, and his IP, User:69.125.122.202, and the article on Marc Centanni, the site's CEO. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that last, it's been A7'd once before and we know how to deal with autobiographies that rely on the school yearbook to achieve the magic two sources.

postchronicle.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Smokefan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 69.125.122.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

There's some cross-wiki links out there - is this a candidate for global blacklisting? It certainly justifies me running a spamsearch tomorrow. MER-C 13:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed a couple of these. I'm not particularly impressed with the notion that it's our responsibility to police potential copyright violations on third-party sites, and I think that we should give such sites the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases (parody/satire, fair use, etc). But, copyright issues or no, this site is clearly an unreliable source and there's no reason we should ever be citing it when we have much better, mainstream news sources available online at no charge. I suggest that, before removing references, do a Google search to see if the material can be cited to a more reliable source instead. That was the case, for instance, in the Brad Delp article (see [38] - only took about 30 seconds to track this down). Some material on this site, however, is pure gossip and should be removed entirely. There are some gross BLP violations "sourced" to this — see [39] for one that I found almost immediately. *** Crotalus *** 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• We should not be linking to sites that say right up front that they violate copyright. That could be construed as contributory infringement. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per this comment I have blocked Smokefan2007 - I don't think comparisons with Adolf Eichmann are an acceptable way to deal with other users. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good call Guy, people see something one South Park and they think it is appropriate to repeat here, but it isn't.

_(1 == 2)^Until

15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that this site can't really be relied on as a source, I'm a little aghast at how Smokefan2007 (talk · contribs) has been treated. I also think that he is associated with the website in question, and that his block by JzG was probably warranted, but it should be kept in mind that the people who run this site are also living people. The communications with this user by JzG and FCYTravis, and the edit summaries being used by Crotalus horridus in removing links, seem intentionally designed to piss the user off and provoke a reaction, and prevent any chance of people involved contributing usefully. Couldn't this have been done in a more professional way? Nesodak (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit nonplussed by this. How, exactly, were these communications inappropriate? I went out of my way to suggest to the user that he cease the legal threats and constructively address the question at hand (whether his site should be considered a reliable source). His response was to attack me. I'm not quite sure how this could have been handled with any more "kid gloves" than it was.

talk

) 17:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended...maybe I'm too touchy-feely for situations like this. I just saw that you filed a lot of reports in different places referring to this person as a spammer. Also JzG has told the person that we don't want their help, and Crotalus horridus keeps referring to the site as a "spam aggregator". It may be an unreliable source, but I don't think "spam aggregator" would be accurate. I think Smokefan2007 definitely had some conflict of interest problems, but they also made useful contributions. Maybe they had to be blocked, given the threats at the end, but I can't help feeling that could have been avoided. And to keep kicking them only seems to encourage further animosity. Nesodak (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other name can be applied to someone whose contributions overwhelmingly consisted of inserting links to a single Web site, and who responded to attempts to question that site's sourcing suitability with legal bluster and ad-hominem remarks. "Multitudinous single-site link adder and defender?" And nonplussed doesn't mean offended, so I'm not offended by your question - puzzled, is more like it :)

talk

) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from...maybe that's what it takes to protect Wikipedia, I get that. I've just seen in lots of Internet communications that being confrontational and using loaded terms just encourages the other person to declare war, where being neutral and referring to site policy seems to result in the person giving up and going away. Anyway, I'm glad you weren't offended, and consider the matter dropped so far as I am concerned. Ta! Nesodak (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

← Nesodak, your good faith does you credit, but I'm afraid Travis and I are somewhat more jaded. Yes, there are going to be cases where

) 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, for responding! No, I understand - I was just saying that maybe it would have been better to take the high road and simply state policy in regards to this person, rather than getting into the gutter to argue with them. But you guys obviously have more wisdom in smoothly dealing with these problems than me. Nesodak (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, you have to have some word to describe a behavior which is inappropriate, and you have to use those words when calling attention to someone who may be engaging in that behavior. Otherwise, how do you communicate?

talk

) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also on ANI. Closed as delete per licensing problems compounded by questions over appropriateness. No doubt it will end up at DRV. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I need Category:Fictional martial arts masters and Category:Fictional elderly martial arts master deleted because, in regards to the former, I wanted "elderly" in the title and there is already a category called Category:Fictional martial artists. In regards to the latter, it is not in the required plural form. I have created a new category to fix the plural problem. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough. If you get to know one or two admins who work on articles with you, you can ask them directly for simple things like this. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or just tag them with {{

CAT:CSD will delete them for you. Happy‑melon

19:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal edits, 3RR violations, personal harassment, and falsification of facts by User:Andrejj

This user keeps removing the unreferenced template from the geographical articles without cited sources of Zidani Most [40] [41] [42], and Žiri [43] [44] [45] [46].

They keep re-adding the same message on my talk page despite its previous removal, where they imply that the references on one of those articles are listed when they are not [47] [48] [49]; and they've been caught falsifying edit dates on article talk pages instead of using tildes to reflect the factual time of editing [50].

I've reviewed some of their other contributions, and I've noticed that the user often doesn't care whether the edits that they revert are legible or not, but rather whether the user doesn't agree with them, in which case the user reverts them without any or with a misleading explanation. Gooddays (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that these articles need the unreferenced tag, I would like to also point out that the user has not actually violated 3RR, and I don't see much evidence of pure vandalism or harrasment. I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. Instead of fighting this in this way, why not be proactive and find some references?

Tanthalas39 (talk

) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes he has, on the second referenced page. My mistake, that sort of changes things.

Tanthalas39 (talk

) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Due to an acute vandalism attack by a bunch of IPs, this page has been semi-protected. Just a notice. —Kurykh 04:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

They're late tonight. What kept them? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

One would have thought their lack of punctuality is immaterial... —Kurykh 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate bot for AN/I maintenance in trial

A proposed bot that has been

the bot owners' noticeboard

into neat subpages. The intent is to apply that function to AN/I (and possibly AN) eventually to allow

• Simpler archival (and return from archival) of threads
• Watching individual threads
• Keeping the edit volume on the noticeboard low (watching the noticeboard will allow one to see new threads)

Adding a new subpage is done entirely automatically: the bot creates them from new sections added to the page in the usual way completely transparently.

