Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive159

The Southern Avenger

More eyes would probably be useful at this festival of sockpuppetry; the votestacking, off-wiki canvassing and accusations are already starting to fly and it's been live less than 24 hours. – iridescent 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this is also at ANI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The following was moved from ANI:

CANVASSing

Hi. There seems to be a bit of an off-wiki canvassing situation at this AfD. See here. (The top comment on the journal, as well as containing a direct link to the AfD, says, "The Southern Avenger article in wikipedia is being disputed for deletion for questions of notability. Please vote for no deletion.") I wouldn't be surprised, given the amount of SPA participation, if canvassing had taken place elsewhere, too. I tagged the AfD {{notaballot}} and marked the {{spa}} contributors (but assumed good faith on those who just seem to have quite suddenly stumbled upon this AfD after a period of inactivity.) Is there something else that should be done? Or could be? This is a new one on me! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried to post a reply on the blog, to discourage people from !voting because of that, but it was caught by a spam filter on the comments. No idea what's with that. Still, with luck it'll go up and SPAs will curb, though I wouldn't count on it. Maybe just pointing them at WP:ATA would help, so they at least make valid arguments. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

everything above this post, and below the previous "small" post, was moved over from ANI Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090

House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just asked about being allowed back. Relevant reading is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. If he is allowed back it should be only after he agrees not to creat any more socks, especially attempts to frame other users and an apology to Redspork02. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to letting back. A few days ago he said through another sock he wasn't the sockmaster Alison had checkusered him as.[1] He's probably only 9 or 10. He's not ready to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this time. Amerique^dialectics 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What've you got against 9 year olds? 86.29.138.203 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against 9 year olds. I said that I thought he was that young because, except when he was actively socking to attempt to frame Redspork02, he generally doesn't seem to have a handle on what he's doing here. (Like below, he didn't seem to think we would know he was lying because of the checkuser.) If there are 9 year olds editing that aren't causing the problems House1090 accounts generally do, just with copyright plagiarism, more power to them. House litters the encyclopedia with horribly bad English when he is not plagiarizing, moves regional and national article namespaces to idiosyncratic spellings, and makes false accusations of vandalism against people who edit his preferred versions. However old he is, he is not ready now. Amerique^dialectics 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People please I am not 9 or 10 and Amerique I said that because I still wanted to edit and you dont let me. If you guys give me another chance then you will see If I do something bad again you can warn me and the reblock me and I will give. Please give me one more chance, I promise I wont let you dowm User:House1090 71.110.223.8 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support unbanning this user. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced either, and do we really need nine-year-olds editing Wikipedia to this extent? There were countless copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, and some pretty lame unblock requests. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify to people reading this thread after the fact, I think I speak for the Wikipedia community as a whole when I say we have nothing against nine-year-olds themselves, but editing a project like this generally requires a decent level of maturity and responsibility that most younger children don't yet have. Many of our vandals are school kids goofing off in class. On the other side, certain users have displayed great responsibility and have been given positions of trust at a much younger age than the average. Since Wikipedia is both a free-content and highly visible site, issues such as copyright and even lesser matters such as vandalism can have a wide and powerful impact, and users are expected to handle themselves with maturity.

That said, if you're not that young, more's to you, but unless you demonstrate the responsibility we expect of all of our users to follow our policies, then you're not going to be unblocked. I don't feel certain you understand why you were blocked, and that's critical to giving you the second chance you desire. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with maturity. There are plenty of college students I don't think are mature enough to use this site properly. Any sockpuppeter needs to agree not to create socks in order to return. If he doesn't understand what he needs to do, regardless of age, there's no reason to let him back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked CambridgeBayWeather to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance, User:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am here to apoligze to every one I did not mean to become a sock puppet master, but I wanted to edit. I just want one more chance please unblock me as [User:House1090]] I did not want this to happen, please let me back. I will no loger frame users or create any more sock puppets, please User:House1090 (I will make a special one to User:Redspork02)71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How about instead of spamming my talk page here, you log in and post on the not protected User:House1090 asking to be unblocked? This changing IP address to talk with you is part of the problem, so just go there and ask like someone more mature than this. Keep on using IP addresses to get around being blocked (even if to request no longer being blocked) and no one will unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a official templated unblock request at User talk:House1090. I'll leave it someone else to consider but I'll put my view this way. When you are in trouble for evading your block, evading your block, by using changing IP addresses, to request a lift of the block isn't going to be particularly effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. To clarify above, my statement previously was to the effect that age has nothing to do with maturity. 9/10-year olds can be very mature for their age, and as stated, older users can act like children. I believe this case is the latter, with the blatant block evasion and forum shopping. I definitely don't think this user fully understands why they were blocked, and can't be trusted to edit this site responsibly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I probably shouldn't have said he was probably 9 or 10. His real age has nothing to do with it. My apologies to anyone of that age editing capably who might have been offended. Amerique^dialectics 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

