Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive205

It's "automatically", not "automagically" at the bottom of this page header. I'd correct it myself, but apparently it's restricted to admins.  :) YechielMan 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But automagically is cooler. :( Okay, maybe it's unprofessional. I like it, it's a harmless bit of fun on a board that's otherwise all vitriol and anger. Others might not see it that way. Discuss? Or perhaps move this to talk? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I also believe its harmless and quite appropriate. See Wiktionary's definition for more details: (Automagical on Wiktionary). It sums up the process very nicely.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it that time again? Endorse "automagically", same as last time. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as usual. Can we link to the myriad other times this has been brought up? Should we add this to a FAQ somewhere? is it on the template talk page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No opinion, but is has been there a long time. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse change to automatically. Prefer professionalism over idiosyncracy. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I know what the term means, but non-computer-programmers might not ;). So either change to "automatically", or link to the Wikitionary definition of "automagically".
  Yuser31415
  20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• For those without a sense of humour in language, it’s a technical term. Yes, seriously. Link to wikt:automagically, if necessary… —xyzzy_n 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have linked to wiktionary and removed the ugly "u title" spoof. A direct link is easier than a hover. Teke ^(talk) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse automaGically. If it's proper enough English for Mr. Darcy, shouldn't it be proper enough for Wikipedia? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse automagically: All professionalism and no quirk makes Wiki a dull project —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-21 08:53Z
• Change to automatically. Not only is 'automagically' unprofessional, describing it as
  ►
  10:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is hinging their opinion of Wikipedia's professionalism on automagically vs. automatically. And ultimately, this is not a professional project. It's done by random folks essentially wandering in off the street. That's the point, and it's not a bad thing.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-22 00:48Z

• Endorse automagically, given that it is a real term, which I did not know before, should be linked to here. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse automagically, this is silly. "Automagically" is not that uncommon a term, and needlessly changing spellings is generally not a good thing. Besides that, I think it lends an air of friendliness to the page. The Wikipedia may be serious business, but it doesn't have to be cold and sterile. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On Talk:Bridge to Terabithia the same inappropriate and offensive comment as been repeatedly added since August 2006. Numerous attempts to delete. The comment refers to a real-life dead child and is irrelevant to the talk page. The comment is exactly the same word for word in each case but added by several user IP and usernames ( sockpuppet?) Starting with the latest

As User:136.150.200.99 [1]

As User:136.150.200.100 [2]

As User:136.150.200.99 again [3] [4]

As User:24.29.74.132 [5] [6] [7]

As User:There is more to the world than meets the eye [8] [9]

As User:136.150.200.99 again [10]

As User:24.29.37.46 [11] [12]

What to do about a case like this? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I take it reversion isn't stopping the repeated addition? What about leaving it in place, once, with the comment "this is irrelevant". The comment is certainly out of left field, but it seems more or less harmless. Perhaps this poster would be satisfied by having it on the talk page (and if it is subsequently otherwise ignored, the poster will have their answer... no one takes it seriously). I dunno if that idea helps or not. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your idea helps. Next time I probably will leave it in place with a comment. But it is offensive enough that someone else will delete it. (I'm just the latest who has warned the user on the user's latest talk page. Other users have posted similar warnings on all the other talk pages.) Anyway, it is strange ... but I've seen weirder on WP. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours to give us time to talk about this without him continuing his completely unacceptable talk page spamming. I'll unblock him if he agrees to stop. Nandesuka 14:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. A problem edit: [13]. You'll never guess which "notable recent case" this was. Oh, you guessed. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that sending messages to 12 users' talk pages justifies a 48 hour block. This is the first time that he has done this kind of spamming, and may not be aware of the policy. I think that Nandesuka should reconsider and instead give him a warning that includes a reference to the WP policy that he has broken.--rogerd 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat sympathetic to Dean's underlying point -- that articles about enterprises can result in some of the same problems as articles about living persons. (Not, IMHO, all of the same problems, though). Unfortunately, Dean's
  tiger-ish approach to persuading the community isn't doing him any good. His point is interesting and deserves to be presented by the community, but it would benefit by being taken up by a patient, experienced editor. If I had the time, I would offer to take on an advocacy for Dean, but I don't, so I don't really have a solution. TheronJ
  14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Feh, Dean's underlying point is that he should be allowed to remove material even though his rationale for doing so violates
  WP:OFFICE it. Guy (Help!
  ) 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• From a cursory perusal of the history of this user's pattern of editing, seems like he is trying to game the system... Smee 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

DeanHinnen agreed to stop engaging in spamming and other disruptive activity. I am therefore unblocking him. I have warned him that if he engages in any further disruption, he will be blocked again. Nandesuka 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was "paging" people who have already participated in a discussion about a proposed change in Wikipedia policy. I announced what I believed to be the consensus of opinion in that discussion, and asked them for further feedback if they choose to provide it. I cannot think of a more worthwhile purpose for what you describe as "spam." Nevertheless, as I promised, I will stop it instantly.

