Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive53
Watchlists
Ok, I remember someone saying that there is some way for admins to tell if an article is on no watch lists. However, I've attempted to figure out how to do this, and have to say I've stumped. I've looked over the admin reading and can't find it there either. Is this a case of stupidity or delusion? If stupidity, I would appreciate being told how to do it. If delusion, then, well, feel free to make fun of me. JoshuaZ 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- <points and laughs> Special:Unwatchedpages </pointing and laughing> I don't believe it supports searching, however, and only lists 1000 pages. The devs could probably be encouraged to make it searchable with a sufficient amount of cookies, however. Essjay (Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. JoshuaZ 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cookies, barnstars, and monetary inducement... oh my. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think a page that has recent changes on unwatched pages might be useful. There are so many unwatched articles that the list is not very helpful. Also, it has pages that are redirects and articles that have just been created and then listed on AfD. Finally, I cannot get past more than 1,000 pages on the list, so you can only see the articles that start with parentheses, quotes and numbers. Another tool that might be helpful is if there were a list of pages with frequent edits or a large number of edits that are unwatched. I do not know if that is feasible, though. -- Kjkolb 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocked recently (by me) for disruptive behavior including attempting to rebuild a deleted article on his user page, this editor continues to generate serious reports concerning his bad behavior. I've given him a seven-day holiday. Would a longer block be more appropriate? --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- He has a long history of disruption and incivility (at least). I would not object to a longer block. Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because of this complaint I've reduced the block period to 24 hours. I still think this editor may not be good for Wikipedia. All comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- What deleted article did he try to rebuild? Could we get an example or recent problem edits?--Crossmr22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help
Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.
The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.
Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.
Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.
Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .
When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.
Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites,
That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.
My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.
I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.
Here are some links that might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Colorblind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threeafterthree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Potters_house
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?
The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy
Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238
then
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238
Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edit.
- Sorry for spamming you all earlier, I didn't know this page existed! Cheers. Potters house 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.
- Your accusations of racism are highly inappropriate, and you would do yourself and your "cause" a big favor by retracting the allegations. Only administrators can delete articles, and administrators get their positions because they have the full trust of the Wikipedia community. The admin who deleted the article is 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was not the content or even so much the intent of Mr. Clary's additions that drew attention and disapproval, it was his behavior. Because of him, I have Tom Metzger on my watchlist. Having to defend the content of such an article is distasteful to me, but Mr. Clary's vandalism made that necessary. You need not, indeed you should not, look for any deeper reason for Wikipedians objecting to Mr. Clary than checking out his past actions on articles at Wikipedia. Again, not his outspokenness, but his underhandedness. Resorting to the old standby of demonizing those acting against you ignores that most important possibility - you just might be wrong. Shenme 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Should we block indefinitely, as username inappropriate? Fredil Yupigo 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like your question has been answered. Yanksox 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nice one, Pilotguy. Fredil Yupigo 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Specifically,
- 02:44, July 27, 2006 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs) blocked "DDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)
Haha. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hrm. is A1% an appropriate username? I thought usernames weren't supposed to contain special characters. Also, it looks like User:ASM123456 is a vandalism account (see A Spy's Mission 4, 3, 2, and 1 or check the deletion log if pages don't exist). Fredil Yupigo 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- They're definitely strongly discourged and it might be a good idea if nothing else to nicely ask the person to change their nick but I'm not sure if they're specifically not allowed. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I hate long goodbyes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a reminder, inappropriate username reports are best as
) 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)- Obviously inappropriate usernames can go to AIV - usernames that won't justify an immediate block (because they're borderline and/or the user has good-faith edits and should be asked nicely first) can be posted at WP:RFC/NAME.</nitpick> --Sam Blanning(talk)08:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- <Syntax error: </nitpick> tag without <nitpick>> --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Need some help right now
Editwar on Sanhedrin. See User talk:Daniel575 and User talk:Historian2 also. I request to have it reverted last version and to have User:Historian2 officially warned and if necessary blocked (and it looks like that will be necessary). --Daniel575 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do include my full version, please. If not, please remove the protection. I will have User:Crzrussian, our Jewish administrator, take a look when he gets back. Right now, please restore my last version. --Daniel575 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, and administrators are not supposed to take a side in an editing dispute. You should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and not just revert (many times). In fact, both you and your opponent have broken the 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- This guy cannot be discussed with. I have not edited his article at all. You have now removed my entire addition and protected the page according to his version. Please restore my last version, which is accurate and provides more than 5 external links. --Daniel575 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have done nothing of the sort. 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is the version by the person who caused this whole war. He wrote a very biased piece. I left his version intact the way it was and added a sub-section titled 'Criticism'. He deleted that sub-section up to 10 times and accused me of vandalism. Now it is protected and the sub-section 'Criticism' which I wrote was deleted. I very strongly object to this. --Daniel575 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- This guy cannot be discussed with. I have not edited his article at all. You have now removed my entire addition and protected the page according to his version. Please restore my last version, which is accurate and provides more than 5 external links. --Daniel575 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, and administrators are not supposed to take a side in an editing dispute. You should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and not just revert (many times). In fact, both you and your opponent have broken the 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyking banned for two weeks, restrictions extended
The Arbitration Committee has passed the following new motion in the Everyking case.
- Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
- Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended for one year, until November 2007.
- Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
- Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one.
- Passed 6-0 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wait a second - Tony, could you explain this in a bit more detail? The page pointed to seems to be some sort of threaded discussion where the arbitrators are raising several different possibilities. Did they reach a conclusion elsewhere and tell you? Or is this your interpretation of that thread? Haukur 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It says "Passed 6-0", which means that they voted on this. As far as I know, that is sufficient. This link has more detail. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've been asked by an arbitrator to make the decision enforceable. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Link:
- Thanks. That link is now stale because I've moved all the material to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 and its talk page so we'll have an easily accessible permanent record. --Tony Sidaway 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I request that this not be implemented until the arbitrators agree to hear my evidence, or at least respond to me in some way. (And yeah, I'm allowed to post here if it's relevant to myself.) Everyking 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Tony has now blocked Everyking for two weeks. Haukur 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, if you look at the threaded discussion, EK has actually been arguing his case since 15th July and responses were indeed forthcoming, so he can hardly pretend that this is a bolt out of the blue. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyking has been doing very valuable work in expanding and referencing our articles on African politicians, an important and underrepresented field; here are some of the most recent examples: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] He's also continued doing solid work on his favourite historical subjects [7] [8] and worked tirelessly on reverting vandalism. All-in-all he's an extremely valuable editor. Whether or not the block ban is justified I think it is a very sad thing. Haukur 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the block itself is justified since the ArbCom banned him, and that's how bans are necessarily implemented. -Splash - tk 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The pedant attacks! :) Okay, I'll change my words. Haukur 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyking's message on Tony Sidaway's talk page says, in part, I don't see how that can possibly be the case when the ArbCom hasn't even heard my side of the story yet..., but I count, conservatively, 1200 words of "his side of the story" already posted on the Request for Arbitration page, and if he had anything ELSE to say, any "evidence to add", no one was standing in his way of doing so. It's this sort of thing that makes me wonder how he can possibly believe the things he claims, given how at odds they are with reality and all. --Calton | Talk 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Everyking has been told that he has "exhausted the committee's patience" [9]. They have heard his arguments, his attacks on them, and his self-justifications. And they have decided to ban him briefly. He can appeal to Jimbo Wales who may modify or remove any remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
CoolKatt number 99999 restricted from editing
CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999 pending its resolution.
- Enacted at 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Extended block for User:Justforasecond
I have placed an extended (one month) block on Justforasecond (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for his continued disruption on Kwanzaa and other articles. This user's behavior was first reported at the end of last year on AN/I, and he has continued a low-grade campaign of edit warring and disruption since, incurring regular blocks. In this most recent round, I gave him a clear, blunt warning that continued edit warring would result in an extended block. He continued, and I blocked him for a month. I realize this is a very long block, but this user has shown little to no willingness to cease disrupting the encyclopedia. I am hoping a break will convince him that our rules are not optional.
