Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been unsettled since it was first written three years ago and it has become especially contentious in the past month. Parties on all sides have engaged in what some have called "protracted", "silly edit wars". It is currently protected for a week. The talk page is active but acrimonious and angry reverts have outnumbered consensual edits. User:Jossi has proposed article probation and I endorse the concept. We both agree that, at a minumum, a "1RR" preventing excess reverts would be useful. Here's the probation text we've agreed upon between the two of us, the two involved admins.

Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to WP:1RR probation for a period of one month. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per week), may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:3RRN

I ask the community's consent to impose this as a temporary peace-keeping measure. I welcome improvements to the framing of this probation as well as dispute resolution interventions and suggestions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The wikilawyer in me says you want to say "articles currently in Category:Prem Rawat, being...", or anyone can impose 1RR on a page just by adding it to the category. Pedantic I know, but I can't help myself :D Happy‑melon 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From my own experience with article probations, 1R rules can easily be gamed by people who will continually be inserting new tendentious material, or similar material with varying wording. That way, they never "revert", but keep being uncooperative and POV-pushing. No matter how glaringly tendentious their additions may be, a pure 1R regime gives this form of POV-pushing a tactical advantage over constructive editors. I would recommend adding a safety valve to the rules, defining some class of obvious, blatantly tendentious edits that can (and should) be reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Fut.Perf.. And how do you deal with the often anon IPs, who insert an unsourced, defamatory comment. Three editors may delete it, but it may be reinserted 5 times. Does this mean that the unsourced defamatory comment remains in place for a week and then the same thing happens the next week, 5 editors insert an unsourced, defamatory comment and three editors delete it? Cumulatively adding one unsourced defamatory comment a week. That situation is clearly unacceptable. For example. here an anon IP inserted Rawat is "an ugly lying scumbag cult leader" [[1]]. So for a start, editing the PR article must exclude anon IP editors and addition to dealing with Fut.Perf. comments.Momento (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon editing can be curtailed by semi-protection, and removal of obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations will not fall under the 1RR probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The BLP violation would have to be quite obvious in order for an edit removing it to circumvent the probation. Some editors have abused the BLP exemption in the past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only obvious BLP violations would apply. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't WP:1RR usually understood as 1 revert per day, not per week? If you go with this proposal, I would suggest to either stick with that, or make the "per week" very explicit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the probation needs to be extended to include other edit disruptions beyond 1RR, as per concerns expressed above. An example of community enforced article probation Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation, which include all what is needed to ensure orderly debate and editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The rules on that page are all about how to be nice to each other on the talk page. That's all good and well, but I doubt it's sufficient here. Editors can be spotlessly nice and civil to each other and yet be thoroughly disruptive by making persistently tendentious edits. What you need is rules about what kinds of content edits are or aren't within debatable limits. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you offer some wording for additional restrictions that may help us here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficult, I don't know the article well and what kinds of problematic edits actually get made. On an etirely different type of conflict, I have moderately positive experiences with the rule set shown at Talk:Liancourt Rocks, where the focus is on what constitutes an "uncooperative edit". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing of concern here is that there seems to be varying interpretations of what may or may not constitute a BLP violation, and thus exempt from the 1RR. Momento, for example, is a bit strident in his reversions generally (but not always!) in what he feels are not acceptable. If there is a disagreement whether something is a BLP violation, who makes the determination? Certainly no involved parties, because a disputed BLP violation is not automatically excempt from 1RR or 3RR. Once this is codified as part of the probation in as close of a manner as possible to make it impossible for any "side" to game, I would support this long term 1RR restriction, applying to all editors and admins. Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this version? Would this work?

Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions for a period of three months. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Amended as per FT2 - three months + other restrictions) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better, to use disruption as the measuring tool, since that leaves it for the uninvolved community to decide rather than someone playing games by saying "BLP! BLP!" when it may not be valid. Lawrence § t/e 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One tweak--I changed "uninvolved admins will make a determination" to "uninvolved editors will make a determination" as admins have no extra authority in consensus. Perfect otherwise. Lawrence § t/e 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to visit and give a view here. Quick thoughts. It looks fine, but a couple of thoughts. First, a month (4 weeks) may not be very long. If it's enough of a problem to need probation, maybe consider an initial period of 3 months, not one. The aim of probation is to see the article stable and with time to get sorted out, and a month isn't very long. Second, consider the bahaviors seen, and the (apparent) goals of those editing on each side, and consider if disruption and reversion are sufficient, or if blocking is the only remedy to be considered. A good option might be that editors engaging in disruptive behavior may incur escalating blocks "or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics" by any uninvolved administrator, etc. (The wording "in relation to these topics" allows better coverage of disruption related to the topic on other pages, project pages etc too.) It gives a bit of flexibility if you have an editor who engages in problem behavior. But this is a pure generic outside view, and if not needed, ignore them :) My $0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Amended as per suggestions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outside editor who is currently involved in editing this page, I strongly support this probation, esp. with Lawrence's and FT2's tweaks. One additional thought -- and I hesitate to even bring this up, because I'm sure it's a very touchy subject. It's very clear to me that the edit warring, and the uncivil discussion on Talk is driven in 90% of the cases by a handful of current and bitter ex-devotees of the article subject fighting each other. I don't know Wikipedia traditions nearly as well as others here. Is there any way to address this in the probation? Msalt (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These may be covered under the proviso of "disruptive editing" in the probation notice. But if necessary, the probation could be extended to abuse of talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My point, in case it's not clear, is that perhaps restrictions should focus on the editors with admitted COI issues, on both sides of the issue -- both current devotees and bitter ex-devotees. I admire and appreciate very much, Jossi, that you have recused yourself from editing. Unfortunately, only one other person on either side has taken that step, and the ones that haven't are causing all or nearly all of the problems on the page. I don't know that much about different restrictions and how they've worked in the past, so I don't have any specific suggestions. But I think they should be focused on the clear cause of the problems. Msalt (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "... we need some assistance to tweak the wording of these restrictions ..." [2] - I'd appreciate a 0-CANVASS on this one. I don't like Jossi's pre-emptive idea that this will fly, and only needs "tweaking" of the wording. There's no consensus, it's badly set up, and it bends good guidance in all sort of directions in order to give POV-pushers an unjustifiable advantage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be jocking.... I asked one experienced editor and arbCom member, and you call that canvassing? I am starting to doubt your ability to remain neutral in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Article probation - proposal - archived last week. "community-enforced article probation restrictions" (with an included piped link to WP:RESTRICT, a page talking *only* about restrictions on users, not restrictions on pages - similarily WP:1RR is about users, not pages) would be a very bad next step. There's a lot of POV-pushing on the article. Relatively uninvolved editors (at least, with no involvement in the article's subject), have shown up and do a hell of a job of working on the article content (as said, a "thank you" is not needed as far as I'm concerned, but please let us do the job, it's difficult enough as it is). Several involved editors work on the talk page with (self-imposed) editing restrictions to the page for COI and/or "too angry" and/or "not believing Wikipedia can get the article right" reasons. Then there are *a very few* still edit-warring on the page. The Prem Rawat article needs to be dynamic, at least for some time still to come, and not give the POV-pushers an advantage ("I can't edit the page for COI, so others should also be restricted in editing the page" or whatever flaky rationale). The advantage should be to the relatively uninvolved editors, and we will revert POV-pushing. Individual POV-pushers can be set on a WP:RESTRICT as foreseen by that project page, thus applied to users, for disruption. Similarily for WP:1RR restictions, to applied (as foreseen) to users, not pages. I'm not going to impose such restrictions to users, but will bring to WP:AN/WP:ANI when such restriction might be warranted, for others to decide. For example above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There are precedents for 1RR probation on articles (such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation. Note that 1RR is a good thing even for editors that are not disruptive, unless you believe that edit-warring is a viable option, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I contest the usefulness of the measure, even for the Homeopathy articles. Some time ago we had a sudden raise of Homeopathy-related rants at WT:NPOV. Finally I know how come. Even if you think it worked regarding Homeopathy-related topics: the situation hardly compares with Prem Rawat, where I definitely see no reason for the same. I'd oppose it. I'm no POV-pusher and would not allow myself to be forced into restrictions on the same level as the POV-pushers who might need such restrictions imposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal for restrictions on Momento, had no traction, Francis. And the disruption at that article, was not just from Momento, but from many editors actively editing that article. You yourself engaged in revert wars, so I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make. POV pusher or not, editors should not engage in edit wars, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it has traction from every contributor appart from Momento and Jossi, see above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs).

Re. "You yourself engaged in revert wars" - I haven't, so I invite you to stop your poisonous language. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1. 08:24, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191344759 by Janice Rowe (talk) per Talk:Prem Rawat#External links disputes pls take part there if no agr")
2. 22:42, 15 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191736297 by 24.176.193.149 (talk) per talk, also replacing dmoz by p-r-m")
3. 23:08, 15 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191743263 by 32.155.57.53 (talk) per talk page and previous edit summary")
4. 09:59, 17 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192032024 by Momento (talk) Per talk page, and discussion ont Momento's talk page")
5. 21:19, 18 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192370604 by Louise.Po (talk) undo edit by SPA (had messed grammar; had added unsourced statement)")
6. 21:29, 18 February 2008 (edit summary: "rv some edits by SPA; keeping to talk page discussions")
7. 08:57, 19 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192408147 by Momento (talk) + cite")
8. 09:19, 19 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192514791 by 121.218.20.254 (talk) IfD not concluded yet, see talk page")
9. 17:58, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192767943 by Rainer P. (talk) it's what the website says, no need for interpretation, see talk")
10. 18:04, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192524515 by Momento (talk) per Talk:Prem Rawat#Balyogeshwar")
11. 18:05, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192514791 by 121.218.20.254 (talk) IfD still not concluded, see talk")
12. 12:56, 21 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192926449 by Momento (talk) IfD still open. Have asked its conclusion ASAP. Already would have been if urgent BLP.")

Sure, it is always the others that are edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your alleged proof is a sham. No revert-warring, as I said. POV-pushers are reverted, as I said. The remedy is to stop the POV-pushers, not to protect them, as I said. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The diffs above say otherwise, Francis. The remedy is to assure orderly debate and assist involved editors in finding common ground, reach consensus and improve the articles in that manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The diffs do not show otherwise, so please remove your PA.

Re. "The remedy is to assure orderly debate and assist involved editors in finding common ground, reach consensus and improve the articles in that manner." Of course, thats what I'm defending. As I said, the current page protection is not very well contributing to orderly debate, [3]. I fear the restrictive measures now proposed will have a comparable effect.

And again, remove the PA above, and the other PA I invited you to remove from the Prem Rawat talk page. I see no reason to be lenient on these PA's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Query for uninvolved parties

In the interests and well-being of the wider community, I might delicately suggest that the view of the "regulars" who've been slugging it out on the article (or any article in similar circumstances) should have less weigh in whether this should be protected with the 1rr, once the idea is floated. They're welcome to slug it out; the community is equally entitled to say knock it off whether involved parties care for it or not.

What uninvolved parties support the above amended hopefully hard to game as written 1rr restriction by Jossi? Lawrence § t/e 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, the most interesting parties to listen to in this case are those who have little interest in the content of the Prem Rawat article, but have jumped in to monitor and assist to get the article through a difficult period. Among which Will Beback, Msalt and myself. They're doing the job on the ground, hands on. Thus we need the instruments to perform the job we have taken upon ourselves. So it is more important to have a consensus on methodology among those putting their time into this from the desinterested angle, than have a decision pushed by those who do have a POV interest in the article. Jossi doesn't edit the article for COI reasons. Now he's severely pushing, using a myriad of methods, to have as much restriction on editing the article imposed on others, especially the non-POV-pushers, as possible. While it is evident that left to POV-pushers alone from both camps the pro-Rawat POV-pushers have slightly outnumbered the critical POV-pushers, this might lead to outside commentators assessing that Wikipedia is unable to improve, even when the problems on the Prem Rawat article are pointed out to its editors. For the ones committing themselves to keeping the POV-pushing on this article down, there is no consensus on the methodology of general editing restrictions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not jumped in to "monitor", you have jumped in and engaged in the revert wars alongside others. There is no such a thing as fighting POV puhsers with revert wars.; that does not work and you should know that by now with your experience. People there made outrageous personal attacks, and you did nothing, and instead of assisting editors there in finding common ground, you have become part of the problem, Francis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, this it the third PA on me in four days. Please remove it. Also please remove the other two, see above and the Prem Rawat talk page. Also, I never said "fighting POV pushers" - I really don't know what you're talking about. I think this has gone quite far enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not personally attacking you, Francis. I am making an assessment of your behavior, same as you are making an assessment of mine. You seem to think that asking for community input for remedies that may help in assisting and encouraging editors to engage in an orderly debate without drama, is "severely pushing". I beg to differ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No again, I never said that nor implied it. I used the expression "severely pushing" because you used a myriad of techniques, some with drama. Having this on WP:AN is not something I object to in the least, although I pointed out it was recently discussed here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Article probation - proposal.

The first sentence of your comment above is a PA, and I insist you remove it. Same goes for the other two PA's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Side comment: Instead of saying that this applies to a category, which could change, the articles that this restriction would apply to, should all be listed here, so that editors/admins considering this proposal can see its scope of articles for the potential probation. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi (talk · contribs), this is not a "support" or "oppose" comment, it is a side comment related to this issue. Please do not move other editors' comments, especially not here, as you yourself are "involved" and should not be moving around other editors' comments. If you feel that strongly about the placement of my comment here, ask an uninvolved admin to act, instead of yourself. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For the second time, Jossi (talk · contribs), please stop moving my comments. Diff 1, Diff 2. It is inappropriate. I am not casting a "vote" in this subsection one way or another, just commenting that the related articles that this proposal applies to, should all be listed here. If you feel this strongly about where my comments should be placed, please do not move them yourself, that is highly inappropriate of you as a very involved admin in this issue, rather ask an uninvolved, neutral admin for input, instead of moving another editor's comments. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have objected repeatedly to Jossi's involvement, even on the talk page, to these articles because of his COI issues. I also suspect that Jossi is making this proposal because the Rawat article is currently locked in a version that he doesn't approve of. Nevertheless, since Jossi's proposal has the support of Will Beback, who appears to be trying to stop the POV-pushing in the Rawat articles, then I support Jossi's proposal. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

*comment by involved party trying to stop the POV-pushing* - Will Beback is no less, nor more involved than I am. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. The 1rr restriction seems eminently sensible, and I've seen it help with other contentious articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction will never work. The editors are too polarized. Independent admins like Jayjg should come and enforce the rules.Momento (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, Jayjg just endorsed the 1RR proposal. If accepted, any admin can enforce, not just Jayjg. Cla68 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. "If accepted, any admin can enforce", no: there are admins who could not enforce, for instance those with a COI involvement. Or am I erring and was this an underlying intention of the setup of this proposal? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Per usual procedures, the proposal says "uninvolved admin". I don't think folks would accept Jossi taking further administrative actions on these articles, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor you WillBeback.Momento (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, that is understood. An uninvolved admin is one that is not actively editing the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I Support also. If only involved parties are going to object, I move we just do it. Lawrence § t/e 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear if the current version of probation addresses talk page filibustering. The page is currently awash in endless discussions over relatively minor points (Momento alone is posting 10 or more times a day, 17 yesterday, many kilobytes, and PatW on the other side about the same.) My concern is these monologues have the effect, if not in fact the design, of sabotaging any possible progress, much less consensus. 3 editors on the pro-Rawat side, for example, have stated "vehemently" that they will support this probation only if an edit they don't like is reverted. [4] [5] [6] This seems like a very bad start (and note, I don't like that edit either. But this attitude is 'my way or the highway', not consensus.) Msalt (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be comfortable with an editor making an undiscussed insertion of 10,000 bytes into the article but the talk page says - "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information". And for your info Msalt, WillBeback has edited 17 times today and I have edited 11 times.Momento (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a clear COI, and a history of disruptive editing and Talk on this article. Will Beback has none of these. Please stop filibustering. Msalt (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of a COI in this matter? You should question any editor who doesn't object to an editor inserting 10,000 bytes of badly written material into the article without discussion.Momento (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's a larger problem which 1RR won't cure. It's only a bandage to address a symptom. If editors cannot act reasonably together, and can't agree to mediation, there aren't many alternatives. While those are being investigated 1RR may reduce the turmoil caused by revert-warring. While even a simple solution like 1RR can be gamed it's better to do something rather than nothing.