• Permanent links to threads remain valid indefinitely after archival.

Previous attempts at discussing the bot have met with little interest— I would suggest that everyone who habitually watches these noticeboards to keep an eye on

WP:BON

to see how the bot works and comment on it before it goes live.

Of particular interest:

• Is the section header adequate for everybody's need?
• Should more links be provided than [edit] and [watch this thread]?
• Keep an eye out for bugs, obviously.

The only known drawback of this scheme is that the automatically-created subpage cannot be automatically watched by the creator of the thread on creation— this is unfortunate but unavoidable because the subpage obviously does not yet exist at the time of the edit (further edits to the subpage, of course, behave normally). There are a few possible workarounds involving either talk page notification when the thread is created (providing a "watch the subpage" link), or javascript trickery, but none that appear clean or straightforward to use. Suggestions are, of course, appreciated. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I just clarify -- this means that the discussions currently taking place on the noticeboard would be held in subpages and transcluded into the main page? My major reservation about this is that it makes regular studying of the noticeboard necessary. I find it very helpful indeed to see on my watchlist which threads are appearing most often (i.e. being edited most often) and therefore which might be useful to comment on. Am I right in thinking that this would be impossible with this system? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, arguably, this means you need but watch the subpages that are of interest to you instead of sorting through all the edits to pick up the "good" stuff. Watching the main noticeboard, on the other hand, will pop up when a new thread is added. YMMV, but I think the advantages of being able to watch the threads of import outweigh the ability to find the "hot" threads— but that's entirely personal opinion there. — Coren ^(talk) 00:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, that's kind of what I was afraid of. I'm not particularly enamoured with either the current system or your proposed solution: the problem is that too much goes on. The disadvantage of each is that it is easy to miss something. The particular disadvantage of the proposed change is that it requires basically reading every thread on the page. I'm not arguing either way -- I'm just trying to figure out the relative advantages and disadvantages. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else found the solution: Related changes; with a single clicky link you get to see all the changes to the linked subpages at a glance, and separated by thread to boot! — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just from reading the above, that sounds like a great idea. I just looked at

WP:BON and I like the "watch this thread" links. Thanks, Coren – good work! My already high esteem for you hereby goes up 2 notches. Re Sam Korn's concern: Is there any way for a user to opt in to having the subpages automatically added to their watchlist? How about maintaining a separate, dummy page which is edited every time one of the subpages is edited, with the same edit summary (but null contents?) so that users can watch that if they prefer? --Coppertwig (talk

) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure

Mediawiki doesn't give us a trick to "watch subpages of X"... but that would be useful in a number of circumstances regardless, there are a number of processes that work with a bunch of grouped subpages. — Coren ^(talk)

00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As for a page with a log of edits, that would be workable. It's fairly easy to create a bot that watches RC to keep the page updated, but that means literally doubling the edits that go on— whether that's a reasonable trade off is not obvious. — Coren ^(talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Horrible idea. Viridae^Talk 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I don't believe that this would be an improvement: using the watchlist/history to be able to see active threads is a useful feature. I am a bit confused with how archival of threads would be made easier. Isn't that done by a bot already? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, only the transclusion needs be moved, leaving the history with the archive. Also, if a thread needs to be brought back all that's needed is to get the transclusion back on the noticeboard. There's also the possibility to archive with a link and title, instead of a transclusion, so that the archive page would look more like:

• Some title [[Link to discussion]]
• Adm1n Abuze!!1![[Link to discussion]]

Plus, and I just added that above, it means that permalinks to threads remain valid even if a thread gets archived. — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving, actually, is more complicated: you need to edit the main page, an archive, and also the discussion subpage itself to close the discussion. To your main point, the fact that the history remains with the archive is exactly the problem, since you can then no longer read through the history of ANI conveniently. There are a variety of problems with this aside from the fact that it makes watching ANI difficult; e.g. any absolutely-positioned vandalism becomes challenging to revert, requiring you to first figure out where the edit was made. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain I understand your point about vandalism; could you give me an example? — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For instance if I add to one of the subpages code that places something offensive in the upper right hand of the page, or anything along those lines. When transcluded this will appear atop ANI, but there is no way to tell from looking at ANI where the edit was made, so you need to dig through the history of the individual subpages to find and revert it. The same problem came up with the main page when edits to obscure templates, of which hundreds transclude onto the main page, were used to place penis images onto the main page. This is more an example of the problems created by using a lot of transclusion than a serious difficulty, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone on the BRFA page just volunteered the fix for both problems at once: Special:RecentChangesLinked! That gives you all the changes to all the transcluded subpages at a single glance! — Coren ^(talk) 04:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