I waffled between giving him a shorter block, such as two weeks, and the monthlong block, but finally decided to try to drive the point home sharply once before taking this to Arbcom. I will not reverse any administrator who changes or shortens the block, but I do urge you to look carefully at this user's edit history before doing so. Nandesuka 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with block. - ·12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support, this user is highly disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Considering Justforasecond's repeated harrassment of User:Deeceevoice, one may want to question his agenda. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's been unblocked by CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after promising to avoid Kwanzaa, but for the looks of this it doesn't look like the block taught him a damned thing. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Too bad. I, for one, am tired of JFAS's antics. IMO, he richly deserved the one-month block. It's amazing that in an exchange w/another admin he portrays himself as the victim of a conspiracy, somehow persecuted by my "supporters" -- when it is quite clear he's the one who stalked me around the website. What's even more amazing is that the admin bought it. deeceevoice 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then I'm sure that you, 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Actually, none of that played any part in my action. What I 'bought' was that he said he would stay away from the Kwanzaa article. Since the block was ostensibly made to protect that page his agreement not to edit it removed any concern in that regard and ended any 'preventative' basis for the block. That said, I probably would have unblocked anyway as the original claim of the block being for 'vandalism' was clearly false and even the revised claim of 'disruption' on that page seemed to me a considerable stretch... certainly slow motion edit warring is not sufficient 'disruption' to justify a block of an entire month. That said, I thank JFAS for agreeing to stay away from the page as it is clear that tempers have frayed and it is best to let the disagreement go. --CBD 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Justforasecond contacted me via email and asked that his block be lifted, because it was interfering with all of the other employees at his place of work. He pledged in that email that, if he was unblocked, he would abide by the month's block and not edit during that time. I see that, now that he's unblocked, he's editing again and attacking the admin who blocked him. So much for good faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the merits of the block or unblock, I just wanted to say, for the umpteenth time: Criticism is not the same as an attack. Treating criticisms like attacks is the cause of much disagreement and undesirable drama. We all need to be very careful to cleanly distinguish these two different concepts in our own minds. Friday (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Zoe, I asked you to unblock me and you didn't do it. If you had unblocked me I would have gone on a break but, in spite of my truly desperate pleas, you didn't. Thankfully another admin did unblock me, but without those conditions. So no, this is not a violation of good faith, but maybe a lack of assuming it. I am perfectly within my rights here to question what I see as an overly long, illegitimate block and you are welcome to comment on why it was the correct length, called for. I'm not an admin here so I don't have as much experience in these matters, but the cases I have seen, unquestionably nasty users have not received blocks anywhere near that long. I also put a very clear "spoiler" notice on my page saying not to read the request for an advocate it if you were concerned about incivility, etc. Justforasecond 21:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to settle a content dispute with an unjustified block and admins who are doing this are clearly abusing their power. CoYep 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why but
I am now involved in this, having originally come to it purely as a
- I have been watching the article for quite awhile, you're not alone. --mboverload@ 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to come down on this one and say that the people who first identified this editor as a sock were correct. His endless trolling bears this out and he needs to be terminated. I propose that we block him indefinitely. I don't see useful output that would justify the time we spend on this guy's troublesome behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am greatly relieved to hear it - I was beginning to think it was just me being paranoid. I support whatever action terminates his disruption, but of course by now I am not neutral so I don't think it would be right to block him myself. Perhaps I should have just applied the nuclear option to start with, but I got in enough trouble as it was. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, we now have me, Tom Harrison and Phil Sandifer all trying to keep the article neutral, and Socafan continually reverting with summaries suggesting we need to achieve consensus on Talk before moving away from Socafan's preferred version. This is disruptive, and also means that several of us are constantly having to monitor a WP:BLP to guard against potentially libellous material. If anyone feels like blocking Socafan for a short while at least I would be happy to have a break :-) Just zis Guy you know?13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, we now have me, Tom Harrison and Phil Sandifer all trying to keep the article neutral, and Socafan continually reverting with summaries suggesting we need to achieve consensus on Talk before moving away from Socafan's preferred version. This is disruptive, and also means that several of us are constantly having to monitor a
- I have a bad feeling about this. I just blocked Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 24h for 3RR violation on Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
CSD I3
Those admins handling speedy deletions these days have probably noticed a lot of pages tagged with {{
- I added a note about this to the heading text of • 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiny Shoe Music
The nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiny Shoe Music has been withdrawn; can someone please close the issue? Thanks! (But please don't delete the VFD page: the discussion is needed.)—msh210℠ 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done by Mangojuice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many thanks.—msh210℠ 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
DYK update
Could someone update
11:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)- Done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree
Does this edit warrant a block of the article just to please
- Molobo, you are blocked for a year and not allowed to edit Wikipedia in this period. The IP range from which you operate points to Warsaw. I see that you recently returned to your old tactics of stalking myself and reverting almost every other edit I make. For a partial list, see here, but also this and this and this... I could go on for ages. Also, contrary to your assertions, I was never blocked for violating 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Same old rant, "sock", "spreading lies". What got you blocked was your incivility following another editor's harmless edit and you having a hissy-fit (links provided), even demanding a formal apology after it was you who smeared a number of established contributors. Rest of my contributions speak for themselves, and your newspeak wont change that. 83.5.249.155 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to check WP:AN/I#Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree. I am almost sure that the anon is not Molobo. As a proof you can look into the following edit of our anon. I doubt that Molobo would talk with himself in such a manner. Besides I got an e-mail from the real Molobo that insists that he has no relations to the anon, never stalks or cheats. As the proof Molobo is ready to risk permabanning by posting here, just to show that his E-mail is different. I have all the reasons to believe him. BTW I also believe that our anonym deliberately impersonated Molobo and could indeed put Molobo into serious troubles abakharev14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to check
- It takes two to tango. Reviewing the history of affected articles I think both IP user(s) and Ghirla (and in some instances as on Soviet partisans other reqistered users) are equally guilty of contributing to the revert war. Therefore the articles should not be semi-protected but rather normally protected; semi-protection was designed to prevent vandalism, not exclude one party (unregistered editors) from revert war while allowing the others (registered) free reign (unless I missed some anon edits that indeed classify as vandalism?). That said, semi-protecting 3 or 4 articles is hardly a spree and I would caution anon to be careful with WP:PA and assuming bad-faith in actions of an experienced admin like Alex. I would encourage interested anon(s) to simply create an account. Anonimous users who display advanced knowledge of Wikipedia policies are bound to create some suspicion, which whether justified or not is not creating a friendly enviroment. Finally I would like to add that Wikipedia admins have a long history of catching users trying to circumvene their block and extending their block as additional penalty. While I don't think we have evidence that this is indeed User:Molobo doing (and his contrib pattern is strange, to my knowledge Molobo was not interested in purely Russian articles, only those relevant to Polish-Russian history), I thought I would stress that just in case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Piotrus, barring edit wars, this user(s) already made some comments bordering on personal attacks here, and got a warning from an admin on one of his talk pages. [10] -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. If there are any further transgressions of WP:CIV/WP:PA, I would recommend a block, especially as warning has been given.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Piotrus, barring edit wars, this user(s) already made some comments bordering on personal attacks here, and got a warning from an admin on one of his talk pages. [10] -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
it works now
that means you can leave it alone205.188.116.200 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for admin help (Mass-to-charge ratio, Dalton (unit))
There has been an ongoing dispute that has already been through arbitration etc. however the behavior of the other party
Open complaint about administrators' rollback tool
I just have an open, informal complaint over the apparent use of the rollback feature. Accoridng to Wikipedia:Administrators, it should only be used in cases of simple vandalism and nothing else. But...however...I've recently begun noticing a misuse of the rollback feature, where the case is not simple vandalism, and which the result leads to more confusion and wasted time.