I urge uninvolved editors who are reading this thread to express their support or opposition to this proposal so that we can either implement it or find something else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the article probation. All I ask for is more teeth -- esp. editing and Talk page restrictions on the admittedly COI editors who are causing literally all of the problems. Msalt (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And who are the "admittedly COI editors who are causing literally all of the problems"?Momento (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably/mainly all the people that appear to be hear primarily to or only to edit Prem Rawat articles, to either make them sound nicer to Prem Rawat's interests, or the opposite. I'd guess. Lawrence § t/e 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, But since Msalt mentioned me, I wondered who the others were.Momento (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be coy. There's plenty of COI on both sides of the debate. Unless I am remembering incorrectly, Momento, Rumiton, and Jossi are acknowledged devotees of Prem Rawat. Maybe Armeisen and Balius too, I'm a little vague on that point. John Brauns, PatW and Sylviecn are acknowledged ex-devotees. Maybe also Andries? I think Francis is a former devotee of another guru, and Jayen466 enjoys the works of Osho, by their admissions; they are more neutral in my opinion. NikWright2 has acknowledged pique over Jossi linking to or citing some web page that disparaged him. These editors, to my eye, are involved in 90% of the Talk and editing and 100% of the edit warring.

Jossi, PatW and perhaps Andries have all voluntarily agreed not the edit the article for the time being, even though Jossi is one of the most level-headed editors on the page, to remove any possible concern over COI. I think this sets an excellent role model. Msalt (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not easy to determine COI if users don't volunteer the information. It is clear that many single purpose accounts are concerned with this article. Among non-SPAs, Jossi has made a total of 3038 edits to the article and its talk page, while Andries has made 1708. Some active accounts that rarely edit other article include: Momento (1354 edits), PatW (484), Sylviecyn (327), Rumiton (326), and Mael-Num (213). The article and its talk page have received a total of 10,787 edits and of those Jossi has made just under a third. The combined SPAs have made 2704, about a quarter of the total. Comebined with Andries and Jossi, these seven accounts have made 7450, or three-quarters, of the total contributions. What this means for the discussion here is that the article is a battleground for a fairly small set of highly-involved users. If 1RR doesn't work then topic bans may be the another solution.

Reviewing input from uninvolved editors, I count one who is doubtful that 1RR will help (Fut.Perf) and four who support it (Lawrence Cohen, FT2, Cla68, Jayjg). I don't see any outright oppostion. Is that enough support to give the proposal a 3-month trial? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to note that from all active editors, only two have objected to the proposal User:Momento, and User: Francis Schonken, with others either supporting or not objecting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think before going forward and deciding on this, the uninvolved editors should list here all the articles that this will apply to. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles currently in the Category:Prem Rawat are: Prem Rawat, Template:Prem Rawat, List of Prem Rawat-related topics, Rennie Davis, Divine Light Mission, Divine United Organization, Elan Vital (organization), Ron Geaves, Hans Ji Maharaj, Lord of the Universe (documentary), Sacred Journeys (book), Soul Rush (book), Teachings of Prem Rawat, The Prem Rawat Foundation, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book). Any revisions? Presumably we'd put the agreed-upon text in a box at the top of each talk page and then notify recent contributors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no further objections, and based on the apparent consensus here, I'll go ahead and post the probation notices, set to expire June 4, 2008. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this effort, and thanks in advance for the community's patience. I'm sure there will be need for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Shankbone

This is a request that the IP ranges found here User:David Shankbone/76.72 be blocked. The first IP range has been engaged in libel on Wikipedia against me, and I supply the diffs that show that. Additionally, they continue to edit-war, disrupt and troll the project as it deals with me and my work. Since this has been going on for a few weeks, and since the activity is illegal, I'm asking for a project-wide ban on the first IP range. The second IP range is an accomplice (they at times edit simultaneously) who engages in edit-warring, but not the crime of libel as the first IP range has. The things they are writing are illegal, I will be filing an abuse report with Bell Atlantic, and I have already contacted an attorney to look into criminal prosecution for smearing my reputation, the evidence of which is more than provided on User:David Shankbone/76.72. We will first see what Bell Atlantic can do in terms of providing help in finding out who is behind the libel. --David Shankbone 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the evidence, IP ranges, etc. I supplied are by no means exhaustive. --David Shankbone 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you possibly in violation of WP:NLT here? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I will let other editors decide after looking at the evidence, but regardless it's time to say enough. --David Shankbone 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David - relax, lay off the legalisms, and the admins handle it.

Checkuser shows that range is pretty active, so blocking the whole /16 block is probably not a good idea. When I have more time later tonight, I'll do the back of the envelope calculations to find the minimum CIDR to block. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will heed your advice. --David Shankbone 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime the campaign continues, see diff. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How is a content disagreement over image inclusion an illegal smear? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh the content disagreement is just one tiny related matter. . .there's the smears + the content removal. Two prongs on the same fork. R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image removals aren't illegal smears; they are edit-wars against multiple editors, completely rejecting consensus. R. Baley is right - there are several prongs to this person's hate: First, illegal smears; Second, edit wars against consensus; Third, multi-forum disruption. I thought the evidence page fleshed that out clearly. --David Shankbone 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove or strike the legal threats/rhetoric. Viridae^Talk 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating someone has done something illegal, calling a spade a spade, is not the same as threatening to take action against them, which is a legal threat. I have struck out the legal threat, but if you would like to play with the wording to hide what is clear then you are welcome to do so, but I feel I have already complied with policy. --David Shankbone 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Our policies on legal threats are designed to apply to interaction between good-faith users. In the past, the community has held discussion on potential legal action against banned vandals and trolls. See this discussion about Willy on Wheels (scroll down to where it says " Willy on Wheels legal action?"), and this discussion about The Communism Vandal which also discussed the potential of taking legal action. *** Crotalus *** 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The minimum CIDR to block all the currently listed IPs in the 76.72 is /17. Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, a large block. But it may be that a brief exemplary block will suffice to show that we mean business and we can, should we choose, stop this festival of stupid. It is a large range to block to stop one abuser, but they are pretty determined. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a brief block is a good first step, although I think Guy has been on the money in his observations. This person clearly shows some sort of obsession disorder that I think will prove any brief block futile, but I don't like the idea of blocking such a huge range for a long time. Does anyone know how they are tag-teaming with the other IP range? I have alerted Verizon/Bell Atlantic; I've always been curious how that system works. This would not be a big deal if we didn't have good-faith editors on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of this IP's harassment, which is what makes it defamatory. If nobody was listening and taking up the IP's arguments (say, by researching over-exposed, over-photoshopped PR shots of people to say 'Wow, they look nothing like these other photos'). --David Shankbone 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As I point out on my Talk page, the IP's obsession has been self-defeating, since when this IP started trolling in February he doubled the traffic to 800 hits a day on Lucas' article. So if the goal was to get people to not learn and think about Michael Lucas, they clearly have failed; if the goal is to say he has views that some people may find distasteful or even offensive, I don't think that comes as a surprise for anyone when they find out his career. --David Shankbone 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(trolling removed) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comment above was posted by the harasser in question. It's a shame if David's "retirement" was hastened by admins' technical inability to block this person.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. The anon is only one of many who have been in dispute with David, and David has in the past been somewhat abrasive in his dealings with people who don't like his pictures. Range blocking is never done lightly, and WP:RBI can be applied uncontroversially to this particular anon, so the contribution of one obsessive idiot is not IMO that much of a big deal in the overall scheme of things. David's certainly shown himself more than capable of holding his own before now. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More people should take breaks from wikipedia. It is emotionally healthy. When it is right for David to unretire, he will. Meanwhile, I'm sure we all wish him well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The harassment continues, even after David's latest retirement. I'm going to request protection.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected his userpage. Woody (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We really do need some sort of rangeblock here, or this IP is quite obviously going to keep it up. Playing whack-a-mole is going to get tiring after a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the ANI thread that was discussing a ban on the IP vandal? I can't find it on the board or in the archives. The IP has been posting absurd claims such as this. Enough is enough. Let's choose a nickname for this person and file it under long term vandalism. Suggest Gay pornography vandal. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the thread here. I'm going to let someone else bring it back up (not sure if it should be a sub section here or brought back to ANI). R. Baley (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The ban discussion is unanimous, but nobody closed it before it got bot-archived. Would an uninvolved administrator please review R. Baley's link and make this formal? Durova^Charge! 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User was already blocked, but I added a notice, and put 'em on the list. Considering that David Shankbone seems to believe I'm his sworn enemy, I think this troll got the most favorable review he could ask for. This behavior is simply intolerable. Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Support for rangeblock

The IP came back and vandalized the section again a bit ago. While that specific address is now blocked for a bit... Is there any interest in blocking the ranges? Seen as too severe? Possibly acceptable? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Keep in mind, these are big ranges we're talking about, we don't do /16-ish blocks for giggles. If it's felt to be appropriate I'll do one, but I want input first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a rangeblock if possible. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to measure how great non-vandal traffic has historically been within that range?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If s/he edits again, I would support a soft range block on anons only for about 2 hours. Maybe repeat as needed? No guarantee a /16 will work though. . .seems like when I ran the range calculator on the IPs used a few days ago, it came back with a /12. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple /20 range blocks that seemed to slow things down a bit. If it makes the banned user have to reboot the modem three or four times to find an unblocked range, it's probably worth it.71.127.224.0/2072.68.112.0/20 —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to have worked, and with minimal collateral damage, thanks Wknight. R. Baley (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking or deleting userpages for indef blocked users

Why is it that we blank or delete the userpages for all indef blocked users? Some are trolls or whatever, and shouldn't be worth even a mention, but some are different. Some users have been around for years, and for one unfortunate reason or another, are unable to productively work with the rest of the community (for a lack of better words). These users often have a great deal of valuable contributions, and at one time where considered users in good standing. Blocking is not punishment, and blanking or deleting a userpage is not some way to embarrass or ridicule those who are blocked.

People seem to have confused the reasons behind blanking/deleting userpages, in that those reasons don't apply to every situation of an indef block. It's very unfortunate that whatever situation came to an indef block, but allowing that to taint that user's entire history on Wikipedia isn't right. We don't delete userpages for users that are no longer active, and that's how we should treat these users. Unless they're a troll or a vandal, or the content of the userpage is related to why they were blocked, leave it alone. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Simple vandals and trolls who only make half-dozen edits? Delete. Established contributors with decent, notable edits who unfortunately are indefinitely blocked should stay, especially when they relate to sockpuppetry, as that further documentation could be useful down the track. This is of course excepting rare circumstances where either right to vanish or real-life names are involved. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too, Daniel summed it up well and....I agreed with Ned...(gosh I've gone all dizzy....) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is there a specific incident we're referring to here? [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, User:EliasAlucard. It was blanked and the indef template applied, Carcharoth removed the temp category, Tourskin posted a note to the userpage, Boodlesthecat removed it, Tourskin posted it again, IronDuke removed it... Ned restored the page, I blanked it again saying why I thought it was done, and Ned restored it, and Valtoras removed it again. Avruch ^T 14:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Ned. As part of SSP it's mandatory to post the sock notice on the userpage (and these shouldn't be deleted). Only when userpages contain promotional material; contain only indef-block notices or otherwise vandal notices should they be deleted. Rudget. 14:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Any user or usertalk page with a non-trivial history should not be deleted. It's only really the throwaway vandal-only accounts and usernameblocks where it's appropriate. The pages can be blanked or replaced on occasions, but should not be deleted. I think we are talking here about replacing the page with a banned template? That is quite consistent with policy. The other way to deal with it is to subst the indefblock template to remove the temp category. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we're talking about blanking. Carcharoth removed the temporary page category already, using some new magic word I think. Avruch ^T 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a magic word. I used "category=" which avoids all categories called by templates with the right coding unless you specify them manually. This template also has a "historical" parameter that can be used. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the record: I'm the one who blanked User talk:EliasAlucard's talk page - it contained very offensive racial attacks, including in the unblock requests he had posted. I'd be all in favor of not deleting them (I'd rather that record was left alone), but I don't think the contents should be restored to plain view. — Coren ^(talk) 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Keeping the talk page up makes it quite clear why he's banned. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The history serves that purpose adequately (especially when combined with the block message), IMO. I don't see any reasons to leave the bile in plain view. *shrug*, I don't feel strongly about it either way, though. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you could argue either way. Hiding it by blanking will pique the curiosity of some. I only scanned through the bottom half and it seemed more silly than anything else. Leaving it there highlights the problem and leaves no doubt to any who pass by why he was indefblocked. OTOH it may serve as some form of graffitti, so maybe that is a reason for blanking the invective...interesting. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The talk page blanking was fine, because of the racial remarks. My concern was more to do with the userpage itself, which didn't seem to have a similar issue. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I re-blanked it until--and unless--there is consensus here to let the content stay up. Bellwether ^B_C 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see the point to leaving his user page up, and from what I've seen, it's standard to blank it, then leave a box indicating an indef ban. I see no reason to make an exception for this person, and I would ask that Ned Scott get a clear consensus before altering the page again. IronDuke 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus to blank it in the first place, and this is nothing more than a content dispute at this point. Do we need to do a little history lesson here? This practice was for trolls and vandals, not users who at one time were editors in good standing, but unfortunately are no longer able to work with the community. To help clarify this I started this thread, which has other users agreeing with the logic. On the other hand we have users saying "we blank because that's what someone else did". That's not a very convincing argument to reblank. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know there was no consensus to blank it was not discussed when people decided a ban was appropriate? For the record I don't see the problem with the blanking why is this such a big issue? If you think this should not be blanked then get a consensus but edit warring is not the way to go. David D. (Talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was not discussed then that is even more proof that there is no consensus. Asking that I find consensus to unblank is ass-backwards and totally not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. So far, in this discussion, the arguments to unblank are far stronger than the ones to blank, which consist entirely of "we did it for other users" rather than having any explanation. After 24 hours I will restore the userpage, per consensus, unless anyone beats me to it. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. An edit was made to add the template and blank the user page. It is not unprecedented, so no big deal. You are now edit warring to revert that edit, which is a big deal. If you're so worried about it get a communitiy consensus that backs up your idea, but do not edit war with several other editors. This is exactly the wrong way to try and achieve your goal. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting users who don't have a valid rationale for blanking is rather logical. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to you they don't have a valid rationale. Personally, i see no reason for a banned indef-blocked user to have a trophy user page, what is the argument against blanking it? And how does a user get a tainted history by having a blanked user page as opposed to a prominent "Indef BannedBlocked" template? The blanked page seem to be the least of such a users problems. I have no problem with the talk page being left if you wish to do that. David D. (Talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked, not indefbanned. What is your opinion on such pages being deleted? Deletion seems to me to be an extra signal on top of everything else, saying "go away and never come back". Where is the option for reform and return given in this "delete" and "temporary pages" languge? The point about indefinite blocking as opposed to an actual formal banning process (and yes, I know about the "if no-one is prepared to unblock they are de facto banned" clause, but opinions change with time), is that it can be appealed at any time and lifted or reduced. In that case, those who had a history of good contributions, who do something wrong that earns an indefinite block, and who then apologise and/or reform, shouldn't have to go through an extra, unnecessary step of asking for their pages to be undeleted. Deletion of throwaway account pages should be routine. Deletion of the user pages of those who are part of the history of the project, shouldn't be routine. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, i mean indefblocked. I don't think the user page should be deleted, i don't think I ever mentioned it should be deleted. And the current edit war is not over whether it should be deleted. I think blanking the user page is acceptable, that is what Ned disagrees with and is reverting. David D. (Talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only rationale given so far is that "we did it for someone else". Userpages aren't trophies. The idea that they could be used as such comes from vandals and trolls, not from users who were formally editors in good standing. Your own assertions on this thread are a prime example of people losing sight of why we did something in the first place: it was for trolls and vandals, it wasn't for every situation. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by editor in good standing. This user has been editing in a similar way for a long time. The only reason he was in good standing was because AGF was extended for a long time. This is an example of the last straw that finally breaks the camel's back. So technically he was in good standing, but he was rapidly building his history that led to the indefblock. This is not some sudden explosion of undesirable activity that led to community action. If that were the case I could understand your argument. David D. (Talk) 08:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions on Template:Indefblockeduser do point people to a "historical" parameter that can be used, but I fear many admins don't bother to use this when putting the template on the pages of established contributors that get blocked. One way to address this is to make the "historical" option the default, and to make "delete" the option that has to be typed or pasted in. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is so that long term trolls don't have trophy pages... I can think of one user who's username started with T that has a circus for a talk page after being blanked and was advertising it on his blog. That was eventually deleted, good. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so it would make sense to force people to think about whether user pages of indef blocked users should be deleted or not, and then add a "delete" parameter accordingly. It would be a simple change in the template coding, but the problem is actually drawing this to the attention of the people that use the indefblocked template. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm also making an argument over blanking, in the very least I completely agree with Carcharoth's comments here regarding full deletion. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP problem