zomg age bias!11 --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? cant I have another chance I have apologized to everyone I am truly sorry. If I wanted to continue being a sockpuppeter, I would of just created another one but I want to start new as User:House1090, I beg to give me one more chance please! User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you ask for one more chance here last year? I see, what, 38 socks after that listed here and here, many of which were disruptive. It seems you had a sock active just a few days ago. I don't think you understand our guidelines and policies; perhaps sitting out a bit to mature would help. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with leaving House blocked after cleaning up messes left by him for eight months. His apologies are quickly followed up by the same kinds of edits by sockpuppets. He falsely accused User:Haha169 and I of edit warring and vandalism as recently as last week. Wikipedia is not the right place for House at this time. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Thought I might put out there that there is a backlog at WP:UAA. Bstone (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Goin' to work on it. lifebaka++ 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a kinda' lame backlog. Only three names were there. And none of them terribly serious, either. Anyway, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In time, that kind of backlog will become your best friend :) Keegan^talk 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity (disambiguation) and Fraternity

Resolved

 – Heading toward a solution at Talk:Fraternity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:MOSDAB, and I understand that a disambiguation page should be only links, and any general subject content should be in an article on that name alone. I've tried to put that in effect, and I've been 3RR'd by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The page "Fraternity" was a mix, a brief general background, and then a slew of redirect links. There already was a "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page which goes back to 2006, but which was made into a redirect page to "Fraternity". I moved the disambiguation links to this page, (which is where they belong bu Wikipedia policy), and left the general content on the "fraternity" page. This set User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back into a fury of revert edits. I am only trying to follow policy here, and do so in a way that solves ongoing issues. This other editor is being a little difficult. Comments? Help? Intervention? Anything?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things are very under control. We are (or at least I am) in the midst of a calm discussion on Talk:Fraternity; feel free to join in. You may also feel free to block me for violating 3RR (It's past my bedtime anyway)--but a quick examination of the anon IP's well-meaning cut-and-paste moves will reveal why repeated reversion was necessary. Just no templates on my talk page, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have gone past 3RR. Since the dispute is heading toward settlement, I suggest that no sanctions be imposed. The Fat Man is willing to accept the IP's solution if the correct procedure for article splitting is followed. I'm marking this as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:House1090

House1090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just asked about being allowed back. Relevant reading is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive119#Silly_people and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. If he is allowed back it should be only after he agrees not to creat any more socks, especially attempts to frame other users and an apology to Redspork02. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to letting back. A few days ago he said through another sock he wasn't the sockmaster Alison had checkusered him as.[2] He's probably only 9 or 10. He's not ready to contribute productively to the encyclopedia at this time. Amerique^dialectics 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What've you got against 9 year olds? 86.29.138.203 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything against 9 year olds. I said that I thought he was that young because, except when he was actively socking to attempt to frame Redspork02, he generally doesn't seem to have a handle on what he's doing here. (Like below, he didn't seem to think we would know he was lying because of the checkuser.) If there are 9 year olds editing that aren't causing the problems House1090 accounts generally do, just with copyright plagiarism, more power to them. House litters the encyclopedia with horribly bad English when he is not plagiarizing, moves regional and national article namespaces to idiosyncratic spellings, and makes false accusations of vandalism against people who edit his preferred versions. However old he is, he is not ready now. Amerique^dialectics 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

People please I am not 9 or 10 and Amerique I said that because I still wanted to edit and you dont let me. If you guys give me another chance then you will see If I do something bad again you can warn me and the reblock me and I will give. Please give me one more chance, I promise I wont let you dowm User:House1090 71.110.223.8 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't support unbanning this user. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced either, and do we really need nine-year-olds editing Wikipedia to this extent? There were countless copyright violations, abusive sockpuppetry, and some pretty lame unblock requests. seicer | talk | contribs 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify to people reading this thread after the fact, I think I speak for the Wikipedia community as a whole when I say we have nothing against nine-year-olds themselves, but editing a project like this generally requires a decent level of maturity and responsibility that most younger children don't yet have. Many of our vandals are school kids goofing off in class. On the other side, certain users have displayed great responsibility and have been given positions of trust at a much younger age than the average. Since Wikipedia is both a free-content and highly visible site, issues such as copyright and even lesser matters such as vandalism can have a wide and powerful impact, and users are expected to handle themselves with maturity.

That said, if you're not that young, more's to you, but unless you demonstrate the responsibility we expect of all of our users to follow our policies, then you're not going to be unblocked. I don't feel certain you understand why you were blocked, and that's critical to giving you the second chance you desire. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Age has nothing to do with maturity. There are plenty of college students I don't think are mature enough to use this site properly. Any sockpuppeter needs to agree not to create socks in order to return. If he doesn't understand what he needs to do, regardless of age, there's no reason to let him back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am not 9 or 10 and I do not want to make any more sock's thats why I asked CambridgeBayWeather to give me another chance is in that a sign of maturity, please give me one more chance, User:House1090 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am here to apoligze to every one I did not mean to become a sock puppet master, but I wanted to edit. I just want one more chance please unblock me as [User:House1090]] I did not want this to happen, please let me back. I will no loger frame users or create any more sock puppets, please User:House1090 (I will make a special one to User:Redspork02)71.110.203.151 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How about instead of spamming my talk page here, you log in and post on the not protected User:House1090 asking to be unblocked? This changing IP address to talk with you is part of the problem, so just go there and ask like someone more mature than this. Keep on using IP addresses to get around being blocked (even if to request no longer being blocked) and no one will unblock you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is now a official templated unblock request at User talk:House1090. I'll leave it someone else to consider but I'll put my view this way. When you are in trouble for evading your block, evading your block, by using changing IP addresses, to request a lift of the block isn't going to be particularly effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. To clarify above, my statement previously was to the effect that age has nothing to do with maturity. 9/10-year olds can be very mature for their age, and as stated, older users can act like children. I believe this case is the latter, with the blatant block evasion and forum shopping. I definitely don't think this user fully understands why they were blocked, and can't be trusted to edit this site responsibly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I probably shouldn't have said he was probably 9 or 10. His real age has nothing to do with it. My apologies to anyone of that age editing capably who might have been offended. Amerique^dialectics 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