- On WP:DRV. Three administrators deleted them three different times, each one using the sterile "reverted by...to this version..." Now, two of those admins had deleted the four userboxes in question, so I was actually tempted to revert as there was no clear reason why they were removed. I asked on T1 and T2 debatesand I got the answer, but why didn't they just mention it in the edit summary, so it would be absolutely clear?
- I added something that I thought was funny to WP:BJAODN. It was reverted by an admin, once again with the sterile rollback summary. When I asked him on his user page, I was told that doing manual rollback took more time and that, because most people didn't ever question his deletions, that it was a waste of time. Right. It takes like, 15 seconds to write a summary? I think we both wasted more time using the talk page to explain exactly why the edit was removed than if the admin had just taken a few seconds to explain why he didn't think it was funny.
- {{). From Xeno-Lord's (and mine, I suppose) point, the template was suddenly and unfairly halved wholesale. Now that I look into it a bit deeper, I see that somebody else deleted it and there was relevent discussion on the CVG talk page, but there was nothing in that talk discussion to indicate that the characters had been dispersed - just deleted. Had AMIB simply pointed to the direct CVG debate in the edit summary, or started a talk page discussion pertaining to why the template was so radically changed, the 3RR would have stopped, or at least AMIB would have been more justified in his use of the rollback tool.
- And finally, the ArbCom decision on Guanco and MarkSweep, a vandalism rollback tool revert war, in which Guanco was desysopped and MarkSweeep "strongly cautioned" to only use the rollback on vandalism.
Hbdragon88 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Only use the default edit summary on vandalism. Anything more and you just need to write a few words saying why. It's simple and very useful for when people look back at the history of an article. Edit summaries are not just some stupid process thing - it actually helps everyone. --mboverload@ 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be best if there were an intermediate step which asked for an edit summary, with a default. It's not always that easy to define simple in the context of vandalism, a bit more explanation would never go amis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The same applies to the pop-up tool - which can be set to ask for a editsummary. Maybe make that the default behaviour? Agathoclea 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be best if there were an intermediate step which asked for an edit summary, with a default. It's not always that easy to define simple in the context of vandalism, a bit more explanation would never go amis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of an intermediate step. If I'm trying to wipe out a prolific vandal's edits, I already am going to have 30 tabs open with rollbacks in them. We just need to make sure that admins use the tool in the right situations...or leave a note on the rollbackee's page. Unlike some editors, I don't place any negative connotation when seeing the rollback summary. Syrthiss 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I've been asked about the lack of summaries more than once; maybe there should be additional text (like "using popups", but "using rollback") which links to a description of the feature and why it leaves no summary? Or maybe not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, the rollback summary is just like a blank summmary - it has no information. The rollback signifies that something was so bad or messed up (like vandalism) that the admin can simply hit a button to roll back. By looking at the diff it should be self-explanatory why the rollback was used. The situations I listed were not as simple to deduce. Hbdragon88 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like the rollback summary comment. I used to manually type it before I had a rollback button and I still do if I'm reverting further than the rollback button can. If someone took away the button away I would just go back to manually typing it all the time. It's not inflammatory and it's informative: it tells everyone exactly how far back a reversion goes. The same can't always be said for a custom comment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Lloyd Monserratt
Could someone tell me how to deal with the anonymous edits on this page Lloyd Monserratt. --evrik 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's been documented. Both of you need to watch 3RR though. Sasquatch t|c 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- SarekofVulcan and I were not in any danger of a 3RR. I was referring to the anonymous edits and the lack of response to my comments on the talk page.
- At 10:48 this morning I made the above request. I was really disappointed to see Zoe nominate the article for deletion six minutes later. This really leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and reaffirms my opinion about how poorly things work on wikipedia. I asked for help, and got an afd and a 3rr notice. Wow. --evrik 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It wouldn't have come to my attention if you hadn't brought it up here, but a non-notable bio is a non-notable bio, no matter where someone might encounter it. Should I have left what is, in my opinion, a speedy deletion candidate just because you talked about it here? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly, I came to the admins board to ask for help against an anonymous vandal, and got the afd. Having lived in Los Angeles during the events in question, I think that this person was notable - despite what the afd comments may say. Before answering your question about whether or not you should have left the article, let me ask you this, in the six minutes it took you to tag the article, what research did you do? --evrik
- It is the responsibility of the author of the article, or those who are claiming notability, to prove it. Nothing in the article passes our 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Two lists needing categorisation
The AfD log for 18th July is almost complete save for
- I think in the case of Samuel Wantman07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Move of Jogaila
Hi.
- We've had scores of votes forced on us by Piotrus, Balcer and Co and the result was always the same. Enough is enough. The morbid polonization of Wikipedia should be stopped, with Balcer cautioned or blocked for having discarded the consensus. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- People are trying to pollinate wikipedia? ew, that sounds gross--64.12.116.200 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm really so shocked by this. I doubt even Piotrus would endorse this kind of behaviour. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it shows Balcer's utter disregard for other editors' opinion. The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes (as usual). --Ghirla -трёп- 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Really, are you shocked? After all you were aware that The Poles are pretty tenacious, and doubtless will campaign vigorously or find some device to get it moved to a Polonocentric name, so really, what is suprising in the actions of those fanatics? :(-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm really so shocked by this. I doubt even Piotrus would endorse this kind of behaviour. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- People are trying to pollinate wikipedia? ew, that sounds gross--64.12.116.200 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- First, Balcer is not an admin (I have no idea how he was able to actually move the page, there should have been a redirect there...). Second, the previous 'multi-poll with secondary votes' was not a proper WP:RM, it has more holes then the Swiss cheese and should never be used as a basis for the move (which has been criticized by many users already); there was clearly no consensus for it. The other votes on the page are getting more and more laugable, with semi-serious discussions now about 'which method of voting will we use to determine the method of voting for the move'. Proper WP:RM is the only solution to deal with this problem. PS. Ghirla's yet another violation of WP:PA and accusations of me and others forcing some votes and engaging in 'morbid polonization' is highly offensive and I hope neutral admins will warn him about his behaviour. "The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes" is just beyond comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Piotrus, the vote to Jogaila was fair and it was a result. Whatever you may want to make out about it you cannot say that it is up to Balcer to decide these things. If you had any respect for wiki prodedures you would overtly condemn Balcer's actions, instead of wasting time going after Ghirla again. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- User: Piotrus what about this case?
- The move by User:Balcer is unacceptable. Page should be moved back to >> Jogaila and protected form other “good” moves until the editors finds solution. M.K. 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what about that case? That move has evidently proven uncontroversial, so in assuming good faith etc. nobody questions it. The W2J->Jogaila move, on the contrary, has alrady generated dozens of posts and many users are questioning it, on basis ranging from 'proper procedures (RM) were not followed' to 'that move was done with 1:2 support'. It was that last move that should have been reported here; the only thing to cricitize is that it was moved by a user involved in a dispute, not by a neutral party - but even so I don't see how that move violates any policies. Again, the last move, which was not following WP:RM, does appear to have violated WP:RM and should have been reverted for it (IMHO).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good will? The good will in Jogaila case could be asking for neutral admin addition support, arranging another poll within Jogaila after appropriate time...
- And I will quote and ask with user:Doc15071969 words: - "The result of the debate was rename to Jogaila. -- Kjkolb 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" Which part of that is too dificult to understand or to accept? M.K. 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what about that case? That move has evidently proven uncontroversial, so in assuming good faith etc. nobody questions it. The W2J->Jogaila move, on the contrary, has alrady generated dozens of posts and many users are questioning it, on basis ranging from 'proper procedures (RM) were not followed' to 'that move was done with 1:2 support'. It was that last move that should have been reported here; the only thing to cricitize is that it was moved by a user involved in a dispute, not by a neutral party - but even so I don't see how that move violates any policies. Again, the last move, which was not following WP:RM, does appear to have violated WP:RM and should have been reverted for it (IMHO).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd only like to point out that, if we treated the previous poll as a proper WP:RM procedure (which it was not), then there was no consensus to move, as the votes were basically split 16:16. //Halibutt 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion is this. There had been extensive discussions and polls at Jogaila. Yes, it was controversial, but I think that we should now respect the closing admin's decision, leave the article at Jogaila, and start the debate anew. It was not appropriate for Balcer to simply drag the article back to Władysław II Jagiełło, especially because he was not neutral (he immediately started a new poll, and voted for Władysław II Jagiełło). Me personally, I don't like the name Jogaila either, but we should respect the decision of the closing admin. If they made a bad call, then it can be addressed, but by all indications I've seen, they made an appropriate decision based on the state of the discussion at the time.