See John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vicky Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (latter at WP:DRV). The lobbyist controversy article is absolutely crammed with weasel phrases, half the headings are alleged this and alleged that, but I don't know enough about US politics at the moment to begin to pick it apart. As far as I can tell, the story itself is essentially a fabrication used to attack McCain, but that might be as unreliable as everything else printed about politics during an election campaign. Whatever, I'd encourage any admins with a solid understanding of policy (and firm resolve) to pass by these articles and work on them, because to me an an outsider in anytign to do with US politics the former looks like a hatchet job and the latter like a coatrack (and I'm a card-carrying liberal at that). Guy (Help!) 12:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPUNDEL it. Will ^(talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This story was reported in the New York Times, who have insisted that their (unnamed) sources are true. Whether this incident is notable or not is disputable, but it is definitely not just an attack piece. - Revolving Bugbear 12:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that redirect got changed - I mean, get rid of the article. It's violated BLP since day one. I've redirected for the same reason. We can't have allegations in an article. Will ^(talk) 12:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, WP:BLPUNDEL (which, it should probably be noted, at least in passing, is not infrequently misused as editors misunderstand the Bdj RfAr and, more significantly, BLP and the community's construction thereof [the ArbCom, after all, does not make policy, and its interpretations can be overruled when the community undertakes to construe policy in a contrary fashion]) provides that an article summarily deleted per BLP should not be restored in the absence of a consensus for restoration. Here, we had a discussion, and the community, having considered all relevant issues, determined the article to be consistent with BLP. The consensus of insular discussions—which are presumed, open as they are, to reflect the judgments of the community about policy—is not to be overturned except where that consensus is plainly contrary to policy (which reflects generally a consensus of the community writ large), and here there is no plain error, and we need go no further down the road of the substitution of the application of policy of some group of editors, acting as individuals and without reference to a centralized, consensus-basedd discussion, for the deliberative application of policy by the community. Joe 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians may not be aware that the New York Times' own Public Editor or ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, has severely criticised the Executive Editor, Bill Keller, for running the story: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics - sex - it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance...The article was notable for what it did not say. It did not say what convinced the (McCain) advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what Mr McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."[7]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin, much? Will ^(talk) 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First, it's Clark Hoyt's job to criticise NYT editors. But second, I didn't say that the NYT article meant it was true, just that it meant it was more than a wiki-fabrication. - Revolving Bugbear 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy's point is that the Times may not be a reliable source in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, no, of course The Times is a reliable source. That its reporting in this issue has been criticized is not in question. But the fact is, The Times reported it, has not retracted it and continues to stand behind its reporting. The Times is not a trash tabloid - it is the very farthest thing from that, in fact. It's essentially the newspaper of record for the United States. FCYTravis (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually all that misses the point - whether or not the Times is right does not change the fact that this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. But there is still a huge problem with weasellery and other such naughtiness. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E? I missed the part where that applies to a major political question surrounding an American presidential candidate and undisputed public figure. When BLP1E is being used to erase mention and discussion of a still-smoldering political controversy that has gained wide attention and will surely continue to be an issue into the general election campaign, it's being misused. We BLP1E articles on <insert random Interwebs meme here>, not on national political scandals. I forked this article out of the Vicki Iseman biography specifically to prevent her biography from becoming a coatrack article about the scandal/controversy/whatever. FCYTravis (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is a good justification for redirecting Vicki Iseman, but it doesn't apply to John McCain lobbyist controversy. In fact, the latter kind of article is precisely what we're supposed to do. We are supposed to have an article on the event, so we don't have to pretend that our description of the event is actually a "biography" of one of the participants. Whether or not the scandal has any substance in the opinions of various commentators here or elsewhere, the fact remains that it was published in major newspapers that are considered reliable sources in almost every other context, and the reporting itself was further discussed in secondary sources. That's more than enough basis for a valid Wikipedia article on the controversy. *** Crotalus *** 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. WP:BLP1E is a problem with the Iseman article, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V (no sources other than one newspaper reporter) and WP:WEASEL are, I think, issues in the controversy article. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not one newspaper reporter, four (Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick, and Stephen Labaton), plus two other people credited for help, all of whom work for America's "newspaper of record", and whose story, according to reports, was heavily vetted and sat on for months. No disrespect, Guy, but weasel-wording cuts both ways, and your making it sound as if this is the work of one hack journalist with some implied axe to grind is not on. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just how it looks to an outsider with no real interest in US politics. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article yet, but the story itself is not limited to the New York Times. The Washington Post, Newsweek and many other major mainstream news outlets have confirmed part or all of the story. One of McCain's top lieutenants for many years, John Weaver, is publicly on the record confirming part of the story. I'll go take a look, but there is not a problem with reliable sources being available here. The key point is, the NYT never said they had an affair, just that staff was worried about it enough to tell her to stay away. The real core of the allegation is closeness to lobbyists. Msalt (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeking community sanction on DemolitionMan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Further comments should go to this RfC, which will remain open for now. Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – User:DemolitionMan is placed under a WP:1RR editing restriction on Desi-related articles. This situation will be reviewed in two months to determine whether this restriction can be lifted. Ronnotel (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

After working with DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) for approximately six months to reduce his disruptiveness, and then consulting with Ryan (who seems to have a great deal of experience in dealing with disruptiveness), I am bringing this matter here for consideration of a community sanction. In short, DemolitionMan has been consistently disruptive at Indian Rebellion of 1857, maintaining a pro-Indian/anti-British POV. Of particular concern is that he seems to view the matter largely in a racial context.

The relevant details are summarized in this ongoing RfC. Given that the RfC seems to be having little impact on his behavior, I would therefore like to make the following proposal:

DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under a one revert editing restriction on all Desi-related articles.

I would appreciate community input on this proposal. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read his responses to comments on the RfC I'd suggest that a topic ban would be more appropriate. Leithp 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the possible personal bias of being both British and a Slater in real life I concur that some restriction on DemolitionMan is necessary. There is enough anti British Imperialism academic literature to be cited to support DM's contentions to enable an appropriately NPOV article to be produced, and countering systemic bias is important, but DM's hostility and anti Imperialist (that is AGF) rhetoric is unhelpful. I wonder if there is the possibility of mentorship as well as an editing restriction? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been in touch informally with one candidate who has expressed sympathy to DM and, I hoped, might act as a mentor. However, there was skepticism that DM would be conducive. If that person is watching this thread and cares to chime in it might be helpful. Ronnotel (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think DM does bring a useful perspective and adds some value to the article in question and am willing to be a mentor (assuming he is willing to accept a mentor). However, I don't think it will work unless it is combined with a few preconditions that DM should agree to abide by - A short term voluntary topic ban and a commitment to editing at least three topics that are unrelated to India.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be appropriate. I would await the comments of the community, and DemolitionMan, before committing to this though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to RegentsPark and his generous offer of time here, I'd suggest that perhaps someone with more Wikipedia and, in particular, more experience of mentoring might be more suitable in this case. Also, looking over DemolitionMan's block log, I note that a previous short-term topic ban did not have the desired effect, so we may need to look at a longer term ban here. Leithp 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Very reasonable. I have not been editing on wikipedia long and have no experience mentoring here. Irrespective of who mentors him or whether he is mentored at all, I do think he will benefit by distancing himself from India and focusing on other topics for a bit. RegentsPark (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have warning DemolitionMan not to engage in further abuses of dispute resolution. [8] Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being castigated for being anti-Imperial? And how does one truly define what is rhetoric? I did abide by a short-term ban which wasn't really that short. And for those 3 months, I continued to argue my points on the discussions page to no avail. My hostility has been directed at people who have been directly hostile to me. It seems to me that Ronnotel wishes to pursue a single point agenda against me, when similar hostility has been flagrantly displayed by Josquis and SRS. So, you would excuse me for thinking that I am being singled out not because of my hostility but merely because of my views. If the tables were turned, and I was pushing a British POV instead ( against someone like me ), would I have to even reply to such allegations? I hope you see where I am coming from. I'll try and be less hostile - and I shall stick to one reversion on this article voluntarily for now and if I violate the self-imposed one reversion rule which I will follow for the next 2 months - feel free to permanently ban me. But do answer the questions that I have raised honestly.

if your argument was based on Race or creed then yes you would be brought to book. Morever (and as far as I am aware) I have not been directly hostile to you, I may have been hostiel to some of the ideas or facts you have presented, and I suspect this may be part of the point, not to you. Yu seem to be unable to see the differance between attacks on the ideas you put forward and attacks on you.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)]]

1. Would I be here if I were pushing a British POV rather than an Indian one? 2. Why haven't the likes of Jos and SRS faced similar actions for displaying similar levels of hostility - is it because they hold diametrically opposite views?

DemolitionMan (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer to voluntarily limit yourself to WP:1RR. However, the fact that you continue to invoke racial animosity in your arguments (see [9] for the latest) make me worried that you just don't get what WP is about. My concern will remain for as long as you continue to see WP as white vs. brown. Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not invoking racial animosity for crying out loud. I am stating things as I see them - that the views on this article are clearly divided along national and racial lines. Both sides see themselves as the "good guys". It is not like a WW-2 page where Axis are the obvious bad guys and the Allies are the good ones. This is a fact. No point being an ostrich about it. I continue to wonder why must the Indian view be given less credence than the British one - if there is no clear cut right or wrong here. DemolitionMan (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the content issues here, but it seems timely to remind people that our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to communicate civilly is unilateral, not contingent. We are not relieved of it when others are uncivil to us, nor when we see other incivility go unrebuked. Please think about this if you find yourself justifying your behaviour with an argument that sounds like, "I only did X because someone else did Y first." Bovlb (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes - there is an anti British POV that both generally and specifically exists, and some parties take umbrage when a neutral (which is regarded as pro by some) position is taken - and some take great exception when a British bias, such as British spellings and grammar, are preferred in British related subjects. It happens, it gets discussed, it mostly gets resolved, and hardly anybody gets referred to as Nazi's and when they do they get banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This restriction should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions in the Community section, with a permanent link to this discussion. The exact wording of the restriction as agreed here should be logged. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unaware of the procedure but will do so. Ronnotel (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless

I tried to add an important entry: sub-Planck Of course, some stupid editor administrator deleted it instantly; refused to reinstant an underconstruction project; I am not against him personally; he is simply ignorant of the physics. Afterwards he deleted my WIKIFASICM entry (about the general fascism behavior of editors that is killing off this encyclopedia turning into an encyclo-ego-ia on their part.

I know the editors and administrators don't want to admit it but there is an enormous amount of WIKIFASCISM going on these days; it is a problem wikipedia must consciously face and solve although it is sadly in denial.