Did any of the recipients of this "spam" complain about it? No, they did not. Who complained about it? Why, it was JzG. Imagine that. Are there any other secret rules that I don't know about and will be blocked instantly if I break them? Dino 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dean, JzG is not the only person here who objects to your actions. He's been more than fair with you (and everybody else in this mess) so far. --BenBurch 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, here's the secret rule you keep breaking: don't be a dick. Hope this helps, Guy (Help!) 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Physicians, heal thyselves. Dino 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we'll block the lot of you and heal the project just nicely. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Play nice. Dean, this is against established WP policy. Internal spamming for support on stuff is not ok. One or two editors, who you know are interested in something, is not spamming, but 12 is too many. Georgewilliamherbert 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but could somebody competent look into the activities of Chsbcgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It's not exactly vandalism, but he has been warned by an admin, and his recent activities I don't understand, especially his focus on dubious categories, which he creates and adds to articles without discussion, almost all his edits seem to contain the word "fundamentalism" and that's what concerns me; but he has some useful edits, so please look into this! Thanks! --Merzul 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism is ludicrous. Fundamental Islam? Christianity? Protestant Christianity? Mormonism? And Category:Religion shouldn't be a sub-category of Category:Atheism. --BigDT 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

About this Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism, I speculate that the intention is to put books critical of religion and books written by religious authors against fundamentalism into the same category; thereby implying, as critics have, that Dawkins et al. misrepresent "true" religion. After some thinking, I removed The God Delusion from this category because it's notability rests on his attack of moderate religion. In any case, I don't think this is a very neutral use of categories and this users talk page makes me worry because he should already be quite aware that categories shouldn't be used like this. --Merzul 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But there isn't any one fundamentalism. That would be like having Category:Criticism of companies that sell purple things. --BigDT 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's said the following about me on his Talk page:

Lol, what - you'd prefer to maintain a misunderstanding between us? Maybe you could do with seeing a psychiatrist. You obviously have issues that need to be addressed. John Smith's 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he crossed the line in implying that I am mentally unstable and should seek help. This is not only rude, but totally inappropriate.--Sir Edgar 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are big enough to rise above this my friend. 4kinnel 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... civility's being stretched a little on both sides. Fortunately, now's the time for both of you to back off and disengage for a bit before things escalate (see above thread). MastCell 01:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I protected

Some

I handled some of these this morning; haven't seen any, for a bit, but I just got back online. Let me know if you spot anything, or report to AIV (as you probably know, I watch it). – Luna Santin (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay my first wikigrudge! ^_^ JuJube 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on here. One editor and his sockpuppets insists on reverting to a previous version, while several others continue to revert. Some of the information being re-added may be good, while some may be wrong or unverifiable. It's certainly unreferenced, but so is the whole article. This has been going on for months. --NE2 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes trying to figure this out and couldn't tell either. At first blush it doesn't look like pure vandalism on either side, since each version includes seemingly reasonable information the other omits. There is commentary in the edit summaries, but it's not very enlightening, and the talkpage is completely empty except for tags. Can anyone else figure this out or maybe someone involved in a relevant project can take a look at it. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I hit the page, looked through it, and hit the talk page. perhaps a debate moderator role is needed, and I jumped in. If this is some sort of wiki-nono, then I'll back off, but I think a little conversation's the first step. I've also notified all the editors who seem actively involved and who edited in the last 3 or 4 days. ThuranX 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(This was posted here before(around 5, Eastern standard time), but due to an edit conflict and some cut n paste oopses of my own, got prematurely archived. I'm reposting now.) I'm coming here now (Most of the following was previously posted at another admin's page in hopes he could look things over, but he hasn't). There is a ridiculous problem I'm finding at the Mike Huckabee page. HI, I know you're a busy admin, but I'm bringing this problem to you as as result of your established experience with the subject.