zomg age bias!11 --MZMcBride (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? cant I have another chance I have apologized to everyone I am truly sorry. If I wanted to continue being a sockpuppeter, I would of just created another one but I want to start new as User:House1090, I beg to give me one more chance please! User:House1090 71.110.203.151 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you ask for one more chance here last year? I see, what, 38 socks after that listed here and here, many of which were disruptive. It seems you had a sock active just a few days ago. I don't think you understand our guidelines and policies; perhaps sitting out a bit to mature would help. Kuru ^talk 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with leaving House blocked after cleaning up messes left by him for eight months. His apologies are quickly followed up by the same kinds of edits by sockpuppets. He falsely accused User:Haha169 and I of edit warring and vandalism as recently as last week. Wikipedia is not the right place for House at this time. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

Thought I might put out there that there is a backlog at WP:UAA. Bstone (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Goin' to work on it. lifebaka++ 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a kinda' lame backlog. Only three names were there. And none of them terribly serious, either. Anyway, done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In time, that kind of backlog will become your best friend :) Keegan^talk 05:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity (disambiguation) and Fraternity

Resolved

 – Heading toward a solution at Talk:Fraternity. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:MOSDAB, and I understand that a disambiguation page should be only links, and any general subject content should be in an article on that name alone. I've tried to put that in effect, and I've been 3RR'd by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The page "Fraternity" was a mix, a brief general background, and then a slew of redirect links. There already was a "Fraternity (disambiguation)" page which goes back to 2006, but which was made into a redirect page to "Fraternity". I moved the disambiguation links to this page, (which is where they belong bu Wikipedia policy), and left the general content on the "fraternity" page. This set User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back into a fury of revert edits. I am only trying to follow policy here, and do so in a way that solves ongoing issues. This other editor is being a little difficult. Comments? Help? Intervention? Anything?129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things are very under control. We are (or at least I am) in the midst of a calm discussion on Talk:Fraternity; feel free to join in. You may also feel free to block me for violating 3RR (It's past my bedtime anyway)--but a quick examination of the anon IP's well-meaning cut-and-paste moves will reveal why repeated reversion was necessary. Just no templates on my talk page, please.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Both editors seem to have gone past 3RR. Since the dispute is heading toward settlement, I suggest that no sanctions be imposed. The Fat Man is willing to accept the IP's solution if the correct procedure for article splitting is followed. I'm marking this as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Arjun MBT thread

Resolved

 – Not vandalism, but a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Arjun MBT thread has been vandalized by multiple users. The Quality B article has been compromised.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Links to articles and diffs are always useful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a content dispute taking place at Arjun MBT, which is a tank being built for the Indian army. Admin Jauerback has joined in the discussion at Talk:Arjun MBT. I'm marking this resolved, since the edits are not vandalism. If editors can't reach agreement on the Talk page, they should follow the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

template:ImageUpload

What is up with {{ImageUpload}}—it seems to be linked from a lot of pages and seems to have a recursive loop, but no history to revert to? G.A.S 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It included itself twice. Besides that, it was a test page, so I deleted it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's up the links, but probably they can be removed. {{ImageUpload}} is probably a useful thing to have, but all the versions of it (all three, one by me cleaning it up) have been crap thus far. There might've been instructions put in to use it at WP:UPI or something for a while, but it doesn't seem to be usefully used on any of them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the links. It seems to me that this template is used on Commons as well, but is a blank protected page (Protected "Template:ImageUpload": Used by MediaWiki:UploadForm.js [edit=sysop:move=sysop]). It might be that this page is used for the same purpose here; in which case it might be a good idea to recreate here as a blank protected page; as it is transcluded onto the image namespace pages that are recreated here for use on the main page. G.A.S 09:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial vanity spammer

• Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see deleted userpage)
• Ashok rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekbal anuj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see deleted userpage), this diff and so on)
• Prem chand pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• Prem C. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• Prem Chand Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
• K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), flagged by William Connolley, whose field it is, as fundamentally unverifiable as written.