... that would give something like Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/active. Perfect! — Coren ^(talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That someone was me, and that measure would satisfy any concerns I have about this. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So you got thanked twice without my noticing.  :-) It's already implemented in the bot and works dandy. I'll whip up a template to go at the top of a page handled by the bot to explain about the threads moving and provide a convenient link to the combined history. — Coren ^(talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a solution in search of a problem, and I'm quite opposed to the idea of moving all discussion on this page to subpages, that would then be transcluded here. For one, it splits the history of this page into hundreds (and soon thousands) of individual pages. AN and AN/I are much busier than the bot board, and I see this becoming unmanageable quickly. - auburnpilot talk 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to end up with page names like "Daniel is a pedophile", "Daniel is being a dickhead" and "Daniel eats kittens" (because page titles archive far more highly than merely text on the page), then I strongly oppose this as it can cause harm to contributors who use their real names. Daniel (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To date there are approximately 1500-2000 AN/I subsections just since 1 January. You are proposing a process that will create 6000-10000 subpages per year. Perhaps automatic transclusion of individual threads that exceed a certain threshold size would be useful, but we certainly do not need subpages for every two-post section "Please fix X" "Resolved". Also object per Daniel. Do you have more than a couple hundred bot requests per year? I'm not sure you've thought the volume issue through sufficiently. Thatcher 12:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are both very good points. The first has a trivial solution: numbered subpages instead of named ones; I admit I had not considered the greater impact of page title on spiders. The second point is substantive — it might indeed be wiser to not automatically move very short threads around — but it's not a clearcut as it first seems: does the cost of the added database rows (the sum of actual text stored in blobs isn't affected significantly) add up significantly when the data isn't otherwise being accessed (as would happen to archived threads), and does the ability to permanently link to threads overweight that cost? My inspection of the Mediawiki schema says the cost is negligible and, for archived threads, would be a gain because it improves locality of data (under postgres, at least, blob data is stored differently that row data — out of the way; I would expect that mysql behaves the same way). — Coren ^(talk) 15:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbered subpages is a bad idea. Watchlist of a numbered page would become pretty much unusable. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is part of the proposal that the bot watches all the subpages it has created and re-transcludes any changed ones, to prevent the situation that a conversation continues on a subpage after it has been "archived"? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but that's not a bad idea. I'm not certain how popular that suggestion would be, though. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my concern would be that at present, once archived you are unlikely to get any further comment if you add to the archive and it's obvious it's an archive page so others are likely to unarchive if required. Under the subpage scenario it's easy to watch specific subpages and continute with multiple participants without it being readily apparent that it isn't still part of the main page. Retranscluding them is in itself problematic and could lead to some new form of disruptive behaviour. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I worry that this would create a new form of vandalism: thread resurrection. Given that it's trivial to bring back a thread to the noticeboard without disrupting its history (just transclude it again), I'd rather leave that task to manual attention. — Coren ^(talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Larry E. Jordan (latest incarnation of Obuibo Mbstpo)

An abusive puppetmaster (ten accounts at last count) is trying to slip harmful edits into the encyclopedia - I suggest people keep an eye on his games, he's suggesting that since nobody is saying no so he should be able tohere look carefully at the language he uses. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in who 87.113.93.118 is?

talk

) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of more concern of this latest incarnation of User:Obuibo Mbstpo was the creation of this article Easter Bunny Hotline which was a completely NN article featuring a real phone number, which whilst claiming to let the user speak to the Easter Bunny, leads to a recorded message of some sorts which is certainly not child-friendly [51]. I'm really quite tempted to block him again just for this. Black Kite 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that he was already blocked as a sock, but unblocked per an ANI discussion I can't find right now... Perhaps someone should contact Sarcasticidealist to find out more info... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

no don't you see he's just taking the piss he does "good edits", so it's ok if he goes off the rails now and again - and let's face it, we've already given him the green light to sock if banned - we told him as much at AN/I. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the smartest thing to be doing when there's

96

00:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse a block. Right now it's pretty obvious that Obuibo is here to cause disruption. What's more, they're trying to stay around longer by mixing in positive edits with bad edits. It's this attempt to undermine the system that is definitely harmful to the encyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Be prepared for a fight - his social workers will be around in a bit to argue that a) well he's just sock anyway so should be unblocked because hey it's a lot of effort to stop him and b) he does some good article edits in between creating hoax articles. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder if I should bother replying to a sock at this IP. This user is a voluminous editor, did 1600 edits in about two or three weeks until Obuibo Mbstpo was blocked. Created one hoax article. The subject article wasn't a hoax. So "between hoax articles" would be time immemorial before the one. Can't tell about after, I suppose he could do it again.--

talk

) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayron just dropped the hammer.

96

00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually argued recently that Mbstpo should be given another "last chance" - and he was - and that's what he did with it. This is ridiculous, and I'll be blocking all further accounts on the spot. Black Kite 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at the Easter Bunny Hotline bullshit, we don't need any more of that. We give this guy one more chance, and THAT is what he does with it? We don't need that around anymore... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was his previous block contended? regardless, his last creation was trolling, as its obvious by its first line: "The Easter Bunny Hotline is a rather important phone number that provides a recorded message relating to the Easter Bunny's identity crisis." In my opinion such trolling from a known sock is more than enough to drop the banhammer. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

his bent are policy pages and parliamentary articles - you watch those and you'll catch the socks - however, if you don't revert his contributions, he'll just keep socking - on previous history, he will already moved onto the next account. --87.114.141.40 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if any admin does see fit to unblock this editor in the future – not that I would recommend it – he should be under an explicit requirement to not change his username again. Moving to a new name twice a week and participating in the same discussions (and edit wars) under multiple names is a disruptive nuisance. Block any new account names on sight, regardless of whatever happens with the main account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, he hasn't spiked the password, as he always did before (which then, of course, made it necessary for him to start up a new account). But he can't post to Talk, because Jayron has protected his Talk page, which strikes me as COI.--

talk

) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• You know, having read through all the history over the last few days, I was seriously considering offering an unblock on stringent probation, limited to Parliamentary Procedure for a month, only editing in other article space after consultation with an Admin, no policy proposals, no more socks, etc, but I left it to see how it developed. I fully concur with Jayron's block. We seem to bend over backwards again and again for troublemakers, however well-intentioned, because "some" of what they do is useful. Unfortunately, the ill sometimes outweighs the good, and this is a classic case. Wield the ban-hammer, with prejudice, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm with Rodhullandemu ... I wanted to see this user make it (after having endorsed the original Absidy block), but enough is enough. Endorse block of this and any future accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article, because it was speedied, however, it was not a hoax. Non-notable, definitely. His comment to me on the phone was that he did not think it was harmful, that normal users get articles speedied all the time; however I told him he is not a normal user.... --