See sub-Planck See wikifascism Wiki fascism: (noun) The tendency of editors and administrators (or those with Wikipedia power) to instantly assume all contributions, new pages, and other modifications are wrong, invalid, misguided, don't follow procedure, no wanted, and to delete them -- instead of letting these new pages grow by the user community's edits and additions. Killing the baby pages at birth; not letting them mature. This tendency was not prevalent in years before 2007 but is perhaps inevitable now that Wikipedia has grown. Also involves killing common knowledge additions to articles before the contributor has tracked down the exact reference on the assumption that the contributor is wrong or that the contributor has no clue what he is talking about. Also involves petty empowered Wikipedia experts playing “God” with the content and direction of the Wiki project contrary to its original sprit of a community and its replacement by a new orthodox order of privileged editors and censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder if anyone's ever taught you that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's also true that you persuade more people with logic than with vituperation. Justin Eiler (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they did and they were wrong...I put in a valid physics entry with logic, math, etc. content; it gets deleted by a wikifascist; I meantion a real problem WIKIFASCISM and I get silly coments back instead of dealing with the issues; There is a lot of vinegar on wikipedia now; there didn'tuse to be. It is poisoning the honey; when I point this out; people criticize ME for being direct which is fine as I can take it instead of dealing with the real issues. A friend of mine told me not to bother with wikipedia entry addition any more because she had a similar experience; I didn't listen; she was right. It is not worth it...wikipedia has become an orthody of feel good types or perfectionists strangling the information additions people are trying to make... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at sub-Planck, I'd say that it was extremely borderline as an A1 deletion. However, Physicman, it did read like an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. I'd suggest taking another crack at writing it, only keeping it more encyclopaedic in tone and making sure it's referenced to reliable sources. I can provide you with the text of the deleted article if you need it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you can find ONE good reliable third party source for "WIKIFASCISM" (or even in lowercase) I will personally undelete the article and protect it from deletion... Or do you think that going by the rules is too constrictive? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I agree that the deletion of WIKIFASCISM was clearly appropriate. My comments above are only about sub-Planck, which was somewhat dubiously deleted as an A1, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was still speedable. The subject (under-construction for months to come, we are told) is clearly the author's own original theory. El_C 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mm, not quite. [10]. It seems to be a novel branch of physics, but gets ~5,700 Ghits, so presumably could be written about. Whether it survives WP:FRINGE, however, would remain to be seen. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that's the case; I didn't see sources cited in the article, but I don't think it was clear OR. He should have been given the chance to provide sources before the article was deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course people write about what's beyond the visible universe, what happened before the big bang, and what is sub any given planck unit — that is not the point. It was clearly original research, with the main topic(!) being "under construction." El_C 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OR isn't speediable, though. Those criteria are quite narrow on purpose. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get stuck on the legalism of it; use common sense. El_C 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, since it seems like it would be easy for an admin unfamiliar with a topic to assume it's OR when it's not. But whatever, it's not terribly important. Natalie (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, though it's common sense for an admin unfamiliar with the topic not to make these assumptions. El_C 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is further to Physicman's concerns just above. Suppose someone creates a draft of a new article and wants to display it for the purpose of getting comments, edits, references, etc that may improve the article. How can they do this without posting the draft article in the mainspace? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to this manual. El_C 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the Sandbox project pages with a note to the relevant interest group participants that an article is being crafted seems to work well. I have used this method on occasion when there is a topic that is not fully developed yet is in a working stage, and therefore, eliciting comments and edits to the sandbox project is appreciated. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

For those unfamiliar with high-energy physics, Planck units refer to the smallest measurements in physics (length, mass, time, charge, and temperature). Beyond those units, elementary-particle physicists generally do not go (similarly to cosmology and pre-Hot Big Bang era or what if any is beyond the visible universe). What the author did was write an informal piece about the Planck scale, then left the "sub-planck" bit (yes, the actual subject!) "under construction." I would have speedied it in a breath, as Natalie Nawlin did, too. El_C 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? I don't think I did that deletion... I am confused. Natalie (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am of course referring to your deletion of sub-Planck. Oops, wrong person! El_C 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Troo Fact: I Googled "sub-Planck" and found links to "Bogdanoff" - and yes, those Bogdanovs, see http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=20423563. Makes you think, doesn't it? About 4,000 Ghits, starting wiht some incredibly unreliable sources, so it's a likely valid A1, and a possible Bogdanov sock. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow, it just does not strike me as being on that level of fringe-sophistication, but it is possible, I suppose. El_C 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

still not happy. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Article's back up as well: Sub-Planck, no doubt to the chagrin of "grossly Physics-ignorant Administrator Delete-jockies" everywhere. It appears to have one reference now - a letter to Nature which at least uses the words "Sub-Planck". I'm inclined to issue a pretty stern civility/NPA-type warning to the contributor and let the article go for a few days - it needs massive cleanup, at the very least, but nerves seem a bit raw at present. Thoughts? MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on it. If experienced people believe in good faith that it isn't a speedy candidate, it can't hurt anything much to send it to AfD and let it stand or fall on its own merits, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If a page is wrongly deleted, just point out it was wrongly deleted, by discussing the matter with the deleting admin or taking things to deletion review. Running around screaming about FASCISM, FASCISM, FASCISM is entirely ridiculous, inappropriate based on a single incident with a single person, and does nothing but turn people off listening to any legitimate points you might have actually had. If there's a problem, state it simply and calmly. On the internet and on Wikipedia in particular, it is very much in your interest to appear reasonable and worth listening to whenever possible, lest people make the obvious conclusion. Perhaps this comes across a bit strongly, but good golly, if you plan on getting anywhere in a social enterprise, you'll need to develop some social finesse. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have heard of the word WIKIFASCISM on the Internet, and it is problamatic that the outside community percieves Wikipedia to be as such. I have a paralel article essay that I have created WP:SEI which is about social engineering on Wikipedia and it is being POV to deletion because the topic is unpopular, more like Taboo for discussion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet. Because I created the essay and have linked to it to show its relevency, now all my past good faith edits are being scrutinized and examined under a microscope. My references from my Websites are being scrutinized as WP:COI in an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_Conflict_of_Interest_-_User:Igorberger. Is this type of behavior and action not resemble Fashism hence the terminaligy wikifascism. It is a real shame and a big problem for Wikipedia if the outside community percieves us as such and we do not even want tto identify that it is a problem and WP:STEAM and stonewall the issue to mute its apparent WP:notability Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As Luna Santin said. Applying the term "fascist" to an admin who speedy-deletes your pet page betrays both an extremely superficial and ignorant understanding of fascism and a tendency to hyperbolic vitriol at the least provocation. The second, in particular, plays badly on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying the term fascism to any editor is derogative and should not be done same as any insulting label. And we all know tones of them. But the consept WIKIFASCISM does exist and it is seen from outside at Wikipedia. So how do we all deal with it? Do we just censor it out, or aknowledge it as an article or an essay? Igor Berger (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to advice to the editor as much as there is notability for WIKIFASCISM the term itself is inflamatory and even harmful to the project. Why not use Wikipedia:WikiCommonSense and add the description of WIKIFASCISM in the article from an unbiased POV. You can also add Wikipedia Social Engineering content to the article, because I feel WP:SEI maybe deleted soon per MfD and no userified version will be around because of the controversy it brings. Also adding other information relevent to all POVs will make the overall article Wikipedia:WikiCommonSense fairly balanced to respect the notability of the topic. By doing this we will apply WP:DUE and preserve WP:NPOV Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. 51 ghits. NN. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) or, for those who don't have a clue about XFD ("deletion") jargon (WP:WOTTA): "I have only found 51 references to this term in google. Therefore it is unlikely to be notable, and we can safely delete it"

  Try 359,000 of WIKI+FASCISM And please read the titles and snipet descriptions when you search. Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First squillion pages is wikipedia hits. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read what social networking industry blog TechCrunch has to say here Also Try Google WIKIPEDIA+FASCISM While this might be somewhat WP:FTN We should not dismiss it as irrelevent. Igor Berger (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those searches search for all words that contain both "wiki" and "fascism" but not "wikifacism". And as demonstrated by several of the results, any Wikipedia fork with the word "fascism" seems to appear. x42bn6 Talk Mess 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism

As part of the above dispute that I'm currently mediating, the parties have agreed to having some neutral administrators to act as mentors for the Pro-pedophile activism page and other pages within the scope of the topic. They would be the "go-to" guys and would act to keep the decorum of editing on the page. Of particular concern is the role of new users, SPAs and potential socks editing the page and also the general neutrality of the whole topic. An enforcement page would be created to cover the topic, where all editors would be welcome to report concerns, and the appointed administrators would be expected to look over these in a neutral manner. I'm looking for 5/6 administrators to take this role. If you are interested, could you email me either by using the interface, or directly to ryanpostlethwaite[at]hotmail[dot]com. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This formula is based on what, exactly? I note that nearly fifty percent of those who agreed to this mediation have been indefinitely blocked. El_C 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The good faith editors who have been participating in the mediation - they want some neutral admins to go to should they get into any further disputes or problems with the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do those (four) editors point to problems with non-neutral admins; not sure I'm following this, still. El_C 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No it was nothing like that - they just want a small group of people who will actively look over the article so will understand the context of disputes that arise there. One of the concerns was that they weren't sure where to go if they have problems. A small mentorship page would allow all discussion to stick to one page. It's almost like continuing the mediation, if further problems arise then there's a structure in place to allow a better resolution. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is a separate enforcement page for this mediation necessary, vs. this page, AN/I or some element of MedCom? I ask because I think the reason there are no admins working in PAW is that its a black hole of craziness, and why would we want to stick a number of admins permanently with the job instead of directing problems here with a link to the resolution and advice on how to react? Is this analogous to article probation, and amenable to the solution being used on homeopathy pages? Avruch ^T 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason we need a seperate page is because it's not really an enforcement page it's more of a continuing mentorship/mediation page. All disputes don't belong on AN/I and this small page will allow administrators who all the parties have agreed upon to help point things in the right direction. If a resolution is required, the admins can help with that before it need to go to AN/I. Obviously, if one party isn't happy with the arrangement, then they are free to get a second opinion at a noticeboard. The idea is to keep the decorum of editing without having to go running between noticeboards. Having a set few admins will help keep things on the right track and the participants will learn to trust them. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Extreme caution is required here. Pro-paedophile activists have been summarily banned for bringing the project into disrepute, and in such cases it is normal that the only avenue of appeal is through ArbCom. Having such people editing articles on paedophilia and related subjects is about as welcome as having holocaust deniers editing articles on concentration camps, and for pretty much the same reason: theirs might be a documented minority POV which can be discussed on Wikipedia, but it is a POV which is roundly rejected by a consensus amounting to very close to 100% of reliable independent sources - an extreme fringe minority. There is a significant difference between the pro- and anti-paedophile activist positions, in that the anti position is mainstream, and editing with a mainstream bias is inherently less problematic than editing with an extreme fringe bias. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get reinvolved now, but I have waded in on this in the past. I would have to say that there is both some extremism on the anti-pedophilia front that we need to avoid taking over the articles (stay NPOV / mainstream) and a significant danger of previously banned pro-pedophilia activists trying to edit again and reslant thing to their side. It's hard to engage here, both because the topic tends to be personally offensive to a lot of people, and because it's often hard to find the neutral wedge between pro and anti extremists. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The major problem in such disputes, though, is the fallacy of the false middle. The NPOV position is not the average between the extreme pro and extreme anti positions, it's only slightly softer than the extreme anti position. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 presidential delagates

Could someone with the tools take a look at this article. I'm not sure if it meets any specific speedy criteriaand a previous tag was removed[11] and replaced with a prod. I really don't see that their would be any controversy in deleting it, none of the content is suitable for an encyclopaedia. Rather than leaving it for another two days maybe it would be better to ignore the rules and improve Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted it as a test page, agree it probably didn't meet any speedy criteria but can't see that it serves any purpose keeping such a hopeless case around for another two days. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editor

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Thanks for taking care of it, MastCell. GlassCobra 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Since creating his account under a week ago, User:ParnellCharlesStewart has been involved in nonstop conflict on several articles. He created an attack article and removed the CSD tag several times, and is making interesting comments like this and POINTy comments like this and this. He was blocked for 24 hours on the 29th for edit warring on Youth rights, but it seems to me that this user is contributing nothing constructive here. Could be a sock of someone, as I thought I'd seen that deleted article before, but either way, I'm suggesting an indef block. GlassCobra 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

check out his userpage. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I blocked him for creating the attack article, not for edit warring. When I blocked him, I was very close to blocking him indefinitely, but I didn't the case was that serious yet. Well, now I'm convinced that an indefinite block is necessary, since he's apparently Wikistalking SchuminWeb (talk · contribs). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely. I'm a bit surprised he was given another shot after that attack page, which was pretty bad, but I suppose it's good to see WP:DBTN in action. Basically everything he's contributed has been unconstructive and obnoxious, and I think we've seen enough. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Concur with indef block. He seemed to have nothing positive to offer and seemed only to be here to make one or more points. It did not hurt to give him a second chance to contribute constructively. Now we know. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, he's a Markanthony sockpuppet, as confirmed by CheckUser. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New essay

Resolved

 – It's gone to userspace heaven —αlεx•mullεr 11:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.... thoughts? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this to User:Halo/How to force through policy without consensus. One person's bitterness is best kept out of projectspace. – Steel 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User 194.176.201.28 - Request for Blocking

Resolved

 – User:194.176.201.28 warned Ronnotel (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The user history indicates repeated valdalism. the last was on British Raj at 19:53 04th March, when the comment British Reich was added. Request user 194.176.201.28 to be blocked Rockybiggs (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP users are usually given several warnings before being blocked because there's no way to tell if it's the same user who made the edits from a month ago. Please report vandalism to WP:AIV instead of here. Ronnotel (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:AlisonW

