→Proposal: sigh |
TroubleTroll (talk | contribs) →GFDL violation: new section |
||
Line 740: | Line 740: | ||
:<s>Could someone please check [[User talk:Padillah|this talk page]] history and remove the [[WP:OUTING|outing]] attempt? Thank you,</s> Already resolved....<br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
:<s>Could someone please check [[User talk:Padillah|this talk page]] history and remove the [[WP:OUTING|outing]] attempt? Thank you,</s> Already resolved....<br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::See [[#More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user]] above. This may be linked to that given the IP. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Wikipedia:Trading card game|Cardmaker]])</sup></font> 06:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
::See [[#More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user]] above. This may be linked to that given the IP. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Wikipedia:Trading card game|Cardmaker]])</sup></font> 06:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== GFDL violation == |
|||
{{vandal|Hilary T}} is upset by this violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&title=France%E2%80%93Nauru_relations&diff=282879425&old] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&title=Foreign_relations_of_Nauru&diff=283873003&oldid=276177542id=282858383] of his/her rights under the GFDL and threatens to start introducing false information to articles edited by {{vandal|Ricky81682}} unless something is done about it. [[User:TroubleTroll|TroubleTroll]] ([[User talk:TroubleTroll|talk]]) 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:48, 17 April 2009
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.
Closing discussion, AFD is closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Outside admin intervention needed
I've just withdrew my nomination to have it deleted, as consensus is clearly merged, only now it appears to be turning into a lame edit-war. Looking since the start of the debate:
- Closed @ 23:44, 13 April 2009, reopened @ 12:19, 14 April 2009.
- Closed @ 13:26, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 14:46, 14 April 2009
- Closed @ 16:21, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 16:39, 14 April 2009
- I withdrew the nomination at 13:06, 15 April 2009, as consensus was clearly emerging (although this was called inappropriate by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
- Closed @ 14:52, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 14:56, 15 April 2009
- Closed @ 15:07, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 15:26, 15 April 2009
I think we need an uninvolved admin to step in (and when it does get closed properly to fully-protect the page to avoid someone reopening it). D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- When you discount the IP votes, and the keeps from brand new users who have not given a policy based argument, then the argument is pretty even. But that is beside the point, because withdrawing after that many votes and three days, when it is clearly not a case of SNOW, is simply innappropriate. If you are confident in the apparent consensus, where is the harm in leaving it open for the full term? MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- In addition, when I previously enquired about a nom withdrawing a nomination, the consensus was that if the debate is well underway, it belong to the community and the withdrawal is *not* a reason for closing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- At this point, it's probably be best to let the AfD run its full course even if it's pointless and forget about it. From WP:SNOW: "the snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Now WP:SNOW was rejected, however, we still do not need to get tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic meta discussions about it all. Equendil Talk 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- With all do respect, it is an obvious keep and the re-opens look like a WP:POINT violation. Can anyone in their right mind imagine closing this as a delete without a lot of wikidrama? Further, although the "delete" opinion is respectable (albeit in my opinion a misunderstanding of policy), the claim that delete wins because it has the better argument and everyone who thinks otherwise does not count is basically a rejection of the consensus approach. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks to me like a case of "the merges have it", prolonging the debate is unnecessary so anyone (including the nominator) could perform a non-admin close as no consensus and then either boldly merge or start a merge debate. WP:BLP1E supports merge, but that's a content issue as this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know it looks like I'm making a POINT, but as the guidelines for AfD closing just changed, I think this is an appropriate time to insist on the full AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that it's disruptive to keep closing a non-unanimous discussion in the face of guidelines specifically saying not to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle seems to have plenty more keeps than deletes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I had to close the AfD now, I would do so as no consensus to delete. Setting aside the keep arguments based not on policy but on popularity / public interest, several contributors believe that the coverage in multiple reliable sources is a demonstration of notability. However, there is no pressing need to close the AfD now. It seems to me that the most likely result of prolonging the discussion will be the writing, publishing and discovery of more source material, thus reinforcing the case for a Keep result. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that many editors will offer their opinions that this is a BLP1E case and as such not encyclopaedic material, regardless of the amount of media coverage. Perhaps that will be sufficient to constitute a consensus to Delete; perhaps not. Rather than attempt to predict the outcome, I support keeping the AfD open, in line with policy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
- All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.
What part of "all" is unclear here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- And sometimes our rush to close debates causes a pile of drama, which is a common theme with these one event tv show contestants. Lacking a unanimous concensus, I would rather the debate simply ran its course. There is no harm in letting it run, but obviously there was a lot of nonsense created by closing it early. Resolute 14:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- As one of the people who has most strongly been urging the extension of time from 5 days, for years now, actually, I think nobody intended that there would not be common-sense exceptions, if necessary justified by IAR in the absence of something more specific. But this is not one of those times. When two responsible editors both urge SNOW closes, but different SNOW closes, it would seem that this is not the time to use IAR, of which SNOW is a special case. DGG (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Without revealing my position on how AfD's should be handled, that sentence is awful from a basic logic standpoint. Someone go rewrite the policy to say "AfD discussions generally run for at least 7 days. However tktktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Not completely pointless
- Being the optimist here, the prolonged AfD is not a complete waste of time. It is giving new and previously uninvolved editors a chance to learn about policy. Spirits do seem high and very civil for such a hotly opposed deletion nomination, and supporters of the article will be very happy with a "keep" outcome or else they will get much craved melodrama with a "delete" result. The danger of course is that easy cases make bad law... if the article is kept it is not a repudiation of BLP1E, it is either an exception, or a decision that the case simply does not fit BLP1E. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, when an early close upsets people, then it was a poor choice for an early close. However, Wikipedia "rules" tend not to deal in absolutes, and an interpretation that AfDs can only be closed early by satisfying certain rigid criteria is... inaccurate. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Pointless and increasingly dangerous
We now learn that she grew up with learning disabilities -- so now we have a deletion template on an article about somebody the whole world sees as a story of hope and inspiration. Our article has been doubling its readership every day, and got almost 48,000 page views yesterday. The AfD has 3 more days to run. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're saying that you think it's "dangerous" to keep this AfD open? Lychosis T/C 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Resolved now
I closed the AFD, and just expanded my close rationale:
Feel free to DRV/throw tomatoes, etc. rootology (C)(T) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Arson threat?
That's enough about arson, and enough arson about. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure if this edit [1] is intended as an arson threat or not. I checked the local newspaper and TV websites and couldn't find anything that states that the school caught on fire. єmarsee • Speak up! 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
|
User:I-10 nee User:I-15 nee User:I-210
- I-10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I-15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I-210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and block-evasion including CU-confirmed puppetry (see here and here). Makes some good edits but at a cost of lots of cleanup and abusive/bad-faith/mistakes we have to clean up (and which he does not accept as problematic). Has lately engaged in username-hopping, maybe to avoid scrutiny--dunno as he has refused to discuss. Numerous attempts at discussion by several involved and uninvolved editors and admins has failed, as he blanks all talk-page warnings (okay) but usually his only response is to treat any suggestion or complaint as an incivil attack on him, while continuing the problematic behavior. Lately filed WP:ANI against one of his perceived attackers. When that didn't seem to be going his way, he gave up and claimed (as often) that the system is broken rather than that he might not be correct. Has now said he will retire. However, said he will return to edit his talk-page. His edits lately there are merely to attack myself and others with whom he's had disagreements while specifically stating that we are not to respond there or we will be blocked/etc.. Seems like long-term block with no-edit-talkpage is in order...WP is not a soapbox, especially if he's not planning to edit articles. I'd tell him about this discussion here about him, but he told me not to. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- User apparently retired. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...again. He retired earlier that day also but plans possible future return (he will vanish until he returns?) and maybe continue talk-page edits even while retired. I was happy to let him just go away and I don't care if he wants the last civil word, but he can't seem to do either of those. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- (editconflict)I've seen this happen before, some users put up the retired tag just to get away from any sanctions that might be imposed by the community. As far as I've seen, his behavior before that retired tag is unacceptable, so here is a proposal:
Proposal
My proposal, which has two reasons which can be used while being separate of each other, also have the same end result, that this account be indef blocked. Aren't retired accounts usually indef blocked to prevent possible compromise? If not that, this user has shown he doesn't care about our civility and no personal attack policies, and if he is indeed just using this retired tag as a way to escape any sanction, this block will prevent any further possible disruption if he is indeed just using it as a way to get out of trouble, so to speak. All that aside, if not an indef block, I honestly don't know what, but he does need to be warned, that if he does come back, and continue the same behavior, the time he was away will not matter, and he would be treated the same as if he was still here. Maybe a 72 hour block, less or more, that depends on what you, the community, has to say.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- He's been busy since his supposed retirement (confirmed via Checkuser-I). I'm not familiar with this user, but anyone with this type of troublesome sock activity needs to be indefinitely blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Nishkid; the socking merits blocking. No, retired users are not generally indeffed and, quite honestly, Wikipedia retirement frequently isn't. Now, in invoking one's Right to vanish, one may request an indef, but that's a different matter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Only users in good standing can RTV. I would think socking would qualify as loss of good standing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support this also, due to the user's history. I don't see any objections. Will Beback talk 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Should the account be globally locked / blocked? This has happened in the past to the same user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. What a waste of good usernames. :-( Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Should the account be globally locked / blocked? This has happened in the past to the same user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd support this also, due to the user's history. I don't see any objections. Will Beback talk 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Only users in good standing can RTV. I would think socking would qualify as loss of good standing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Nishkid; the socking merits blocking. No, retired users are not generally indeffed and, quite honestly, Wikipedia retirement frequently isn't. Now, in invoking one's Right to vanish, one may request an indef, but that's a different matter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear
Who supports the indefinite blocking of this user per the fact that this user is socking after he was apparently retired, and that it looks like he is using this retired template to evade any sanctions regarding his edits.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, and also per my nom for incorrigible incivility and disruption. DMacks (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support Words cannot describe how much hardship this editor has caused at WP:USRD (along with other users). --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support More trouble than value. Will Beback talk 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Which leads to the next question
[3]
This user does a lot of block evasion using changing IPs in the 75.47.x.x range. I've done range blocks before on the entire range, but we can't just block the range indefinitely. Currently I have blocked that range for 72 hours. What is the protocol in this situation? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the vast history of socking in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. Since this user is not quite annoying enough to justify anon-blocking a range as large as /16 for very long, we could just get ready for a lot of revert, block, ignore. If someone has the patience to track the good-faith anons working in 75.47.* maybe we can find subranges that could be blocked for a month or more that wouldn't cause too much inconvenience. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
IP comments at Dreamhost
There have been problems on the Dreamhost page for several days now, although it seems to be being worked out on the talk page, which is good to see. However, in the last few days, IP 194.144.90.118 (talk · contribs) has popped up to seemingly disrupt. He has added his personal story of deciding not to use Dreamhost because of what he read on the wikipedia talk page. He's been reverted several times as per WP:SOAPBOX by several editors including me, but he has readded the material every time [4] [5] [6] [7]. He's now also calling anyone who disagrees with him as Dreamhost employees and attacking the company on the page[8][9].
I hate to see this subject get caught up again, as it had seemed to cool down on the talk page into a discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with the IP? I've tried to discuss it with the IP on his talk page, but all I got was "I will not be denied my right to have my say." That doesn't sound too productive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Upon further review, this IP appears to leave no signature on his talk page comments. I didn't even know that was possible. It makes his edits and responses hard to track. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
There's alot of things that you don't know, for example that wikipedia ads those ip signatures on its own. Please do not make untruthfull remarks, only one of my remarks has been reverted a remark on a talk page and the only one to revert my edit has been you.