It's really easy to G4 that, so I don't see how it's so nasty. And I'm not entirely sure why we would assume that he deliberately did the pagemoves a month before in case of an AfD. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so he managed to destroy my assumption of good faith with his "how dare you delete my article, no true article should be deleted". -Amarkov moo! 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. — Moe 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it was a particulary sticky situation because he made it seem like it hadn't been deleted, the article history dated back to early January and the deletion by Mailer Diablo was in February. It was weird because I didn't see the history of me adding the AFD notice or anything and there was history a month before untouched. It was all rather confusing. — Moe 06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the past two months I have been dealing with

Please keep your "warnings" to yourself from now on. I have a right to make good faith edits without having it unilateral reverted by a single over-zealous editor. At least be fair in your "warnings" and give the instigator the same warning to at least give off the perception of objectivity for goodness sakes.Melonbarmonster 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [23]

I then went to the user's talk page to tell him that

Yeah that's quite laughable. You need to count correctly and learn how to use the history page correctly. As the instigator of the revert the other guy would have to violate the 3rr before I would be faced the the decision of passing the 3 mark. Please take your POV crap elsewhere.Melonbarmonster 13:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [24]

After this comment I blocked the user for 24 hours. Considering that the comments were made towards me personally I would like to see if I have confirmation for my actions by the rest of the community. Thanks.--Jersey Devil 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Calling you an involved party would be wikilawyering. Valid block. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bad block. Sorry. I agree with Nick that insulting you does not make you "involved", but personal attacks are not blockable offenses, except in prolonged cases and certain kinds of threats. Please read
  Thatcher131
  14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nope The thing is that User:Melonbarmonster is right in mentioning that the other involved party User:RogueNinja didn't receive any note whatsoever. Both parties were engaged in edit warring. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I guess Thatcher is right. The other party might as well be investigated. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, this was not a good block. Remove the post as trolling, if you like, but its not a blockable offence. Kudos for realizing this might not be the best judgment and bringing it here for review, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked the account according to comments above. Feel free to review it as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued

attacks

against an IP user:

Congrats on your google skills in digging comments I made on a different website. Rabid racism is also a minority view as well neo-nazism, beastiality, etc.. Crawl back into your black van.Melonbarmonster 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [26]

Also removed my 3rr warning. [27] --Jersey Devil 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h for personal attacks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly complained about

First instance of wikistalking on January 10, 2007:

• I edit
  Al Muhajiroun, she then posts erroneous fact templates.[28]
• I edit
  Terrorism in Kazakhstan, she removes referenced content.[29]
• I edit
  Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami, she posts erroneous fact templates.[30]
• She contacts SlimVirgin and lists all of my recent edits with an amazing display of incivility.[31]

Second instance of wikistalking on January 18, 2007:

• I edit Terrorism in the United Kingdom, so she does[32]
• I edit 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, so she does[33]
• I edit Salma Yaqoob, so she does[34]

Third instance of wikistalking on February 7, 2007:

• I edit
  Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, so she blanks the page and redirects it.[35]
• I edit
  Terrorism in Kazakhstan so she adds an erroneous TotallyDisputed template. Notice all content is referenced.[36]
• I edit New Great Game, so she adds erroneous fact templates. Notice everything is sourced.[37]
• I edit Ahmed Rashid, so she does[38]
• I am in a dispute on Battle of Najaf (2007), so she gets involved in the dispute in an attempt to intimidate me[39]
• She reverts my edits to all of the above pages on February 8 in addition to Omar Bakri Muhammad minutes after I edited the page[40] and Mohammad Naseem, adding erroneous fact templates[41] minutes after I edited
• She posts a list of all the pages I have edited where she has subsequently harassed me, [42] with a highly uncivil message. She then reposts the message on SlimVirgin's talkpage[43]. Notice: "He seems to be on a mission to poison wikipedia content for his obsession with labelling."

Fourth instance of wikistalking on February 21, 2007:

• I edit Pan-Islamism so she adds an erroneous TotallyDisputed template and inserts her pov[44]

Valid reversion, the source does not back the claim. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I edit Abdul Rahman al-Barak so she posts a derogatory term for Salafis[45]

Use of Wahhabism appears valid in context, a large number of sources identify Abdul Rahman al-Barak as a leading Wahabi cleric.

• I edit Terrorism in Malaysia so she removes content[46]

Valid reversion, YouTube reference is (a) original research, (b) copyvio and (c) not a reliable source, it's docu-drama. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An administrator needs to tell her this behavior is unacceptable because so far she has not gotten the message. KazakhPol 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would caution you to stop making POV and questionable edits.
  Dispute resolution is second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!
  ) 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol where the issue of KazakhPol's editing is under the microscope. In a nutshell, all and sundry are being labelled "terrorists" using questionable judgment. And these edits are coming in thick and fast. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that someone has taken the trouble to go through KazakhPol's contributions to try and unravel this potentially horrendous backlog of soupy smears. I recommend that amateur WP:V and WP:RS sleuths take an interest in the ongoing proceedings, with their notebooks at the ready. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I find a vandal has renamed a page

Dealt with. User blocked. Collect your $200.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, {{db-move|place where the page is}} on the location where the page ought to be would be the tag-based way to do it; I'm not sure whether that would be a better or worse way to attract admin attention. Probably worse, because CSD is normally more backlogged than ANI. --ais523 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves:

WP:RM. KillerChihuahua^?!?