User:AlisonW is an admin who has recently had her biography deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). She is now using her userpage to label those who led to it's deletion as "trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists", which I believe violates WP:USERPAGE and WP:NPA. I removed it, and after my removal was reverted, asked for it to be removed, but Alison believes it is not a personal attack because it is not aimed at a specific editor. I'm seeking a second opinion. --Stephen 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the full quote is "though thanks to trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists (and then others joining in) it was recently replaced ..." and, so far as I am concerned, refers to both nominations on AfD. I see nothing in my statement that is directed against any identifiable individual and should someone consider that they fall into the first four groups (and I've no definitive list of who might and who might not) then that is for them to clarify, but my opinion is quite straight-forward and open. --AlisonW (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison! Most of those who voted delete looks to me like respectable users and admins, and as one of them I find this a bit ridiculous. What happened to AGF? Please reconsider.--Doc^g 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a silly question, but why is Alison a sysop? I don't think being chair of Wikimedia UK gives you automatic sysop rights on en.wiki, and I don't see an RfA. 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing she was promoted under a different user name. You should ask User:Danny as the promoting 'crat. See [12]. Ronnotel (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, just remove it. Its definitely an attack, its definitely uncivil and frankly it smacks of sour grapes. Viridae^Talk 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in that AFD - I'm astonished by that comment - virtually everyone on that AFD was a long-term editor, yes there were a couple of IP socks but they were easy for any closing admin to spot. I would ask you to remove the comment due to the bad feeling it will cause in the community. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I participated in this AfD, as well, and I don't appreciate being looped into the categories she listed (also, how is deletionist on par with the others?). My only knowledge of AlisonW from the past is when she threatened to delete all of Cuyler's subpages if he didn't do it himself. Avruch ^T 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate use of user space. It surprises me that an admin (who is presumably an experienced editor) would do such a thing. Friday (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad form (yes), sour grapes (yes) Took the deletion personaly (yes), obviously she's upset over a processes and its outcome and probably shouldent have added it, but lets not pile on this user and make the feelings worse. She's got to remove it herself, and I trust she will. --Hu12 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Hu - this is not like we are talking about Joe Blow who has wandered in off the streets and is now wondering what has gone on, this is an experienced editor,administrator chair of a wikipedia off-shot and long-term contributor - I think in light of that, the reaction has been rather mild. If this was Joe Blow, an admin would have gone in by now, warned and then would be removing if polite requests were not acted upon. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think removing it will ultimately lead to less stress/controversy in the long run. Tiptoety ^talk 23:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is AlisonW's RfA? Bstone (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think RfAs sometimes aren't necessary/needed/used, for example in the case of WikiMedia employees —αlεx•mullεr 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But she isn't a wikimedia employee is she? She is chair of a chapter, which anyone can create. (m:Wikimedia chapters) Prodego ^talk 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems a little wrong to me. But that's just me. Bstone (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly true Prodego, I'm not sure of the technicalities there. In any case, it could even be something like an RTV, where previous administrators can contact a crat in private to regain +sysop. I know I've read that somewhere. This could be construed as searching for a reason for her not to be an administrator, which doesn't strike me as important here —αlεx•mullεr 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that perhaps Alison was not entirely experienced, which means she might not understand completely the myriad of rules we have. Unfortunately, as per below, this was not the case. Prodego ^talk 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alisons RfA can be found here - after looking at logs on meta, up until recently it looks like she had two admin accounts, but these rights were cut down to the main AlisonW account a few weeks back. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any hint as to why she was running two admin accounts? Viridae^Talk 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she had her normal account (VampWillow) but also had a seperate role account for percieved official wikimedia business. I think the reason for the change was most probably because it was made clear that she didn't have the authority to make official actions on behalf of the foundation. There was obviously a mix up at the time of sysopping the AlisonW account. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious that VampWillow is Alison simply as VampWillow exercised a right to vanish. Bstone (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like (a) the RtV deletion of the VampWillow pages is not precisely in order given the person didn't actually vanish and (b) linking to the RfA, and thus the prior identity, of a vanished user sort of defeats the purpose. Avruch ^T 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a RtV - but that said, when you excercise your right to vanish, you're supposed to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why that page has been protected for over a year and a half now? It's not a big deal as it's pretty rare that editors should edit others' User pages but it seems a bit odd and out of line with the protection policy. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming up on two years, even. Avruch ^T 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this not seem like an interesting use of admin power? Bstone (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Alison that fully-protected Vampwillow's userpage was me, not AlisonW - Alison ^❤ 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me the conversation has now deviated sufficiently from the first post in this section. :) —αlεx•mullεr 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is AlisonW, and whatever else about her that is brought up is relevant, assuming it is about her behavior. Prodego ^talk 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the log entry from meta anyway - this isn't a legit Rtv request. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the AfD-related incivility, the user also snapped at a wikignome who was going about his business.[13] AlisonW wrote, while deleting a request from her talk page, "rm unneccessary comment - you've succeeded in killing the article; stop pushing". This despite the fact that user:PC78 apparently had nothing to do with the AfD and was just fixing links that had gone to the deleted article. I understand that having a biography on Wikipedia (or having it deleted) can be emotionally involving, but this user needs to chill out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See - this edit summary of reinstate - do not edit this page if you aren't me, thank you) is a bit problematic, generally your user pages are your own but they are actually the property of the community and I don't see a reason why the community has not had the technical ability to edit that page for two years, unless we are all getting the ability to protect our user pages for as long as we like? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, generally speaking you can protect your userspace for as long as you like - it's in WP:PROTECT. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I checked but I thought that was indefinite semi-protect not full? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's actually any protection that the user wants - not what I'd personally do as I like to keep my userspace open to anyone because I don't own it, but hey, I'm just one voice. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that being the case from the policy page - can you point me to what I'm missing? Thanks, Avruch ^T 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right actually guys - it's only s-protection. I took it as read that you could request full protection as many admins have their userpage fully protected. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats because User:Alison (not User:AlisonW) just changed it to semi. Tiptoety ^talk 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He was referring to the policy (see above) and not the page. Avruch ^T 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nono - it was fully protected when Ryan made that comment. I think he's referring to WP:PROT, which does only specify semi-prot on demand for a userpage - Alison ^❤ 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with an admin exercising a right to vanish and then having a 'crat move the admin abilities to another account. Anyone else? Bstone (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple - she had two admin accounts (a normal one and an "official" account) - they simply removed the admin bit from one account meaning she no longer could make official actions on behalf of the foundation. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Bstone (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Right to vanish "Like ENWP, most other Wikimedia projects tolerate the "vanishing" of users who wish to leave permanently." (emphasis added). The permanently seems to me to mean that someone leaves the project in all their incarnations. This seems not to have happened but rather one account vanished and Alison stayed. Does this confuse anyone else? Bstone (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Back onto the logs, and I am of the understanding that AlisonW had the developers remove a handful of log entries related to these two accounts and their access levels. At least, there's no other logical explanation for a log entry for the promotion of an account locally suddenly disappearing, as I observed recently to my shock and horror. Gentle probes to the relevant people have shown a tenderness when I suggested this possibility, so this is my best guess. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I've boldly reduced her userpage prot. to semi-protection, per policy, so we can move on from that point now - Alison ^❤ 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious lack of transparency if an administrator vanishes then reappears under another name. The RfA process is meant to be visible to the entire Wikipedia community. If you exercise the Right to Vanish, then any administrator privileges should vanish along with you, and by creating a new account you are in effect going "back to the beginning" and should have to re-earn those privileges. Unfortunately, policy currently allows you to keep your admin priviliges, which is something which ought to be addressed. (That said, this case is rather complicated, and her position within the Wikimedia Foundation (whatever that position is) complicates things further.)

Regarding AlisonW's behaviour, from what I've experienced it hasn't always been becoming of what I would expect of an administrator. (See this, this, this, and this for instance.) As for the AfD discussion, I can't see anything that could be described as trolling, and certainly not homophobic. (If someone had argued "delete because it's about a lesbian", then that would be homophobic, but such a complaint would be shot out of the water.) Consequently the remarks on the userpage seem totally unjustified, but even if the AfD had been full of homophobic trolling it would still be a personal attack. (As for there being someone with the same name as her, well, the Wikipedia article about someone with my name is about someone who allegedly spontaneously combusted, so beat that.)

I would advocate the de-sysopping of AlisonW and suggest that she have a new RfA to get the admin privileges back again. Then the community's views on her could be discussed in full. I don't know if policy allows for this, though, and also I wouldn't want it to turn into a witch-hunt. --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AlisonW was entrusted with admin access by the Wikipedia community. She holds that right under the same terms as anybody else. If you feel she needs to modify her conduct as an admin or resign that status, the usual means of redress apply. You can create a user conduct RfC provided that two or more editors have tried and failed to resolve a dispute with her. Alternatively, you can ask ArbCom to review her conduct. She has not to my knowledge made herself open to recall. WjBscribe 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as the community was concerned, it wasn't AlisonW that was entrusted with admin priviliges, it was VampWillow that was. Until someone in this thread revealed that fact by accident, the community (as far as I am aware) did not know that they were the same person. That's a serious problem. --RFBailey (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins have in the past been allowed to cease using one account and have their admin flag transfered to another account. In some cases where there has been felt to be a good reason for this, the community as a whole has not been informed of the link between the accounts. I cannot really comment further on that. My thoughts as to the avenues of redress available to you if you feel she has misconducted herself as an admin remain valid. WjBscribe 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm - I'm not seeing a serious and ongoing abuse of admin tools here (a page prot doesn't count) so why does she warrant de-sysopping? - Alison ^❤ 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people are concerned at her misleading the community more than anything. Does she even have a role where she can make official edits? I think he user page is a little misleading because being the chair of a Wikimedia chapter does not give you a right to make edits on behalf of the foundation. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The role edit comment, if no longer true, is a bit misleading. Someone should politely ask her to revise it. Avruch ^T 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that would require a desysop at all. Reconfirmation RfA's based on this sort of situation typically get pretty heated, mostly because generally all RfA voters see them as useless. It is the human being that is trusted, not the username. Avruch ^T 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no abuse, no mis usual of the tools, and defiantly no grounds for de-syoping. While the message she left on her userpage was not the best judgment that is not grounds for de-syop. Tiptoety ^talk 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, she hasn't abused the admin tools. But that's not the main point. The problem is that she gained admin priviliges "via the back door", or so it seems. I appreciate that it's the person that has the priviliges, not the username, but as far as the community is concerned, how are we supposed to know the difference? Rhetorical question: if a user with AlisonW's record filed an RfA today, would it pass?

In response to "Admins have in the past been allowed to cease using one account and have their admin flag transfered to another account.", that's fine if they request a change of username. While this can be done discreetly and doesn't need to be advertised, it can be discovered by the community without needing to look up logs on meta. If, on the other hand, an administrator exercises the Right to Vanish, then that's what we expect them to do--vanish. --RFBailey (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

She invoked a Right to Vanish which by policy means she leaves WP. Not close one account and open another. There is surely a conflict of interest and the community to some extent feels mislead. A reconfirming RfA is the most appropriate thing to do. Bstone (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bstone, that's a really bad idea. I went through that a couple of months ago after discussion like this, and it was unproductive for everyone. Unless you've got a proper complaint (not just "she's got no RfA") then don't put her through it again. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Little evidence of improper behavior, no evidence of tool misuse. WP will not suffer unduly by choosing the course of least drama. Ronnotel (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I stand by it. Someone who invoked an RTV leaves the project. If they have another account which they being to use (besides from misleading the community about actually permanently leaving the project) then they have to go through an RfA again, just like everyone else. You don't get the admin flag transfered as you permanently left the project. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Issues as I see it: Attacks on the user page - everyone who commented seemed to agree that they were inappropriate and should be removed. RTV - whether RTV applies when you don't actually vanish. Role account - whether the user page should claim any kind of authority of the wikimedia foundation as it currently appears to indicate. Viridae^Talk 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The way I see RtV is that if you enact this - you go unless there's very serious privacy concerns involved. This isn't the case here given she's chosen the identifiable username as her account. With respect to the role edits, I've asked her on her talk page about this because I feel she has no official role. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's against policy to have role accounts.[14] "On the English Wikipedia, the one role account currently permitted is en:User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. Any other accounts with multiple users are likely to be blocked." So anything purporting to be a "role account" should be blocked. --John Nagle (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a role account — only one person had access to it. The problem was that it claimed some authority which it didn't have (per what the Wikimedia Foundation have recently told Alison via private correspondance). This confusion apparently led to the dual-sysop accounts as well, which was since remedied. Daniel (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut AlisonW some slack about the Alison Wheeler article. It's got to hurt to endure an AfD dscussion about yourself and I'd probably react similarly, even if inappropriately. I find the template controversy last month to be more troubling; see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive125#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Content removed

I have removed both the personal attack and the claim to official editing status from User:AlisonW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would normally not do this, but Alison has shown disregard for the opinions of others individually, and is not likely to honour what has been said above.

I am of the belief that a consensus, seen above, supports this action. To this end, I ask that in the event of the removals being reverted for the third time by AlisonW (and the first against a consensus rather than a unilateral action), that appropriate action (including strong warnings/page protection, whereby if Alison is to edit it to restore the content she will likely be desysopped for doing so for violating the protection policy, and scaling into blocks should she do this) be taken.

Daniel (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal. If AlisonW does not have authority to enforce "role" edits on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation then it is a blatant lie to claim so or a quite misleading choice of words. More concerning however is the personal attacks she refused to allow to be removed. No administrator possesses special privileges when it comes to adhering to Wikipedia policies.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of the content from her user page, but oppose any other action taken as a result of this thread —αlεx•mullεr 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am merely throwing the hypothetical that, should Alison choose to ignore the explicit consensus in this thread, it is ingrained in our policies that action must be taken to prevent the further disruption caused by such removals. I sincerely hope it does not come to that, and I commented to that effect on her talk page. Daniel (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of content but don't see any need for any further action at this moment - if she gets into an edit war about this or (going off what has been said here) tries to re-add claims to a official foundation role account, then we revisit the situation. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was saying in my last three comments to this thread. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the removal, I just came past to check if it had been removed yet and would have done so myself had Daniel not got in first. Viridae^Talk 11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support Daniel's removal of that material as well, just for the record. I find the claim about making "role" edits as chair of the UK chapter rather concerning. Sarah 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also support - while chapters are very important to Wikipedia's growth and development, they relate to WM and not to en.wikipedia, and there should be no need for role editing. If someone is the head of a chapter making edits to chapter-related pages, noone would deny them the ability to do that themselves under their own account with their normal access level. Orderinchaos 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of comment that originated this thread. No opinion on any other matter raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply from AlisonW

I see people have been busy while I was sleeping and the trolls have been busy stirring away. Anyway, to the first point regarding the original claim against me of writing "though thanks to trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists (and then others joining in)" I would note that (a) I did not identify any specific individuals, but (b) I can justify *each* and *every* one of those elements with diffs (or links to now-deleted content). The truth may be difficult to accept, but truth is a valid defence. I chose not to list the diffs on my original statement precisely because they could be misunderstood. On the second point, that of 'role edits', perhaps it was slightly the wrong phrase, but it is the case that I made edits in the past at the request of and on behalf of the Foundation. These are all in the past (some distant past) and none had anything to do with my WMUK activities - that was just a juxtaposition of the items. --AlisonW (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, if you know that sockpuppets participated abusively in an AfD you should identify the accounts so that they can be blocked. 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe her sockpuppet addition was in response to Stephen's removal of the quote from her userpage; see User talk:Stephen. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's right, we are all trolls - yep that must be it. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please retract your statement that I'm a troll, immediately. I find it another grossly inappropriate edit which further compounds the issue. Daniel (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of being a troll, so I cannot retract it! Nor, in response to User:Fredrick day, have I said that everyone is a troll. Some people are clearly too touchy about the possibility, but please do not read into what I say things I most clearly have not. --AlisonW (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I see people have been busy while I was sleeping and the trolls have been busy stirring away" — please clearly name who you were directing that comment out, or it can only be taken to refer to everyone involved. If you do not wish to name people publically, please email me and do so. But unless you specify, then your generalised attack is a personal attack, and no amount of semantics or rules-lawyering will do you any good. Apparently your semantics got a developer to remove the entry to your local user rights log after your removal of access on Meta, presumably to remove the attention it would have caused (and is enveloping now), but such course of action won't divert the issue here. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, the article was validly deleted under policy and procedure. Your attacking other editors, for the deletion of an article about yourself, is not acceptable. You may or may not be able to cite those personal attacks you made with diffs and "evidence". That doesn't matter. Saying "User:Bobbyjones333 is an asshole[1][2]" is as equally unacceptable as "User:Bobbyjones333 is an asshole". You are no more entitled to make such statements without facing sanction (warnings, blocks, probation, RFAR) than anyone else. Please stop before this escalates. The matter of the article is over for now; lets move on. Lawrence § t/e 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on adminship and system logs

I looked into this some time ago at a third party request. VampWillow was given sysophood via the usual RFA process. An alt account, AlisonW, was (a long time later) sysopped by Foundation agreement, likely related somehow to separating edits and actions in her usual editing from those she might do in any kind of formal capacity. That adminship was enacted by OFFICE, and the common identity of the two users known to and identified to Arbcom at the time the AlisonW account began being used in that capacity. An early user/talk page version posted by AlisonW at the time, disclosed to the community that AlisonW edits under a second account which at that time, was chosen to not be linked. Non-disclosure that the second account was an RFA, seems reasonable, given that the matter was arbcom-disclosed, office approved and intended to allow her to "go about her business" without speculation on it.