It is also untrue that I am attacking that company or any other company for that matter. It is strange that this fellow would hate to see this subject tackled and that he'd prefer to see it in a frozen state when the article in question is clearly extremely biased and the discussions are not leading anywhere. I suggest that the poor fellow find something more productive to spend his time on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your Dreamhost opinion has been reverted by me, and also here [10] by The SerialComma. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- As to the anon's comment "I will not be denied my right to have my say.", you do not have any such rights here on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post your opinions on any subject. Wikipedia talk pages should be used only to discuss edits to the article, and for nothing else. If there is anything you want to add to the article, you may do so with suitable reliable sources to back up those claims. But please don't post your opinions on the article talk page. Chamal talk 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The usefulness and therefor the right of the words to stay where they were written has been clearly been demonstrated by the fact that archiving was enabled for the talkpage as a consequence of them being written. If my words will not be allowed to stand then any and all references to them should not be allowed to either and archiving should be disabled in the spirit of fairplay. --194.144.90.118 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- "fairplay"? Wassat? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Archiving is usually done to prevent talk pages from cluttering up, and has nothing to do with hiding stuff. Why do you want to stop archiving the discussions there? Anyway, did you even read the pages that I gave the links to? Because it looks like you're still lost about your "rights". You do not have a right to post your personal opinions here. The place for that would be a blog, and this is not it. When something that does not belong in a talk page (according to the talk page guidelines, original research policy etc.) we remove it. That has nothing to do with hiding your personal views, but just removing them because they do not belong here in the first place. But apparently some of these comments are not removed and are still on the talk page. Chamal talk 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. And yes, I'm an involved editor, but it seems that they have no intention of stopping until blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support block by SarekOfVulcan. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. And yes, I'm an involved editor, but it seems that they have no intention of stopping until blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
MBisanz removing rollback facility for inactive users
- MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- see user rights log
I don't like the idea of admins removing facilities for a particular user if users happen to be inactive... it is not like they have "abused" that particular tool. I don't think there has been any discussion about this... we don't remove admin rights for a user if they are inactive, so what is different here? OK, they could request it once/if they come back, but it just seems to create more unneeded hassle. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not especially bad, and the rights can be restored without an issue if the user returns. I've removed the accountcreator flag from various users myself when it hasn't been used, as an account with that flag is particularly troublesome if compromised. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a problem, honestly. But to echo the above, you should have asked him about it, or at the very least, notified him of this thread, which I've done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good move. In general, security privileges should be removed from inactive accounts on any system. Plain Wikipedia accounts can't cause much trouble, so it's not necessary to do much about unprivileged accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a poor practice. There is no real additional risk with rollback- anyone with a normal account can do just as much damage, so the security argument doesn't hold much water.. This is a little bit like deleting user pages for absent users- sure, it can be easily undone, but it's less work to simply not do it in the first place. Let's not make busywork for ourselves for no good reason. Friday (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems pretty pointless to me to remove rollback from inactive users, since you can't do any damage whatsoever with it, but if you don't have anything else to do with your free time.. hey, why not? --Conti|✉ 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Friday: there's no need to remove rollback from inactive accounts (they're no more dangerous than non-rollbacked accounts, and certainly less dangerous than inactive admin accounts). Rollback is normally removed when the tool is abused: there's need to create extra work and/or give users rollback right removal logs in their userrights logs just because they're inactive. I note that MBisanz hasn't left any courtesy notices on the talk pages of said users either. Acalamari 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah....seems like busy work that will just create more work for someone down the road. At least put a note on the effected userpage but I don't see any point in doing it in the first place. RxS (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I started doing it when I realized some of the inactive accounts with rollback were not just inactive, but had actively retired (see Lawrence Cohen (talk · contribs) and AGKbot (talk · contribs)) or were permanently disabled like Mercury (talk · contribs) or were indef blocked like NKbot (talk · contribs) and Aitias (alternate account) (talk · contribs) as it seemed like simple housecleaning. Some of my more recent deflags were of accounts that had very few edits ever or were retired for a very long time. I was very careful to not deflag alt accounts of active users such as DB II (talk · contribs) unless I contacted the person (usually privately) to ask if they needed the account in the long term or unless it was obvious the account was a test account like SoxZilla (talk · contribs).
- I can go back and leave notes for them, but I do think it is uncontroversial housekeeping to remove an easily grantable userright if only to help maintain the list of rollbackers. Picking out things like indef blocked accounts and re-activated accounts that could be compromised (remember CSCWEM?) becomes harder as there are piles of inactive accounts laying around. I guess I'll go start a thread to gain consensus on this, since it is not clearly uncontroversial anymore. MBisanz talk 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- There isn't much of a problem with removing rollback from nactive/retired users. I don't necessarily think it's poor form. They can simply request it back when they return editing. This really isn't such a big deal either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Waste of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I dunno. I'll put myself in the shoes of one of these inactive editors; if I returned from a lengthy wikibreak to find some of my permissions had been stripped for no real reason, I might be pretty annoyed and be tempted to make the break a permanent one. Reyk YO! 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think something like this would be controversial either. I'm used to seeing rights (any rights) being removed when a user becomes inactive. As noted by Stifle; he removed my ACC flag when I became inactive in that area, and when I wanted to help again, it was granted back. No harm, no foul. Anyone that put off by having their rollback removed for inactivity probably thinks too highly of this small feature. I think this is a complaint for complaints sake. Neither has consensus, but one has potential for misuse. If you don't want to re-grant these editors rollback when and if they return, you don't have to. I can't imagine that this area is so understaffed that it will create some large workload (as if its difficult to grant it in the first place). Synergy 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the dilemma, as I see it: A user's rollback is taken away. Maybe a nice little note is left, maybe citing the reason - the only reason I can think of is somehow the account gets compromised. So then the account logs on and politely asks for his rollback back, and gets it. Trouble is, it was a compromised account, and he proceeds to wreak havoc. So what good did taking it away do? Just wondering. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well hopefully the admin who grants it, and the other admins who watch the RFP page would see that user and then put 2 and 2 together when the account starts doing weird things, as opposed to a totally inactive account re-activating itself and doing weird things (yes it hinges on admins being wise enough to notice trends, I know this is a stretch of faith). MBisanz talk 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any meaningful increase in security here, and this seemingly pointless action puts roadblocks in the way of people who might start to contribute again. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Tim - rollback is hardly a security risk and we need to be prioritising the keeping of goodwill with new editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with TimVickers and Casliber. There's no compelling reason to do it, and it isn't really even "housekeeping", because it's not a mess causing any inconvenience. (I mean, it isn't... is it?) The risk of alienating contributors outweighs any gain, which is unclear anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Tim - rollback is hardly a security risk and we need to be prioritising the keeping of goodwill with new editors. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any meaningful increase in security here, and this seemingly pointless action puts roadblocks in the way of people who might start to contribute again. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well hopefully the admin who grants it, and the other admins who watch the RFP page would see that user and then put 2 and 2 together when the account starts doing weird things, as opposed to a totally inactive account re-activating itself and doing weird things (yes it hinges on admins being wise enough to notice trends, I know this is a stretch of faith). MBisanz talk 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also worth pointing at Wikipedia_talk:Rollback_feature#Housekeeping. MBisanz talk 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal threats from IP - 71.193.118.38 (talk · contribs)
This IP user has posted personal threats on my user talk page: <quote>Go ahead and block me you fucking disrespectful prick.....You will be blocking Wiki editing for the entire campus of Western Michigan University, but go right ahead you stupid fuck. Besides, I can always run a proxy scramble and get around your "ban", so FUCK YOU. Why don't you just let the edit stand, as it is correct and useful knowledge for people. (Unsourced defamatory material redacted per WP:BLP) - SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) You do know about this American show, right, you pathetic Euro Fucktard ? Keep fucking with me and not only will I keep restoring the truth, but I may just feel compelled to hunt you down and put my fist down your ignorant fucking skull.</quote>
What am I supposed to do? He's already been blocked for a couple of days, but isn't this sufficient for a permanent ban, or if possible, contacting this university, if the IP really does belong to that, to track the user? Regards, Thrane (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's just coming from one IP then it looks like a classic case of WP:RBI to me, just ask for the block to be extended. As for the actual threats themselves, I know it's easy for me not being the target, but trust me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. C.U.T.K.D T | C 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note that their IP address has reverse DNS of c-71-193-118-38.hsd1.in.comcast.net. served by NET-71-193-96-0-1 (71.193.96.0/19) net name SOUTHBEND-7, and is thus unlikely to be originating from the WMU's own network. Since traffic to SOUTHBEND-7 appears to be routed via te-3-1-ur01.mishawaka.in.sbend.comcast.net., I think it's reasonable to assume the location is in South Bend, Indiana. -- The Anome (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above quote should be removed as a BLP violation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing edit war on three articles related to the city of Piedmont, California, USA:
- Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Piedmont Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since at least January 2008, Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs), now-indef blocked sockpuppet Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs), and a couple of IP addresses (one from California State University, Hayward) have been adding blatant POV content to all three of these articles, indicating that the city, the district, and the high school are all extremely liberal and intolerant of conservatism. They began as unsourced POV edits ([11]) that eventually led to the city article getting protected for two weeks (verify using "logs" link above). The same edit war came back in September 2008 and again in March 2009. The more recent edits ([12], [13]) have cited an Alameda County, California election results map that shows that Piedmont residents voted for Democratic Party candidates in 2008, and stretches it to argue that it supports the view that the city, district administration, and high school administration are extremely partisan.
I first became involved in this at the beginning of April 2009 on the high school article and at the time had no idea of the lengthy edit war that had been going on on the city article. I tried to offer a middle ground with this message on the talk page, which was met with this edit to the article (note the edit summary) that still cited the election results map and stretched the argument even further. Then he decided that I was okay with this wording without asking me ([14]). Shortly after I made several edits ([15], [16], [17]) in an attempt to downplay the importance of the POV without completely removing it, my talk page was vandalized by a CSU Hayward IP ([18]). He went away for nearly two weeks until this edit which was conveniently called "minor housekeeping" in the edit summary.
I tried resolving this myself without bringing it here by trying to find a middle ground, but this user's actions are ridiculous and indicate that he has some grudge against Piedmont's city government and school district, and wants to use Wikipedia as a sandbox soapbox for expressing that grudge. The best part was, this guy had the audacity to nominate himself at RFA, which failed miserably but allowed me to find this RPP request. Ideally I would like to see this guy indef'd but a ban from editing all articles related to this city would suffice. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that guy had already been indef'd. It was only for 3 days. Time for someone with some authority to do something about that character. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just checked the block log (don't know why I didn't before). He was 24-hour blocked in February 2008, then indef'd 3 days later but was unblocked a week after. The most recent 3-day block seems to have expired at the same time that I got involved in this. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- So, basically, as soon as the block expired he went back to it. Someone could have reported that to WP:AIV - unless they did, but no action was taken, as happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since these are all clearly the same editor, and are equally clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, I have done the following; blocked User:Akhamenehpour indefinitely, blocked User:76.102.193.102 for a month, and rangeblocked 134.154.118.0/24 and 134.154.254.0/24 for a month. If the user strays out of those ranges, contact me and I will extend the rangeblock, as the collateral from even blocking the whole 134.154.0.0/16 range would be minimal. Black Kite 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It has long being established that the user has used 76.102.193.102 to edit, I discussed it with him/her and apparently (s)he needed to use that IP occasionally for technical reasons, hence a notice was added to the top of the IPs talk page, so that particular one was not really sock puppetry (at least while his main account was unblocked). He was indef blocked previously for disruption on the same articles, including using sock puppets Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs) and Akhamenehpour2 (talk · contribs). However his main account was unblocked (plus his/her approved IP) when he agreed to edit constructively. Akhamenehpour recently returned from inactivity but (s)he appears to still have a temper that (s)he has not learnt to control, so I have no objection to re-indef blocking. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since these are all clearly the same editor, and are equally clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, I have done the following; blocked User:Akhamenehpour indefinitely, blocked User:76.102.193.102 for a month, and rangeblocked 134.154.118.0/24 and 134.154.254.0/24 for a month. If the user strays out of those ranges, contact me and I will extend the rangeblock, as the collateral from even blocking the whole 134.154.0.0/16 range would be minimal. Black Kite 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- So, basically, as soon as the block expired he went back to it. Someone could have reported that to WP:AIV - unless they did, but no action was taken, as happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just checked the block log (don't know why I didn't before). He was 24-hour blocked in February 2008, then indef'd 3 days later but was unblocked a week after. The most recent 3-day block seems to have expired at the same time that I got involved in this. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)On a related note, I've removed the extremely liberal line from the article (diff). I had initially hoped Akhamenehpour would specify an article or page to check against from the print source, but with their blocking I've just pulled the reference. The improper synthesis and edit warring on the voting map source, and the print source being from right after the election makes me think the print source will also be improper synthesis. If someone specifies an article, or another source that backs up the liberal assertion we can re-examine this. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Semi-protected the three article pages for one week, feel free to change. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Disruption from two users at a GA-rated article
- 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This WP:GA rated article is currently facing disruption from two different users whose primary purpose on this project is to promote the deceased guru Osho.
- Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Focus on topic of Osho [19], Adding unsourced info to the article and making POV changes: [20], [21]
- Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:SPA on topic of Osho [22], [23], Has history of already being blocked for Disruptive editing: Poorly sourced POV edits despite warnings, this recent edit [24] seems to be a violation of WP:POINT, especially in light of the subsequent comment made by the POV-pusher at the article's talk page: for example see this inappropriate edit summary [25]. User then went ahead and created an entire new page to push this WP:POINT disruption in his dispute over use of the term "follower" at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. [26] (in its present state this article is mostly WP:NOR violations) that page was then tagged by a third-party user to be merged to Osho [27], but Off2riorob (talk · contribs) changed the tag for some reason to propose a merge of this unrelated article into the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot [28], where Off2riorob was already disruptive, above, we begin to see that the entire creation of this page violating WP:NOR is also a violation of WP:POINT: disruption of the project to push a point of Off2riorob (talk · contribs)'s position regarding his desire not to use the term "followers" in 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. There is now an AfD on that page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower.