12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a follow-up question. I can see the user is indeed blocked [47], but I can see nothing on the user talk page. Is this normal, as I do sometimes see this? I ask because I have in the past made the mistake of requesting a block for a user who, as it turns out, was already blocked. Notinasnaid 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page message will only come up if the blocking administrator adds one (they have templates like {{

subst:test5}} for the purpose). --ais523 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC

)

You can check whether a user is blocked by going on his or her userpage and clicking "block log." It will list whether the user is (or ever was) blocked, by whom, for how long, and why. Newyorkbrad 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there's a guy who's threatening to create a bunch of sockpuppets and vandalize, per a rather odd message on User talk:Seraphimblade#User:Furverts. He appears to be making good on that so far, not sure what the usual procedure is there, but something to keep an eye on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting this here instead of

• You don't need account creation enabled to do that. Just use "block anonymous users only". If you do that and block account creation, the vandal can't get in. It may inflict some damage on other unregistered users from that address though, but I think that allowing creation would simply lead to them creating an account. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, well, I'm just looking to stop the vandalism with as little collateral damage as necessary. Can someone please do this? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, MGM. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this problem has gotten to a point where Storm05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is no longer capable of making smart decisions when it comes to images. Please have a look at his talk page (as of 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)) and this talk archive - many, many warnings, both from bots and humans, about images - lack of sourcing, imagevios, fair use violations, intentional mislicensing of images.

What has prompted me to bring this here, though, after so many months, is that even though we've tried to drill it into his head (not using templatised messages), he still continues to say he's right, totally ignoring valid concerns, and at the same time behaving incivilly - answering every warning he's given with "Wrong." or "Incorrect." when it's obvious he's in the wrong, and just looking for some way out. Are we really going to allow users to get through loopholes in unclear situations?

This user generally is not a net positive to the project - he's been caught adding copyright violations to articles and has been blocked previously for ignoring consensus after SIX warnings to him, over a period of a few weeks, but he continued disrupting against consensus.

His Wikipedia-space edits to XFD are totally to say "delete per

– Chacor 12:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The user continues to upload questionable images (including one I just tagged {{

wronglicense}}). I think we may need a preventative block (even if a short one) soon. – Chacor

15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another potentially problematic upload. This seems to stem from him thinking "anything on an NOAA US Govt. page is PD", which, as he's been told countless times, is not necessarily the case, but he won't listen. – Chacor 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

48h is enough for this time. We'll see if that would help. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I

have a feeling he'll say he won't do it again, get unblocked, then continue to do it. Sorry, but I really can't AGF with such a user. – Chacor

15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A possible further violation would result in a harsher block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

True, fair enough. Thanks [for now], we'll see how it goes. – Chacor 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Transcluded vandalism I can't track down.

...at Fräulein. Anonymous editor keeps reverting to biased version under different IP adresses. Warnings without effect. Watchlisting article / blocking IPs might work, perhaps even semiprotect. Thanks. Kosebamse 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that's really necessary - the old revisions aren't visible unless you're specifically looking for them, and deleting revisions from large articles is (from what I understand) kind of a pain, particularly for articles with lots of revisions. (IMHO: If anyone decides to dig it up and follow the instructions, they deserve what they get anyway.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it, I've given him a selection of usernames and passwords to play with. --Carnildo 09:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

His articles were quickly deleted and he's been indef blocked --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Wikiload (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few days ago after he wrote basically the same article and made a report to gmail abuse (his article was phishing for gmail password). We may want to ask for a checkuser to find and block any other names this individual has + the IP. --BigDT 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to oversight things like this even though they might not work? x42bn6 Talk 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MIGHT not work? All that is going on there is that he registered thexxwhateverxxserver@yahoo address and makes other little kids who want to call themselves hackers send him their passwords. For the love of god, you dont send javascript commands through an email. Thats not how things work.. Hes a 12 year old kid who thinka that this makes him "l33t" or some crap. He can call himself a hacker all he wants, untill he can bang out an actual executable program on a PDP-10, hes just a kid who wants his friends to think he's cool. No oversight needed, fer' chrissakes. -

M^ask

15:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Then even worse - he could well use this diff to grab passwords and hide behind the claims "Wikipedia says so!" x42bn6 Talk 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no its not. No one who's technically savvy enough to dig through previous revisions is not going to be retarded enough to go through with it. And if they are, well, its a Darwinian process at its best. -

M^ask

20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's about the same level as saying "Your money is on fire! Quick give it to me!" ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's available to check this, that would be great, it's quite badly backlogged and several vandals are still going merrily along. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear now, so thanks to whoever got there before I did. Newyorkbrad 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2 minutes after I added refernces to

this happened wirh comment (rv pseudoscience).