Like various other account matters, it is generally the user that's relevant. I don't think this would count as "deception" in having two admin accesses --she did not for example go through RFA twice pretending to be two people or anything. The matter was agreed and enacted by the WMF office, likely by agreement of board or Brad Patrick, disclosed and known to Arbcom, and she was given by independent others, the approval and right to use a second admin account, this being at a time the community had already expressed confidence in her by giving her one admin account used to that time for personal editing.

Over time evidently the VampWillow account has fallen into disuse, but we do not remove the bit from dormant admins as a rule. However I suggested to her a while back, that she didn't need two admin accounts at this time, and evidently judging by the fact VampWillow is no longer listed as an admin as of mid-February, the comment was taken. The adminship itself seems reasonable.

Links: AlisonW current rights, AlisonW enwp rights log; VampWillow current rights, VampWillow meta rights log.

It's also worth noting that whilst a person's granting of +sysophood shows up in the local project log, its removal does not. This is well known, and there's an active bugzilla request for sysop removal to show up under local project logs. (Feel free to support it!) We had the same confusion with recent desysoppings such as Archtransit, where some people weren't sure if the desysopping had been processed since it didn't show up in local logs. It doesn't, and that's how it is for everyone, no developer deletion is implied. It's an easy error since you'd expect to work that way but doesn't; I fell into it my first time of looking up a desysopping too. It may be worth assuming good faith here both by, and of, Daniel, who obviously wasn't aware (as most people aren't), but to clarify, no desysoppings presently show up in any local logs. You have to check Special:Listusers for their current rights, or the user rights log on Meta for it. It's a known issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"who obviously wasn't aware" — what? I'm very aware of the fact that a log entry on enwp went missing, and I know that desysoppings are only in Meta logs. That's how I confirmed my suspicions - that fact that AlisonW was desysopped but never resysopped, according to the logs. There's no confusion here. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns about VampWillow on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler? She's there attacking the nominator the same way that she attacked the nominator of the latest RFA and also voting "Keep" as if a third person. Lawrence § t/e 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

She's had my comments on this, though only as a comment. If it was current, or a current issue, I'd say take action (discuss, try to resolve, etc), but this is historic stuff that's dead and put to bed, long ago (2005), and a year before the AlisonW account was actively on the scene; it's long ancient failure to disclose COI on one bio-article and its related AFD. However things change and at that time additionally, there was in fact no communal COI policy. What is now WP:COI was still at that time simply a page covering "vanity articles" only, and its main policy was basically that clear vanity articles get sent to AFD and Wikipedia isn't a vanity press. (I was new in July 2004; I only have written policy to go by for it.) But yes, I had not overlooked to check that aspect also. This is not to excuse or downplay COI or condone the past action, it's an assessment of a users actions way back in 2005, looked back at from 2008. Evidence of current issues is usually the issue. As a rule when examining conduct of active users with a view to criticism, we rarely go even one year back in their active editing history, in checking for evidence of behavioral concerns. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: First off, let me say that you should never attribute to malice what can be blamed on negligence. I received a request from an English bureaucrat that they had questioned Alison Wheeler's "role account" and it was decided, with her consent, that she would have only one sysop account from now on, and that the sysop bit would be transferred to the User:AlisonW account. This is common practice. Unaware of the RTV status on the userpage, I foolishly made the assumption that it was common knowledge that her original account was well known to be her, and suggested that we ensure that things come up in the edit summary. After a distraught phone call from her regarding her privacy, I apologized and asked the developers that the log entries be removed. This is also acceptable practice (see Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT#Policy, no. 1 for rationale). While I'm not certain why the Meta log entries regarding the AlisonW account was not removed as well, or at the very least the summary which tied the two accounts together, I will state that there was no "Foundation cover-up" involved in anyway, and more a lack of ample communication between the parties (Ms. Wheeler and myself).

Ultimately, AlisonW should no longer be considered a role account, just another administrator. This, I hope addresses the issues with the log entries. Cary Bass 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

RtV doesn't work in using a real name account and hiding an non-real name account, so I find the "RtV" defence of Alison's to be faulty in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Daniel. This is blatantly not a right to vanish, and a poor reason to remove a log entry, as it is common knowledge. You only vanish when you actually go. Alison hasn't vanished. She's still here. How was right to vanish allowed here, and why was the log oversighted? I saw the original log myself. No personal information was there whatsoever, just a link to the two accounts which isn't identifiable information. This is plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorly (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"I find myself agreeing with Daniel" — *inward smile* Daniel (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In certain circumstances, very rarely, there's justification for vanishing from an account with a real life link, to an account without that link (I won't name names because that defeats the purpose, email me if you like), especially where the person was harassed in real life due to the use of the account with a link to their real life persona. Generally, situations like this are discussed at length with the bureaucrats (who have to resysop) and occasionally the Office (for record-keeping reasons), and the decision isn't made lightly. In this case, however, the transfer is from a non-linked-to-real life-indentity account to an account which is linked to a real life person, which struck me as absured back in mid-February (to which I expressed my opinion privately), and still does now. Unless a user is quitting the project or there are extenuating circumstances related to revoking real-life identities due to harassment, the events here under the guise of "RtV" strike me as improper. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Staeckerbot Error

Staeckerbot (Contribs) seems to be making an error when notifying users, appending '(page does not exist)' to the end of username talk pages. For example: User talk:Jessr6544 (page does not exist) and User talk:InvaderZimm77 (page does not exist).

I notified the bot operator by email about 5 minutes ago. Brianga (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot operator has stopped the bot's operations and is in the process of cleaning up. Brianga (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and start deleting all of those non-existent userpages. Looks like there is quite a few. Tiptoety ^talk 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All erroneously-created user talk pages have been deleted. —Kurykh 04:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More still exist created by other users (search) Jackaranga (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometime around the 22nd, the "title" attribute of links to non-existant pages was changed. This has been a bloody annoyance to all of us bot operators -- ImageTaggingBot has been offline for a while, and I haven't had a chance to fix it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped to clean up after me, and I'm sorry that it went so long without being noticed. Staecker (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No Block log available for a user ?

Resolved

Hello is it normal the block log of User:69.I38.73.I58 appears blank even though I reported him at WP:UAA, and the helper bot removed him and said he was blocked ? If one is to look at the deletion log of User talk:69.I38.73.I58 it appears he was blocked previously, yet all his logs are blank, it is a real user though, he has contributions. Note: this is not an IP user, it's a trick the '1's are capital 'i's Jackaranga (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IP adresses can not be blocked for having inappropriate usernames, and as such the IP was never blocked. It appears someone (non-admin) left a block message on the IP's talk which could have made the helper bot say he was blocked, then the talk page was deleted. Tiptoety ^talk 06:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Username is blocked (see Ipblocklist entry); the block log sometimes glitches and misses an entry. Can be confusing, but this case seems to be resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And now i see why it was blocked, I even fell for it :P Tiptoety ^talk 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, took me a second, too. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification to Template:BirdTalk

Could someone please make the edit I requested on the talk page? Richard001 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wish admins wouldn't fully protect project templates like this one unless they have been vandalised before. If a group of users started a project and went to the trouble of creating the assessment box, it seems unkind to stop them editing it, when it has never been vandalised. It is supposedly high risk, yet it has never been vandalised in 4 years! The same goes for many other project templates. you might as well protect all articles, most articles 4 years old have been vandalised at least once, some hundreds of times. And we don't protect articles featured on the main page, even though they are high risk also. Yes these templates have a high usage, but no they are not high risk because they are only used on talk pages, and are not substituted, so fixing vandalism would be very easy if it were to occur. Something like {{Uw-vandalism1}} (only semi protected) is much higher risk, especially as it is substituted and vandalism might go unnoticed for a few minutes and be inserted all over the place at random. Jackaranga (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with templates, is that if they are vandalized, the damage is greater. See how many currently blue-linked user pages there are here (a list of pages in CAT:CSD) left from vandalism reverted about an hour and a half earlier on a "template" which was transcluded on these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Took care of the request.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

USER Himhifi

USER Himhifi has placed continued attacks on the Talk:British Raj talk page. Latest comment was made 09:51, 5 March 2008. Indian nationalism being expressed continually, and last comment highly offensive. Part of the rant included `Did you want to bring Indians on the verge of extinction like Australian Aborignees who are suffering death, disease and poverty in their own country at the hands of descendants of British.``

Please help. Surely these comment should not be on a Encloypedia. Rockybiggs (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be better off contacting the user in question on their talk page first, and see what they say. To be honest, I don't see why the comment is highly offensive, but I have no idea about the subject matter so it's perfectly possible I don't understand. If you ask the user to clarify or remove their comment politely (or try and engage them in discussion) and they are overtly rude then, do come and reply here —αlεx•mullεr 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some dubious goings-on at Central Communications Command

Could someone uninvolved take a look at the recent history of Central Communications Command? C.C.C. is an information & communications agency within London's Metropolitan Police; an anon IP, clearly either a member of the organisation or someone posing as such (note the "us all") has totally gutted the article, removing more than half the references along with any comment critical of the agency (I wrote the original version, and was very careful to make sure all comments were sourced, given the potentially sensitive nature of the subject) and adding a number of "we are great" puff-pieces about their work. While normally I'd never bring what's basically a content dispute to AN, I'd like someone completely uninvolved to take a look at what's going on here and try to resolve it - previous edits by security agencies to Wikipedia have resulted in some undesirable media attention, and I'm really not sure what the best way to go here is, quite aside from any WP:OWN issues were I to revert changes to an article I wrote the bulk of. (The anon may well be far better placed than I to describe the workings of the agency, but all their additions are uncited and they're removing anything critical.) — iridescent 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The first couple of edits from the IP were certainly good faith. After that, things clearly slid downhill fast and the IP began to whitewash the article, removing sourced criticism and adding puff pieces (as you say above). This may or may not be a Metplod IP, but either way, the removal of sourced material and the insertion of puff won't do, so I've reverted with an edit summary that assumes they did it by mistake. I don't see any WP:OWN problems for you to do the same in future, Iridescent, for the good of the article. I'll also watchlist it - can't harm to have more eyes. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WHOIS reports the IP to be an NTL/Tesco IP address. So that's probably tesco.net. The person at the other end may be Metplod him/herself, but isn't editing the page from a Metplod-registered address. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that... I look forward to reading WR's explanation of how I'm collaborating to stifle The Truth... — iridescent 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• This bears more than a passing resemblence to this; another British Police agency being zealously "maintained". LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal.

The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be back (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 that I've blocked so far). Most are in the 172.x.x.x range, and add large amounts of questionable, uncited text to articles (usually film/television articles). I've been blocking on sight for a year, is that an appropriate amount of time? · AndonicO ^Hail! 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that if he's going through that big a range (mostly 172.128.0.0-172.191.255.255), then the IP addresses are highly dynamic - and shouldn't be blocked for any significant length of time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Does one month sound okay? · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is clearly several edits from any given IP at one time, I would block for a few hours, more than that would be unlikely to do any good. If there is no such pattern, it's unclear that any block will stop him - a range block is out of the question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The major range is 172.128.0.0/10 and the range belongs to American Online. Blocking that range will block most of AOL. These are likely dial-up dynamic IPs and any single IP block more than a few hours is pointless. He just logs out, reconnects and continues as if nothing has happened. If people could report and block immediately we could limit the damage but he is still getting the full 4 warnings before the blocks. I block on sight without bothering with any pointless warnings - I wish others would too. I have been going over some of the targets and there is a lot of uncaught and un-reversed corruption. I have also semi-protected some of the most common targets. I propose we block the range for anon only, account creation allowed for about a month. I don't want to do that myself for this large a range without consensus. --NrDg 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another thought, reporting this abuse to AOL might result in his AOL account being blocked but I doubt AOL would do anything. Also kind of pointless as he will just create another AOL account and continue. He also uses AT&T and UUNET. I think all we can realistically do is block immediately and rollback everything before the damage gets hidden by subsequent edits.--NrDg 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lir

User:Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), having come off a 33-month block (originally 1 year, but reset frequently) in December, has decided that his -- and his IP's -- contributions to Wikipedia will solely be his user page complaining about the Evil That is Wikipedia and the Great Wrong That Was Done Him. I blanked it on grounds that it was pure soapboxing, especially for someone explicitly stating that he's not here to edit. He objects, calling it "vandalizing" [15] and "censorship" [16]. Any opinions? --Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Purging of user page. --Onorem♠Dil 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia does not allow criticism, then Wikipedia has serious problems. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir, thank you so much for your repetitive vandalisms of my user space in the last couple years. How good to see you back. I have a suggestion if you want to edit here: behave like an adult. Don't attack other users. Observe the civility and no-personal-attacks policies. I won't wikilink them because I think you know them without me having to point them out. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations; if you have evidence of me vandalizing your user page, then please wikilink them because I have no idea what you are talking about. It's amazing how many inflated, trumped-up, exaggerated, and obviously false accusations you people come up with. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just took a look at his previous page. Is it childish? Yep. Does it meet the criteria of WP:NPA. Nope. Meets none of the guidlines (homophobic, racial, ethnic....) I don't belive the

blanking was right. However I'll defer to group wisdom on this and leave it be. We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Can we just reblock this user? They don't appear to be of any use to the project. In fact, they are wasting the time of useful editors thus detracting from the project. John Reaves 07:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd agree that filing a MedComm request to change your userpage the first day back from a block probably won't endear one. But rules are rules so I'd say to give a couple more days, with the implicit understanding that so soon after a 33 month block, further nonsense will probably result in an indef community ban. MBisanz ^talk 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon from US - warning

Resolved

 – Final email from school. This is sorted —αlεx•mullεr 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Darkbirds fom hungary. Check this IP, please: 208.20.123.28. He is wrote to huwiki:

Will kill everyone in my school then myself. Because you guys don't speak English I can tell you. So haha to you fucktarts..watch the news and see what happens. 208.20.123.28 (vita) 2008. március 5., 16:19 (CET) ([17],[18])

I see on enwiki this page: [19], the anon from Charles H. McCann Technical High School. Mybe just a joke, but many "school-massacres" in the news. Sorry for my very bad english. Darkbirds (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the principal and assistant principal with a link to the post and an explanation of what's apparently going on. I'll let everyone know if they reply. Alternatively, if somebody wants to do something more direct like phoning, they're more than welcome [20] —αlεx•mullεr 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They've replied to my email, so they're aware of the situation. We're in touch —αlεx•mullεr 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! What did he answer? Darkbirds (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He wanted to know whether there was any way to track who posted the message from in their school, and I told him to probably get in touch with their IT or computing department or technicians. And since there's been nothing in the news, I assume it was all fine —αlεx•mullεr 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect move technique in lots of places; potentially incorrectly renamed as well

User:Stevvvv4444 has moved some of the articles on Pakistani British around using the incorrect, cut & paste, method. I have no problem with what he's done (in principal), and left him a note on his talk page to come and talk to me if he wants any help. I've flagged the articles as recommended on there, but the problem is I think he's incorrectly renamed them: instead of Pakistani British it should probably be Pakistani Briton(s). Unfortunately following my G6 notices on the page would get them put in, what I believe to be, the wrong place; could an admin perhaps:

1. Delete the articles this user has created
2. Revert the changes to redirects on the affected articles
3. Move them to the correct place

Please? The articles involved are:

1. Pakistani British/British Pakistanis (should be Pakistani Briton I think, as per Pakistani American)
2. List of British Pakistani people/List of Pakistani Britons (I believe the second one is right, and is currently tagged with G6, and with it being deleted then correctly moved would be 100% ok).