Would appreciate some attention from additional admins at this article. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above. I can't say I'm familiar with the User:Redhaylin but the articles need to be watched for poor sourcing and unsourced statements. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- For what little it might be worth, I've added it to my watch list. Unfortunately, my watch list is a few thousand articles long. Any additional eyes on the article would probably be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: Long ranting unrelated WP:NOT#FORUM postings by Redheylin (talk · contribs): [29] and [30]. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've dropped a message/warning to Redheylin and informed him of this thread. لennavecia 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your note:
- "while you may, for example, know "high ranking followers" to be an improper term, there's not really much that can be done without reliable sources to backup your position". Please note; the editor who has complained of me reverted my modifications, preserving misrepresented sources. It turned out there was a dispute with another editor on the same question, which is that of introducing original synthesis into biographical materials on living people. I have attempted to resolve the dispute and concluded that the above editor is intent on disruption since he refuses to withdraw the faulty reference. I have asked him to do so and I have told him his acts may be considered disruptive. I asked him to do so on the basis, not of my knowledge but of goodwill, taking account of first-hand material provided, and advising that academic sources could be produced that would back the point. I offered a 24-hour respite. The editor has since added references to support other contentious statements.
- "it's important to slow down and remember that we need reliable sources when in content disputes". I am asking another editor to provide references for biographical material on living people, showing how misunderstandings may arise and showing I have reason to challenge these statements and that, if he will not withdraw them out of goodwill, there are references available. The intention was to assume goodwill. No hostility was or is intended - this has been fabricated and I regard this as disruptive.
- Also, regarding the Osho Follower AFD, please keep comments in the AFD on-topic, commenting on the content, not the contributors. The proposal for deletion on a related page by the same editor is a result of an edit war with another editor - his proposal says as much. This other editor drew my attention. I have backed a merger with an existing page. Making the page was wrong, but I have pointed out to the compainant editor that his edits were the starting-point and, once again, I consider this disruptive on both editors' parts. Unlike the above editor, I have desisted from formal warnings. Noting the block of the other participant in this edit war beneath, I ask you to examine the history of contributions and assess the part the complainant has played in all this and the assumptions of bad faith in his complaint. Please do not castigate me for reasoning with him, thankyou. Redheylin (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with the sources Cirt has cited. They include book and online sources, spanning several years. All appear to be top quality sources, which I think is something most of us have come to expect from Cirt. If there are any particular sentences you believe are incorrectly worded, present references that support your claim. If there are any BLP issues, post them out, specifically, either here or on WP:BLP/N, so that they may be quickly dealt with. And for the AFD, you admitted in the AFD that none of your comments were on-topic. لennavecia 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: Redheylin (talk · contribs) warned by admin Peteforsyth for making personal attacks in an AfD [31], at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osho Follower. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Warning at user's talk page: [32]. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to admin User:EncMstr, Redheylin (talk · contribs) posts to talk page of admin Peteforsyth constitute near-harassment. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Off2riob blocked 72 hours by YellowMonkey
This block seems premature and overly harsh, since the user seems to be editing in good faith. The user complained, and I asked Yellow here about this. I don't immediately think this warrants any 72 hour block, but this needs feedback. rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note above comment by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs): I have warned User:Off2riorob for such editing a few times, so I essentially agree with the above.. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) He was just blocked a month ago for similar edits. He has been warned in the past few days. For others reading over this, relevant talk page discussion here. I think the block is good. At worst, it should have been 48 hours as opposed to 72. لennavecia 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Endorse block. The user was disruptive and was already blocked for this behaviour. He was many times warned but blanked each warning. What else YellowMonkey could do? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, no worries. I wasn't sure from the lack of any notice, but this is a good block. rootology (C)(T) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last week Off2riorob came over to my user talk and interrupted a discussion about a featured article drive, then went over to Synergy's user space and edit warred with Synergy--all because Rob had taken a very strong personal dislike to me. Which was very strange because Rob and I had never interacted. Went over to Rob's user talk and posted a polite query in hopes of clearing the air. Gave up after a couple of posts; he was not receptive at all. Held off making any warning or complaint because a review of Rob's edit history showed he was in a content dispute with someone I mentor. For the record though (since Rob conjectured cabalism last week) I have never discussed Off2riorob with Cirt, Yellowmonkey, or Rootology. In light of his block last month and numerous warnings afterward, it seems lenient that no other block happened until today. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Luckily for me Jennavecia has already said basically what I would have. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Last week Off2riorob came over to my user talk and interrupted a discussion about a featured article drive, then went over to Synergy's user space and edit warred with Synergy--all because Rob had taken a very strong personal dislike to me. Which was very strange because Rob and I had never interacted. Went over to Rob's user talk and posted a polite query in hopes of clearing the air. Gave up after a couple of posts; he was not receptive at all. Held off making any warning or complaint because a review of Rob's edit history showed he was in a content dispute with someone I mentor. For the record though (since Rob conjectured cabalism last week) I have never discussed Off2riorob with Cirt, Yellowmonkey, or Rootology. In light of his block last month and numerous warnings afterward, it seems lenient that no other block happened until today. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Good faith reduction to 48 hours?
Off2riorob is responding more favorably now, perhaps a good faith reduction in the block period would help matters get back on track. DurovaCharge! 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't unblock then reblock to adjust the time, as that just makes for a sloppy and unnecessarily long block log. Instead, I think one of us involved in this thread should unblock around the 48th hour and note in the unblock summary that the block was shortened per consensus at AN/I, should such a consensus be reached. لennavecia 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
user:Debresser
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) personal attacks against other editors on talk pages [40] and in edit summaries, standard warnings only bring further such attacks, last attack [41] was after final warning. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Attacks continue on his userpage after block. See this diff: [42] Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: Unblocked by BD2412 (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a note for BD2412.. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all. I'll take care not to offend Wuhwuzdat in the future. I'm happy to continue working on making Wikipedia even better. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is to be hoped that you will take care not to offend anyone. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Review of unblock
It seems that Debresser, after being blocked for personal attacks, was unblocked for saying essentially that they've done nothing wrong because their comments were correct (a position which has been restated here). Am I missing something, or should we update the guide to appealing blocks? (ETA: I am not seeking sanctions against anyone involved, but a clarification of how appealing/unblocking should work.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I read it as Debresser saying that they were not indulging in personal attacks by their references either to WP:DICK or by referring to the other party as "lazy". It is an arguable point, but sufficient to allow them to repeat it on the basis that is was not intended as an attack. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If this helps in the discussion: it was not intended as an attack. I am a social animal. And excersize my sense of humor once in a while (see my user page). This incident was blown up out of proportion, IMHO. I was glad the unblocking editor came to that same conclusion. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If editors are to blocked for referring to DICK or calling other editors lazy, can we please start with those admins who routinely do that sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- In response to both Debresser and DuncanHill; not violating the word of the policy is one thing - but continuing to use phrases and terminology once it is apparent that the other party has a problem with it is another (and one that certain admins are also guilty of). If referring to another person as ginger irritates them (no matter if they have red tinted hair) then those practiced in social intercourse either move the discussion on or find another way of saying it that is acceptable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If editors are to blocked for referring to DICK or calling other editors lazy, can we please start with those admins who routinely do that sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If this helps in the discussion: it was not intended as an attack. I am a social animal. And excersize my sense of humor once in a while (see my user page). This incident was blown up out of proportion, IMHO. I was glad the unblocking editor came to that same conclusion. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Debresser not only referred Wuhwuzdat to WP:DICK, he straightgforwardly called Wuhwuzdat a dick, along with "lazy," "funny" and "poor guy," then carried on even after the editor peppered him with many warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, can we start with those admins who routinely do this sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying it's not a personal attack (and ok) to call another editor, in a stream of adjectives, a "dick," "lazy," "funny" and "poor guy"? Are you saying I should be blocked? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I am saying it is hypocritical for admins to expect far higher standards of behaviour from non-admins than they do from admins. If you behave in a way which you would block a non-admin for, then yes, you should be blocked and lose the tools as well. If you don't behave in such a hypocritical way, then that's good and please carry on. You well know Gwen that there are plenty of admins who routinely use much more blatant personal attacks as part of their schtick, and yet I don't see you or anyone else blocking them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't tell yet if you're saying I've been hypocritical (diffs please) or if this is a sweeping comment about surly admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that what I said was perfectly clear. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we're going to consider it a blocking offense to call someone a dick, perhaps we ought not have a policy titled "Don't be a dick". The latter implies, and by this validation invites, the former. As for "lazy", that is entirely subjective. I'm sure there is someone out there who would label me as lazy for only having made 15,000 edits last month. bd2412 T 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, it's not a policy, and frankly it's not actually on en.wikipedia. It's an essay on meta. Pedro : Chat 15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not in any way a policy and there are many admins (myself among them) who won't link to it, because doing so seems so snarky, like a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- True, but it's one of the most frequently cited essays, by admins and otherwise (I have done so very rarely, and probably won't at all in the future). It actually originated here and was transwikied to meta aeons ago - but we still maintain a "soft redirect" to it, so for practical discourse, it might as well be here. It certainly is snarky, but it's also part of our culture, and if it ought to be excised than that is something for a larger discussion. bd2412 T 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- He didn't only link to the essay, he called him a dick in an edit summary, I still think that's a personal attack, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but there's very little distance between invoking WP:DICK and just using the word. Consider the context, as well - Debresser has a long record as a good and useful contributor, and is not one of the troublemakers who skate along the edge of policy to stir up controversy for their own amusement. bd2412 T 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- He didn't only link to the essay, he called him a dick in an edit summary, I still think that's a personal attack, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- True, but it's one of the most frequently cited essays, by admins and otherwise (I have done so very rarely, and probably won't at all in the future). It actually originated here and was transwikied to meta aeons ago - but we still maintain a "soft redirect" to it, so for practical discourse, it might as well be here. It certainly is snarky, but it's also part of our culture, and if it ought to be excised than that is something for a larger discussion. bd2412 T 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not in any way a policy and there are many admins (myself among them) who won't link to it, because doing so seems so snarky, like a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, which is why I don't link to that essay :) I'm ok with how this has spun out. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, it's not a policy, and frankly it's not actually on en.wikipedia. It's an essay on meta. Pedro : Chat 15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If we're going to consider it a blocking offense to call someone a dick, perhaps we ought not have a policy titled "Don't be a dick". The latter implies, and by this validation invites, the former. As for "lazy", that is entirely subjective. I'm sure there is someone out there who would label me as lazy for only having made 15,000 edits last month. bd2412 T 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that what I said was perfectly clear. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't tell yet if you're saying I've been hypocritical (diffs please) or if this is a sweeping comment about surly admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)I am saying it is hypocritical for admins to expect far higher standards of behaviour from non-admins than they do from admins. If you behave in a way which you would block a non-admin for, then yes, you should be blocked and lose the tools as well. If you don't behave in such a hypocritical way, then that's good and please carry on. You well know Gwen that there are plenty of admins who routinely use much more blatant personal attacks as part of their schtick, and yet I don't see you or anyone else blocking them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying it's not a personal attack (and ok) to call another editor, in a stream of adjectives, a "dick," "lazy," "funny" and "poor guy"? Are you saying I should be blocked? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, can we start with those admins who routinely do this sort of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Debresser not only referred Wuhwuzdat to WP:DICK, he straightgforwardly called Wuhwuzdat a dick, along with "lazy," "funny" and "poor guy," then carried on even after the editor peppered him with many warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I am less concerned about the reasons for the block/unblock than the unblocking admins disregard for process with respect to the blocking admin, and their discourteous response to that admin when asked about it -
and the obstacles for reviewing the blocking admins talkpage history(It appears there are some server issues, I am getting some funny messages when linking to some pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - Debresser- I'm happy to accept that you thought your remarks fell short of being personal attacks, and I'm happy to believe that you'll be more polite in future.
- Gwen and LHvU- I share your concerns about the unblock, and I trust that the admin in question is going to learn from this.