This individual has now reached the point where his serial vanity spamming is actively counterproductive, obscuring whatever notability may attach to the subjects he uses as coatracks on which to hang his resume and that of his family members. The Banerjee center is, according to Benmjiboi, being "targeted by removal of sourced content", but actually that was William checking the sources and removing bogus ones; this individual has manipulated sources to the point of outright falsification, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot attack

Resolved

 – all accounts blocked

Semi-retired in my case doesn't mean I won't log on and check things once in a while. The user creation log is being bombarded by random character usernames which in turn are creating others. One in particular is adding cleanup notices to random articles at lightning pace. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like they've been clobbered. See you 'round sometimes. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for letting us know. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please be add more "semi" to your "retired" status. We need more good editors. Chillum 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See related IP User talk:82.5.162.85. Maybe someone should run a CU and do a rangeblock... Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't get to reverting all the edits by Special:Contributions/82.5.162.85. Can somebody else go through the list? I tackled the bottom few, but have to get back to my RL job. DeFaultRyan (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they are all done now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• When will vandals learn that we can undo vandalism easier than they can create it? Chillum 17:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some will never learn. I've seen vandals get blocked, reset their router, create a new account, open ten tabs then vandalise like mad for about a min. I block the account, go to their contributions list, rollback everything, and delete thier userpage. Takes me seconds to do, takes them minutes, It's kind of unfair really. We should give them 10 minutes headstart ;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unfair ehh? That sounds like about how it should be. Let them spend minutes for what it takes us seconds to undo. The world has so many childish people, it is only to be expected that we get our fair share. Chillum 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but we could give them a head start to even the odds. To be sporting. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

User with constructive edits but a name that puts his user/talk pages in the title blacklist filter thingo. If admins can bypass that, anyone want to suggest a rename? —Giggy 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps "User:Screaming loudly" - though I don't think that was what you were asking for. Viridae^Talk 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've welcomed him on his talk page, are you able to edit it now and discuss the username issue with him? –xeno (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note explaining the situation but it may be a bit confusing for someone new. I know that if I had received that message when I was new I would understand none of it. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user is probably going to need some help in figuring out how to change his name or some one may want to request a name change with the user's consent. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

By trial and error I determined that the repeated "!" (three or more) is the source of the problem. The infamous User:!! (if he were still editing ) would narrowly avoid being affected by it. "AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH" by itself does not trigger anything (though it would still be a less than desirable username). — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user name is confusing (now how may 'Hs' should you type to write his name?) and should be changed. It is not conducive to accepting the user as a serious editor. Give him/her a couple of days to respond (if they don't resume editing sooner), then block as inapropriate user name and allow them to change it. -- Alexf⁴² 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to play devil's advocate, there's exactly 5 of each character... Maybe he's doing a kind of The Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh thing, but missed the R? –xeno (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, don't be playing "devil's" ANYTHING in this joint--it'll get you marked as a dangerous influence.Gladys J Cortez 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that even one ! in a name will interfere with templates and that 3 !!! gets hit by the name filters. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're still playing the "suggest alternatives" game, then perhaps cropping the name to AGH! would be the course involving least change for this guy... However, it's probably best if we simply say "look, you need to change your name: it's not really appropriate", let him chose an alternative (perhaps with some examples and guidance from us), and point him towards changing username. Unless that has already been done? Anthøny 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:IncoherentScream and User:IncoherentScreaming are both available, apparently :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I would too easily confuse that with NonvocalScream or whatever account he's using these days. — CharlotteWebb 00:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bzuk is WP:OWNing Howard Hughes

User:Bzuk feels that cite templates are useless and because he/she has majority he/she knows what's beset. See here: [3] The user has also been warned with {{uw-delete1}} and {{uw-own}}. Can someone remind him of MoS (cite templates are preferred}} and make him/her aware of WP policies especially WP:OWN. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

El Greco began an edit war. He was asked to stop the disruption. My reply is no one is owning the article. Cite templates are neither preferred nor recommended; editing can be done by anyone. Another editor changed all the recent edits to his style, I changed them back to another style and made corrections. This editor continued to template me after I asked him or her to stop. FWiW I posted to his talk page, he templated me. Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Ah no, you edits reverted another users contributions that were bringing the article up to par, that's WP:OWN. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the edits made were about citations and references, you reverted everything, errors included. The article is being edited, you treated this as a case of vandalism, using reversion. Edits were corrected not reverted. You revert only when there is vandalism involved and then you treated me like the vandal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

No I didn't treat it as vandalism I treated it as a user trying to institute his/her will on the article page. By undoing good-faith edits by User:Emerson7 Why did you undo his edits? Was he vandalizing? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, who is this User to tell enough with warning him of WP:OWN: [4]. If you breach it, you will get warned. Note the previous revert (archive) on User:Bzuk's talk page [5] and [6]????? Obviously it would be nice to talk on his talk page, but they vanish. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