NB, he's also attempted to move a category over, but I'll take that to CFD. Any help would be much appreciated. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done You can list these at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen where someone will deal with them. I have restored the history to Pakistani British and List of Pakistani Britons. I suggest a WP:RM for the Pakistani British article. Woody (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban for persistent sock puppetry

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer, the user has repeatedly been creating sock puppets for block evasion. I think we should upgrade to a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support.LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support for now. May change if evidence is presented the other way, which seems unlikely at this time. Rudget. 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Exit stage Left (or Right). --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - nothing controversial here. Hu12 put it quite fittingly.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am adding them to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Any administrator is welcome to remove them from the list and post a rationale here if they disagree. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• User is banned, user evades ban, community washes hands of user. SOP. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• (First I should note that I have engaged Neutralhomer by e-mail in the past - I, however, intentionally do not disclose such information because, as I recall, I did not get permission from him to do so.) I would prefer that Neutralhomer not be banned. It is clear to me that he desires to help improve Wikipedia - unfortunately, it seems, inadvertent disruption follows. Has anyone considered first trying to contact Neutralhomer, then (if he wants to come back under one account and agrees to the following) (1) limiting him to one account and (2) doing a twinkle/popups/etc. ban? His and JPG-GR's interactions tend to be problematic, but I'm not certain if restrictions would be possible or productive, seeing as how they often work in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could think of something more creative than a ban? Thanks for your consideration, Iamunknown 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm all for assuming good faith and could've agreed with this after the first time he created a new account to evade a block. But, then he created another account to evade the block - and has a third one "waiting in the wings." JPG-GR (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Creating socks, and using them while blocked on the main account, is not "inadvertent disruption". Being blunt, having NH community banned also solves the JPG-GR interaction problem. Harsh position? Perhaps, but it is only NH's actions that have lead to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you on your last point - I don't think that only NH's actions have lead to it - and I don't think that a community ban is the only option. As long as Wikipedia is a relatively open project (with exception given to banned and blocked editors), I would prefer (in general) that we not ban editors who can constructively edit articles. That said, we seem to agree that there is a problem here (I just tend to mince my words). Hence my call for options more creative than a community ban. --Iamunknown 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • How about leaving the editor banned and then, if they have not engaged in further socking for a reasonable period of time, they can request to be unbanned. Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Um... the proposed community ban is in response to NH socking (persistently) while blocked - I don't see any cause other than the editors own actions in that matter. Okay, Jehochman's suggestion is the only alternative; banned - in being indef blocked while no sysop will unblock. Through the use of appeals and the provision of abiding by the communities sanction in not creating/operating of socks NH may be allowed to resume editing at some future date. I would support that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We may be talking about different events. I am considering the ban of Neutralhomer in the context of NH's past history and interactions with other users (including some not named here). In my opinion, some of the previous blocks on his accounts were neither fair nor justified in terms of preventing disruption. A ban usually follows a series of blocks - if others held my same opinion (I don't necessarily expect them to), then the conclusion that a ban is (currently) unjustified might be reasonable. Hence my opinion that events and actions external to NH have lead to this ban - not just NH's actions. --Iamunknown 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I see what you're saying - you believe that the original reason for NH's month-long block is invalid. That can certainly be up for discussion, but his persistent use of socks instead of arguing for his unblock or taking a month off isn't. Whatever past infractions he's had, he's engaged in sockpuppetry actively twice (Flatsky, Tehunknown) with an additional account seemingly ready-to-go. JPG-GR (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Used up his chances. Sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban--reluctantly, but firmly. We had shared interests in TV history, and most of my interactions with him were positive. But the fact that he used a sleeper account TWICE after being blocked decided it for me. Blueboy96 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also slapped a block on one of his former accounts, Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs), to prevent it from being used as a sleeper. Blueboy96 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades yelling to make a point on reference desk, using admin status to intimidate and threaten

Resolved

 – User talk:64.236.121.129#A_threat

user:TenOfAllTrades was yelling to make a point on the reference desk seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=193960865

While his intention was good, he broke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT He yelled himself to make a point, which I warned him about here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenOfAllTrades#Yelling

Him agreeing or disagreeing with my request for him not to yell to make a point, would have been acceptable, but then threatened to use his administrator status to ban me. Seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196056175&oldid=194745828

He was using his status as an administrator to intimidate, and threaten me, which I feel is unacceptable. Please note, administrator User:Friday was also involved in this issue which can be seen on Ten's talk page, and has a history of being biased and harrassing me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a POINT violation. Capitalizing ALL CAPS is common. I'd suggest that you take note of the comments left to you here. Nakon 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case, but the issue of him using his admin status to intimidate me for advising him was uncalled for. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little far-fetched. It is common for people (not just administrators) to capitalise lettters. It can either get the point across clearer or try reasoning with other parties - both of which have been done in the past. Rudget. 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He never threatened to use his admin status. He threatened that you would be blocked, so not necessarily by him. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Not a WP:POINT violation. 2) The matter had dropped for 6 days until you (IP) decided to have another dig [21] 3) Ten could perhaps have been marginally more diplomatic in his original comment but he was only speaking the truth - CAPS LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING. 4) Ten and Friday are respected editors - where is this history of "bias" and "harrasment"? 5)Please show why Ten is "using admin status to intimidate" - any editor could have given you a warning like that, admin or not. (ecx5) Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec ad nauseam)I can't see that he used his admin status in any way to threaten you - he simply said that if you didn't stop trolling (and I offer no view as to whether or not you were) then you may be blocked from editing. Any user may warn any other user in the same terms. How exactly do you believe this constitutes abuse of his admin status? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He using his status as an administrator to threaten and intimidate me. By doing that, he is not allowing free communication. He is using fear to control me. He has now threatened to ban me for advising him on his talk page, and now he has threatened to ban me for reporting him to Administrator's Noticeboard. I feel this is an abuse of his power. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For any admins who are curious, the user posting this complaint is editing from a static IP [22], so a block would be effective. I might just go rouge and do it myself, but I'll wait for comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my point. He is threatening to block me for reporting him to Administrator's noticeboard now. He is using his status as an administrator to harrass me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is most definitely a WP:POINT violation here, but not by TenOfAllTrades. I suggest dropping this matter and moving on. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanted categories

This isn't so much administrative stuff as it is general scut work (though some amount of page deletion and undeletion will probably become necessary), but - I thought I would mention User:Random832/WantedCats here. There are a total of 26,684 to deal with, so it's going to be a while - whenever you feel like doing some mind-numbingly boring work, drop by —Random832 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask what I am sure is a really stupid question, but taking :

• Category:Wikipedian_cellists-2 (37 members)

as an example, since the category's been deleted, you want someone to help out by going and removing the category tag from the 37 members' pages, then deleting it off your list? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • if someone compiles a list of deleted cats that need emptied I can have BCBot empty them, or if they need moved into a new category I can do that also. β^_command 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hold off on the instruments user categories for now, I asked on WT:UCFD and there's some reorganization taking place (and they're mostly populated by templates anyway). In general, for deleted ones it depends on the reason for the deletion - the problem is that the _vast_ majority of categories in the list have only one page in them, and were created by mistake or are part of some kind of structured system and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the plus side, though, is that there being only one page means there's only one page to edit usually. I'll go through and figure out what needs to be done for the high-population categories though. —Random832 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be useful to run a spell-checker or capitalisation normaliser over the list to catch the ones that are mis-spellings or mis-capitalisations of existing categories. Can someone do that and confirm that they have done that (to avoid others doing the same thing). There should also be an easy way of detecting which ones are due to deleted categories as opposed to never-created categories. Someone should do that and confirm they have done that. And user categories could be separated out as well. Lots of ways to make this easier, but let's not all duplicate our efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'd thought to do it, I would have asked in the query - I'll see if I can't get it run again with more information (presence of deletion, last delete reason - name of page for single-member categories maybe - can you think of anything else?) —Random832 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• You should check the deletion log for each of these before creation. In the case of the instrument categories, I have restored many of them, as they were originally deleted as empty, so recreation is fine. For others, however, the category has been deleted at WP:UCFD and users simply re-added themselves to the category. These categories should not be re-created. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox archive?

Just came across this Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive. Is the sandbox supposed to have an archive? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At that time the sandbox had nearly half a million edits in its history, making it impossible to delete - it was moved there in hopes that this would become a regular practice to keep the main sandbox page at under 5000 edits. —Random832 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps should be indicated as comment or archive tag on page. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks

After vandalizing Wikipedia pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!) DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The quickest way of getting vandals blocked is WP:AIV, so you should use that option in the future. I checked the logs, and 99.235.43.93 is blocked for a week and 24.36.9.241 is not blocked. The only reason I can see why there is no block on the latter is that the ip provider is highly dynamic (so it says on the ip talkpage), and the one edit made today was 15+ hours before your comments above, the ip is likely re-assigned so a block would possibly effect someone who isn't a vandal (or, at least, not the one who did that edit.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They're marked as dynamic, but both seem to have been used exclusively by single users since 29 Feb or so, at least. Converted the block on 99.235.43.93 (talk · contribs) to a hard block on that basis (and the mention of experience). 24.36.9.241 (talk · contribs) is apparently a factor in the situation, but hasn't done much, so I'm more inclined to wait and see on that count. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

24.36.9.241 (talk · contribs) was reported [23] to AIV today, however I declined to block [24] because while this edit was perhaps incivil, at 16 hours old, it was way to stale for an AIV report. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

IP range contributions

I'm not sure how much this has been sent around, but posting here to make sure admins are aware...a recent change to the API (last one in the list) now allows the contributions of an entire IP range to be checked, which should be useful in estimating the collateral damage of a range block. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can this be done via special:contributions? —Random832 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It's meant to use the API method of looking up user contribs, but using ucuserprefix in place of the old ucuser. You can set the number of contribs to list (always lists from most recent) by adding &uclimit=<number>. I assume that might not make any sense (I had to play with it to figure it out), but here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=usercontribs&uclimit=500&ucuserprefix=71.87 that lists the last 500 contributions from the entire 71.87.0.0/16 range. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Splarka has written a pretty interesting user script related to this: User:Splarka/contribsrange.js. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD Backlog

The listing here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive130#MfD_Backlog was never resolved, there remain discussions from the 16th and 17th of last month that need closing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it. нмŵוτнτ 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The MfD backlog has been cleared. нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to steal Doug's thunder, but we've also got a backlog going back to the 17th over at WP:RM if anyone can help out. Thanks. :) JPG-GR (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad image list candidate

This one really ought to be on the list [25]. Polly (Parrot) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but I don't know whether to allow it on the userpage that links to it. I've added the article, but not the userpage —αlεx•mullεr 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

user Jakezing

Resolved

 – warned

User:Jakezing called me "fucking idiot" just because my edit gave him edit conflict notice. Here is his edit - [26]. I demand reaction. --Avala (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning re civility left for User:Jakezing. However, "demand" isn't a great word to use either. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. 'S what I get for taking too long typing. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. p.s. it might be my English but demand for me is just a bit stronger word for ask when I try to emphasize the importance of reaction. Thanks again. --Avala (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem there, I realised you didn't mean it like that, after all in French, "demander" is pretty much the same as "request", if I remember correctly. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in English a demand is more of an order to do something then a request. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Problematic name move

I intended to move U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals but moved the talk page instead. I can fix this using redirects. Or should the move be reversed first? Sorry for my mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it (after a lot of faffing around and moving it to the wrong title twice. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But I see no move button on the main article page? Ultramarine (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been move protected since July. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Username RFC in need of closing

Resolved

 – Closed by Luna Santin —αlεx•mullεr 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The RFCN for User:Justjihad has been running for a long time now, far longer than the usual 5 days, and no comments are being added anymore. Could an admin versed in the username policy pop over and close the discussion? Is he back? (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed the discussion as defaulting to allow the username; discovered Doc had blocked the account in the meantime (see User talk:Doc glasgow#Well, this is awkward). Since my close was focusing on the username alone, and his reply makes it clear that he took behavior into account as well, that may not be a conflict. Noting it here in case there's any further feedback on that. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you noted on the RFC, Luna, I think context is important here. I have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to a quality editor in a borderline username case. In this case, the offense was relatively minor (and certainly explicable by a more level-headed user), but he insisted on being tendentious, immature, and insulting (this [27] lovely diff speaks volumes). At the risk of sounding cynical, I concur with Doc as to this editor's lack of potential. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Style problem

Authority (talk · contribs) keeps making this edit to Rich Fields, which breaks links and is against the Manual of Style. I've reverted it a few times, and left a message on his talk page, but he hasn't replied to me, and indeed made the edit again after I left the message. What should I do about this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a {{uw-mos2}} warning. There's not much else to do then to revert and ignore. — Edokter • Talk • 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Malicious reporting

Hi if you believe you were reported maliciously (as in you didnt break the rules, they know you didnt either but still report you) can you bring a claim against an editor? Realist2 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law and there's no such thing as a "claim" in the sense you used it (one can "claim" that an event occured, but not "bring a claim" in the sense of starting proceedings with the intent to be awarded damages [wikidollars? ha!]). Have you tried discussing it with the person on their user talk page first? That is generally the first stept to resolving a dispute. See also WP:DR. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion for spammer (User:Wcfirm, Channing Tatum)

I was directed to Wcfirm (talk · contribs) who has been relentlessly promoting his (her?) site for actor Channing Tatum. Wcfirm has made over 200 mainspace edits over the last year and almost all of them are to Channing Tatum. My first impulse was to get the blocks started but he is now claiming that his site is "official" despite being a blogspot.com site. Even if it is the actor's official site, the situation still seems very fishy. Warnings have been given over the last year - usually triggering long responses - but no blocks have been levied.

Opinions? I have not yet notified Wcfirm about this as I wanted to get some feedback first. There is a pending entry at WP:AN3 but nothing at WP:COIN. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I filed the WP:3RR report on this user after trying to get them to discuss their edits on one of the talk pages first. As you can tell from their talk page (and the Channing Tatum talk page), they feel that their site is "official" and as such, doesn't have to follow any wikipedia rules. They said their site is the only official source for information on the actor, and thus trumps wikipedia.