- DuncanHill- please start an
"all admins are bastards""unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins" thread elsewhere, if that's what you want to talk about, but provide some diffs or it's going nowhere but flamesville. - To all- I have added some advice to WP:GAB which I think needed saying. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say "all admins are bastards". Mind you, the ones who misrepresent what has been said are in with a shout. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you weren't here to make general, unsubstantiated accusations.Sorry, my mistake. You were here to make unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins; you just didn't say "all admins are bastards". I'm sure everyone here will agree that our policies and guidelines should apply equally to admins and non-admins. But if you want to discuss problems unrelated to Debresser's block, unblock, etc, then please start a new thread with diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)- I'm certain I would be blocked if I did compile a list of such admin behaviour on wiki, even if it started with just your dishonest behaviour above (mischaracterizing my complaint as "all admins are bastards"). DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand you correctly? Do you feel that making vague unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins is the most productive course of action you can take, because providing diffs will result in persecution? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I will add that it is very hard to provide diffs of admins doing nothing, their usual response to other admins personally attacking non-admins. On my userpage is a list of some of the things that I have been accused on-wiki of being. All those attacks were made by admins, none resulted in any other admins complaining, and only one resulted in an apology from the admin who made it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- DuncanHill, I've found that an editor who self-identifies on this website as rather much anything is likely to be smeared for it by someone sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which of course makes it OK? In any case Gwen, the attacks on me weren't related to any self-identification that I have made. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, not ok at all, no way. I'll look at your user page again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Duncan, it would be pointless to apologize for the actions of others, but I feel compelled to anyway. I am an admin, and have myself more than once passed on saying or doing anything regarding what another administrator has done or said based on the assumption that that other admin knew the person involved better than I did and was acting in a way that they thought would be most effective in dealing with another editor. Also, unfortunately, as others on this page would probably know more about, there is a lot more administrator work around than there are admins to do it, and that may have been involved in other instances in which outside admins chose not to be involved. Not trying to make excuses, just trying to point out possible reasons, adequate or not. In any event, I cannot and would not condone such abuse. None of us are perfect, admins included, and at times we need to be told that. However, if you should ever feel unjustly put upon by another admin, please send me an e-mail or leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to try to produce reasonably satisfying results. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, not ok at all, no way. I'll look at your user page again. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which of course makes it OK? In any case Gwen, the attacks on me weren't related to any self-identification that I have made. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- DuncanHill, I've found that an editor who self-identifies on this website as rather much anything is likely to be smeared for it by someone sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand you correctly? Do you feel that making vague unsubstantiated accusations against unspecified admins is the most productive course of action you can take, because providing diffs will result in persecution? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm certain I would be blocked if I did compile a list of such admin behaviour on wiki, even if it started with just your dishonest behaviour above (mischaracterizing my complaint as "all admins are bastards"). DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say "all admins are bastards". Mind you, the ones who misrepresent what has been said are in with a shout. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- John, it is by no means pointless to apologize for the actions of others - indeed, such an action is exactly why I don't say that "all admins are bastards". Some very clearly do their best, and a good best at that. To have the strength to apologize for the action of a colleague, even when one cannot correct it oneself, does much to restore faith in the human spirit and the ability of RfA to sometimes produce good results. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin and I have documentary evidence from a reliable source that my mother was married to my father before my birth. I am also, however, a cantakerous git and very rude at times. However it's very likely I have never cut you up on the motorway. Where do I sit in respect of this? :) Pedro : Chat 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think I have ever called any admin a bastard. I've called various admins rude, unethical, dishonest, obstructive, bigoted, incompetent and steaming piles of shit (not all at the same time, but all with justification), but not bastards. It's never got me a block (though I was once given a cool down block when I had been rude to an anonymous vandal, and once for reporting a vandal, but in that case the admin had pressed the wrong button and apologized promptly and very decently). DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin and I have documentary evidence from a reliable source that my mother was married to my father before my birth. I am also, however, a cantakerous git and very rude at times. However it's very likely I have never cut you up on the motorway. Where do I sit in respect of this? :) Pedro : Chat 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin (especially considering my current RfA status LOL), but I am, indeed, a bastard - at least "genetically". Personally, not so much. I will not, however, be pleased to be referred to as one unless I know you well, or we're drinking beer and I just beat you at darts/pool/poker/getting-that-cute-girl-in-the-corner's-phone-number. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You daft bugger! said in the friendly British wayDuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin (especially considering my current RfA status LOL), but I am, indeed, a bastard - at least "genetically". Personally, not so much. I will not, however, be pleased to be referred to as one unless I know you well, or we're drinking beer and I just beat you at darts/pool/poker/getting-that-cute-girl-in-the-corner's-phone-number. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Amadeo Barletta Barletta
I created a page Amadeo Barletta Barletta who was an honorary consul from Italy in the Dominican Republic during Benito Mussolini regime. This page is well referenced with links to Time Magazine and others. I placed the name of Barletta Barletta in the article of Mussolini in section See Also so that Barletta´s article is not an orphan. user Brutaldeluxe undid my revision without a summary or explanation. I can revert what he did, but because I do not want to engage in a discussion I would someone to review this. Please advise. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did you ask User:Brutaldeluxe why they undid your edit? -- Darth Mike (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- No I did not. I read this coment made by User:Brutaldeluxe about another article and where he says he wont tolerate, made me think he is an administrator with rights to these reverts with no summary.
comment It's OK you deleted the dead link, I undid your edits because I took time and effort to correct and improve the article, and to translate from websites operated by governmental agencies of San Marino. Although I'm not from RSM, I'm the closest thing you could find, as I was born and raised in the shadow of Monte Titano. Where were you when it wrongly stated that San Marino declared war on other countries? I intend to add a lot more to the article in the future, I'll welcome your corrections, but I won't tolerate arbitrary deletion of whole sentences. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please advise. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you contact him on his talk page and ask the reason for the revert. User:Brutaldeluxe is not an admin, and nor do you need to be one to revert an edit. Anyone can revert an edit if there is a good reason. It is not required to include a summary, but this is usually done so that others can understand why you did it. Anyway, ask him the reason and discuss with him whether the link should be added or not. There's nothing at all here that requires admin intervention (at least not now). Chamal talk 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Juliaaltagracia, it's usually best to try and resolve issues on the article talkpage first. If you have an issue with a specific user's actions, it's then best to take it up directly on their page first. Each "incident" is unique, so the response for one situation is (hopefully) different from the response to another. Happy editing! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article
After proper nomination and discussion, an article created by VonFeigenblatt on the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (first entitled “Journal of Alternative Pespectives [sic] in the Social Sciences”, then moved to “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences”) was deleted on 1 November 2008.
It was unilaterally re-created as “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” by VonFeigenblatt on 15 November. It was speedily deleted and VonFeigenblatt was warned against such unilateral re-creation and told how to have a deletion reviewed.
It was again re-created as “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” by VonFeigenblatt on 15 April 2009. It was speedily deleted (for copyright violation).
Can we please have “Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” and “The Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences” salted? —SlamDiego←T 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Salting is in order. A block for User:VonFeigenblatt may be in order as well for not following the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 00:09
- Please be sure to notify the user of this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel that he should be notified, then by all means notify him. He was notified of the AfD discussion, and didn't choose to participate. His talk page is filled with comments from various users contacting him about the problems with this article; he hasn't responded to them. Even with the pages salted, he can still start a discussion at Deletion Review, if he believes that he can make a case for over-turning the deletion. —SlamDiego←T 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with the salting, if he's bright enough to run a journal, he's bright enough to understand why we keep deleting it and should engage in discussion before trying to recreate it yet again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've salted both for 2 weeks, allowing the user time to create a deletion review or other advice. If they're recreated after that without further discussion then a block may be in order. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was doing very similar at the same time -- I have restored your protection levels. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've salted both for 2 weeks, allowing the user time to create a deletion review or other advice. If they're recreated after that without further discussion then a block may be in order. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: As the admin that originally closed the AfD, I agree with the above that all of these various names should be salted. Also, as the account VonFeigenblatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been warned [43], [44], quite clearly, about this, admin action with regard to the user would also be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use {{subst:ani}} to do so). It is incumbent on the person placing the grievance here to notify the user in question, it is not the responsibility of disinterested bystanders. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Repeated removal of annotated unresolved issue tags
User:Benjwong deleted twice issue tags clearly annotated: [45] then [46] and playing dumb.[47] (The whole article is sourced with two 900-year-old books, only in Chinese, hosted on Chinese Wikisource, often with a single cite at the end of whole paragraphs full of claims, and has no lead to speak of.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- OMG user Little Blue Frog is just confused (if not lost). He does not understand that the best sources are often the 900 year old book originals. This user needs to be removed of any administrative duties. That page has 13 references and is better than 90% of the historical articles out there. This user is possibly too young to know what he is doing. Most of this material does NOT exist in English. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: [48] 3rd removal of all issue tags and {{fact}} requests. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. [49] 4th blanket removal of annotated issue and fact tags. The reported user considers that posting anything here allows him to go on removing tags. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note; See T:TDYK#Articles created/Fexpanded on April 4diff in case for archive and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ancient_Chinese_sources
- This issue stems from the ongoing debate on Chinese ancient sources to have used by admin Nlu (talk · contribs) for his created articles and WP:DYK. He also removed the tag from articles; Cheng Yi (Tang Dynasty)[50], Linghu Chu[51], Huangfu Bo[52] and Li Yong (Tang Dynasty)[53]. I think the removal of the tags that show unresolved issues is unwise.--Caspian blue 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article is practically a stub or start class. Now if it was going GA, then you can ask for all the references. You don't need to count my reverts. Do you guys understand that the aggressive tagging style is unrealistic. Most of these ancient stuff do not translate to a 1-to-1 word-to-word basis. On a start class article, this is pretty good. Lighten up please. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of article length and status quo, our "encyclopedia" should be referenced by "reliable sources". In the diffs, I agree that The Little Blue Frog's tagging is aggressive, and just should've tagged {{primarysource}} at the top. However you were edit warring over the tagging even as violating 3RR? More unwise.--Caspian blue 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article is practically a stub or start class. Now if it was going GA, then you can ask for all the references. You don't need to count my reverts. Do you guys understand that the aggressive tagging style is unrealistic. Most of these ancient stuff do not translate to a 1-to-1 word-to-word basis. On a start class article, this is pretty good. Lighten up please. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wow I wish that wasn't a closed archive at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ancient_Chinese_sources. Do people realise there are as little as 1 or 2 text about a particular ancient topic. This is not 21st century material like Bill Clinton has 5000 magazines writing about him, and anyone of them could be legitimate 3rd party source. Nor is Cui Qun popular enough to be like the bible. You are talking the book of Tang maybe the only book available that co-existed with the biography subject. These wiki reference rules need to get fixed. Benjwong (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- [54] 5th removal of all issue and Fact tags. From the start they are clearly annotated about the many problems at many levels: Wikisource is NOT a source. Creating new historical synthesis from 900-year-old primary sources is OR. Using exclusively Chinese-language sources without any modern English-language backup on the basics is not reliable. Writing is presented as factual instead of "according to...", this is like using the Bible to write a description of Parting the Red Sea. Most paras have a single note at the end instead of multiple notes for each claim. Etc., etc. (cf. the annotations visible in the removal diff: at this point the user is in bad faith because he can't ignore the nature and extent of the problems. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now both violated 3RR.--Caspian blue 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that I do not consider my reverting vandalism, such as blanket removal of clearly annotated issue tags, to be covered by 3RR. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok you guys are bending the rules again. Translations are NOT original research. People in other language encyclopedias are translating. No where in wikipedia policy does it say ONLY ENGLISH references are legit. That is the most ridiculously concept. The editors are not the ones with the problems. The current rules clearly discourage primary sources. Which I understand for some things like corporate self-marketing and advertisements. But like I said because a 900-year old source maybe the ONLY source that coexisted with the living subject, it has to be allowed. Not every subject has 5000 3rd party sources. Benjwong (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1) If the subject is WP:NOTABLE enough, then there are certainly modern scholars who have produced modern secondary sources about him, after at least critically cross-examining those only sources, in order to produce reliable material – even if they eventually accepted or concurred with the original source, their expert work at reaching that conclusion is what will make them a reliable source, as opposed to 900-year-old documents written to please an Emperor that could execute anybody and whose text can have been tampered with any number of times.