talk

) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me again what he did wrong? Simply creating an article that gets deleted is hardly grounds for blocking, when that article is on a actual verifiable subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, Kurt, that is the tip of the iceberg, and arguably would have been the last straw had it not been for the sockpuppetry. Forgive the mixed metaphors, but even reading, let alone properly analysing, the disruption that this one editor has caused, diverts volunteer resources away from the goal of building an encyclopedia. As an Admin, I try to work within policy, but I have a short fuse when it comes to those who flout it for whatever reason. We really cannot have one set of principles for the majority and another for those who want to plough their own furrow outside the mainstream, however worthy their contributions here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would it have been "the last straw" regardless? Someone just tell me what exactly he did wrong by creating this article. I don't see it. With the exception of the one hoax article (a one-time issue that certainly did not warrant a block without warning anyway), OM has caused absolutely NO disruption here. All other disruption associated with him has been the fault not of OM himself but of others who overreacted to his perfectly legitimate actions. He's getting railroaded the way people tried to railroad me a few months ago, and people are using the exact same absurd arguments to do it with. I had hoped the community had learned, but apparently not. This is very disappointing to see. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It might have been OK but for "an article about a phone number with an obscene recorded message", and I trust User:Black Kite's judgement on that. Likewise, I also trust the judgement of other editors who have spent, if not wasted, time on this editor's antics- and antics they are. A complete lack of willingness to adhere to some of the most basic rules here, and that includes respect for other editors who have to clean up the mess. I won't say "despicable", but forgive me if I think it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it an obscene message? Apparently I do have to listen to it all now. I just verified that it answered before... The problem here is partly that there is a whole contingent of editors who want to see him blocked, from the get-go, they have wanted it since the original incidents early this year. He's raising too many questions, challenging too many assumptions. I happen to think that these are questions that need to be asked, and assumptions that need to be challenged, or Wikipedia will not survive, but ... does anybody stop to notice who is trying to "get" Jordan?. Start with the anonymous IP user that began this AN/I report. That account Talk page is full of warnings. Definitely, the presence of this user is disruptive, and his habits of pushing the envelope don't help, but the energy of the disruption is not coming from him. It is coming from those who hate his ideas. His impulsiveness is irritating, to be sure. But I've lost count of how many times I investigated his crazy ideas and found out he was right. Except about the mountainous region of Indiana, of course! Weber is correct. --

talk

) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an acceptable subject for an article is irrelevant. Creating a good-faith article about a totally verifiable subject, however offensive that subject may be, is absolutely never a reason to block. The appropriateness of the subject for an article on Wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the user who creates the article should be blocked for it. As of yet, no one has indicated what he actually did wrong here. There's nothing "wrong" (in the "legal" sense...I hope you'll take my meaning, as I know that's not really the best word for it) with creating an article that shouldn't be there, as long as it's done in good faith. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nail, head; head, nail.

in good faith. Whatever you say about User:Obuibo Mbstpo, stupid he is not, and he and his sockpuppet knew, or should have known, exactly what they were doing. Sorry, I've seen enough of him to throw AGF right out of the window, and I'm sorry if you missed it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can just imagine the press reaction if someone's child had found that article on Wikipedia and called the phone number given in it. Black Kite 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a bona fide subject, then whether or not some people might find it offensive is irrelevant. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, it was an article about a phone number with an obscene recorded message! Even the arch-inclusionist like you can't defend that one, surely? Black Kite 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the article belongs in the encyclopedia is an entirely separate issue from whether not the user who created that article deserves to be blocked. This is not a discussion on the worthiness of the article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a bona-fide subject. It was a bullshit page creation that was exactly the kind of stuff that OM was blocked for in the first place. That he returned to his old Modus Operandi with this new account, when others had extended the good faith to him that he would only do good work, is beyond reproach. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing for why it should have been deleted; what that doesn't explain is how creating such an article is indicative of bad faith on the part of the individual concerned. People create articles that get deleted--whether immediately or months down the road--and no one suggests that they be blocked. The article was not a hoax; it was about a real, verifiable subject. You're just grasping at straws here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this most certainly was NOT what he was blocked for in the first place. He was blocked for creating a hoax article, so how does creating an article that is most emphatically not a hoax constitute the same kind of behavior? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

check out his talkpage, already bragging about his next sockpuppet - shouldn't someone lock that page down? --87.114.141.40 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was continuing to use his talk page to troll and otherwise be a pain. I have protected his usertalk page to stop this. He can request remediation via arbcom if he wishes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody care about what that IP editor is doing? Helpful suggestions? When you want to lash out at someone, and someone like him is egging you on, do any alarms go off? If not, well, watch out! You are in for some "interesting" times.--

talk

) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tolerance is wearing thin here; threats, however thinly veiled, don't help. Neither does your talk of "interesting times", and I am fully aware of the Chinese connotations of you saying that. Now, whereas I'm tempted here to say what I would say in Usenet in similar circumstances, it would help both of us if you stopped pussyfooting around before I block you as a suspected sockpuppet and raise an RFCU. Talk the talk please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 04:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no threat, only a warning. The hazard is not coming from me. As to Usenet, been there, done that, long, long ago. Block me as an SSP? Make my day. I do not advise it. I've been checkusered before. You have a real sock puppet participating here, this time using IP. Look at the contribs. There is a range involved. No concern. I'm real, not a sock, you make threats. This is the behavior that creates "interesting times." In any case, I've done my job here. Bye.--

talk

) 04:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, a good part of me agrees with Kurt: creating a sourced article on a non-notable subject hardly qualifies as disruption. That part of me also thinks that part of the reason OM takes up so much of the community's energy is that any time he does anything mildly irritating (like creating a sourced article on a non-notable subject) there's a noticeboard thread about it. I wouldn't have performed this block, and I don't endorse it. But at the same time, he should have known better, and I'm a little tired of sticking my neck out for him and being rewarded like this; I'm not exerting any more effort on his behalf. If the ban stands as the consensus of the community, which it certainly appears that it will, I'll block his socks on sight.