Maybe not a malicious vandal, but someone who is definitely edit warring and owning this article. Redrocket (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like a one purpose account Special:Contributions/Wcfirm just set up to edit this article. This is not what Wikipedia is about. If the user has been explained and warned about this enough times, maybe it is time to block them from editing this article. They will still be able to edit other articles, and may learn to understand about Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The violations of WIkipedia:Conflict of interest are blatant. But an admin who was so inclined could probably just block based on the the 3RR report. The 3RR is relevant to this discussion because Wcfirm is edit-warring to restore a clearly inappropriate promotional paragraph about this very web site. Note that the date of the 3RR warning in the report is not before the last revert, but there is a previous warning about 3RR dated 2 February still visible in the editor's User talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for one week. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this. It is probably an SPA and is inserting material that is, at the very least, not NPOV. I am trying to explain to him on his talk page why this is wrong, but it may not be easy. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, nightwatch folks!  :) I've initiated WP:COIN#User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

MaxSem, half an hour after you blocked Wcfirm, another single-purpose account (Laquishe) began editing. Is its purpose the same? — Athaenara ✉ 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wcfirm created Laquishe (talk · contribs) - sleeper sock. It's been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser approval list

The AutoWikiBrowser "check" page says to leave a message here if "the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old," which it does... Could someone have a look at that, please?

Thanks! --Wikiscient (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Processing now. MBisanz ^talk 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Two users processed. Defering on Wikiscient (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) for more experienced admin review. MBisanz ^talk 06:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Patmar15

User:Patmar15 keeps constantly screwing around with the Template:Destroy All Humans! and I keep telling him not to or I'll report him but he ignores me and keeps meesing with the template. He also used rude language on my talk page and followed me to the Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed page and undid one of my edits. He either needs to be blocked or something. --Naruto134 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You told him in what I possibly consider the rudest way possible, telling him he has no right to "screw" with the template. So he wants to reorganize it by when the DAH games take place (1950s, 1970s)? Link him to WP:WAF and tell him that we organize by real-world content, that is by order of games, instead of telling him to screw off. [28] And blanking his message [29] and ending the conversation is actually a very good way to facilitate communication in ensuring that his feelings are hurt even more and that he feels like he's being even more ignored. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

FYI I have reduced the protection on this page to semi-protection. It had been protected for three days. Can folks please make a special effort to keep an eye on this and don't hesitate to re-protect if needed. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I exchanged emails with him last night, he's not having a good week, and it would be best if we could at least try not to let people make it any worse. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Woah. Let's watch the article for BLP vios and edit warring, BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE BAD ON ANY BIO. And let those who know Jimmy sympathise with him. But let's try to avoid doing, or appearing to do, one because of the other. That simply feeds the trolls.--Doc^g 10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Doc, you'll know from past experience I hope that this is precisely what I aim to do with any WP:BLP. Shit happens, but Wikipedia is not here to make the most of it. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• • What Doc said. I could have made it clearer. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a disproportionate number of edits to the Wales article, and those on Sanger, Overstock and so on - according to Abercrombie, the only properly neutral way of describing Sanger is as co-founder, for example, and he reverts any attempt to restate it in more nuanced ways, and has been edit-warring over the same at the Wales article. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that one of his blocks was for edits to Rogers Cadenhead who - guess what? - spotted the heinous crime of Wales making a small edit to his biography. The more I look at Abercrombie's contribs the more I think he's here on an axe-grinding mission. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Bramlet Abercrombie. I had a run in with him when I tried to change the wording somewhere — I forget which article it was on, but possibly Larry Sanger — to discussing their "role in founding" Wikipedia, rather than getting into the founder/co-founder issue. He was implacably opposed to any wording that was neutral between the positions, and reverted any change, so I had to give up. Judging from the intensity of his involvement in that particular issue over numerous articles, it does look as though there might be a personal aspect to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the most edits to the Larry Sanger article and have been blocked after editing the Larry Sanger article. I got blocked after NPOVing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, if you have an issue with a long-standing user, it's good form to first talk to him directly before talking about him in a forum like this. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin vandalized the Larry Sanger article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=185966264

I discussed the vandalism edit on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_2#Vandalism

I hope SlimVirgin will be more careful in the future and read the reliable references first. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is a very very strong word. The edit in question was not, by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism. At all. So I suggest you withdraw this unprovoked personal attack. Additionally, the good faith, good edit in question was on 22 January, so I'm at a loss as to why you would bring it up now. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

After speedily deleting the page Aidanbigballs, I looked at the history to welcome and/or warn the creator of the page, and saw that the creator was User:Aidanbigballs. I was prepared to block as an inappropriate username, but then saw that the user has been around and making edits (albeit mostly inappropriate ones) for over a year. Am I alone in finding the name inappropriate, or has this just never been spotted before? faithless (^speak) 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The only criteria at WP:UN this would fall under is "Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible.". I guess it depends on how much we consider "Big Balls" to be offensive. with <50 edits perhaps asking the account to consider abandoning this name and chosing another may be an initial approach? Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering we're dealing with a 12-year old kid (see this diff), it could be a hell of a lot worse. I'm not offended in the least, but I'm not as sensitive as some. I say just leave it be unless the user is especially disruptive. Caknuck (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA is the proper place for bringing user names to our attention, not this page. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of fun

I've been looking over Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12 9/11 conspiracy theories for a bit of light relief - funny stuff. Apparently we should rename the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories because the name implies that the theories might not be true. Oh dearie me, we wouldn't want that would we? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And shouldn't Evolution redirect to the theory of evolution? Discuss.--Doc^g 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked the "formal warning" you got, Guy, for having the temerity to suggest that some conspiracy theorists may not always edit with a complete respect for NPOV. How dare you!? ;o) ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lawl Jtrainor (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL Bearian (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

sock puppetry or coincidence or something else

I don't know what to make of it, but

Dunnijc (talk & contribs) made this edit (diff to The Chaser's War on Everything.

I noted his talk page with a nonsense message (history).

Then a few minutes later from Paul Brennan (talk & contribs) made a message (diff) on my talk page saying I put a message in the wrong place.

User Paul brennan has not made an edit in 9 months and other than that time has not made an edit in 1 year and a half.

I'm not sure where to put this notice either, so any future reference would be nice too. It may also be a minor problem and if so, I'm sorry.  SpecialWindler talk  10:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My gut instinct is this is a coincidence, the users have very different styles. Much more likely is that Paul Brennan didn't log in, and got a message you left for another user at a dynamic IP, possibly a message you left a long time ago, then logged in before leaving a message for you. That's happened to me before a couple of times. A short message on his page explaining this, and saying you didn't intend any warnings for him should be all that's needed. --barneca (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou.  SpecialWindler talk  11:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic probation?

There's been some discussion here about putting Chiropractic-related articles on a probation similar to that for Homeopathy. (Well, to be fair, I'm the one recommending a new/expanded probation. Others just want to slap the Homeopathy probation onto these as well.) After a quick perusal of the behavior that goes on at these articles, I'd say it's warranted. I just don't think we should blindly apply the Homeopathy probation to these; it sets a bad precedent. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Then propose a separate probation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's what I was doing... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. The chiropractic related articles aren't generally covered by the homeopathy probation, nor should they. They need a probation of their own. Barring that, a general probation for all alternative medicine/fringe ideas probation might be a possibility. -- Fyslee / talk 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree probation areas in their nature need to well separated for an honest "rule of law", I think genrally expanded probation is wrongheaded, too indefinite and subject to abuses, as this is showing us. Things in most alternative areas I see seem to be cooling down. Editing in areas I am familiar with seem to be 1-2 disruptive editors short of a decent collaboration. One of the problems I see repeatedly is bad science being used to deprecate commercial & philosophical competitors and to push POVs that are not scientifically founded despite popular & highly advertised unreliable claims of "mainstream" something (its not science whatever mainstream it is).--I'clast (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too would rather limit it to the chiropractic related articles. -- Fyslee / talk 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that dealing with 1-2 blatant disruptives in WP's evolving policy enforcement atmosphere will solve the worst of this problem soon enough. Also I think temporarily protecting the articles to force discussion during problem periods, or other limited actions for limited times, is much preferable to indefinite "martial law".--I'clast (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea that could help calm down the problem areas while kicking the worst editors out of the boat, see below. east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

New proposal for discretionary sanctions

The article probation now in place is obviously not working, and I've identified a few reasons why. First is that it's obviously restricted to homeopathy, and with that area under tight scrutiny, the most problematic POV-pushers, incivil editors, and edit warriors have either just moved on to other articles or edit by proxy on the homeopathy ones. It's particularly frustrating for new editors because they get steamrolled by the disruption carried over by the regulars; it's frustrating for the pro-fringe editors because they have to put up with relentless incivility and taunting; and it's frustrating for the pro-science editors because they have to deal with constant pushing and rules-lawyering. Mediation has been largely unsuccessful, and we can't keep on locking down various corners of the encyclopedia forever - it hurts good-faith new editors (a dying breed, I know :-P) and results in a cat-and-mouse game with the problematic ones: put homeopathy onto probation, they move onto chiropractic; do the same to chiropractic, and what's next? Administrators need a way to easily sanction disruptive editors on both sides of the fence, and this may be a solution:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of pseudoscience or fringe science, to be broadly interpreted, if despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of any length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid hostility toward genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

And I even cooked up a fancy template!

This article and its editors are subject to general sanctions by decree of the Wikipedia Community (see relevant discussion). Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working on this article if that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The previous article probation imposed by the community would be superseded by this measure. Thoughts? east.718 at 21:10, March 6, 2008

Is that a BEAR TRAP? Because...daaaamn. If it's not, it looks like one...what is it? Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bear trap. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

Thanks for the effort, but I have to say it is too arbitrary in general nature and presumes that normal admins really can distinguish "good science" from popular myths & delusions misrepresented about science and its practice in the sometimes blurred areas of current or frequently misunderstood science (not even fringe or proto-). Sadly my experience here is a very mixed bag. I have pretty good editing experience with actually active science and medical researchers through WP:V, but a fair amount of misery from students, POV warriors, and less technically informed, experimentally trained or experienced editors, including *some* POVish admins.

Otherwise, I think that the admins do need to deal with serial harrassers. For instance, here's one now. I haven't ever edited "Homeopathy" and I am one of the *least* homeopathetic personalities - the average doctor looks two dilutions (XX) closer to Homeopathy than me and I am being warned (harrassed again by this editor) on Homeopathy?!? I properly objected to a POV/edit warring editor's clear misuse of a warning tag.--I'clast (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the nature of the sanctions proposed - this would not empower admins to enforce particular views on content (which is a Bad Thing and is never done), but rather to deal with disruptive editors easier. Involved admins are already excluded from enforcing sanctions under my proposal; we don't want another Matthew Hoffman on our hands. I think my proposal is more in line with what you want: shifting the focus from articles that are disrupted to the people disrupting it themselves. east.718 at 22:30, March 6, 2008

I think that it needs clear criteria and a more subtle power change where I think the powers are largely adequate but either unused, unsymmetrical in application or misdirected. I certainly support decisive action with clearly disruptive editors. But "ganging up & setting up" being the partisan sport that it is, my whole I'clast talk has ample such examples including involved admins, needing to have criteria. Many who think they have an idea of who is pro-science or what is science have been demonstrated not to have a very solid understanding.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Support Lawrence § t/e 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, although why admins need this to help them do what they are already empowered to do is beyond me, except to help them avoid those other admins who seem to enjoy taking down admins (Vanished User, et.al). --Shot info (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. No support Bad idea because it singles out alt med articles. . . this would be a sanction that is POV driven in nature.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Violation of own sign

One of the problems is that admins don't enforce existing powers adequately. QuackGuru is running around abusing that warning tag (and me too). Why not ban QuackGuru from the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation notifications page with the Warning tag? He certainly is not uninvolved. He can always ask other editors or use WP:AN for any as yet undetected homeopathy here. He's earned a vacation (for the rest of the editors) and now overdue in my view.--I'clast (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

UCFD

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User categories for discussion - since apparently user categories are solely for the user who WP:OWNs the page, rather than being subject to community consensus. —Random832 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

reporting

If you are reported (in this case for allegedly breaching 3rr) if it hasnt been delt with, is their a time frame where by it becomes stale or invalid etc? Realist2 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaack......

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6#Encyclopedia Dramatica. Just for once the requester is not a troll! Let's be thankful for small mercies. Expect the usual puppet theatre, though. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In other news, England have won the World Cup and Family Guy is actually funny. Will ^(talk) 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And, according to Gurch, who I miss since he left, water is wet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Userrights

Created the above template. It's a bit like {{userlinks}}, but lists the links relevant to user rights.

Userrights are messy since there are two logs.

• Locally appointed rights like rollback and the giving over sysop, are in one log,
• Steward/meta appointed rights such as the giving of checkuser and removal of sysop, are in a completely different log.

Hence the normal (ie, local or crats) rights log may suggest someone has a right, that in fact they dont. Example:

• Jimbo Wales (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Archtransit (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Can someone familiar with template-space figure where it needs to go, what categories or pages it needs adding to or linking, and where it would be useful in the wiki, if any?

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question, but wow, I'm surprised this template wasn't created sooner. Good job. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Already on my user page. Ronnotel (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Created Template:Userrights/doc, added the appropriate cat and included it on Template:Signatures .--Hu12 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Resolved

Would another administrator be willing to take a look at User talk:Fiesta bowl? I've been trying to explain his block to him and he's just resorting to personal attacks. As I was to original blocking admin, I don't think it would be best if I took any further action. Thanks. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been exceedingly polite in accepting and responding to a user who has resorted to blatantly abusive personal attacks. I've protected the talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FCYTravis. Your commentary on the talkpage was civil and way more patient than I would've been. I recommend blocking indef, including the obvious socks. They (and I mean that in its plurality) are not here to build an encyclopedia, but in fact, to push their own point of view. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but totally agree with Travis/Keeper. Holy cow, we don't need users like that involved in the project. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I say block indef too. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I also feel that an indef block is the sad, but necessary action. I'll place the notice on his talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody please go and re-semi-protect WP:AN?

Anon vandal striking again from multiple IP addresses. The page was just unprotected a while ago. Corvus cornix_talk 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 12 hours. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Admins! Can someone please merge the histories of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Homeschooling/Archive 1? I archived it by moving the page instead of copy & pasting it as I should have. They need to be merged so that the history of the talk page can be found all on the page it was posted on. (If you need to respond to me for anything, please leave me a message on my talk page.) Thanks, admins! DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't needed. Moving a page is a legitimate but uncommon method of archiving. It's been done at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, for example. If you really want the histories merged it can be done but there is no pressing need. Graham87 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you go ahead and merge them anyway? DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Need an AfD enforced

Code Lyoko 2 was deleted per AfD but its creator has restored it and continually removes the repost template. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should suggest to Karaku that the material be worked on in userspace. However, I would support a block for the continuous incivility and personal attacks in those series of edit summaries. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusations on Homeopathy article probation page

User:Jehochman is repeating unproven sock puppet accusations [30] and anon users have been seeking to out a real name on the same page [31]. Oversight may be needed. —Whig (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)