Nasz 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. Try to use the article talpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to wp:dispute resolution for some advice on how to handle this. As FayssalF said, the first thing to do is discuss it on the article's talk page. — coelacan talk — 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

not so much a content dispute as a case of trolling and/or surrealism (adding gibberish to articles isn't a "content dispute"). See Nasz' talk history (he keeps blanking his talkpage) for my string of warnings. In my book, any further prancing around of this sort will lead to blocks.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother

User:Somethingoranother was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violation at 02:34 on February 19, 2007. A number of IP accounts and two sleeper accounts then revert warred on and vandalised the United Kingdom article with increasing frequency until 04:54, February 20, 2007. Those accounts have now been confirmed by the above checkuser request to have been sockpuppets of User:Somethingoranother. Could an admin take appropriate action as regards this proxy vandalism and block evasion? WjBscribe 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• The addition they are trying to make appears to be cited and in good faith. I would try telling them it is a duplicated effort with the existing section on their talk page (which is easier to notice than edit summaries). I've protected the article because it still suffered edit warring. _ Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Oops, I realise now that I caused some confusion by the fact I originally titled this "follow up from checkuser". To clarify, no action has yet been taken as regards Essjay's findings (ignore my follow-up request). WjBscribe 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Its the repeated deletions that were the concern: e.g. [48], [49], [50]. Nevermind the fact that the sockpuppeteer avoided his block by editing via a number of sockpuppets. A further block is surely required? WjBscribe 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, following on from his deletions, edit warring and sockpuppetry, I was also concerned by this latest round of reversions, this time it was his odd insistence that "his" edits must remain, regardless of the fact that a (better written) sentence to the same effect exists two paragraphs later. ie it wasn't about truth and references, it was that his dogged determination to include showed he was in fact acting in bad faith. Gsd2000 00:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how admins would deal with this, so I might as well report this. User

This kind of thing can happen as an honest mistake by inexperienced users who think an article needs protection and don't realize they can't do it themselves. The user needs to have this explained, but I don't think the {{

WP:AIV means. — coelacan talk

— 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes more sense. Thanks for the heads up :) --- Tito Pao 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a grotesque image being displayed on top of

Fixed. Image deleted and the uploader has been blocked indef. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, how annoying. I had to compare three different articles to find which template was in common. What I want to know is why the template which was directly affected was not showing up in the whatlinkshere page.

(jarbarf)

19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

{{

MusicBrainz_album}}. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®}

19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, eventually I found it (ten minutes later), but I am asking why it did not list that template under the whatlinkshere page.

(jarbarf)

19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mystery of the wiki. You'll probably have better luck with this method: when you're editing a page, scroll way down to the bottom, and you should see a list of all the templates currently being transcluded (as well as their respective protection levels, if any). If memory serves, this should also include metatemplates. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I see one two transcluded templates which are not protected. Corvus cornix 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of protection bot would come in handy at times like these... Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a very passionate user, User:Luzzifer, who keeps reverting structural changes without really understanding why they're being changed in the first place, mostly through an IP account. The revert war has primarily been between me and him, but the rather innocuous changes he is aggressively disputing are standard language article structure and has received support from one other user already. I've made an attempt to attract some attention through an RfC, but without any results. Is this an admin issue or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is a disagreement over article content and/or structure, then it's a content dispute and not an admin intervention issue. If he/she appears to be violating Wikipedia guidelines (3 reverts, personal/legal attacks or threats, vandalism, spamming, etc) then it's appropriate to bring to this forum. Cla68 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I opened an ANI inquery into the actions of Admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson, with a lot of details provided. It has since been removed and I have not been informed of the result. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Captain Barrett 02:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the top of this page very carefully, and you will soon know why there were no "results". - WeniWidiWiki 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, which section are you referring to please? On my previous post I did add "diff's" and did everything which was recommended to me. Captain Barrett 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He might be referring to this part:

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.

If no one acted on your request it's possible that no admin felt there was anything actionable under the charter of AN/I. That's just a guess, I didn't read the original entry. Hope it helps, though. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, an Admin made a polite recommendation to Jeffrey to Recuse himself from a contentious AfD we are involved in, but that is all. Also he has not recused himself yet, still very active. Captain Barrett 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

(refactor)