His edits were not reverted, they were corrected. There were simple errors made throughout the entire article in spelling and punctuation. The cites were established throughout the entire article in one style, I followed that style, especially when the new edits introduced ISO dating which was not consistent with the date format being used, and since the template can't easily change to that date format, it had to be rewritten with no changes made to the actual information as I used the exact wording that was used by the earlier editor. There were also errors in the reference section that I also corrected. You simply reverted all the changes not looking at anything that was done. I never change other editor's work arbitrarily but that wasn't they way you operated, you instead immediately reverted, claiming that MoS was being at stake. Then you went after me in templating me as a vandal. FWiW, I left you messages on your talk page, you left me warnings and vandalism templates. Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Oh right. I posted a delete notice and an own notice on your talk page, which you should make yourself familiar with them, which you then fully deleted, for the sake of what, explain that? Another user notifies you by using WP standard warning template and you revert and then act like the boss on that user's talk page, yeah that's being WP:CIVIL alright. Have I reverted your edits on my talk page? User:Emerson7 simply went and changed all the bare refs to cite web/news, etc. as is done in many other articles and even by bots, but what do you do? You claim WP:OWN entirely revert his edits, and not even bother to explain in an inconspicuous edit summary. And then when I undo you edit to change them back you get all defensive and state: "Read the edit history of the article; I am the primary editor, the other editor changed the style of my edits to his preference." If that's not a WP:OWN violation I don't know what is. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How long do you think these guys will sit here talking to each other before they notice no one else is joinig in because they can't get a word in edgewise? --barneca (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD, guys. Bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, go to ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI, argue on ANI... I have set up a section on the talk page just for you: Talk:Howard Hughes#Citation style. If discussion doesn't work out, check out WP:DR. Problem solved, quite Solomon-like I think. --barneca (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to explain the reason for the edit in the edit summary and then sent you a note as you had concerns, your reaction was to template me with vandal tags which is not conducive to discussion. Read the edit history, the edits made introduced some correct changes but also introduced errors in consistency by using ISO dating which is inherent in a cite template. I tried to rewrite the template but it didn't work, and that is why the citations were written out in "scratch" cataloging to preserve the exact wording. No edits were reverted, they were changed, that is the difference. I do not revert edits unless there is a clear case of vandalism. I was about to leave the edits as is but then noted that there were tiny errors throughout the entire passage and changed these, then made it all consistent. I began the revision of this article when it underwent attacks, at that time, due to the numerous editors involved, a style was selected that was established by the WP:AVIATION PROJECT group for consistency. Although Howard Hughes is an international figure with many different interests, the project style that was used was a consistent one. Cite templates are rife with small errors and in correcting the ISO dating, it was not possible to change the date style to meet the standard already in the article, so it was rewritten not reverted. All the information that was presented earlier was retained and put back in the same manner that the cite template would have presented it. You are reading something into this article revision that just isn't there. I am not a vandal, I do not change edits arbitrarily and I do not like being treated like a vandal. FWiW, Sorry for even getting involved in this discourse, it is illogical and idiotic of me to get baited like this. Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

They are not vandal tags. They are warning tags, understand that. If you want vandal tags go here: {{uw-vandalism}}. Well then take up your comments about the cite templates on their talk page. And if you're going to refuse to use a cite template because of bad date formatting, that's a weak reason and/or excuse. I've never seen anyone revert a user's edits for replacing bare refs with cite templates. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What you have here is a content/style dispute, with civility and Wikiquette overtones. As far as I can tell, neither of you has asked for any administrator action and I can think of none that would be necessary. WP:AN is not a step in dispute resolution and I would advise both of you to go to WP:DR like barneca suggested. Alternatively, you can keep going along the road you're going until you do need admin action, which will probably end up falling on both of you. (Incidentally, I would advise El Greco to read WP:DTTR, while I also advise Bzuk to realise that WP:DTTR is an essay and not a policy.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook

Resolved

According to Help:Moving a page, if there is an issue with moving an article over a redirect page, then an administrator should be contacted, which is what I'm doing now. Anyway, I'm attempting to move Aaron Cook (baseball) back to its original form of just Aaron Cook (and then add proper disambig tags afterwards), but it appears as if Aaron Cook is simply a redirect page to Aaron Cook (taekwondo athlete), which was part of a move that I previously made. I probably made a mistake, which is why I'm obviously seeking admin help. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Cook has been deleted, so you should be good to go. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AdultSwim is asking for a review of his block