- My opinion is this. There had been extensive discussions and polls at
- My request is that some other neutral admin at this point, reverse Balcer's move, put the Jogaila, as was closing admin User:Kjkolb's good faith decision, and then we start discussions fresh as to what do to next. --Elonka19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- My request is that some other neutral admin at this point, reverse Balcer's move, put the
- First, let's all keep in mind that I am not an admin, so somewhat different standards apply to me than would to an admin in this case. Obviously, I did not use any admin powers to move the article back (since I have none). Given that, I do not believe my action violated any policy or guideline. In particular, I do not believe that a simple user involved in a dispute is forbidden to move the article involved. Now if I had simply moved the article back without doing anything else, that would indeed have been ill advised. This is why my move was followed immediately by a RM request, in which everyone involved will be able to express their opinion, by a clear answer to a clear question. As the talk page indicated, there was no concensus support for User:Kjkolb's closing of the discussion. I appreciate his attempt to assist in the resolution of the dispute, but in this case it clearly was not satisfactory for many users. This seemed to be reflected in the quick, informal poll started to see what further action should be taken.
- I am perfectly ready to accept sanctions for any policies I have violated by my actions. My only interest was to resolve what clearly is a significant controversy through a clear, unambigous RM procedure, in which all interested editors would have a chance to vote on a clear question. Balcer 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to revert User:Balcer's move, but only because such actions have been determined to be disruptive by the arbitration commitee. If move protection is needed, it should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for review by a neutral admin. Circeus 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I just noticed the history is due to addition of a {{R from alternate name}}, and making the move irreversible might not have been the intention. Circeus19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am perfectly ready to accept sanctions for any policies I have violated by my actions. My only interest was to resolve what clearly is a significant controversy through a clear, unambigous RM procedure, in which all interested editors would have a chance to vote on a clear question. Balcer 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is your prerogative of course. Nevertheless, a formal RM procedure has now started and I hope it will continue, no matter where the article is moved next. If this RM: Jogaila does not pass, I hope you will move the article back. Balcer19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is your prerogative of course. Nevertheless, a formal RM procedure has now started and I hope it will continue, no matter where the article is moved next. If this RM:
- While not doubitng the good faith of Kjkolb, he was not acting as a closing admin, since it was not a proper RM to start with. This is the version of the page before he moved it. I don't see any RM template at the top indicating this is an RM vote. Therefore while Kjkolb acted as a good-faithed neutral editor, he was not a closing admin, just as the vote was not a proper RM vote. Thus, unlike RM vote, when it became clear his move is controversial, it could have and has been reverted without any violation of our policies. Again, let me repeat: the only way to solve this as soon as possible with as little bad blood as possible is to hold a proper RM which will clearly indicate whether there is consensus for a move to Jogaila, and whose decision should not be questioned in the near future.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have protected
01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
These two articles are pasted in from the author's research paper, that s/he submitted to a University. It's not OR, as it is throughly sourced - but I am wondering if we some sort of a policy against such things on WP. Does the University hold copyrights in the submitted materials? Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. -
- Wikipedia:Copyright violation. Oups, didn't notice this was abot a paper they submitted. And it's still OR if it has any sort of new conclusion,until it has been officially published. Circeus19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unpublished material is not necessatily OR. Personal communcations and unpublished works are often used in academic papers and books as references. Joelito (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The original creator of the work owns the copyright unless there is some kind of unusual agreement with the university. A good research paper should have some {{) 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unpublished material is not necessatily OR. Personal communcations and unpublished works are often used in academic papers and books as references. Joelito (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Michaelch7
This user's behavior is really stressing me out. He continue to harass me and accuse me of vandalism and agenda pushing, as noted previously on
Why was I blocked??
I got a message saying "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Redvers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS". The reason given for ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS's block is: "User...". Your IP address is 205.188.116.70. Redvers"
I'm not ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS, and I don't know why I was blocked. It's not fair that I have to be penalized because I have the same IP address as someone else. I wasn't doing anything wrong. --Sakano 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Sakano, this is an extremely common issue with people who use AOL: please read 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Try contacting the blocking admin, and using this template: ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), which shows autoblocks, they're usually nice about removing autoblocks. Really I'm not sure why they never came up with a media wiki fix to stop autoblocks all together--64.12.116.200 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! I'll try that. --Sakano 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Need for spelling error correction...
The article on Liquid hydrogen needs a spelling error correction from then to than in the second paragraph, third sentence at "As in any gas, storing it as liquid takes less space them storing it as a gas at normal temperature and pressure."
I would make the correction myself but I have a permablock on both my IP and named accounts. 209.216.92.232 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I fixed it. WAS 4.250 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hoax material
I have twice reverted/removed material that is quite obviously fake from
- Reversion of vandalism does not count towards 3RR, but the whole article is bollocks, so what does it matter? --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it. Hoax, vandal magnet, snowball. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 13:31Z
- You missed an image. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It needs to be deleted from Commons... —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 21:26Z
Ice Cold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
OK, he's technically not a vandal yet, but I have reasons to believe that he's one of many Dzoni's sockpuppets. He approached me on my talk page today [15] asking me where Serbian Wikimedia meetups are being held. Needless to say, Dzoni was always asking me such things at sr: wiki (where he's blocked indef. along with a dozen or so sockpuppet accounts) all the time and he was doing it in the same manner (calling me "Dungo" at the very first contact he makes with me, signing without "--"). Also, if we look at his contribs, he's using his famous capital letters, and by skimming his talk page, it seems as he's already gotten into some sh*t by being rude and violating policies. After skimming his talk page again, he's certainly been connected to Dzoni by others. Checkuser would be in order to confirm my claims, seeing as I am certain this is indeed Dzoni. Thank you. --Filip (§) 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Checkuser requests can be made at WP:RFCU. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for advice
User GaeusOctavius (talk · contribs) has made some dubious edits lately, along with many good contributions. Could a more experienced Wikipedian investigate, please? He seems hostile to conservatives, including Luboš Motl AKA User:Lumidek. Selected edits in chronological order: re Motl, also re Motl,re IQs of conservatives, I ask what's going on, reply, re a conservative, re Motl, re a moderate. Lots of good edits not listed. Perhaps he only needs a hint about the new
(BTW, is this the right place for queries like this?) Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletion backlog
Hi all,
Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV
I am reporting
The onslaught started about 24 hours ago when I tried to remove "references" that are not actually cited in the
As if I didn't have enough to try to get fixed yet, Hanuman went to cause problems with Hermetism, [22] by citing it with a fiction tag and there is a debate going on about whether Manly P. Hall is a reputable source. SynergeticMaggot then attempted to raise questions on Hermeticism.
In all of these articles, I would be the primary contributor and these were selected by browsing my contributions. It is to be expected that I would be the one having to defend or work to improve these articles to keep them up or keep content in. I sent each of them a message[23][24][25] which stated:
- There are currently challenges made by the same three people, all of whom will recieve this message, on Hermeticism and other thought systems all at the same time. Some people actually work for a living and have a life outside of Wikipedia. If you want to make challenges, you are free to do so. But when you know that they are all against the same person, have a little bit of courtesy and challenge them one or two at a time, and allow appropriate time for someone to actually do something about it. I am not a superhuman, and blitzkriegingme with all these challenges at once is unrealistic and shady. Try to have some patience and actually make it possible for me to work with you rather than trying to send me on the defensive and effectively make me leave Wikipedia. If this continues, I will have to make this an issue through RfC, Administrator's noticeboard, or Arbitration Committee. Try to use your time actually find sources to contradict mine if you feel that you have too much free time to wait around for me to be able to act on any given article.
in attempt to make them realize that I cannot defend in 6 places at once, and since these are the same contributors, they should be patient and wait for me to be able to handle each of these situations. I had replies accusing me of WP:OWN because I would assume that articles chosen by seeing where I had made major contributions would have to be defended by me[26] and asking me to not contribute to Wikipedia if I cannot dedicate all my time (though I work 40 hours with 12-15 hours commuting time a week) to defend 6 controversies within 24 hours.