Note this this user has no user page. Axiomm 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's because he himself deletes it from time to time. Rightly or wrongly, admins do sometimes do that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From time to time? It's been redlinked consistently since May '06. The only reason the log is so bloody large is because I keep having to redelete vandals and well meaning fools. And nothing says I have to have a user page either, rightly or wrongly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just explaining for the user asking, why you don't have a user page. From time to time is a generic term that certainly encompasses "often". I did not comment on whether you should or should not have a user page in answering the question. Sorry if I gave offense, it was not intentional. But now that you mention it, while I agree there is no firm requirement, I do think it's reasonable to expect an admin to have something on their user page, however small, that users can find when they have questions, rather than being redlinked, and the user's remark that one wasn't there seemed reasonable to me. That's just my opinion, I'm not claiming it is a generally held sentiment. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't offended. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Having a redlink userpage instead of a redirect to one's user talk page is pretty much done just to annoy people, much like voting oppose in every RfA and so on, but there's no actual policy against it... so he can continue, if he really likes annoying half of Wikipedia over something so petty. --W.marsh 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to maintain some semblance of civility. I honestly couldn't care less about whether he has a user page or not, but that comment was over the line. Ral315 » 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying "he's being annoying" isn't incivil, especially if the claim is supported, which it was. --W.marsh 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncivil. Actually, I think it's pretty accurate. Why can't he just have his user page being a redirect to his talk page? The redlink is just annoying and makes it harder to contact him. --Cyde Weys 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I my redlink is not to intentionally antagonize or annoy people, and I take offense at that. Second, I have never bought into the ridiculous claim that it makes it "harder" to contact me. Honestly, two clicks instead of one (and just one click if you're savvy)? While we do have our share of idiots, most Wikipedians are not as lazy or stupid as you seem to think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want people to stop ascribing your actions to malice, perhaps you could stop referring to fellow editors as "fools" and "idiots."

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer to maintain this red link? You're entitled to, but why is this something that you want? —

David Levy

18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the biggest deal in the galaxy, but I have always considered maintaining one's username as a redlink to be inappropriate for an administrator. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, if I may ask? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) It serves no useful purpose to not have one, and it makes you less approachable for many users. I know I often check out userpages before leaving messages, and I rather doubt I'm the only one. While you're not required to have one, I do remember your personal policy statement that we should stick to best practices at all times, even when it's not mandatory, or something to that effect.

That said, oddly, I support Jeff's desire/right/privilege/whatever to have the thing redlinked. I've certainly defended having a transcluded .sig for quite some time (including to the developer that wrote the code to prevent people from doing that), which some people find annoying, and I think the instant matter is a good example of why everything not mandatory is not prohibited.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-21 09:51Z

In answer to Jeffrey's question "why?": (1) because it's distracting to have completely unnecessary redlinks (the least important reason, but still true), (2) because it suggests (incorrectly in your case, to be sure) that the user has not yet fully engaged with the community, and (3) because it misleads people not familiar with you into underestimating your role on the project. The latter concern is not a purely theoretical one, I will add, although it is complicated to capture just how without violating the "all contributors are equal" ethos we rightly have here. A couple of months ago, in discussion of one of the controversial Philwelch blocks which occurred at a time when he had a deleted userpage and a redlinked username, it turned out that Phil had tried to explain policy on something to the editor, and the editor had disregarded the explanation because, in substance, he assumed that anyone too inexperienced to have created their userpage yet was unlikely to be a fount of policy experience and advice. The editor indicated that had he realized the person making suggestions was an experienced editor and admin (the former being as important as the latter, really), he would have reacted very differently. So other than being different for the sake of being different, why do it? Newyorkbrad 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, it basically boils down to the fact that he's doing something that people are saying "Hey, this annoys me" and it wouldn't effect him to change it or let someone change it, but he says "No, you can't make me, I am going to continue annoying you because I can." And yeah, he can. We all could do a lot of things that annoy eachother but aren't technically against any rule. Thankfully, most of us don't. --W.marsh 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you blindly misinterpret my intentions. It should be reminded that everyone has the right to have (almost) anything in their user space deleted. I can because we all have that right, not just because I have the ability to. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the fact Jeff (inappropriately) supported a ban on me (probably didn't read all the facts) -AND in spite of the fact that he reverted that "you all need to get a job" comment just a few minutes ago (a perfectly legitimate, if slightly insulting comment) -I support his desire to use his User Page in whatever way he wants -so long as, like, he isn't threatening, cussing, or slandering. You people all need to get a life -and leave Jeff alone- duuuude! Talk about a major waste of time on such an unimportant matter- man oh man...--GordonWatts 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think less focus on your "rights" and more focus on what's best for the project would be appropriate here. Friday (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's best for the Project? Good grief! Having a userpage is no more beneficial to the goals of the Project than not having one is harmful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you not read any of the discussion above, then? Turn it into a redirect, already. What possible advantage is there in not doing so? Friday (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When there is no explicit harm or benefit, then what I desire to do with my user space takes precedence over the personal tastes of others. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is explicit harm: this annoys people and makes it slightly more difficult to contact you. There would be explicit benefits: it would stop annoying people and make it slightly easier to contact you. You're under no obligation to create a redirect to your talk page, but I wonder why you choose to exercise this particular right. —