AdultSwim, recently revealed and blocked as a sockpuppet of Lemmey / Mitrebox has asked for a review of his block: User talk:AdultSwim#Blocked. I would've suggested he do so from the original account, but it seems to have been given the {{pp-usertalk}} treatment. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Banned Constant evasive socking, keep him blocked and block on sight. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Socking, yes. But to be fair, have a read over Ned Scott's summary of the situation on the user's talk page. I wouldn't disagree with it. Mitrebox/Lemmey/AdultSwim has never done anything to attempt to harm the encycolopedia. The aim has always seemed to be in good faith, but not within our procedural bounds. The user has the potential for a future of valuable contributions. Needs a nice tutor. Keegan^talk 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock I agree with Ned Scott. What's keeping AdultSwim away is basically policy-wonkery. He's a clear positive for the encyclopedia, IMO. What's keeping him out is a technicality. Unblock provided he promises not to sock anymore or to use unapproved bots. Enigma ^message 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• A second account I can understand. Perhaps even a third. But five or six accounts indicates a real issue. I'd be incredibly hesitant to unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That does have me confused as well. Some of them seem just.. odd. Like LemmonBoy, who's obvious connection wouldn't even make the account useful for sockpuppeting or block evasion. Some of the others were only used for a single day and thrown away. Still, I don't see any attempt to have one sock support another in discussion, nor do I see any real disruption by most of those throw-away's. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to User talk:Mitrebox being protected, he was clearly told that he needed to contact ArbCom or the blocking administrator via email and had already had a block declined on his talk page. He chose not to, and instead went ahead and created another account to circumvent his block, and then continued to do so even after being caught a third time. Does not seem like the type of user I want editing... Tiptoety ^talk 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if he's the kind of editor we can even stop editing. Wouldn't it be better to at least try to work these issues out, rather than endless sock hunts? He keeps coming back because he honestly believes he's doing something good here, and desires to keep doing that. I understand some socks coming into edit war over a POV, but never to come in and fix references.. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• So by all means just let him stay unblocked? If you can not beat them, then let them edit? I think not, Tiptoety ^talk 07:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have someone who passionately wants to contribute and is improving the wiki. Where is the logic in fighting that? Their "crime" was running an unapproved bot, an issue long since resolved. Threads like these are likely the reason he didn't bother with an unblock request for the original account. People get so hung up on what you've once done that they just close their mind to the possibility that someone might be good for this project. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• In other words, from a technical standpoint, we can stop them, even if it means reverting after we catch a new sock. However, most people aren't going to want to revert the changes he makes, and it would be really counter-productive. We would be reverting good edits simply because he was once banned for something that is no longer an issue. We can help the situation with things other than blocks. We've not big stupid cavemen who can only hit things with their clubs. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked The value of anyone who abuses sock puppets is questionable. Jtrainor (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's an incredibly shallow view of the situation. This editor has been proven to be very valuable to the project, and has never once tried to hurt it. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked Simply because the accounts we know of haven't harmed the encyclopedia, doesn't mean that he hasn't done so. We don't if it's a good hands/bad hands scenario here. I just don't trust serial sockpuppeters. He was told what to do. He should be able to show he wants to be here enough that he would actually do what people asked him to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, are you even paying attention? There's no good hand/bad hand happening here at all. He's already stop using an unapproved bot, so there's no reason his original account should even be blocked at this point, other than the evasion of that original block. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• A checkuser was run, showed his accounts, and none of them were abusive, IIRC. This is a good contributor. No "bad hand" exists. I really don't understand how you could say this. "We don't know if it's a good hands/bad hands..."? Actually, we know more about him than others because a checkuser was run. Your argument of we don't know could apply to everyone, including you or me. Enigma ^message 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. I want to see him not sockpuppet for three months before I support an unblock. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 07:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock and find a mentor. Viridae^Talk 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• (EC)Even though I'm a Pro-Block Admin™, I support an unblock in this particular case. Yes, he socked, but was it malicious? Did he harm the encyclopedia? Did he attack someone? Three NO's, right? Then probably we shouldn't consider the block on his first account as permission to shoot on sight, and give him a benefit of doubt? I support unblocking AS, or probably his Lemmey account and his bot that was certainly useful. If there are still some problems with AS's behaviour, assinging him a mentor would be really more constructive than ritual "bad, bad sock" banhammering to death. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I concur heavily with MaxSem said above...Someone who have contributed for good of Wikipeida and hitherto done/does no harm, should not be demoralized by a indefinite block...Just my 2 cents -- Tinu Cherian - 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock, it seems as though the user is essentially constructive and a net positive. Prohibit any further use of sockpuppets by him. Everyking (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional unblock, the user needs to get a mentor and restrict himself to two accounts (one that doesn't do anything automatic, one that does (semi-)automated things with community approval). We do have stricter norms for bots than for non-automatic contributions (and for good reason), and the user has to accept that or we'll have to do without him. Kusma (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment just to say that I have noticed this user doing an extraordinary amount of helpful work with referencing on a wide range of articles lately. Skomorokh 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock. If its true he is a net positive, I see no reason we cannot allow him to edit. He needs guidance apparently, like others are pointing out. If this cannot be accomplished, then reblock. Synergy 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Leave blocked He has clearly demonstrated recently that he was still incapable of understanding the etiquette issue of editing other people's sandboxes, issues that contributed to his original block in February. Until he can demonstrate he understanbds why he was blocked, there is no point in leaving him unblocked. Circeus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed that is only an etiquette issue, not a violation of any policy or guideline. In fact with every edit, users are given a no-nonsense warning to the opposite effect: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I'm not convinced this is actionable (though other behavior might be). — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Per most of the above, I think, at this point an unblock would be a good idea, along with a mentor. SQL^{Query me!