I am not asking for bans to be put into effect, but for articles to be locked and protected until I have the opportunity to work with each one. The blitzkrieg tactics employed here only serve to make me incapable of having a fair shot at working on these articles.
KV(Talk) 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I made the mistake of readding the prod tag, and user 999 removed it telling me to look into WP:PROD more closely. I realized I was wrong, so I then said the next part of the process was to take it to AfD. All of the users edit related articles, and I wont speak anymore about them after saying that there is a consensus among us that think that what KV is reverting on three pages makes the articles look better. KV is a good contributor, although he does not understand that alot of the material he was putting in was POV and OR. We also fixed the article per Manual of Style. He feels the need to defend the article and is clearly showing that he wishes to OWN the articles. I will abide by whatever the admins choose here, as I am also being accused of uncivil edit summaries below, based on me using Vandal Proof to revert his edits, and me adding test-3 and test-4 to his talk page. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- My intention is not to claim that I own the articles, but that I have a right to defend them. This action was taken out specifically on articles that they knew that I would be defending, as they have looked for them by checking my contributions. If there is POV or OR in them, that can be worked on, but it should be done one article at a time, so that I have a chance to actually work with them. Not only do they have numbers and time (I can verify that SynergeticMaggot can edit Wikipedia all day, without problem, and I suspect the same of 999), but I am the one that must find sources, despite the fact that I already have sources, and the statements they support are not cited. Due to them making me inable to actually work with them in improving the articles, I have had to resort to reverting, in part to bring attention to this matter. Essentially, this is the use of a comparative mob to push POV with a stated unwillingness to work with me, but rather say that these three that work together represent a clear consensus against my version and for their version. I will add more information on my attempts to work with them and others on the articles on a break.
- KV(Talk) 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. KV is adding personal information to this noticeboard about me for no reason other than to explain why he cannot fix minor errors in his and other editors wording. If POV's and OR were not added to these article in the first place, there would have been no problem at all. No one is pushing POV, but there are alot of mistakes this editor makes on numerous articles, someone has to fix it. Also, two of the articles are on AfD now, and have been gaining a consensus to delete. This shows that we are not the only ones feel that he articles were OR. You can find them here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermeticism and other thought systems] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermetism. SynergeticMaggot 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- KV(Talk) 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have been in an edit war in the past with this user, and recently he has repetitavely placed Template:Sockpuppeteer at the head of my userpage. This is a reference to a recent incident in which I was blocked for a week for creating sockpuppets with inappropriate names and reporting them myself for username policy violation. I'm not completely certain, but I believe that this is inappropriate use of that template. From what I've seen, the template is applied to currently blocked users who are using sockpuppets as means of evading the block, and regardless, his reasons for placing the template on my page are not constructive. Though slighty off topic, I would like to note that this user has been confirmed to have used at least one sockpuppet, Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), himself. I also checked his userpage, and saw that he had copied content from my own userpage as well as an antifeminism template that I created and placed it there, most likely with the intent of causing trouble in some way or another. I would appreciate it if an administrator would intervene.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah. The difference being Rennix wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet of mine (because he wasn't, but there's no point arguing that now he's banned). Conrad constantly placed the sockpuppet tag on Rennix's page, yet doesn't seem to like it on his own. Skinmeister 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said. You're not doing this for any constructive purpose; you're just trying to make a statement. Cut it out. And also, stop copying barnstars from my userpage and placing them on your own page.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Show me the Wikipedia policy that says I can't do that, and I'll stop. Skinmeister 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing the template from Conrad's page. There's no need to humiliate. -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it back on. I'll stop putting it back when the sockpuppet tags and comments are removed from Rennix's user and talk pages, or it is unprotected so I can do it myself. Otherwise, this is a clear case of double standards. Skinmeister 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's been enough said about that particular issue. He's not avoiding any blocks by using sockpuppets, so the template is redundant in its use -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then I'll contine to put it back on. Skinmeister 07:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's been enough said about that particular issue. He's not avoiding any blocks by using sockpuppets, so the template is redundant in its use -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it back on. I'll stop putting it back when the sockpuppet tags and comments are removed from Rennix's user and talk pages, or it is unprotected so I can do it myself. Otherwise, this is a clear case of double standards. Skinmeister 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing the template from Conrad's page. There's no need to humiliate. -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Show me the Wikipedia policy that says I can't do that, and I'll stop. Skinmeister 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said. You're not doing this for any constructive purpose; you're just trying to make a statement. Cut it out. And also, stop copying barnstars from my userpage and placing them on your own page.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the template. As long as Conrad is allowed to edit and not actively using abusive sockpuppets, he should be able to remove it if he wishes. Skinmeister has violated 3RR on that page, though as I believe he broke it under the impression that he was reverting vandalism, I don't believe a block is necessary unless he continues to war over the template. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I made the reasons why I was taking down the template very clear to Skinmeister on this page. I don't believe for a minute that he thought he was reverting vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an outside observer to this situation (I stumbled onto it last night while reverting User page vandalisms), I agree with Samuel Blanning's views stated above. There is no need to have this template on that user page at this time. It would be best to see Skinmeister and Conrad Devonshire exhibit some self-control and move on in seperate directions, seeing as how the aggression and consternation that both have exhibited with this situation seems to be entirely self-made at this point. If they went on their ways within Wikipedia, I'm sure they'd appreciate their time on the site more. Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL violation by User:SynergeticMaggot
Calling edits that are not vandalism, vandalism.
69.14.79.14 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- More evidence here: [30]... This is a problem with the previous point I brought up that has been unanswered as of yet: [31]. Problems with cookies, sorry for IP signing.
- KV(Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never called an edit of his vandalism. As most admins know, I use Vandal Proof to revert edits. KV is throwing a fit and reverting edits that 3-5 users agree are consistant with Wikipedia policy, on at least 3 pages (Hermetism). He has exhausted his reverts and now he wishes to complain about it. He's made it clear here and here in his edit summary that he wants to just cause an edit war. We have tried to discuss this matter on the talk pages, it is he that is not working well with other editors. He also brings up his talk page where I placed test3 and test4 templates. He had already reverted so many times that I didnt bother to put tests 1 and 2 first. KV saved me the time, because I'm asking for a block on his account for however long an admin sees fit for reverting twice on the Thoth article, 3 times on the Hermeticism article, and I believe 2-3 times on the Hermetism article. SynergeticMaggot01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never called an edit of his vandalism. As most admins know, I use Vandal Proof to revert edits. KV is throwing a fit and reverting edits that 3-5 users agree are consistant with Wikipedia policy, on at least 3 pages (
- I undid the auto. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly does that mean? SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I undid the auto. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
As for my intentions, the edits on Thoth are not against Wikipedia policy. I am attempting to take references where it cannot be verified that they are used within the article out of the references section. When 999 said that they don't have to be used in the article I worked with him and created an Additional reading section. The trio has worked to make sure that didn't stay. In the other two articles mentioned, large sections are being removed without discussion. I have attempted to work with them, pleading with them to give me the chance to improve the articles by working with them and discussing with them, working on them one at a time so that I can focus my attentions and create good article status. They have a stance that published facts put forth by an acclaimed author and published by a reputable publisher are not "reputable sources" and are attempting to remove that in favor of keeping in statements that are completely unverified, but match their point of view on the matter. They have decided to attack me on 6 fronts, nominating articles for deletion that can be improved, are verified, and in the case of
SynergeticMaggot, I know in real life, I convinced him to join Wikipedia originally to help me on these articles, something I am now regretting, and I have applauded him for learning Wikipedia policies and procedures, always freshening up on them. However, I am seeing now that he is doing so and using this knowledge to selectively apply policy and abuse it and procedure to work against the spirit of Wikipedia. He is trying, with the others, to wear me down, get me to overreact, and get banned so they can push their POV while there are few interested eyes in these articles. A vast majority of those dealing with these articles are interested in learning only.