talk

) 08:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame you. However, notice the IP editor who started this report. Then look at

talk

) 15:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

gosh - he's got a "neurological disorder", you've got the same "neurological disorder". He's knowable about parliamentary processes, your knowledge about parliamentary process. He's trying to change process to allow proxy voting, you want to change process to allow proxy voting and even running a wiki pushing that idea. Quack quack. Section31 --87.112.33.78 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Quack. Great minds think alike. However, I don't want to change process to allow proxy voting, that's an often-repeated ... false statement. I don't think we should vote, period. I think that benefits would accrue if every Wikipedia user (who wanted to, no obligation) named another trusted user, formally. No special privileges involved. And no policy changes, at all. Experimental. Now, Jordan is 27 years old, I'm 63. He was active on Wikipeda re parliamentary procedure before we knew each other. Our meeting was here, and is, in fact, documented if anyone cares to find it. He recognizes the potential for "delegated democracy", both in formal systems that involve voting (outside, not here) and in informal systems where all that is involved is documenting and strengthening communications links. Which is how Wikipedia will meet the challenges of the coming years. There are people who very much do not want that to happen. And they are willing to do very much to accomplish that. They will attempt to delete proposals and users. And sometimes they will succeed. Now. How long will it take for someone to get to the SSP report on

talk

) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've been checkusered already for connections with the user in question, when he was known as

talk

) 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP above has now been 12-hour blocked, courtesy of

talk

) 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hosinshu - Spanish wiki article

Resolved

 – Outside of our jurisdiction, regardless the bibliotecarios at es. have already deleted the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish. I tried to get this article deleted as it is completely unsourced, completely non-notable (fabricated I would say), there are no Google hits for the subject (except for Wiki mirrors), and its corresponding articles in the English wiki have been deleted:

talk

) 02:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We have no jurisdiction over the Spanish Wikipedia. You will have to take the issue up with the es.wiki admins and community. In short, we can't do anything. —Kurykh 02:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinon on an Afd re disruption

moved to

WP:ANI#Opinion on an Afd re disruption as more relevant to ANI. Black Kite

18:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief protection at User:Vintagekits

• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:Vintagekits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's been a bit of an edit war, past few days, at User:Vintagekits. User is banned; some users want to blank the userpage and others do not, I'm not aware of any efforts to discuss at this time. That being the case, I've protected for three days and will encourage participating users to comment here. If a (preferably uninvolved) admin feels consensus is achieved regarding blanking/not, or that protection is harmful in this case, feel free to do as is appropriate. Maybe worth noting that the page was indefinitely semi-protected, prior to this current protection. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no reason at all for the page to be completely blanked. The user contributed and wrote a great many useful pages concerned with boxing etc. I re-instated the page - a move endorsed by Alison [52], until Rockpocket came along [53]. Rockpocket can never resist an opportunity to comment on VK, now he is a banned use this is beginning to look like corpse kicking - whatever. By all means - have the page protected for ever, but it is useful to have it in all its glory, if only for people to be able to check the editor out in regard to his many thousands of very valuable edits. Having the page blanked when the editor is already banished, with his talk page permanently protected, and his hands cuffed behind his back looks more than a little unnecessary and extreme. The page as it now stands is as left by Rockpocket - so where is the harm now?
  talk
  ) 10:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with what Giano says above no need for this page to be blanked. Vin has created numerous articles and seems a bit vindictive to just blank it. BigDunc (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Don't we have a standard approach for cases of this kind? If not, why not? Relata refero (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per
  WP:User page, they are used to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. If an editor has been permanently banned from being a participant in the project, what further need is there to "facilitate communication"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs
  ) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the talk page with the user page. We are talking here of the user page. Also hiding facts is always a slightly odd thing to want to do, anywhere any place at anytime.

talk

) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything here. Certainly the user talk page is for frequent two-way communication between editors, but the user page has elements of communication too:

• it is a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working
• they help you to use Wikipedia more effectively: to list "to do" information, works in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth

None of this is applicable to a permanently banned editor. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, this is something for you Admins to decide, the pointless and needless kicking corpses has never been one of my interests.

talk

) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your actions don't appear consistent with what you claim here, Giano. If my edit - or "corpse kicking" as you so kindly represent it - was the problem here, why did you revert back to that version? [54] All I did was remove one factually incorrect sentence that you had previously added (Vk is not "still standing" after twenty blocks and, even if he was, his user page is not the place to celebrate his record of poor behaviour), leaving the record of his many thousands of valuable edits. I have no problem with that, in fact it makes it easier to find his shower of sock puppets when all his favorite articles are linked on one place. Rockpocket 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to your version Rockpocket, to keep you quiet, anything for a quiet life, and to keep VK's page alight. No other reason, I assure you. Why you, and your friends, can't just leave him and his page alone, God only knows. Why the Arbcom could not follow my advice during the Troubles Arbcase and ban VK from Irish pages, and why VK can't behave himself, I don't know either. I do know though that you have some obsesion with VK which does not help the problems here - he is gone - a banned editor - what more do you want of him? And while you are being so bloody snide Rockpocket you might just note that Alison endorsed the version of the page I reverted to!

talk

) 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snide, Giano. I made a single edit to correct a factual inaccuracy that you made, and made no effort to get further involved when the usual suspects started posturing. You have some gall lecturing anyone about obsessive behaviour. Please go and wage your anti-Arbcom campaign under a different proxy, because this horse is dead and you are the one still waving the stick. Rockpocket 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

*Cough*. The Evil Spartan (talk

) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

..and you need not sit there making clever links, ES, go get a

talk

) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is anything being deleted at Wikipedia? We've heard the justification: what's the motivation here? --Wetman (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you seriously questioning why anything gets deleted? Avoidance of a

libel lawsuit for an obvious motivation for deleting some material. Rockpocket

23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no particular opinion on the matter either way, but note that both Giano and Rockpocket are manipulating the page for their own largely personal reasons. Both sides have a fair point, however I'd like to see the community decide this one. And all the while, BTW, Vintagekits is happily socking away - Alison ^❤ 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a side, Alison. Like you, I don't particularly care whether the page remains as it is or gets blanked, which is why I didn't revert-war over it. Rockpocket 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matteer of fact Alison, I reverted to last version by Rockpocket, it was you who blanked the page [55]!

talk

) 09:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about what happens to this particular user page, but I can say that typically, user pages of blocked or banned users consist of only the appropriate ban/block and/or sockpuppet(eer) templates, and nothing else. —Kurykh 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Finally someone mentions that. And my question is: why? Userpages are useful guides, even when the sockpuppeteer is banned. Unless there's a particularly pressing reason, or the userpage is an obvious soapbox, in which why can't they be MfDed like normal? Relata refero (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the real reason myself, but I would speculate that usually, user pages were indeed used as soapboxes by banned users. In an effort to eliminate this situation, we blank the page to deny them a voice on Wikipedia, leaving only the relevant block/ban/sock templates. The page history will contain any useful (and useless) content previously on the page. —Kurykh 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. But I don't see any guideline that states this — it seems to be an unwritten common convention. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Then again, we have quite a few unwritten customs here. This is only one of them. —Kurykh 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There could be a constructive purpose in leaving the page in situ. Namely that it might be helpful to Alison in spotting the socks. So my question for her is: "Is it helpful in this way?" If not, why keep it? In any event it would be good to form a general policy at the village pump. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let VK's page, rest in peace (even if he himself won't). GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed modification of CSD A7

Resolved

 – Withdrawn at the main disucussion; nothing, therefore, to see here. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A modification to the CSD A7 criteria has been proposed at the CSD talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The proposal was unanimously opposed by 12 editors and subsequently withdrawn, and is now archived.