} 13:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I would like to be sure that any future bots this user is to run seek explicit approval before they are run as a condition of unblock. I remember now, that this user, appeared to think there was nothing wrong with running an unapproved bot, in order to lock a page at a specific revision. [7] Having dealt with this user in two out of three of his most recent socks, I don't think this is going to happen, however. SQL^{Query me!} 14:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Unblock Synergy took the words out of my mouth. Per Synergy. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Based on previous interaction, I'll say I'm somewhat skeptical that this user is going to be open to mentoring; but due to the fact they are trying to be of use, I'd support one more shot, based on the conditions above by Kusma and SQL. --barneca (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can almost guarantee that this user will not be open to mentoring, just look at the way he handled a request to have his username changed. He is not open to help, and more or less wants to do things his way or no way at all. Tiptoety ^talk 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock I see no major reason to leave the account indefinitely blocked, and in addition, the user is not community banned (at least, there is no discussion of a banning that I am aware of). Good arguments have been provided to unblock, and I agree with them. Give the user guidance and another chance: I've only seen good things from the AdultSwim account, and I was surprised to see it blocked. Acalamari 17:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Might I just add that this user has adamantly stated and thinks that there is nothing wrong with running a unapproved bot, what makes everyone think he is going to change? Tiptoety ^talk 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• And yet he's also stated that he's willing to follow our rules and improve how he handles these situations. Feeling that there is nothing wrong with the action isn't a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but acting upon those feelings is. Tiptoety ^talk 04:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Which he has not done. The only thing even close would be the block of Samuel, where he explains that he thought it was approved because it was the same task and code that was approved before. (see User talk:Samuel Pepys#WTF Mate)-- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. Unrepentant block-evading sockpuppeteer, come back when he has fixed those issues and shown a commitment to fix the other issues which led to the original block as well. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• A prime example of a drive-by admin who isn't paying attention to the discussion. He has already fixed the issues related to the original block. He has no other issues that would justify a block, and is only currently blocked because he didn't get his first account unblocked. Process wonkery caused by ignorant admins. Get off the damn war path, because you're not helping the wiki. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, that last part was a bit over the top. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked. As someonewho tried to cleanup the trail of destruction User:Samuel Pepys (who, lest we forget, returned as a sockpuppet to operate the bot which had already been blocked)left behind, I have no sympathy at all for this "good faith user's" ability to change. – iridescent 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've spot checked a bunch of Samuel's edits, and none of them so far have been bad. What edits are you referring to when you say "trail of destruction"? -- Ned Scott 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I seem to have found it. Seems he was editing user drafts, commenting out the ref tag to remove the page from the maintenance category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. From the comments on the talk page it seems he was able to update the bot to exclude user pages, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The bot itself was very useful, and that same code will likely be run again by someone, if not Lemmey/AS. Again, the only reason for the block of the bot is because of the ban evasion of the original account, which is now a non-issue. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Leave blocked - He may be constructive, but I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks. In addition to the original block for edit warring using a bot, LemmeyBOT was blocked twice for running unapproved tasks and AdultSwim was blocked for incivility, while I supported the unblock for that last block, his responses after being unblocked were less than encouraging. The fact that AdultSwim was created 2 years ago but only made a handful of edits before June is a bit worrying as well. Mr.Z-man 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Those are some very weak reasons to block someone indefinitely like this. If his bot was acting up, it gets the bot status removed. Problem solved. You just said yourself that there's no current reason to block AdultSwim for civility reasons. I've been blocked for civility-type reasons before, and I would hate to think you would endorse my banishment from the entire English Wikipedia for being human. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Basically what I meant was, he does have positive contributions, but he can't seem to go very long without ending up in some degree of trouble. Incivility is one thing, but there's also the edit warring bot, the unapproved bots, the sock puppetry, the fact that this last account looks like a sleeper account. I don't think the positive contributions he makes are worth all the extra trouble. The AGF view says that he's just a good editor with a complete inability to follow rules for more than a month or 2, but after so many block-evading sockpuppets, I'm not really able to AGF anymore, it looks like he's just trying to see how much he can get away with. Mr.Z-man 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Except that the behavior you cite has been shown and proven to improve over time. The very first block was for an unapproved revert bot. The next time he ran a bot he waited to get approval from BAG, worked with them, and was highly praised for the bot's work. Same with the edit warring. Like AS has said on his talk page, each time he comes back he makes a greater effort to improve, or as he puts it, each new account evolves and improves (or something like that). The last time we had a thread about him it was over a situation that he had already resolved with the other user. He had gotten blocked with the mindset that he might have caused that user great distress, and yet that same user came here to support his unblocking. I don't think it's fair to use something like that against him. The only issue that is continuing without "improvement" is the new accounts, which he's only making so that he can continue his positive contributions. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I never saw any of the constructive contributions Lemmey is said to have made. I only saw the contributions to ANI and related noticeboards, which while short of being disruptive or incivil were certainly confrontational and impolite. So, I don't think this is a simple case of a good-user-who-fell-foul-of-bot-and-then-sock-policy, and if unblocked I hope that any mentor would be aware of such concerns. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock I noticed that I've only been replying to comments, and haven't gotten to make my own shiny bold endorsement. Unblock per my statement on AS's talk page, and per my above comments. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• No unblock I might be able to forgive the other stuff, but not being a Checkuser-confirmed sock of a user who posted someone's personal information. Blueboy96 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• A mistake they made over two years ago. Do you have any evidence of postings of personal information since then? Any at all? -- Ned Scott 06:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked User:East718, the original blocking admin, if he would be willing to review the first block. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