- 2) "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" - Jimmy Wales in Wikipedia:Verifiability — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- On number 1. That is completely biased. You are under the assumption that modern scholars have already studied everything. Eastern materials probably have the biggest gap in terms of "unstudied" materials. Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- On number 2. There is no misleading information if you are looking at the ONE AND ONLY original source. What better than the 900 year piece. The definition of false information is pushing it. Is like readers actually prefer a 3rd party tabloid magazine over a direct translation??!! Benjwong (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Number 1 is answered by number 2, if there are no good sources yet then it's maybe too early for an article. Number 2 was another annotated problem: readers are never made aware they only read an OR synthesis translating a 900yo primary source that has not been cross-examined, they are presented the appearance of a factual, modern scholarly truth. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 05:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- This definition of "good source" and "bad source" is not a problem. Last I checked, the book of Tang is good enough to build a university curriculum around. They don't call it 24 histories for nothing. Is like that's all there is left. Use it or there is nothing else. Maybe it is best if you show me where I can go change the rules. I can see you are trying to help in good faith by following these rules, but the rules just don't fit the situation here. Benjwong (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no blanket prohibition to using either old or non-English sources. There's no requirement that sources be accessible on-line either, though it of course makes verification more convenient. The Little Blue Frog, do you have any specific objections to this source; a reason to think this particular book is unreliable other than it being in the general class of old Chinese books? henrik•talk 05:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- We need to expand the existing rules to allow classical texts. If not, this issue will come back again. Really this can go for shakespeare and whatever else that is considered old. If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since you've both violated WP:3RR I'm mindful to block you both. I've instead opted to protect the article for a short while and urge you to please read my note on the talk page - the discussion about the issue should continue there, preferably with a bit less personal animosity please. henrik•talk 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- @Benjwong: "If the interpretation of the material by a 3rd party author has greater weight than the original author, that is pretty crazy I think." Here's the crux of the problem. That's not crazy, that's the whole central point of secondary sources in modern history and of Wikipedia's policies too, as provided in the tags you removed and the links noted above.
- @Henrik: There may be no prohibition for complementing with foreign SECONDARY sources, but I don't think that writing an entire article entirely based on both foreign and primary sources is allowed. Even if modern scholarly sources are slim, they should provide the reliable skeleton for an article, possibly expanded and complemented by irreplaceable Tang sources, duly quoted or noted as "according to..." instead of stated as modern scholarly facts. (As it's done for Biblical reports, or for the life of Casanova from his Memoirs vs. the scant historical record about him.) Not to mention, among various problems, that WIKISOURCE is not a source (one of my deleted annotation asked for a stable mirror such as Gutenberg et al.) The editors's attitude (Nlu, Benjwong) as seen here and at DYK for weeks, is another large factor. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 06:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- When you tag an article having 13 legitimate references as having no reference, that kind of aggressive tagging is going to get some responses. I wouldn't call it an attitude because most users will respond the same way. The discussion continues at Talk:Cui Qun. Benjwong (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
One giant copyright violation machine
Apblowe (talk · contribs) - please see the image uploads by this user, [55] along with the blatantly false licensing data. This is worse than vandalism in my book. User has been warned a-plenty. What is the next step? JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see loads of copyright/deletion templates on that talk page, but no-one seems to have warned this user that they may be blocked if they continue. That would be the obvious next step in my opinion. Thereafter a block (whether they should be given a second chance or not would be up to the blocking admin). C.U.T.K.D T | C 07:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted the files. I suggest a non-templated warning. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest a hard-line "if you upload an image using improper licensing again without having learned what to do, you will be blocked until you acknowledge the problem." Some people don't care about anything other than getting the pictures they want. It's especially concerning when articles like Laurie Anderson had an free image up there and now nobody knows about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Warned the user. [56]. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Need neutral(er) admin to doublecheck my block
Last week or a couple weeks ago, I was alerted to accusations of harassment (including sexual harassment) by User:MelicansMatkin, who was in the midst of a content dispute with LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs). (The diffs he had the most concern with are [57] and [58]). I immediately went to LifeStroke's TP and, in no uncertain terms warned him against any further accusations.
Tonight, I came on to see that LifeStroke was at WP:AN3 for edit-warring, and I read the edit summary of his first revert. As far as I am concerned, calling someone a terrorist is in essence an accusation of sedition, and coupled with the fact that he's had four prior 3RR blocks according to his block log, I blocked him indefinitely.
Since I may be construed as involved given that I issued a warning to him for the MelicansMatkin incident, could I have a neutraler administrator review and, if necessary, reduce or eliminate the block? -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 08:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support block. We do not negotiate with idiots who call other editors terrorists (especially when they do that twice). And this wasn't exactly what I'd call a reasonable response to your warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support sanction; indefinite is appropriate, as it expires upon blockee recognising and altering the problematic behaviour (and doesn't if they don't). LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support block. I agree with the other two here. This was entirely appropriate. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support 4 blocks for edit-warring and still continuing in such a way? That's where all patience is exhausted. I support clemency for users who make mistakes in the heat of the moment and who are indicating that they are willing to learn from such behavior but if someone who is not willing to improve their behavior the slightest will have to face such reaction. I do not think you were involved in any way because both the 3RR warning and the block are administrative kind of actions that do not take any stance in the disputed content. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support block. I see several 3RR warnings removed by LS immediately prior to the block; while removing warnings is allowed per policy it's taken that the comments have been read (and will be abided by). This user apparently has no intention of ceasing edit-warring and escalating to ridiculous edit summaries like those is akin to walking around with a big sign on saying "Block me NOW". I agree with SoWhy regarding "involvement" here as well. If that is to be construed as involvement any AIV-watching admin who placed a warning on a vandal's talkpage then blocked them later could be construed as being "involved", which is obvious nonsense. Tonywalton Talk 10:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support block, essentially per LessHeard vanU. Cirt (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support block as it stands, given editor's prior and continuing history. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: LifeStroke420 is requesting an unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The first request was rejected, but the editor is now asking for a block again. A bit more politely, admittedly. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment He's apologizing now. Apologies aren't really needed, but a promise to stop the problematic behavior is. Maybe he can be reasoned with. How about discussing possible unblock terms with him? DurovaCharge! 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Any idea what kind of terms would be appropriate in this sort of situation? Most of the rest of you have a lot more experience with this sort of thing than I do. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that it is explained that indefinite does not equal permanent, and that an undertaking not to continue in future to "joke" after being warned might be sufficient to have the indefinite block lifted. Underlining and italicising (seperately or together) may get the message through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- As a user who's had some unfortunate history with LifeStroke420 in the past (as noted by Jéské above), I would like to put in my two cents on this if I may, though I am not an administrator. I would like to see LifeStroke given one last chance, though I think he needs to fully comprehend the seriousness of his actions. Four previous blocks, accusations of harassment and sexual harassment, and calling other editors terrorists isn't exactly conducive to a good editing relationship with others. Given what I've seen of his edits I do not think he is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia; I'd consider it more to be a case where he does not fully understand the policy of disussion and consensus, and gets frustrated when people continually revert his edits. In other words I don't think he's trying to piss everyone off, he just doesn't understand why the changes are being made. I'm certain he's here in good faith, he just doesn't like it when people disagree with him, hence he gets carried away too far in what he says to retaliate (hence his comments on my talk page, Jéské Couriano's talk page, and the edit summaries). Perhaps if the importance of the policies and the need to treat other editors with the same respect he deserves are stressed, he can edit with minimal drama. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have my regard for being willing to speak out for someone who has insulted you. I'm getting the impression so far that maybe trying to get him in WP:ADOPT for mentorship would be a good idea? John Carter (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (E.C.) I've had several (sometimes nasty) conflicts with editors in the past; in many of those occassions we resolved our differences after the fact and subsequently had a fairly good editing relationship afterwards. I think it wouldn't hurt to give LifeStroke that chance, despite his longevity on here. Being adopted may well be the best thing to do in my view, as it will allow him to have policies properly explained and give him the opportunity to learn how discussion should be carried out. I think he really wants to edit Wikipedia but he just doesn't know how, and solving that means that there will be one more good editor on here who could well use their own experience on this today to mentor somebody tomorrow so that a similar situation may be avoided. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest mentorship as a last resort... is any admin willing to take LifeStroke420 under their wing as such? But this isn't the first-time LifeStroke420 has edit-warred, check his block log. A look at his talkpage archive shows 3RR blocks as well as numerous edit-warring. I don't think he should be unblocked seeing as he was clearly given a final chance beforehand, which he failed to take. Look at his last 500 contributions... not many are constructive. D.M.N. (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: LifeStroke has stated he would like to be enrolled in Adopt or Mentor if he is given the chance. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Lifestroke has seemed to agree on his talk page to enrolling in either Adoption or Mentorship. Do we have any potential takers? I might be willing to do a little there, but I'm not familiar with the editor's tastes or interests and am probably not the best person for it in any event. But I could probably be talked into helping as part of a group of adopters or mentors for the editor. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose that given I have some history with LifeStroke, I can try and help him a bit. I've never Adopted a user before and I'm not sure how well he will respond to me given our history, but I can try to point him in the right direction and help him with anything he wants or needs clarification on or understanding of. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to take on a "co-sponsor/mentor/adopter" program? I'm often kind of tied up around here, and may not be able to do as much as I would like, but I would be willing to help as requested and if there aren't really pressing concerns elsewhere. OK, that doesn't happen that often, admittedly, but I do tend to want to finish what I start, and sometimes that can take rather a long time. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I can do that. My own time may be a little limited because of my exams (just one left!), but that won't be an issue come next week. I'll do what I can to co-mentor him. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a message with the blocking admin regarding this matter. Waiting for a response. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to the earlier question, John, looks like you're handling this fine. DurovaCharge! 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- So long as he doesn't start edit-warring again or making any more baseless accusations, I have no issue. However, the first edit-war or accusation will be the gravestone. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perfectly understandable, and I agree wholeheartedly. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- So long as he doesn't start edit-warring again or making any more baseless accusations, I have no issue. However, the first edit-war or accusation will be the gravestone. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to the earlier question, John, looks like you're handling this fine. DurovaCharge! 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've left a message with the blocking admin regarding this matter. Waiting for a response. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I can do that. My own time may be a little limited because of my exams (just one left!), but that won't be an issue come next week. I'll do what I can to co-mentor him. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to take on a "co-sponsor/mentor/adopter" program? I'm often kind of tied up around here, and may not be able to do as much as I would like, but I would be willing to help as requested and if there aren't really pressing concerns elsewhere. OK, that doesn't happen that often, admittedly, but I do tend to want to finish what I start, and sometimes that can take rather a long time. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
COI user exhibiting ownership of article
I thought I'd bring this here instead of making redundant reports at UAA, AIV, and AN3.
- ERICOLEGAL (talk · contribs)
- CADWELD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User ERICOLEGAL has been exhibiting WP:OWNership of the article CADWELD by insisting on reverting it to his/her advertising tone and inserting the registered trademark symbol in violation of MOS. ZooFari (talk · contribs) has advised about MOS ([59]) but he/she still insists the symbol should be incorporated. Username and edits suggest user is a representative of the company acting in an official capacity, violating username policy as a promotional username. I tried reasoning with user on talk page before bringing it here ([60]) but he still insists on reverting to his version ([61], [62]). KuyaBriBriTalk 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user and left a note that they may be unblocked if they read and abide by NPOV, OWN, AD, and COI. Ball's in their court. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the user is asking for the block to be reviewed. Anyone want to go over that?--Iner22 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Excerpt from message I left on Jeske Couriano (Jeremy's) talk page: "I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself." KuyaBriBriTalk 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely a violation- username should stay blocked as it's clearly a role account. Especially with the "LEGAL" suffix, the presence of which could certainly have a chilling effect on other editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes. Whether the editor should be given a second chance on a new, non-role account is open to debate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Excerpt from message I left on Jeske Couriano (Jeremy's) talk page: "I am still, however, concerned that this username is a WP:U violation, specifically that it represents a company and is only used to edit articles related to that company. This is also evidenced by the third-person wording of the block appeal. I am not nor was I ever opposed to this person continuing to edit the article in good faith as an individual employee of the company, not as the company itself." KuyaBriBriTalk 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that the user is asking for the block to be reviewed. Anyone want to go over that?--Iner22 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
GA nom vandalism on E-mail spam?