Tanthalas39 (talk

) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the comments still come in, and are welcome. I've since removed the archival templates that were used to wrap the discussion, so that these editors may still continue, as they have done so. I don't think the resolved template is needed here, as ther eis nothing real to resolve. It's a discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy DRV

Just a reminder that an unusually contentious DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy, is coming up for closure within the next hour. It looks to me like it's an overturn verdict by a large majority, but I gather the subject of the article is rather "difficult" to deal with. Any uninvolved admins want to grasp this particular nettle? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the result is to overturn, and so should it be if that is consensus, however I can't help but notice a rather bloodthristy tone in the rationale used to justify a DRV process, wich seems quite unconstructive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the deletion or undeletion. However, heads up that any administrator who closes this DRV with an "overturn" result may be subject to threats of real-life harassment organized on an external site. Any admin whose life circumstances would leave him or her vulnerable to such harassment should leave the closing to someone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Bongout's initial comments, I agree. That said, it shouldn't have a bearing on the merits of the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that if the article is undeleted, I hope people will be watching it. I gather there have been problems with it before - let's avoid that happening again. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I might point out the

Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

- while a block wouldn't apply in this case, the admins on that list are there because they either are protected from or don't care about the possible issues of harassment. If there is a need for immediate closure, it may be a good idea to contact one of those admins.

As for the later comment (darn edit conflicts), several comments I noticed in my brief skimming of the discussion seemed to favor indefinite full protection.

a/c

) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any valid reason for indefinite full protection - not for mainspace articles. It's certainly not something that I can see covered by Wikipedia:Protection policy. Are there any comparable examples of mainspeace articles being indefinitely fully protected? Semi-protection would seem not unreasonable, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock for an idea on how to handle these controversial articles going forward. SirFozzie (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised given the level of drama about this article, but it's already been renominated for deletion only 3 minutes (!) after it was undeleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Afd is not on the basis of consensus as far as the talk page indicates and seems to be a very small number of interested parties pushing for deletion. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

Don Murphy AFD

I've requested speedy closure. Thank you to all who participated; the community has spoken. Would a thoroughly uninvolved administrator please review the discussion? As nominator I think it's highly unlikely to yield any other outcome than keep, but some Wikipedians disagree and would like this to run its course. Please select whatever course is most likely to minimize the drama quotient and explain it enough to address concerns. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have any left by now? Guy (Help!) 18:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1500 admins; surely there's someone. An unambiguous decision by a thoroughly uninvolved admin would help this to settle down. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, Krimpet stepped in. Glad that's settled. Durova^Charge! 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Antam Sanskar

Could someone look at what happened here. There are tags as old as early as April 06, but the earliest edit is Aug 07 with a edit summary of (non-vio). I think it might be a botched undelete.--BirgitteSB 15:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there's 14 deleted edits, which I think were deleted because of copyvio, not a botch. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I imagine it either wasn't properly (in a technical sense) undeleted or it is recreation of a copyvio.--BirgitteSB 06:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

semiprotection requested on an article

I am requesting that the article

talk

) 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't generally protect articles pre-emptively; if it kicks off, you'll get a faster response at

WP:RFPP anyway. Thanks, I will watchlist it anyway. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Resolved

 – John254 over-reacting again, there is discussion on the talk page, nobody is threatening to climb the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation. John254

20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be an edit war more than anything--I've full-protected the article until this can be resolved on the talk page.

96

20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the legitimate enforcement of

three-revert rule does not apply to such removals... Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

The removal of inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living people is administratively favored. John254

20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

True, the only reason I full-protected it was to give them time to find an adequate source for the material.

96

20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing topic ban on Blow of Light - Finalise?

H₂O

) 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that, from the lack of comments opposing the lifting of the topic ban, that it can be inferred that the ban is now indeed null and void? —Kurykh 04:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the ban instead turns into a probationary period, which would likely elevate back into a ban should he devolve back into his initial habits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

His userpage is still protected, which was part of the probation. I'll put a request at

H₂O

) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done MBisanz ^talk 08:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

request for deleted content

Resolved

 – userfied

I see there was an article called od (Unix) which was deleted (with "prod"). Could somebody please copy the content somewhere where I can take a look at it, for example User:Alan012/od (Unix), so I can see if there is anything that can usefully be incorporated into an article? Many thanks. — Alan^✉ 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Alan^✉ 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: after I saw the content, I asked for the prod-ded article to be restored, so I'm about to request speedy deletion of the userfied version. This means that if you see a redlink above, the original request is still effectively resolved. — Alan^✉ 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hierarchy