On the subject of 3RR, I am allowed 3 reverts for each article, and I have not gone over that in any of them. Each revert is in restoring a version that I feel is better, is verifiable, and should be discussed to improve, especially since it is long-standing text. Yet, he calls it vandalism, indirectly by the VandalPro edit messages, then calling me a vandal on my talk page. I feel that his actions are effectively vandalism, but in good faith, I have restrained myself from calling it vandalism up to the point of mentioning it here for comparison.
KV(Talk) 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to see how I am abusing an policies. If there is an admin who sees this they can kindly let me know on my talk page, as I am no longer watching this notice. Also note that I am being accused in two places, the other is in the section above called "Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV". KV has not gone over the 3RR, yet he has demonstrated his ability to revert first, and complain on AN later. Multiple reverts, as I was told before is enough to block for a given time, which is all I was asking for. And again, no one I know of has yet to call him a vandal, these were automated reverts, and test templates given out to warn KV. Have a good day! :) SynergeticMaggot 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If anything, this should go to WP:RFC -- no obvious admin action is needed here. Jkelly20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If anything, this should go to
Terrorism
A new user moved the
- Done, and I've blocked the user responsible, Spies and Secret Agents. He has also been making bizarre edits on a similar basis. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that a longer block may be required if he persists with misuse of the privilege to edit. --Bhadani 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this account was created just to harass
- I have indefblocked [32] for personal attacks & being a vandalism-only account. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I endorse the block. --Bhadani 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ozu [email protected] (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
Hello, Is this username appropriate?
- Generally, such usernames with email IDs are not encouraged. --Bhadani 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see: E-mail addresses. --Bhadani 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for Administrative AfD block as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR
There are two AfD requests I would like blocked as per the aforementioned rules. Each of them state the following text: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
I will discuss both of the AfDs separately as they apply to these policies, but these AfDs are specifically overridden by these policies, and I will show how the deletion of these articles violate these core policies and thus they "cannot be superseded by ... editors' consensus" and must be stopped as per Wikipedia core policy.
This is my third notice on this board in the past 48 hours, probably the last 24, which I cannot remember starting a discussion on before. I certainly usually do not use it. But all the claims are interrelated to the same conflict, originally covered in
- Unless the AfDs are clearly bad-faith and the AfD participants agree that they should be speedy-closed, these AfDs should stay the course. Also, please keep your requests short, per the text at the beginning of this page which states, in bold: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.". Comments this long make my eyes bleed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
(long diatribe thankfully removed)
AFD needing action
- Did you know you arent supposed to do that unless its speedy keep? SynergeticMaggot 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. -reverts close- ~ -talk-18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to throw out some helpful advice for others who may be watching and wanting to learn how to close AfD's, please read this: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Have a good day. SynergeticMaggot 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. -reverts close- ~
It's been not quite (but almost) 5 days since the nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 21:07Z
Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV
I am reporting
The onslaught started about 24 hours ago when I tried to remove "references" that are not actually cited in the
As if I didn't have enough to try to get fixed yet, Hanuman went to cause problems with Hermetism, [39] by citing it with a fiction tag and there is a debate going on about whether Manly P. Hall is a reputable source. SynergeticMaggot then attempted to raise questions on Hermeticism.
In all of these articles, I would be the primary contributor and these were selected by browsing my contributions. It is to be expected that I would be the one having to defend or work to improve these articles to keep them up or keep content in. I sent each of them a message[40][41][42] which stated:
- There are currently challenges made by the same three people, all of whom will recieve this message, on Hermeticism and other thought systems all at the same time. Some people actually work for a living and have a life outside of Wikipedia. If you want to make challenges, you are free to do so. But when you know that they are all against the same person, have a little bit of courtesy and challenge them one or two at a time, and allow appropriate time for someone to actually do something about it. I am not a superhuman, and blitzkriegingme with all these challenges at once is unrealistic and shady. Try to have some patience and actually make it possible for me to work with you rather than trying to send me on the defensive and effectively make me leave Wikipedia. If this continues, I will have to make this an issue through RfC, Administrator's noticeboard, or Arbitration Committee. Try to use your time actually find sources to contradict mine if you feel that you have too much free time to wait around for me to be able to act on any given article.
in attempt to make them realize that I cannot defend in 6 places at once, and since these are the same contributors, they should be patient and wait for me to be able to handle each of these situations. I had replies accusing me of WP:OWN because I would assume that articles chosen by seeing where I had made major contributions would have to be defended by me[43] and asking me to not contribute to Wikipedia if I cannot dedicate all my time (though I work 40 hours with 12-15 hours commuting time a week) to defend 6 controversies within 24 hours.
I am not asking for bans to be put into effect, but for articles to be locked and protected until I have the opportunity to work with each one. The blitzkrieg tactics employed here only serve to make me incapable of having a fair shot at working on these articles.
KV(Talk) 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I made the mistake of readding the prod tag, and user 999 removed it telling me to look into WP:PROD more closely. I realized I was wrong, so I then said the next part of the process was to take it to AfD. All of the users edit related articles, and I wont speak anymore about them after saying that there is a consensus among us that think that what KV is reverting on three pages makes the articles look better. KV is a good contributor, although he does not understand that alot of the material he was putting in was POV and OR. We also fixed the article per Manual of Style. He feels the need to defend the article and is clearly showing that he wishes to OWN the articles. I will abide by whatever the admins choose here, as I am also being accused of uncivil edit summaries below, based on me using Vandal Proof to revert his edits, and me adding test-3 and test-4 to his talk page. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- My intention is not to claim that I own the articles, but that I have a right to defend them. This action was taken out specifically on articles that they knew that I would be defending, as they have looked for them by checking my contributions. If there is POV or OR in them, that can be worked on, but it should be done one article at a time, so that I have a chance to actually work with them. Not only do they have numbers and time (I can verify that SynergeticMaggot can edit Wikipedia all day, without problem, and I suspect the same of 999), but I am the one that must find sources, despite the fact that I already have sources, and the statements they support are not cited. Due to them making me inable to actually work with them in improving the articles, I have had to resort to reverting, in part to bring attention to this matter. Essentially, this is the use of a comparative mob to push POV with a stated unwillingness to work with me, but rather say that these three that work together represent a clear consensus against my version and for their version. I will add more information on my attempts to work with them and others on the articles on a break.