David Levy

18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what I said? I never disputed that you had the right to do it... it's that many people have come to you and said it annoys them, and you won't change it. You don't care that you're annoying a lot of good editors. If you're going to do that, I have "the right" to point it out. --W.marsh 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think he has the right to not have a user page, which includes not having a redirect to the talk page as a user page. But why not just have the link in the signature be to the talk page instead of the redlinked user page? Unless the intent is to show people that there is no user page.
  ⁸⁶
  16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm suddenly tempted to delete my own userpage, except it would have the confusing side effect of improving Wikipedia's aesthetics. Even some arbcom members have pretty red links. A userpage is an editor's expression of his or her currently preferred Wikipedia personality. Sometimes editors prefer that to be a tabula rasa: "make of me exactly what you will"; or, alternately, "My edits stand on their own". Or possibly, "you people have nitpicked my userpage sufficiently that I'm not going to bother having one." Given the way self-expression on user pages is over-scrutinized here, I can understand that point of view. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A redirect to one's user talk page is totally harmless, though. A lot of people find a redlink userpage annoying. --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Then they're being too easily annoyed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You people need to get jobs. --Ideogram 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why my comment was reverted? I thought people weren't supposed to do that. --Ideogram 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I unreverted it with my reply here - I am supporting Jeff here (in spite of his recent vote against me in a RfBan) -least he can do is chill out and let you post.--GordonWatts 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it was an unintentional hit of the rollback button. It would have been unacceptable (and strange) to use rollback on what appeared to be a joking comment. ChazBeckett 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of interesting things and tasks awaiting for you guys which are more important than arguing why someone decided to keep his userpage blanked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey everybody, let's chat on IRC! --Ideogram 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the preceeding drawn-out discussion about a (seemingly) simple matter (redlinkage) most eloquently illustrates the difficulty I have been having in working with Jeffrey as an Admin on both AfD:Ebony Anpu's.Captain Barrett 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love. Jeffrey's attitude, responses, and style may not benefit the community, but if anyone is "annoyed" by his lack of a userpage, they need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously folks, this is the Internet.

Wikipedia is not

censored for a wide array of things, and one of them is annoyance value.

Eleanor Roosevelt rightly observed that no one can offend you without your consent. The same goes for annoyance. If this is getting to you, think about why, and what you can do to temper your reaction. It is not the responsibility of the universe to shield you from all vexation -- you will encounter many annoyances in life.

A user can do anything they want /w their userspace within policy; users are not intended to be cookie-cutter homogenized mutually substitutable apparatchiks.

Please, let's give this a rest. Thanks. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-22 00:17Z

Keeping an empty userpage is fine. geez. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the point first raised, of it making Jeff any harder to contact: I think that would be a very good point if he had no link at all, to either talk page or redlinked user page (as I raised recently for unrelated reasons at

I came across List of Internet phenomena today for the first time when it was proposed as a redirect target for the Brian Peppers article during today's DRV. I took a look at the article, and in addition to a paragraph about Peppers (which I didn't think belonged here but which, to be fair, was more reasonable than any other Peppers write-up I have seen), there was a lengthy section called "People" about a number of mostly private individuals who have become famous, or infamous, typically because of something embarrassing they did that was captured on-camera or online and became an "internet meme." Many of these paragraphs raised concerns in my mind regarding notability, verifiability, and appropriateness for inclusion in light of privacy and related issues. I edited to delete a couple of the paragraphs I found most questionable. The paragraphs were restored shortly thereafter, with the reasonable observation that most of the entries linked to existing Wikipedia articles on these people and events, and therefore it didn't make sense to challenge the individual paragraphs. I mentally filed this as something that would be better addressed after the Peppers DRV was over.

Shortly thereafter, Sam Blanning initially closed the Peppers DRV with a result of redirect to List of Internet phenomena. (The redirect was changed to a straight keep-deleted after Peppers was deleted from the List article.) At that point, I described this article as a "WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show," which it was. Doc, who has substantial experience with OTRS/BLP issues, seems to have decided to become pro-active on this article and his observation that sources are required is of course correct, although actually, in some instances sources will probably be simply cut-and-pasted from the linked articles themselves. But in addition to the sourcing issue, several of these paragraphs and linked articles will raise the question of whether the embarrassing content of the material and resulting damage that private individuals may suffer from keeping it on Wikipedia warrants our retaining this material in our encyclopedia even if it were to be deemed fully sourced and true—issues similar to those raised in the Peppers debate today.