Three days ago, an anon IP (199.125.109.74) nominated E-mail spam as a good article. The article isn't even remotely close to being a GA, and not surprisingly, it failed an hour later. Today, a very similar IP, 199.125.109.76, replaced the failed notice with another nomination. I've since reverted that edit because it seems like vandalism. One editor noted that anon IPs aren't even be allowed to nominate articles for GA; I can't find any proof of that, but it seems like it should be true. So should I just warn the IP to stop attempting to nominate the page, or does further action need to be taken here? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Warn the IPs and if it continues, report at AIV. I'm not sure what the rules are in re IPs and GA nominations, so I can't say anything about the appropriateness of the initial nom (but the second one is clearly someone trying to kid us). -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not myself sure that an IP can't nominate an article. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines explicitly says "Articles can be nominated by anyone...". Regarding the latter point, I would suggest that the Ip request a peer review by adding the Template:PR, and hopefully that will resolve the situation. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nominating an article is one thing, getting it approved is another - and by so nominating, it could end up with the article being substantially improved. Where's the harm in that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem there is that it was nominated 3 days ago already, turned down, and was then nominated again. I guess there wasn't any real change since the last nomination. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Right. The anon IP gave an explanation for their actions on Talk:E-mail spam/GA1, if that helps. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem there is that it was nominated 3 days ago already, turned down, and was then nominated again. I guess there wasn't any real change since the last nomination. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nominating an article is one thing, getting it approved is another - and by so nominating, it could end up with the article being substantially improved. Where's the harm in that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not myself sure that an IP can't nominate an article. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines explicitly says "Articles can be nominated by anyone...". Regarding the latter point, I would suggest that the Ip request a peer review by adding the Template:PR, and hopefully that will resolve the situation. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Attempted WP:OUTING of an editor
An anon IP editor has long been engaged in editing an article, through a multiplicity of IP addresses. Nothing wrong with that, although it is a bit inconvenient at times for other editors and admins. But, this appears to be in violation of WP:OUTING, and appears to be an obvious attempt at harassment of the anon IP editor. Is this an incident or etiquette issue? Yaf (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's an OUTING issue to ask if an anon is an existing editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clayton Cramer may or may not be an existing editor. That is not the issue. Clayton Cramer is a well-known historian. This is about asking the anon IP editor if he is THE Clayton Cramer. Yaf (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no user account by that name on en.Wikipedia, hence the question seems meant to put forth someone's true name and as such it's indeed a try at outing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It might just be an attempt to use a question for rhetorical effect. More likely it refers to Claytoncramer (talk · contribs). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think that simply asking someone whether they are or are not Famous Person X (or even Ordinary Person X) is different from outing. If the response is "yes," then they obviously don't mind sharing. If the answer is "no," or if there is no answer, and if the questioner goes on to try and figure out or prove who the anonymous editor really is, then that's outing. Does that seem to be a fair distinction? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the contrib history of the editor asking the question would need to be looked at too. However, since there is an en.Wikipedia account with (more or less) that name, it seems much less likely to be much of a bash at outing, to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- This comment appears to be aimed directly at comparing the Clayton Cramer blog with the edits of the article, per the edit summary and the content of the comment, and occurred just prior to the query of the anon IP editor. Yaf (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- And, the attempts at WP:OUTING continue here. Yaf (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unclear whether that's an "outing" problem or a "socking" problem. --John Nagle (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- And, the attempts at WP:OUTING continue here. Yaf (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This comment appears to be aimed directly at comparing the Clayton Cramer blog with the edits of the article, per the edit summary and the content of the comment, and occurred just prior to the query of the anon IP editor. Yaf (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the contrib history of the editor asking the question would need to be looked at too. However, since there is an en.Wikipedia account with (more or less) that name, it seems much less likely to be much of a bash at outing, to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Grant.Alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of blocks for edit warring [63], most recently on the 14th. Since being unblocked he has continued edit warring across multiple articles, undoing others edits with no consideration for what else might have been added, simply because he does not like them, despite consensus on the talk page in favor of the other edits. He has made three four reverts in the last three hours at 2009 Major League Soccer season ([64], [65], [66] [67]). He also went back to 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season, the article resulting in the block, and reverted [68], [69] the exact same edits he was warring on the at the MLS article, and at that article before blocked. With this revert, he removed several other constructive edits as well, with no consideration for what they were, simply because I made them. Consensus on the talk page was to use a template so that that bit of information (in this case league standings) could be used on the league season article, as well as the few club season articles that there are. His edit warring results simply from the fact that he doesn't like the templates. Given his past history, I feel Grant is more than eligible for another (extensive) edit warring block, or atleast a very stern warring from an admin that his behavior and ownership is unacceptable. Grsz11 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- With regard to the reversion of other edits, I have since corrected my mistake. I have left the 2009 Major League Soccer season article at the wrong version, and attempted to start discussion. A punitive block would be counter productive to that end, and I ask that the discussion I have attempted to start be allowed to continue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's quite enough. I have notified Grant.Alpaugh that he is on revert parole. If he continues to revert articles, he may be blocked. In the past four hours he has committed multiple reverts (2 or 3) on at least 3 different articles. He must use the discussion pages, and seek the consent of others before continueing to edit in this manner. That is quite enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to talk and do it in a few days if nobody objects. The article will not explode if it goes without update for 48 hours, as I've begged Grant to understand in the past. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It has been at talk, where only Grant disagreed. I also made other constructive edits unrelated to the dicussion that Grant blindly reverted, presumedly because he didn't feel like sorting them out. Grsz11 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well that didn't last long, did it? [70]Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It has been at talk, where only Grant disagreed. I also made other constructive edits unrelated to the dicussion that Grant blindly reverted, presumedly because he didn't feel like sorting them out. Grsz11 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Take it to talk and do it in a few days if nobody objects. The article will not explode if it goes without update for 48 hours, as I've begged Grant to understand in the past. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd second what Chris Cunningham has said, Grsz, you are dangerously close to 3RR yourself here, and the situation could use some calmer heads. Seek consensus on the talk pages, let it rest for a day or two. Ask for some outside comments or a WP:3O. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- And, he just past the fourth revert of the soccer article. Given a 1 week vacation for that effort. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
201.209.224.71
201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked twice for persistent insertion of bad charts into Katy Perry articles. He made a few good edits since his block expired, but has started again with false data. It's obviously intentional, as he repeated it after receiving a warning from Kiac. Note that neither the licensed Italian chart archive nor the most commonly used bad chart for Italy show that this song has charted at all in Italy, so it's hard to believe that this edit has any good-faith foundation. I think it's time for a month-long block.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
A bit of a surprise move here...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just noticed that Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia and the previous content of the page, which was basically a longer dab, seems to have disappeared. The person who did the move, User:ChrisO, cites policy as being the basis for the move, as per the Talk:Macedonia page. I don't know that anyone was given any prior notice of his intention to move the page, however. Just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion on the Boards regarding the proper name, mostly about Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (or similar?) being preferred by no-one except Greek Nationalists. I don't know the outcome of the discussion, but the move may have been the result of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The previous content of the page is now at Macedonia (disambiguation). The naming now follows the standard pattern used for every other country, and is specifically based on Luxembourg (with Luxembourg (disambiguation) and Azerbaijan (with Azerbaijan (disambiguation). In answer to the (I suppose implicit) question here, this is a unilateral administrative action but one that is based firmly on policy. As the rationale on the talk page explains, all attempts at consensus-forming over the past seven years have failed due to a strongly nationalist Greek block of editors - policy and standard practice has simply been ignored. This is an unashamedly bold attempt to break a seven-year deadlock and enforce a form of naming that is standard for every other country article. Some of our Greek editors will doubtless object but cutting Gordian Knots is, after all, a Macedonian tradition. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I very definitely agree with the "Bold" part. I was in fact a regular part of the discussion on the Talk:Greece page for some time now, but the discussion there was about whether "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was the preferable name to use in that article. I do not remember there having ever been any discussion of even using in that article, let alone rename the central article itself, to the simpler name "Macedonia". In fact, I seem to remember that in the discussion there was virtually unanimous agreement that the article on the country would stay at Republic of Macedonia. I wonder whether such a destabilization of what was an at least reluctantly acceptable situation by both sides of the discussion, particularly without any sort of prior approval or agreement that I can see, is really the wisest move here. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, you mean the likes of Republic of Ireland who self identify as Ireland.? It may have a slightly different argument but if as you say it's standard practice to use the self identifying name then it's not standard practice across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think The Republic of Ireland is a very common name in English (especially in Britain), and I dont know about the hit counts, but from what's been shown on the talk page, ROM for Macedonia was a clear, clear primary topic, but some, what was it 10x hits than Macedonia (Greece) and 5 times the hits of the second choice chandler ··· 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's been *seven years* of discussion. The article was the subject of edit wars and disputes within days of its creation way back in 2002. There is in fact no stability on this issue; nationalist vandalism relating to the naming issue is continuous and endemic across Wikipedia, as this abuse filter demonstrates. When President of the Republic of Macedonia was on the "In the news" section of the Main Page last week, it was twice vandalised by someone editing from the Greek Parliament. Leave aside the procedural niceties: I've set out the policy rationale on Talk:Macedonia. The issue at hand is whether this move is validated by policy. I'd say it's clear-cut. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The previous content of the page is now at Macedonia (disambiguation). The naming now follows the standard pattern used for every other country, and is specifically based on Luxembourg (with Luxembourg (disambiguation) and Azerbaijan (with Azerbaijan (disambiguation). In answer to the (I suppose implicit) question here, this is a unilateral administrative action but one that is based firmly on policy. As the rationale on the talk page explains, all attempts at consensus-forming over the past seven years have failed due to a strongly nationalist Greek block of editors - policy and standard practice has simply been ignored. This is an unashamedly bold attempt to break a seven-year deadlock and enforce a form of naming that is standard for every other country article. Some of our Greek editors will doubtless object but cutting Gordian Knots is, after all, a Macedonian tradition. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was time for a third option. If there was a stalemate between the advocates of the different "Republic" titles then the new one should suffice until there is an agreement - this may be a stimulus, given that if neither side like the most recent rename then there is at least one thing they agree on, toward arriving at a consensus. In that light, I suggest that there is no undoing of the move until such a consensus is arrived at? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what specific part of the policy was used to make the change. Jack forbes (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's all outlined on Talk:Macedonia chandler ··· 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the same logic, People's Republic of China should take the China (3fold hits, incoming links, common usages etc). I smell more dramas coming from the too bold move.--Caspian blue 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- PRC vs Taiwan is a territorial dispute - two states disputing ownership of the same territory. So is Ireland, to an historical extent, vis-a-vis Northern Ireland. Neither side disputes the other's right over the name of its part of the territory - the dispute is over who governs that territory. Neither Greece nor Macedonia disputes any territorial matters; it's purely an issue of one side (Greece) claiming exclusive rights to the name, which isn't a situation replicated in either China or Ireland. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) @ChrisO, no, not just territorial dispute, but the ownership of the name "China" and its long "history" too. We already had a move suggestion/discussion last year (heated one). If the move was carried by a Macedonian, I wonder how good the user would get? Not too sweet one.--Caspian blue 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- For UN member states, the United Nations List of Member States does probably indicate the prevailing consensus. --Cs32en (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not in this case: the UN uses a different terminology from two thirds of its member states, which use "Macedonia" instead. The situation is that the state self-identifies as Macedonia but participates in certain international organisations under a provisional reference (not a name!) due to Greek objections. But as I've noted on Talk:Macedonia, that's really a side issue, since Wikipedia's approach isn't determined by state policies towards an issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Korea versus Republic of Korea may also be a relevant comparison here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why it was given the sole name "Macedonia". Isn't the usual convention for that to only happen when the target is what most people are looking for? I would suggest the page be at "Macedonia (country)" as we have done with articles such as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds logical.--Caspian blue 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please continue discussion at the Article talkpage I'm going to mark this resolved per ANI, since there is no further admin action required. Anyone need a neutral admin to act upon consensus please let me know, otherwise; best wishes for an amicable solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The timing on this was very bad indeed, as an arbitration request over the name of the country in the Greece article was going to be initiated next week, after the conclusion of the Orthodox Easter holiday. This really borders on reckless, Chris; you are aware of the planned arbitration request, and this move smacks of trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute, which reflects badly on you and (by extension) those who have supported you over a series of attacks on the content guideline you authored which covers this debate. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please can we centralise discussion at Talk:Macedonia? Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- In theory, yes. In practice, any attempt at discussion degrades into attacks on the motives of other users, and it's not possible to discuss on the merits. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Stevvvv4444 categorising by ethnicity