- KV(Talk) 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. KV is adding personal information to this noticeboard about me for no reason other than to explain why he cannot fix minor errors in his and other editors wording. If POV's and OR were not added to these article in the first place, there would have been no problem at all. No one is pushing POV, but there are alot of mistakes this editor makes on numerous articles, someone has to fix it. Also, two of the articles are on AfD now, and have been gaining a consensus to delete. This shows that we are not the only ones feel that he articles were OR. You can find them here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermeticism and other thought systems] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermetism. SynergeticMaggot 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- KV(Talk) 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have been in an edit war in the past with this user, and recently he has repetitavely placed Template:Sockpuppeteer at the head of my userpage. This is a reference to a recent incident in which I was blocked for a week for creating sockpuppets with inappropriate names and reporting them myself for username policy violation. I'm not completely certain, but I believe that this is inappropriate use of that template. From what I've seen, the template is applied to currently blocked users who are using sockpuppets as means of evading the block, and regardless, his reasons for placing the template on my page are not constructive. Though slighty off topic, I would like to note that this user has been confirmed to have used at least one sockpuppet, Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), himself. I also checked his userpage, and saw that he had copied content from my own userpage as well as an antifeminism template that I created and placed it there, most likely with the intent of causing trouble in some way or another. I would appreciate it if an administrator would intervene.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah. The difference being Rennix wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet of mine (because he wasn't, but there's no point arguing that now he's banned). Conrad constantly placed the sockpuppet tag on Rennix's page, yet doesn't seem to like it on his own. Skinmeister 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said. You're not doing this for any constructive purpose; you're just trying to make a statement. Cut it out. And also, stop copying barnstars from my userpage and placing them on your own page.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Show me the Wikipedia policy that says I can't do that, and I'll stop. Skinmeister 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing the template from Conrad's page. There's no need to humiliate. -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it back on. I'll stop putting it back when the sockpuppet tags and comments are removed from Rennix's user and talk pages, or it is unprotected so I can do it myself. Otherwise, this is a clear case of double standards. Skinmeister 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's been enough said about that particular issue. He's not avoiding any blocks by using sockpuppets, so the template is redundant in its use -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then I'll contine to put it back on. Skinmeister 07:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's been enough said about that particular issue. He's not avoiding any blocks by using sockpuppets, so the template is redundant in its use -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it back on. I'll stop putting it back when the sockpuppet tags and comments are removed from Rennix's user and talk pages, or it is unprotected so I can do it myself. Otherwise, this is a clear case of double standards. Skinmeister 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm removing the template from Conrad's page. There's no need to humiliate. -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Show me the Wikipedia policy that says I can't do that, and I'll stop. Skinmeister 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Like I said. You're not doing this for any constructive purpose; you're just trying to make a statement. Cut it out. And also, stop copying barnstars from my userpage and placing them on your own page.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the template. As long as Conrad is allowed to edit and not actively using abusive sockpuppets, he should be able to remove it if he wishes. Skinmeister has violated 3RR on that page, though as I believe he broke it under the impression that he was reverting vandalism, I don't believe a block is necessary unless he continues to war over the template. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I made the reasons why I was taking down the template very clear to Skinmeister on this page. I don't believe for a minute that he thought he was reverting vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an outside observer to this situation (I stumbled onto it last night while reverting User page vandalisms), I agree with Samuel Blanning's views stated above. There is no need to have this template on that user page at this time. It would be best to see Skinmeister and Conrad Devonshire exhibit some self-control and move on in seperate directions, seeing as how the aggression and consternation that both have exhibited with this situation seems to be entirely self-made at this point. If they went on their ways within Wikipedia, I'm sure they'd appreciate their time on the site more. Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL violation by User:SynergeticMaggot
Calling edits that are not vandalism, vandalism.
69.14.79.14 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- More evidence here: [47]... This is a problem with the previous point I brought up that has been unanswered as of yet: [48]. Problems with cookies, sorry for IP signing.
- KV(Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never called an edit of his vandalism. As most admins know, I use Vandal Proof to revert edits. KV is throwing a fit and reverting edits that 3-5 users agree are consistant with Wikipedia policy, on at least 3 pages (Hermetism). He has exhausted his reverts and now he wishes to complain about it. He's made it clear here and here in his edit summary that he wants to just cause an edit war. We have tried to discuss this matter on the talk pages, it is he that is not working well with other editors. He also brings up his talk page where I placed test3 and test4 templates. He had already reverted so many times that I didnt bother to put tests 1 and 2 first. KV saved me the time, because I'm asking for a block on his account for however long an admin sees fit for reverting twice on the Thoth article, 3 times on the Hermeticism article, and I believe 2-3 times on the Hermetism article. SynergeticMaggot01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never called an edit of his vandalism. As most admins know, I use Vandal Proof to revert edits. KV is throwing a fit and reverting edits that 3-5 users agree are consistant with Wikipedia policy, on at least 3 pages (
- I undid the auto. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly does that mean? SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I undid the auto. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
As for my intentions, the edits on Thoth are not against Wikipedia policy. I am attempting to take references where it cannot be verified that they are used within the article out of the references section. When 999 said that they don't have to be used in the article I worked with him and created an Additional reading section. The trio has worked to make sure that didn't stay. In the other two articles mentioned, large sections are being removed without discussion. I have attempted to work with them, pleading with them to give me the chance to improve the articles by working with them and discussing with them, working on them one at a time so that I can focus my attentions and create good article status. They have a stance that published facts put forth by an acclaimed author and published by a reputable publisher are not "reputable sources" and are attempting to remove that in favor of keeping in statements that are completely unverified, but match their point of view on the matter. They have decided to attack me on 6 fronts, nominating articles for deletion that can be improved, are verified, and in the case of
SynergeticMaggot, I know in real life, I convinced him to join Wikipedia originally to help me on these articles, something I am now regretting, and I have applauded him for learning Wikipedia policies and procedures, always freshening up on them. However, I am seeing now that he is doing so and using this knowledge to selectively apply policy and abuse it and procedure to work against the spirit of Wikipedia. He is trying, with the others, to wear me down, get me to overreact, and get banned so they can push their POV while there are few interested eyes in these articles. A vast majority of those dealing with these articles are interested in learning only.
On the subject of 3RR, I am allowed 3 reverts for each article, and I have not gone over that in any of them. Each revert is in restoring a version that I feel is better, is verifiable, and should be discussed to improve, especially since it is long-standing text. Yet, he calls it vandalism, indirectly by the VandalPro edit messages, then calling me a vandal on my talk page. I feel that his actions are effectively vandalism, but in good faith, I have restrained myself from calling it vandalism up to the point of mentioning it here for comparison.
KV(Talk) 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to see how I am abusing an policies. If there is an admin who sees this they can kindly let me know on my talk page, as I am no longer watching this notice. Also note that I am being accused in two places, the other is in the section above called "Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV". KV has not gone over the 3RR, yet he has demonstrated his ability to revert first, and complain on AN later. Multiple reverts, as I was told before is enough to block for a given time, which is all I was asking for. And again, no one I know of has yet to call him a vandal, these were automated reverts, and test templates given out to warn KV. Have a good day! :) SynergeticMaggot 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If anything, this should go to WP:RFC -- no obvious admin action is needed here. Jkelly20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If anything, this should go to
Polar Bear
Polar Bear needs constant watching. Check out its edits over the last 20 months. WAS 4.250 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can watch it but 1-2 vandalism edits a day is actually very mild. Looks like most vandalism is rolled back immediately. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, it is a pretty good article. Jkelly 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Over a period of time I overwatched it and it seemed to me that someone was inserting deliberately false data that was as plausable as possible yet still wrong. Like some sort of test of the wikipedia editing process. WAS 4.250 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's annoying. It may be necessary to adopt the habit of reverting anything that doesn't come already cited. Jkelly19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah. I tried that. In Nov. 2005, when I reverted a good user making many good faith edits all at once [49] (many stylistic like removing blank lines) who complained to high heaven I gave up. Every couple of months since then, I get wistful and return to the article. WAS 4.250 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll watchlist, so at least there will be one more set of eyes on it. Jkelly 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism
A new user moved the
- Done, and I've blocked the user responsible, Spies and Secret Agents. He has also been making bizarre edits on a similar basis. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that a longer block may be required if he persists with misuse of the privilege to edit. --Bhadani 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this account was created just to harass
- I have indefblocked [50] for personal attacks & being a vandalism-only account. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I endorse the block. --Bhadani 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ozu [email protected] (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
Hello, Is this username appropriate?
- Generally, such usernames with email IDs are not encouraged. --Bhadani 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see: E-mail addresses. --Bhadani 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for Administrative AfD block as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR
There are two AfD requests I would like blocked as per the aforementioned rules. Each of them state the following text: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
I will discuss both of the AfDs separately as they apply to these policies, but these AfDs are specifically overridden by these policies, and I will show how the deletion of these articles violate these core policies and thus they "cannot be superseded by ... editors' consensus" and must be stopped as per Wikipedia core policy.