I hope these issues can be addressed without having to block contributors, especially those who feel strongly about matters of principle. Today's deletion debate on Brian Peppers, contrary to expectation, was not grossly overrun with trolls and SPAs. There were some, to be sure, but there were also a lot of good Wikipedians sharing their ideas and points of view; and as much as I endorse the closure coming when it did (and opposed holding the debate in the first place, as regular AN/ANI readers will recall), much of the general tone was reasonable. I hope that the same will be true of discussions resulting from this article. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness I engaged in extensive discussion with Jmaynard, as can be seen. But with

Doc

^g 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just returned here from a longish post on the blocked user's page, which may (or may not) assist in seeing if there's any progress that can be made, and am surprised there isn't more input by now. :) I appreciate Doc's taking a leading role on these issues. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds backwards. This is the list, cataloging these phenomena, summarizing them and pointing wikilinks to articles on them. The list doesn't need references for anything which is referenced in the WP article pointed to. Jay's right that referencing on the list too is silly. If there are BLP problems with the target articles, fix those; if the list comments inaccurately summarize the target article, fix that, but deleting it off the list due to BLP seems very wrong. IGeorgewilliamherbert 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the cases where we actually have articles on them, but some of the entries (like the infamous Brian Peppers) are too short for their own articles, so either shouldn't be mentioned at all, or must have references on the List page if they are. --Delirium 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were to have read the articles you knocked off the list, many of them did have sources inside the articles themselves. A simple list does not need a source on every single little thing. I understand you're trying to follow WP:BLP, but blocking someone who's adding references in to what you deleted in an attempt to make it satisfactory to WP:BLP is way out of line. B=Plus, you appeared to block him while he was in progress of adding these citations. I'd say more but really, he did nothing blockable. He violated 1RR at best, and tried to improve on what was there.--Wizardman 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. No. The List didn't just contain a list of articles (if it did then it would be a category) - it made statements about the individuals concerned. BLP states all such must be sourced. The onus is not on me to fish the sources from elsewhere or other articles and to check they say what they are claimed to say. The onus is on the one who wishes to keep the statements to source them and then replace them. BLP is deliberately designed that way to make sure we err on the side of exclusion not inclusion. If it was that easy to source the statement on the list, then those that wished them kept should have done that and replaced them rather then fighting me. We've have our policy this way so that busy people like me that specialise in BLP enforcement can do our job without let or hinderance. Bulk replacing material removed under BLP without sourcing it is quite unacceptable - and the party was well warned.--

Doc

^g 09:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! What's all this business with blocking people after you've gotten into an argument with them? That's not exactly the right thing to be doing. --FOo 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, we do it vandals all the time. I was not in a content dispute.--

Doc

^g 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Jay is, he's not a vandal. Georgewilliamherbert 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm sure Doc doesn't disagree either. He was pointing that there are exceptions to FOo's statement. Vandalism is one; BLP is another one. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP shouldn't trump AGF and talking about it, if there's disagreement over what applies and there isn't any evident harm being done. Georgewilliamherbert 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RfC on this issue

Ongoing discussion on these issues is continuing at the RfC and its talkpage. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For some time, an anonymous user has been re-inserting a joke/insult to Derek Bell into the article listed above. Recently, that same anonymous user registered an account, and has persisted in his reversion, claiming that it should be included because people like it and it was part of old versions of the article. This isn't a pure content dispute, since it cuts across BLP issues, and he isn't listening to me and doesn't seem willing to check policy pages. From his other edits, it also appears that he could use some help with things like signing his posts and fair use image guidelines, but I'm pretty sure that he won't be disposed to hear about them from me. If it's not too much trouble, would one of you mind having a word with him? I don't want to see this escalate any further, since he's made some good contributions in other areas, and I'd rather not see him get blocked for doing something dumb out of ignorance. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are BLP issues; it's sourced elsewhere in the article. And, you can't really say "redundant" on there and "BLP issues" here and maintain a coherent position, can you? If it's a BLP violation, whatever it's redundant with is also. --Random832 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Operation Shutdown" was Bell's own reference to his unhappiness in spring training of 2002, saying that he wouldn't compete for a job he felt should have been his. To say that it is ongoing today is absolutely a BLP violation (Bell is retired and has more than once expressed regret for his outburst), and is an attack on Bell to boot. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with this. Regardless, I think that even though the tone of this section was absolutely inappropriate, the fact that some people were still harping on this four years later can be mentioned without violating policy. --Random832 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the only guy who's still "harping on it" is Mtcupps. If there were a newspaper running an "Operation Shutdown" counter on the side of their sports section, that'd be a different animal, but as it is, it's pretty much a dead issue at this point in the outside world.

WP:V, yeah? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)

16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think he really gets it. He just warned me here for reverting his removal of content here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And he put the content back into

Derek Bell (baseball player), so Operation Block Mtcupps is now officially on day one. | Mr. Darcy talk

03:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)