I am a new user, after test editing I decided to try and figure out how things are run around here. I have learned about Admins and Crats and followed the discussion boards. I have watched the founders page, and learned from arb com and the foundation. It seems the more I explore the site the more I get confused as to how things are done around here. My basic question is: Who is in charge around here? Sometimes it seems that the inmates are running the asylum and sometimes it seems that things are well run. Maybe it will all of a sudden become clear, but for now it is ponderous. -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in charge? Are you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Think of Wikipedia like a Wild West cattle drive. Except you have about 5 million cattle (editors) being herded by about 1400 cowboys (admins). And the drive is being made from L.A to New York. And oh, there's no map of the route but each cowboy is fairly sure they know where we're all supposed to end up. Tabercil (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And we have to scoop up the cattle droppings as we go along. - KrakatoaKatie 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for hierarchy isn't so helpful. I think of it as an adhocracy or a do-ocracy: it's really run by whomever does the work. A real-world analog is the unconference, and a direct influence is the world of open-source software. Basically, you are in charge to the extent that you work hard and play well with others. Another way to think of it is like a party. The Foundation is hosting, and we admins clean up spills and throw out the occasional troublemaker. But as far as creating the fun goes, it's all up to the attendees. William Pietri (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a true hierarchy. Some users have the ability to do more than others, but follow certain rules while doing so. Most admin actions are done on the request of users with no more power than you, who understand the underlying rules. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For most decisions, no one is in charge; anyone can make an edit; anyone can revert an edit. In case of a dispute, whoever has the time and/or friends can make "their" edit stick - temporarily. You gain friends by doing things that help build the encyclopedia and community. It's a highly social game of "Let's write an encyclopedia" with Karma points earned and lost depending on others' perceptions of whether you are helping or hurting the project. The object is to have fun and create a really great free gift for all mankind in the form of an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:LasikFraud has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats

Resolved

 – Block looks fine, Tiptoety ^talk 05:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

LasikFraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Per this edit and this one at Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance:

1. "I certainly hope, and will request that the victim add in Wikipedia editors as defendants."
2. "I will send all of this material over to one of the victim's attorneys so that the victim can also sue Wikipedia's editors for defamation."

All this excitement after only four edits on Wikipedia. The editor appears to have a crusade against Glenn Hagele, who is the director of this Council. The article on the Council has been the scene of BLP-related controversy before. (For example, see this link to Bearian's archives, or do a Whatlinkshere on the Council's article to see all the noticeboard discussions). I welcome review of this block by other admins. Feel free to modify or undo my actions in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block per

WP:NLT. People serious about legal matters contact the foundation directly. This is obvious trolling... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

03:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Clear NLT. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorse -

WP:NLT, just give the contact info of the foundation and let them take care of it. Tiptoety ^talk

04:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. As they say, clear case of trolling. Endorse. Tabercil (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OVERTURN!, uhhh I mean endorse of course, perfect example of a blockable legal threat.

_(1 == 2)^Until

16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

Resolved

The complete overhaul of the db- series of CSD templates has just caused a large number of User-talk: pages to appear on

CAT:CSD which had previously been tagged for months or even years without being categorised. Just a reminder to be careful with these as many of them shouldn't be deleted if they contain useful discussion in the history. Happy‑melon

12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, the backlog has now been cleared. Happy‑melon 13:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Massive edit warring and vandalism

Resolved

 – page protected by Ryan --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On the page Central Europe, some Romanian users are seeing to it that their preferred version of the page is the only one displayed. Their actions include removing fact tags without providing sources and removing any sources inserted by other users that they don't agree with. Based on one single source, a report by the NATO, they have monopolised the article to include Romania in Central Europe. While I don't dispute the source, it's completely opposite to many other sources. To take two relatively respected sources, the CIA Factbook and the United Nations, both place Romania in Eastern Europe. In other words, it's rather obvious we're dealing with conflicting sources. Instead of respecting that, the Romanian users repeatedly delete all allusions to other interpretations of Central Europe than their preferred one. Because of their activity, they can keep the page in the way they want and only today they have repeatedly deleted all fact tags and mentioning of the United Nations and build the page on this single source. Efforts to point out the existance of other sources on the talk page come to nothing. I'd prefer if someone would look into this, it's a pretty classic example of a Wikipedia fault - a small group of dedicated users can in fact hijack a page to edit out all other sources they don't agree with. JdeJ (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan took care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed at

WP:AE

Just as a note, requests seem to be backing up at

the Arbitration Enforcement queue. These often don't require actual arbitrators or clerks, they just require an "uninvolved admin" to examine the complaint and determine whether or not a breach of sanctions has occurred, and if so, implement the remedy as indicated. If any admins here have time, it would be helpful to address a complaint or two, since some of the normal admins monitoring that page seem to be on break. Thanks, Elonka

19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Racism and vandalism, no response from admins

Resolved

 – User blocked for 1 week

Today has been the most bizarre day I've seen at Wikipedia, as some admins (notable ÐeadΣyeДrrow)) have come pretty close to giving a blanket excuse for extensive racism and vandalism. The user Marc KJH came off a block today and has been involved in multiple events. These include

• Repeatedly making highly racist remarks, calling Romas "gypises", the rough European equivalent of calling Afro-Americans "niggers". The user even moved the article
  Roma people to "gypsies". [60]
• Going to
  WP:AIV to delete a report on himself [61]
• Changing other editor's comments on talk pages. [62]
• Deleting tags placed by other users without providing any sources [63], [64]

These are just some of the actions of the user during one single day, the first after coming off a block. Other users have accused him of harassing them, I'm not the one to make that call. Many users have also drawn attention to all this on AIV and his actions don't surprise me all that much, actions like these are commonplace. What surprises me all the more is that admins such as ÐeadΣyeДrrow appear to be happy to view all this as just a common "content dispute". Would DeadEyeArrow or any other admin please explain how racist abuse, deleting reports and changing other editor's comments amount to "content dispute"? I will be direct and say that I find DeadEyeArrow highly unsuitable to be an administrator. I can't know if he didn't bother to check the actions of the user or if he seriously consider all of this a content dispute. Whichever the case, he should perhaps consider paying more attention to how he uses his administrator tools in the future. JdeJ (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of Gypsy is hardly considered a term on par with the n-word. Certainly a less preferred term, but not offensive as that. The correct American analogy is the use of the term "Indian" in place of "Native American"... Other than that, I don't see any massively eggregious violations here. Certainly some borderline disruption, such as the removing of the tags, and the page move itself is probably a bad idea. He may well deserve another block for being generally disruptive, but I see nothing that could be charactized as "racist abuse".--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Jayron32, Gypsy is used by the media and by encyclopedic sources, there are many music bands from this ethnic group calling themselves gypsies, e.g. "Gypsy Kings' .. the word gypsy is definettly not a racist word Rezistenta (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Marc KJH also made personal attacks against me and User:Cordless Larry (after a final and only warning) without punishment. I don't see how that can be written off as a "content dispute"! TheProf | Talk 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, he was definately rude in places(such as talking in all caps, and being confrontational in tone), but I don't see any real personal attacks. If you could provide specific diffs, we could judge for ourselves what he has done wrong. However, when I look at his last 20 or so contribs, they look to be in good faith and I don't see directly what the problem is. Again, a recent diff showing the specific problem would go a LONG way towards convincing admins that action is needed here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