This is my third notice on this board in the past 48 hours, probably the last 24, which I cannot remember starting a discussion on before. I certainly usually do not use it. But all the claims are interrelated to the same conflict, originally covered in
- Unless the AfDs are clearly bad-faith and the AfD participants agree that they should be speedy-closed, these AfDs should stay the course. Also, please keep your requests short, per the text at the beginning of this page which states, in bold: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.". Comments this long make my eyes bleed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
(long diatribe thankfully removed)
AFD needing action
- Did you know you arent supposed to do that unless its speedy keep? SynergeticMaggot 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. -reverts close- ~ -talk-18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to throw out some helpful advice for others who may be watching and wanting to learn how to close AfD's, please read this: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Have a good day. SynergeticMaggot 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. -reverts close- ~
It's been not quite (but almost) 5 days since the nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-28 21:07Z
More problems with User:Handface
I believe its time this user faced a community ban from Wikipedia as he seems unable to conduct himself in a reasonable manner. I'd like to hear other opinions. Gwernol 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is unacceptable. I support the proposal for a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- This user has repeatedly enganged in unprovoked personal attacks and nastiness. He can't control himself and does the same thing every time he comes off of a block. I support a community ban. pschemp | talk 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That really is unacceptable. This user clearly is unwilling to follow WP:CIVIL, and I cannot think of any reason to restore their ability to edit here. Jkelly19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Definete ban. --Sasquatch 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with Sasquatch, it should be an indefinite ban. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not a user we want to have around. I'll back a ban 100%. -- ChrisO 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds unanimous. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm blocking him indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the 3RR
I've just blocked him (24h) for violating the rule at
Edit removal from history needed
Someone that knows how to do it needs to remove a series of page-stretching edit summaries left by a vandal in the history of
- It'll take a couple of minutes. Stand by. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Shit, that was on the Main Page. Well, I did it, but... SHIT, that was on the MAIN PAGE. Thanks for the heads up, you know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder how often something that is on the main page gets protected or temp deleted or otherwise has something-done-to-it-that-it-shouldn't-because-it's-on-the-main-page because it's not clear what is or isn't on the main page unless you check it before doing *anything at all*. Would it be so god-awful terrible to have a "This page is currently linked from the main page" box for the top of such pages? Essjay (Talk) 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- yes.Geni 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, sounds like a good idea to me. Its only a short time that it on the front page. ViridaeTalk 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- front page is meant to introduce people to wikipedia. Notices everywhere don't look good. We had redlinked stuff on the front page pretty recently.Geni 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand, I only deleted it for about 10 seconds (prolly less). On the other hand, that is 10 seconds of dead link on the English Language version of the 17th busiest website on the internet (damnit). On the one hand, a notice on the article would be meta-garish muy malo. And, there is no other hand... although the chances (if random) were 1 in 1.2 Million that the article I was deleting was the TFA, I should have just checked. No notice, please. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well... we could ask devs to have a notice at the top of the article saying "linked from main page" that would be wrapped in a #mainpagelinked div, not visible to ordinary users. Or we could ask if they want to change the code and display the same CSS for users with the delete permission assigned and hide it server-side to everyone else (not as likely to get implemented, though). Titoxd(?!?) 07:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Phone number in article history
A phone number was inserted into the article Ari. (Diff) Not 100% sure what can be done about that - I am assuming that certain revisions can be deleted. ViridaeTalk 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've deleted the article and then restored it without said personal information. Yanksox 06:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I can verify that is a real number - wether it is connected to anything I'm not sure. Thanks for the follow up. ViridaeTalk 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, Yanksox, using the mop quickly. Perhaps someone with oversight privileges could strike the phone number out entirely? -- Samir धर्म 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. t07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yanksox has been an absolute machine tonight, dealing with CSD backlogs and general annoyances. Not bad start! Tony Fox (arf!) 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, deleting an article's history is a bit out of accord with GFDL licensing. (→Netscott) 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Happily mistaken. Only the one edit was removed. If that vandalism were part of the article's current version, we would indeed be in violation for not properly attributing the author; thankfully, that's not a problem. t07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Happily mistaken. Only the one edit was removed. If that vandalism were part of the article's current version, we would indeed be in violation for not properly attributing the author; thankfully, that's not a problem.
- Unless I'm mistaken, deleting an article's history is a bit out of accord with GFDL licensing. (→Netscott) 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done.
- Wow, Yanksox, using the mop quickly. Perhaps someone with oversight privileges could strike the phone number out entirely? -- Samir धर्म 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I can verify that is a real number - wether it is connected to anything I'm not sure. Thanks for the follow up. ViridaeTalk 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's only if you are removing actual contributions that are actually being used in the article. This was something that was pure vandalism and meant to attack an individual. I restored the rest of the history so that the GFDL could be satisfied...and so that there was an article. Yanksox 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, no worries... I hadn't checked the article's history prior to making my comment... so all appears well. Good work. :-) (→Netscott) 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FurryiamIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hardvice accidentally gave away his sock FurryiamIAM, who seems to have been engaged in building up an edit count by null edits (and had been warned about this). I've blocked the sock indefinitely and have blocked Hardvice for forty-eight hours, to be lifted if he discloses other socks and promises not to use socks again. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at User:Hardvice's latest edits now that the Encyclopædia Dramatica article has been deleted, he seems to be following the same "null edit" behavior that his sockpuppet User:FurryiamIAM has been demonstrating. Is 48 hours enough? (→Netscott) 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another question should the AfDs that his sockpuppet started be left to continue? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- This lends creedence to the notiion that user Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who so heavily spammed Wikipedia admins and editors about User:MONGO and the ED article deletion may indeed be a sockpuppet of Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, but that guy has a truckload of sockpuppets, so it could be, yeah. --✉17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly topics discussed and writing pattern that indicates the sockpuppetry nature of the relationship between the spammer account and Hardvice. One can see that User:Hardvice decided to submit all of those Wiki's for deletion under a sockpuppet as a result of this WP:ANI thread. (→Netscott) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, but that guy has a truckload of sockpuppets, so it could be, yeah. --
- This lends creedence to the notiion that user Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who so heavily spammed Wikipedia admins and editors about User:MONGO and the ED article deletion may indeed be a sockpuppet of Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at Hardvice's recent edits, it is clear that he was, as Netscott says, using the same null-edit technique as his sock. I surmise that this was so as to inflate his edit count for unknown reasons--which I think we can safely presume to be nefarious. I suggest that a community ban at this stage would be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, ✉18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Dramatica troll. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Tony Sidaway's community ban proposal. This user is very clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. (→Netscott) 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:Hardvice appears to support his own banning. (→Netscott) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm about to block this user indefinitely. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:Hardvice appears to support his own banning. (→Netscott) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- And while we're at it,
- Another question should the AfDs that his sockpuppet started be left to continue? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- None. Okay I'm blocking as a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I debated an image he had posted on his userpage earlier, and never agreed with the evidence, though I let it go when Raul stated the image wasn't a copyvio. It seemed implausible that someone who got out of jail would rush home the same day or even the next day to upload their own image (a mugshot) on wikipedia. Don't expect this will be the last you see of him though. Oh, and yeah, I support the block...no surprise.--MONGO 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support the ban, subject to review if Hardvice ever climbs back off the ceiling over the deletion of ED. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I heartily endorse this product or service. Accidentally signing his sockpuppet's talk page was hilarious. I loved his edit summary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
POV, OR and disruptive edits
Could someone take a look at the contributions and user page of
- Well, he stopped after receiving the final warning and some explanations of the policies. I have deleted a few attack pages consisted only on violations of WP:BLP abakharev12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Page move requested
I'm posting this here because a conventional move request was closed with "no consensus". Would an admin please move
Poll Close?
I'm posting to bring attention to this poll, Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Poll:_article_names_of_Polish_monarchs.2C_diacritics_accepted_or_not, opened on the 13th of June. That's obviously a long time, I'm not sure if it's listed on any of the poll pages, so I don't know if any of the relevant admins are aware of it. Hence why I bring it to attention here. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)