After a final final warning not to categorise biographical articles according to their subject's ethnicity unless it is relevant, per WP:OC#CATGRS, User:Stevvvv4444 has just made this edit. I would appreciate the view of an administrator, and for action to be taken if deemed necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) - Though not necessarily opposed, I question the block as I noted on John's page. It looks like a content dispute, a good faith disagreement and BRD / consensus issue regarding Wikipedia:Overcategorization guideline, not a behavior matter. Further, the warnings are not solid. Most Wikipedians agree in general terms with the guideline, by which some have successfully lobbied to remove and restrict various "hyphenated" nationality/ethnicity/religion categories over the often vociferous objections of others who think those categories matter. The guideline cites "Jewish mathematicians", for example, which itself was a rather controversial category deletion. The results have not been consistent, and there are clearly other cases where ethnicity, nationality, and birthplace are considered a valid category, and biographically relevant for text in the article and/or a category link. Adding such a category to a specific BLP subject's page is a mix of BLP / sourcing concerns, verifiability, relevance, and consensus at various levels - the article in question, the category in question, etc. Stevvvv4444, by his edit history, is clearly interested in matters of nationality, which is certainly a valid area of interest. For example, their latest work was improving the Barbadian British article. The editor seems to make about eight edits per day on a variety of subjects and add one category (all extant categories, nothing made up, which means that for some articles at least the categories are valid). Of the warnings, one from two different editors, is a month old and seems overreaching and incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to generally oppose nationality categories and who has disagreed repeatedly with Stevvvv444 elsewhere, gave the first warning which john (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an uninvolved administrator, backed up with a warning: "Please do not restore [the categories] or perform any further edits of this sort. As you have already been advised, categorizing people in this way breaches our policies." However, this is not against policy, but rather a case-by-case content question based on guidelines and consensus as described. To give a blanket warning to avoid nationality categories, in an area where consensus is mixed, smells like a topic ban. A few days ago John again warned[71] he would block Stevvvv444 if he does it again. Yet that was over an edit on March 10[72] that categories Sacha Baron Cohen among other things as a British person of Israeli descent. That is a reasonable thing to do, because both his Britishness and his Israeli heritage, and the interplay between the two, are sourced in the article as a central issue in his work and public persona. Whether it goes beyond reasonable to being correct is a content matter, not a behavior question. It does not seem fair to say Stevvv444 is engaged in a pattern of disruption that requires blocking to stop. He may have gotten the message, even if the threat was iffy. He has added a single category since the warning a week ago,[73] and this time he attempts to demonstrate that the matter is sourced, albeit he does so in the edit summary. To be fair the substance of the edit looks like a piece of non-notable ancestry cruft trivia, but again, that is a relevancy question, not a behavior problem. Nothing about the editor's conduct seems to go beyond what is routinely manageable in the BRD / consensus process, as a content matter, and simply working with the editor. Plus, as a practical matter, at the editor's edit rate the block looks putative, not preventive. With one nationality category added to the project per week, a one day block doesn't really prevent anything. Content disputes can always point to policies and guidelines, and anyone can argue that their content position is right while another violates policy. But the good faith interpretation and application of those guidelines to specific content questions is not a behavioral matter suitable for administrative action. If that editor goes beyond WP:BRD to the point of edit warring, incivility, pointiness, socking, or repeated, egregious nonconsensus edits, then maybe a content dispute becomes a behavior problem. I note that the editor has been accused (and blocked, then unblocked) for sockpuppetry in the past, was operating without logging in, and has edited some controversial articles and categories. So I wonder if those concerns might be somehow beyond the hair trigger here. I don't mean to obstruct or cry foul here, just questioning. Perhaps it would help, John, if you could explain your rationale for blocking and why you think Stevvvv4444 crossed the line there, or maybe if another admin could review and endorse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really want to comment on the suitability of a block because I don't know enough about blocking policy. However, the policy on categorisation by ethnicity seems clear to me: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". There was no indication that Cole's American ancestors have had any bearing on his career. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- See incident archives 522 and 529 for the previous discussions on this. I did what I said here I would do and what I told the user in question I would do. These ethnic categories should only be used where the subject's ethnicity is relevant to their notability, as in the case of for example Barack Obama. As I said here previously the user's previous admission of editing to add ethnic cats while not logged in was a matter of AGF, but at the end of the day WP:BLP is an over-riding concern. I would of course be happy to rescind the block if the user says he will not do it again, or if there is a consensus here that it was a bad block as Wikidemon seems to think. --John (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Those two incidents are in my discussion, above. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#User:Stevvvv4444 (March 16) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#User:Stevvvv4444 (April 10) are both brief two way conversations regarding whereby Cordless Larry reports single, sourced edit he/she disagrees with and you report back that you've given the warnings I describe above telling Stevvvv444 not to do it again. Cordless Larry's first report refers back to a talk page discussion a month earlier[74] that is not a warning. Where is the BLP vio here? Again, this looks like a content matter. It is based on an editing guideline subject to considerable back and forth, not a policy or behavior issue. An administrative warning over arguable, sourced content, without more, is not right, and a block based on such a warning is unsupported. I've seen a lot of disruption here on the project, (see my latest BLP matter)[75] and unless this is a sock, the editor seems to be trying in good faith to make proper edits. I can sympathize with the need to show you mean it when you give a warning. But the disruption level from a once-a-week rejected proposal to add nationality categories, without edit warring, is about 0.1 on a scale of one to ten. I know you are neutral and uninvolved in the content matters, but backing up Stevvvv4444's and Cosdless Larry's simple BRD editing with a block against one of them seems like a way to (inadvertently) support one content position over another through administrative tools. Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- My complaint had nothing to do with whether the edit was sourced but rather whether it was relevant. I understand that the guideline is not policy per se, but it is Wikipedia policy to go by consensus and Stevvvv444's edits go against this, despite it being pointed out to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Those two incidents are in my discussion, above. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#User:Stevvvv4444 (March 16) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#User:Stevvvv4444 (April 10) are both brief two way conversations regarding whereby Cordless Larry reports single, sourced edit he/she disagrees with and you report back that you've given the warnings I describe above telling Stevvvv444 not to do it again. Cordless Larry's first report refers back to a talk page discussion a month earlier[74] that is not a warning. Where is the BLP vio here? Again, this looks like a content matter. It is based on an editing guideline subject to considerable back and forth, not a policy or behavior issue. An administrative warning over arguable, sourced content, without more, is not right, and a block based on such a warning is unsupported. I've seen a lot of disruption here on the project, (see my latest BLP matter)[75] and unless this is a sock, the editor seems to be trying in good faith to make proper edits. I can sympathize with the need to show you mean it when you give a warning. But the disruption level from a once-a-week rejected proposal to add nationality categories, without edit warring, is about 0.1 on a scale of one to ten. I know you are neutral and uninvolved in the content matters, but backing up Stevvvv4444's and Cosdless Larry's simple BRD editing with a block against one of them seems like a way to (inadvertently) support one content position over another through administrative tools. Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- See incident archives 522 and 529 for the previous discussions on this. I did what I said here I would do and what I told the user in question I would do. These ethnic categories should only be used where the subject's ethnicity is relevant to their notability, as in the case of for example Barack Obama. As I said here previously the user's previous admission of editing to add ethnic cats while not logged in was a matter of AGF, but at the end of the day WP:BLP is an over-riding concern. I would of course be happy to rescind the block if the user says he will not do it again, or if there is a consensus here that it was a bad block as Wikidemon seems to think. --John (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really want to comment on the suitability of a block because I don't know enough about blocking policy. However, the policy on categorisation by ethnicity seems clear to me: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". There was no indication that Cole's American ancestors have had any bearing on his career. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) - Though not necessarily opposed, I question the block as I noted on John's page. It looks like a content dispute, a good faith disagreement and BRD / consensus issue regarding Wikipedia:Overcategorization guideline, not a behavior matter. Further, the warnings are not solid. Most Wikipedians agree in general terms with the guideline, by which some have successfully lobbied to remove and restrict various "hyphenated" nationality/ethnicity/religion categories over the often vociferous objections of others who think those categories matter. The guideline cites "Jewish mathematicians", for example, which itself was a rather controversial category deletion. The results have not been consistent, and there are clearly other cases where ethnicity, nationality, and birthplace are considered a valid category, and biographically relevant for text in the article and/or a category link. Adding such a category to a specific BLP subject's page is a mix of BLP / sourcing concerns, verifiability, relevance, and consensus at various levels - the article in question, the category in question, etc. Stevvvv4444, by his edit history, is clearly interested in matters of nationality, which is certainly a valid area of interest. For example, their latest work was improving the Barbadian British article. The editor seems to make about eight edits per day on a variety of subjects and add one category (all extant categories, nothing made up, which means that for some articles at least the categories are valid). Of the warnings, one from two different editors, is a month old and seems overreaching and incorrect. Cordless Larry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to generally oppose nationality categories and who has disagreed repeatedly with Stevvvv444 elsewhere, gave the first warning which john (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an uninvolved administrator, backed up with a warning: "Please do not restore [the categories] or perform any further edits of this sort. As you have already been advised, categorizing people in this way breaches our policies." However, this is not against policy, but rather a case-by-case content question based on guidelines and consensus as described. To give a blanket warning to avoid nationality categories, in an area where consensus is mixed, smells like a topic ban. A few days ago John again warned[71] he would block Stevvvv444 if he does it again. Yet that was over an edit on March 10[72] that categories Sacha Baron Cohen among other things as a British person of Israeli descent. That is a reasonable thing to do, because both his Britishness and his Israeli heritage, and the interplay between the two, are sourced in the article as a central issue in his work and public persona. Whether it goes beyond reasonable to being correct is a content matter, not a behavior question. It does not seem fair to say Stevvv444 is engaged in a pattern of disruption that requires blocking to stop. He may have gotten the message, even if the threat was iffy. He has added a single category since the warning a week ago,[73] and this time he attempts to demonstrate that the matter is sourced, albeit he does so in the edit summary. To be fair the substance of the edit looks like a piece of non-notable ancestry cruft trivia, but again, that is a relevancy question, not a behavior problem. Nothing about the editor's conduct seems to go beyond what is routinely manageable in the BRD / consensus process, as a content matter, and simply working with the editor. Plus, as a practical matter, at the editor's edit rate the block looks putative, not preventive. With one nationality category added to the project per week, a one day block doesn't really prevent anything. Content disputes can always point to policies and guidelines, and anyone can argue that their content position is right while another violates policy. But the good faith interpretation and application of those guidelines to specific content questions is not a behavioral matter suitable for administrative action. If that editor goes beyond WP:BRD to the point of edit warring, incivility, pointiness, socking, or repeated, egregious nonconsensus edits, then maybe a content dispute becomes a behavior problem. I note that the editor has been accused (and blocked, then unblocked) for sockpuppetry in the past, was operating without logging in, and has edited some controversial articles and categories. So I wonder if those concerns might be somehow beyond the hair trigger here. I don't mean to obstruct or cry foul here, just questioning. Perhaps it would help, John, if you could explain your rationale for blocking and why you think Stevvvv4444 crossed the line there, or maybe if another admin could review and endorse. Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocking of Yamanam
I'm planning on unblocking User:Yamanam, but thought I would come here first to make sure nobody has a problem with that. It seems that he was blocked because his IP address is an abusive open proxy (not too knowledgeable on this subject matter), but I've worked with Yamanam in the past and he has never vandalized the site or disrupted Wikipedia articles by inserting spam or anything of the sort. There have been instances where he's made POV edits, but these have been rare and he's been civil and cooperative when confronted. User:Falastine fee Qalby points to this source which explains why it appears that Yamanam, who is based in Jordan, has an IP address from the UAE. Please trust me, this block is certainly a mistake. Are there any objections to this user being unblocked? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are planning on unblocking the ip? Why not grant him IP block exemption? I think this kind of situation is what it is for isn't it? Theresa Knott | token threats 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject area concerning IPs. Could you tell me what I would have to do to grant him IP block exemption because the user himself should not be punished for something he has no control over. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I have granted him the IP block exemption. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
SlamDiego's Continued Vandalism of Marginalism Talk Page
Can somebody say something to SlamDiego about his continued vandalism ([76], [77], [78], [79]) of the Talk:Marginalism page? 209.217.195.139 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly asked the complaintant to stop spamming econ talk pages with links to his 'blog. In the case of these 'blog entries, the relevant content could have been copied-and-pasted or paraphrased. He is simply trying to drive traffic to his 'blog.
- The material in question at Talk:Marginalism is 'blog spam, discussion of 'blog spam, and a personal attack by a third party.
- (The 'blog entry to which he there links contains a short list of references in support of the notion that marginalism should be seen as a response to Marxism. This notion was long previously addressed within the article.)
- I think that Robert's 'blog (robertvienneau.blogspot.com) needs to be added to the list of sites to which links are banned. —SlamDiego←T 00:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Protection of today's featured article
Today's featured article niobium is currently protected despite a relatively low level of vandalism. Isn't it consensus not to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.226.55 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The protection just expired.--BirgitteSB 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oops the move protection just expired 3 more hours on the edit protection, but it is now off the main page. I will unprotect, since it is no longer any kind of target.--BirgitteSB 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user
That guy who was making legal threats on Smiley face murders and trying to out people is still around, this time as User:71.83.43.215 (contributions) who left alleged real name, address and phone on two editors' user pages. These should be oversighted to be deleted from history. Might need a range block because he has promised to play whackamole with us. DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Coren has oversighted the offending edits. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. If anyone wants to adjust that time, feel free. لennavecia 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The IP ranges in use are a /12 and separate /13 - without Charter's internal IP mapping info there's no easy way to tell what subranges this guy could pop up in.
- We're not currently technically allowed to make rangeblocks that big - it tops out at a /16 - so we'd have to have someone make a whole bunch of /16 netblock range blocks to be sure to get this guy. And that would take out most of Charter Communications.
- We can block them, but the collateral damage would be extreme. We as a general matter of policy don't do that.
- We can't practically block within the larger ranges, as they are clearly resetting the modem to get a new DHCP IP regularly, and that's hopping them around a huge amount within the wider space.