He is harassing User:Cordless Larry by calling him a vandal when he's actually the one vandalising. I gave him a only warning to stop because he was already on a final warning. He responded by leaving me this message on my talk page. I took this as a personal attack on my character. In any case, this will be my last word on the subject as im now going offline. Thank you TheProf | Talk 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... If that's the only thing he's left, I would hardly call that blockable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Its blockable when you consider he was already on a final warning. And im not the only person he was doing it to. And he has been distruptive all day. Okay, now im going to watch the rest of

Air Crash Investigation. Be back online later! TheProf | Talk

21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfullt disagree with the idea of Gypsy not being racist, or at least derogatory. Yes, it is sometimes used by the Romas themselves as in the case of Gypsy Kings, and there are many African-Americans rappers using the n-word. JdeJ (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't exaggerate. The term "gipsy" is by far not racist. --Olahus (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it may not be a scholarly correct term, but it is hardly a term loaded with the racist vitriol like others. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would an ordinary English speaker know that the term "gypsy" is regarded this way? Is this view universal? If not, is blocking a user a good way to make a [[[WP:POINT|point]] about how language should be used? Similarly, it should be noted that most people today would prefer the term "African-American" rather than "Afro-American", but this doesn't make a person who uses the out-of-date term an automatic vandal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i agree that the term is not racist. However, i believe User:Marc KJH thought it was and was using it in that way. Also, the fact the he was harassing me and User:Cordless Larry is also a factor in why he deserved his block. Thanks TheProf | Talk 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Someone more experienced than I regarding User:Bonaparte and his socks needs to look closer at this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cloud seeding

Resolved

I've tried rollback, manually removing the edits and purging but I can't seem to remove this vandalism. Can anyone else see my edit in the history? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP duplicated the sections on the page and then corrected itself. So, when you tried to revert, there was nothing to fix, and thus no revision would be saved. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) He self-reverted his own test edit. That is why you can't do it, since he did it himself... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

or in other words, there doesn't seem to be a problem here? Weird diffs though. Marking this resolved, as I can read the article... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all! :) Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannons link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_the_Song_Dynasty the link to cannons on this page is jacked up.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Next time, you're welcome to

be bold and fix it yourself. GlassCobra

05:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a wikilink to an article that is named in the singular form, place that word in brackets, and put the suffix after. For example, in this particular case, all that was needed was to change [[cannons]] to [[cannon]]s. Not sure I've explained this all that well; hopefully I made sense. GlassCobra 06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

non-free image in userspace

Could someone look into Template:Easter1916, I've gone to my 3RR limit, but there seems to an insitance to use this copyrighted image in user space, thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been editwarring, 3RR is not a limit. That should be pointed out to you. --Domer48 (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrong of the edit war itself, those wanting removal have right on their side: Wikipedia:Non-free content - Policy section, point #9 Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace... As this is a template (not userspace, but not also not an article), I've removed the image. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The three revert rule does not apply to removing blatant copyright violations, which includes non free images outside the mainspace. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Going over three undos, especially with experienced users tends to result in unplesantness, I think it's better to have a neutral figure like REDVEЯS to make the edit from what can be seen on all sides as a place of objectivity Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The {{db-g8}} template

I tagged a couple of talkpages as G8 candidates and was surprised to see that such regular maintenance was taking so long to process. Then I discovered that the template was apparently not placing the tagged page into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or any other speedy-delete category, which means that no administrator will ever be alerted.

Can someone who is more tech-savvy than I please (a) delete those talkpages (Talk:Transformer chess and Talk:Ghost Chess), and (b) update the {{db-g8}} template so that tagged pages are added to the category? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll add Talk:Disk copy plus to the list for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, there's some weird syntax going on here... I have removed the delaying code for now, if someone has the time to look into it... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or does the template expect user input for a variable on when to add the cat? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the parameter in question is supposed to be filled in by another template with subst... I've never heard of a delay applying to G8 though (I've seen various makeshift solutions around C1 templates). —Random832 (contribs) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This was introduced in the CSD-template overhaul; clearly it wasn't tested thoroughly enough. It's supposed to be an optional seven-day time delay - if the current timestamp is passed as the first unnamed parameter, it introduced a seven-day delay. If not, it should categorise immediately. As you say, it clearly wasn't working. Hmn..... Happy‑melon 17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding AfD

Resolved

 – Closed as "no consensus". ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyesore has never got closed, though it's 9 days old now. It looks like "keep per no consensus", but it might as well be put to bed. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlogs

Hi there,

WP:UAA

are backlogged.

--

(Review)

15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both boards appear to be clear, for the moment. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IP range - continued disruption and incivility

Resolved

 – rangeblocked

I have previously reported this user here for ongoing incivilty and disruption, particularly regarding anything having to do with Foo Fighters, Dave Grohl or any music article related to this band. IPs used (to my knowledge) are listed again below, and there may be more (the IP at the bottom of the list is the most recent). Something needs to be done here - a range block was placed on these IPs before which put a band-aid on the situation but the belligerent behavior started right back up again when the block expired. Myself and several other editors have been dealing with this person for months now, it would be nice to get a few more fresh pairs of eyes on this situation if possible. Please and thank you in advance.

There are many examples and diffs in my prior incident entry, but below are some of the newest examples of disruption (see both edit summaries and comments on article Talk Pages). - eo (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• 131.125.115.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.115.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.125.114.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Latest examples:
[65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

• Range 131.125.114.0/23 is softblocked for three months. It seems to be a school. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)