- Perhaps an abuse filter, if the edit patterns are distinct enough? If not autoconfirmed and edit matches the known patterns, block the edit? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved to User:71.13.22.228 now -- if blocking all the IPs is too rough, maybe someone higher up needs to contact Charter Communications to block the user on their end? Also, the SineBot edit comments for previously oversighted comments also have to be scrubbed, as the bot copied some of the offending text as its description. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would semi-protecting the relevant editor's talkpages be an option here, if they're targeting the same people? Black Kite 00:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking about doing that very thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm taking a leap of faith and guess at the netblock suballocations, and blocked 71.83.32.0/20 and 71.13.16.0/21 for 24 hrs. Those are the smallest CIDR blocks around the 2 clusters of IPs he's used so far... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- If he pops up outside those ranges, flag it here and I or someone else who understands CIDR can expand those or issue a new rangeblock as required. He could well have larger suballocation ranges to work out of... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would 71.13.26.25 (talk · contribs) be him? (see section below) -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 06:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Long time tendentious editor tries to remove the RFC about him
Can few admins look into this? [80] [81]. Noone seems to be watching Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Certification issue was explained here [82] [83] Also note that I used the 2nd template [84] for RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Request help
The article Republic of Macedonia was recently moved, without any prior notification to anyone, by one admin to Macedonia. There had, to the best of my knowledge, been no agreement by anyone in recent discussion to that name for the article. That admin also protected the page from being moved at the time he moved it. I believe that this is a serious violation of ethical conduct. I, however, as someone who has been involved in the discussion regarding the name of the country, feel that I am not in a poition to remove the move block myself. I would however request that any interested admin might look over the discussion and see that there had been very little, if any, objection to the article being at Republic of Macedonia for some years. There is a suspicion that this action was brought about at the time it was because all parties involved agreed to go to Arbitration after the Orthodox Easter this coming week, and that the person moving the article wished to present a fait accompli to the ArbCom. I believe that this action is a serious violation of protocol, ethics, and possibly guidelines and policy, and see that the argument it has started seems to do no good. I therefore humbly request that some other admin take the action which I, with what some might call an apparent COI on the matter, cannot. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The move protection is to prevent edit warring. Instead of inciting admins to edit-war which will only result in more drama and frustration, discuss this on the talk page. I see no consensus for either moving or keeping it as is at the moment on the talk page, so the best course of action is to wait for the drama-fest that is WP:RFAR. Knight of the Wind 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that anyone contemplating action on this should first read the policy rationale for this move. I've made a WP:BOLD change to tackle a very long-running issue. An arbitration case, which is scheduled to be filed on April 22nd by common agreement among the editors involved, will provide a forum for the policy rationale to be discussed in detail. The Arbitration Committee will be in a position to pass judgment on the policy issues. If the ArbCom determines that the policy rationale is faulty, I'm quite happy to perform a move revert myself to restore the original name of the article. As KotW suggests, the worst possible thing now would be for someone to jump in and start edit-warring and potentially wheel-warring. Let the Arbcom sort it out; leaving the article name as it is for a little time will not be the end of the world. The naming is, after all, no different to how we approach other countries (compare Luxembourg or Azerbaijan). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO, did you act under your admin capacity or not? Please answer this simple question. --Avg (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...like Ireland (Republic of Ireland), Taiwan (Republic of China), China (People's Republic of China (PRC))? How about the Vatican (Vatican City)? Or even England for that matter... everybody calls the UK England, yet we maintain that this is wrong... You chose to even change this country's constitutional name which is "Republic of Macedonia", was used as such and only a handful of extremists dared dispute it in Wikipedia for years!!! Nationalist Greeks pushed for the country to be solely called FYROM. Did they have their way? Of course not! The country was called by its constitutional name and there was NO problem. So, WHERE was the problem? WHY did you have to stir nationalism on both sides? Did you feel that referring to RoM with its constitutional name was a problem? Was there any organized discussion, even by the editors of this country, demanding its naming to be (solely) Macedonia, a name which carries a lot of disambiguation and a huge heritage? Whatever your made up excuses, you acted with a plan, clearly negating any arguments about "good faith", which is the pillar of Wikipedia. You present guidelines as rules, nay, as laws, and you totally provoke a large number of editors and administrators with your uncalled for actions. Finally, you proceeded with your plan, while you KNEW that the ArbCom would anyways discuss the matter. Administrators have to be respected and trusted. With your actions, you totally lost both the respect and the trust not only of the "nationalists", but also of those who disapprove of your dictatorial policies. GK1973 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- How about putting this issue on hold for a while? The new president of Macedonia has pledged to negotiate a settlement with Greece on this issue.[85] So a political resolution may be in sight. --John Nagle (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually that makes no difference to us. Wikipedia:Naming conventions requires us to use the common name, not the formal name, for a thing, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) explicitly prioritises the use of "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more." When Yugoslavia changed its name from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it didn't change the common name - people just continued using "Yugoslavia". Likewise with Macedonia in its various name changes over the years. The established common name for the country in English-language reference works and media is "Macedonia" and this is certain to continue, except in the extremely unlikely case that the country decides to discontinue the use of the term "Macedonia" altogether (which won't happen). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI, this is now the subject of an arbitration request at WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
IP causing trouble
An IP continually inserts this lengthy rant to the Phil Spector talk page. It has been removed numerous times by myself and another editor because it breaches numerous policies, including WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:AGF come into play. Edit has been warned numerous times but ain't listening. Instead, he issued a minor personal attack on my talk page. — R2 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reported at WP:AIV. Generally, it's best to report them there instead of taking it here. Knight of the Wind 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Premature deletions
At WP:TFD we have had a debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives that has about 10 deletes and about 5 keeps. The thoughts behind the votes propose all sorts of reformatting of the template. However, William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to determine that an outright deletion is the TFD consensus. He has also gone on to replace the template with one of his own choosing. It seems inappropriate for a discussant at a TFD to take such actions before the debate closes. The debate ma be closed in agreement with his actions and it may not, but I think he should refrain from his actions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Votes? MuZemike 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to me like it has been closed. Are you saying he changed articles to not use the template? Which articles? – Quadell (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- His contribs for the past two days show that he replaced the template for 20 articles. Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- He has removed much the template from much more than 20 articles and started replacing it with two other templates while the original template still has an open debate. I would guess more like 200 pages than 20.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- His contribs for the past two days show that he replaced the template for 20 articles. Looie496 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look to me like it has been closed. Are you saying he changed articles to not use the template? Which articles? – Quadell (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody has gotten around to closing, and others on that day page are waiting closing, too. It has long passed 7 days for the discussion period. The only person still "discussing" is TTT, the author (WP:OWN problem). The consensus was 11 delete, 3 replace (keep until replaced), and only 2 keep. Template:NYRepresentatives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been completely orphaned, and is ready for deletion. Some of us are working on replacing with the standard {{USRepSuccessionBox}} that was supposed to be placed on these articles.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)- NB: Some folks wanted to start deleting after only the first few days (WP:SNOW), but I convinced them to give the full 7 days. After that, it was "Katie bar the door"! This is an egregiously large 140K link farm! Have you looked at it?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)- You have mischaracterized some things. First not all deletes wanted the template removed. Some wanted it reformated. More than one discussant wanted district by district templates of the same format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, as the page creator you seem to castigate me for participating in the debate. I am not the only one continuing to discuss. Benjiboi (talk · contribs) remains active in the debate among those against deletion. Others would probably be involved in the debate if the WP:ARS tags did not keep getting torn down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- NB: Some folks wanted to start deleting after only the first few days (WP:SNOW), but I convinced them to give the full 7 days. After that, it was "Katie bar the door"! This is an egregiously large 140K link farm! Have you looked at it?
I just wanted to say that I dislike the show/hide feature in general, and so this is just horrible. Have a nice day --NE2 05:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Directorichr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly vandalizing Dr Sushil Kumar
Directorichr (talk · contribs) appears to be a COI account (self-identifying as a, or the, Director of the ICHR), which is repeatedly adding hoax or improper "references" to the Dr Sushil Kumar article. He has multiple warnings, and was given a final warning, but continues to add the improper references, and never discusses his edits in Talk pages. I gave him a final warning about incorrect formatting and improper links over a week ago, and yet here he is reverting back to his own edits. He needs a warning block to force him to discuss his edits on a Talk page. I reported this to AIV, since this is clearly a vandal who will not stop reverting to his own version, but my vandalism listing was removed with no action. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've reported this to WP:UAA, they will take it from here and decide what action (if any) is appropriate. C.U.T.K.D T | C 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Difficulty undeleting a page :: software errors
- I tried to obey a request to move page Brian Lenihan, Jnr to Brian Lenihan, Jr.. The move attempt broke down in system errors, with the result that Brian Lenihan, Jnr was moved to Brian Lenihan, Jr. and then deleted by the first stage of an unwanted repeat of the move. I then tried to undelete Brian Lenihan, Jr., but every attempt timed out with a system error "A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: / (SQL query hidden) / from within function "Article::insertOn". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.6.22)".". So, please, someone, undelete Brian Lenihan, Jr. when this system error has been cleared up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Inserting this message took the system about half a minute, which is far longer than normal with a message this short. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The somewhere-around-tenth attempt to undelete page Brian Lenihan, Jr. succeeded. But this message better stand, as a bug report. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The system is still very slow inserting these short messages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight (again) personal attacks and refactoring others comments
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) See:
- refactoring of 2 other users comments at Talk:Barack Obama
- refactoring of another users comments
- Personal attack/incivility
- Another personal attack/incivility
I tried to engage the user regarding the refactoring of other users comments. The user deleted it of course. As with past reports here at ANI regarding this user, something needs to be done. Past reports have went archived with no kind of action or involvement by admins, specifically this ANI thread. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is one of four users coming to my talk page to harass me despite repeated requests to go elsewhere. I suggest reading my talk page and investigating the history a bit before responding. This is Baseball Bugs and a couple of others trying to stir up trouble. (I trust this won't be taken as a personal attack?) This is ALLSTDR's second bogus ANI report of the day againt me. Earlier he accused me of "maliciously" moving an article when several editors suggested doing so in an AfD. This stalking is problematic, and if someone wants to encourage Baseball Bugs, ALLSTDR and the others to steer clear, it would be much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- No one is "stalking" you. You're just everywhere tendentiously editing for everyone to see. And to correct you, I haven't filed another ANI report regarding you today so I don't know where you're getting this "ALLSTDR's second bogus ANI report" stuff from. I did ask a policy question at AN regarding moving a page that was in an ongoing AfD. AN and ANI are 2 different places and that AN report was yesterday. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a very selective review of the edit history relating to the allegations. The original "refactoring" (which amounted to the correction of two typos) resulted in a disproportionately aggressive comment on CoM's talk page which "of course" was not deleted.
- This led to some unhelpful piling on from uninvolved editors, including comments with inappropriate tone.
- During this, CoM made what he later explained to be a (failed) attempt to clarify (without changing the meaning of) another piled on comment.
- In CoM's comment to LadyofShalott, CoM referred to "[her] and [her] gang of bobbleheads." AgnosticPreachersKid chivalrously defended LadyofShalott—twice—by placing warnings on CoM's page.
- Somehow, the referrer of this incident beat APK to the punch and made this report.
- None of this rises to a level worthy of administrative attention (unless there are admins who happen to be kindergarten teachers with spare time).
- This referral should be closed with prejudice. Bongomatic 06:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I try to avoid this page, but Bongomatic's um, assessment leaves me no other choice (btw, thanks for noting my chivalry). I've seen CoM comment on various talk pages, but have avoided getting into the middle of any edit/talk page battles until an hour ago. I noticed CoM referred to User:LadyofShalott and others as "bobbleheads". (minor PA, but the user is constantly stirring up trouble and knows better) I didn't template, but left a basic "cut it out" warning. Apparently, CoM didn't see anything wrong with the comment and began an attempt to "prove" how I'm wrong. CoM then referred to LadyofShalott and others as wind bags. I left a second warning and returned to my normal routine. I take another look at the talk page and noticed the ANI link (Gosh darnit. Allstarecho beat me to it! /end summary of Bongo's psychic powers). It looks like CoM and Bongo appear to have everything figured out for us, no? CoM was just minding his/her own business until some mean, ol' editors came by and left horrible, horrible warnings. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Legal threats, outings
Performed by 71.13.26.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
decltype (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please check this talk page history and remove the outing attempt? Thank you,Already resolved....
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)- See #More OUTing by blocked "Smiley" user above. This may be linked to that given the IP. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 06:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
GFDL violation
Hilary T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is upset by this violation [86] [87] of his/her rights under the GFDL and threatens to start introducing false information to articles edited by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) unless something is done about it. TroubleTroll (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)