East (I think it's East.. he seems to be on a script enforced block) replies. He says he supports an unblock, but advises us to wait a couple of weeks so that people can calm down. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. So he used multiple accounts. So what? Seems to be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Unblock and let him go on about his business here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AdultSwim

Found here: User talk:AdultSwim#Response. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We saw that same type of bullshit when Mitrebox got caught running a reversion bot. I see no indication he's changed, nor any indication of an apology for his actions, which he doesn't seem to even acknowledge were wrong. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is far more than just a "Oh, I was blocked for using a unapproved bot, so whats the big deal if I sock?". Just look at this users history, he has had two years to improve his behavior and yet here we are again. Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew, how about the fact that he never used a reversion bot after that? The next bot he used got full approval by BAG, and has been praised by several good editors in standing. That's a pretty damn good improvement. Tiptoety, your statement is even more absurd. You say he's had two years to improve his behavior, except that this current block has nothing to do with behavior. This is entirely dependent on block evasion of a block that is no longer an issue. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because we had no idea he was a sock. And I'll bet that he's probably going to be socking in the future. I will not support an unblock until he apologizes for everything he's done, admits that it was wrong, and then can prove he hasn't socked for three months. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible for anyone to prove that they have not been operating sockpuppets. Can you prove that you have not been operating socks? If you can't maybe you should be blocked too. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do operate a sockpuppet. Though, after looking over what I said, I agree- there's no way to completely confirm non-socking. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what was going on with the multiple accounts that were editing at the same time, but I would doubt he would make another account if he didn't need to (as in, making one so he could keep editing). The ones that were editing at the same time never crossed paths, and some were one-time use accounts (like LemmonBoy, who's existence was to simply post code for the bot). He's not creating accounts to support himself in a discussion, or to do some kind of good hand/bad hand front. If he's unblocked, which wouldn't hurt the wiki or the community at all, then he wouldn't need to make more accounts. Problem solved. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Asking people to prove they haven't done something is absurd, as I was saying above. Someone opposed unblocking because (paraphrase) "we don't know if there's a good hand/bad hand thing going on here." Well yeah, we don't. We also don't know if <insert random user here> is operating good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry. I view AS's sockpuppetry differently than I would someone who is operating multiple sockpuppets at the same time to try to sway consensus or disrupt in some other significant way. Anyway, east commented on his talk page. Enigma ^message 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

I got here late... Can someone explain to me just how he was "caught"? If there were no problems with him under the current account, why was anyone even looking? We tell people - even banned editors sometimes (though usually in those cases it's only brought up by their enemies in order to attempt to subvert an attempt to appeal the ban) that it's fine to come back and start editing again as long as they don't go back to the same bad behavior that got them blocked/banned. So what the hell? Maybe I'm just dense - I go to the talk page and see a sock template posted out of the blue with no evidence of any prior controversy. --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lemmey. –xeno (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave a shot at summarizing it on User talk:AdultSwim#Block summary, though I should point out that I'm supporting an unblock. Take it for what you will. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange set of sockpuppets

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Undercovergals, seems to have an obsession with feet, which rings a bell somehow. Anybody know of a sockpuppeteer that fits that profile? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Seasideplace had an obsession with bare feet, but it doesn't quite fit. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, probably who I'm thinking of. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Ceiling Cat

Resolved

 – Let's see...TenOfAllTrades nailed the underlying issue...No one is going to block Ceiling Cat...SandyGeorgia, nobody blocked Raul, that's an old block from before he usurped it...Guy and Duncan, relax guys...Did I cover all the main stuff? --barneca (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think so, thanks :-) I was so busy looking for a pet gorilla that I didn't read the block carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A user, Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Can someone delete her user-subpages that she created? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr.... am I missing something here. Apparently this is a legit sock of User:Raul654 Pedro :  Chat  11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be unblocked. He spammed only people he knows on IRC (e.g. Cream) or people he's associated with on-wiki (Sandy). Sceptre ^(talk) 11:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Sceptre (note, Sandy does not do IRC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The account was blocked in 2006, but it's missing it's unblock log. Given that Raul has used it since, the account is certainly unblocked. From what I remember, Raul usurped it before the time block logs moved, so this is the block log from the old account holder. When the account was usurped, the new account name will have been automatically unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that it doesn't show up in the block log though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that account is treating this site like MySpace (WP:NOT#MYSPACE), I don't see many actual article contributions to the enyclopedia. If it is a legit sock, it should be used constructively. I don't see anything constructive about that account. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly account, it's not hurting anyone, and it's rather amusing. Let's just leave Raul654 to whatever cat-related-humor he likes, eh? Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We usually do block such accounts which behave in this way. I hope this account is not going to be treated differently just because it is operated by Raul. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we? It seems accounts like Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs) have been here quite some time. - auburnpilot talk 14:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase, we usually block such accounts when they aren't operated by popular or influential editors. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. - auburnpilot talk 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)We usually block such accounts when they're created by editors who don't show any sign of wanting to contribute to the project. Generally, we grant more leeway to people who have voluntarily given hundreds or thousands of largely thankless free hours to working on the encyclopedia. If 99% of what Raul654 does here is constructive work to mantain and build this project, I'm not going to begrudge him the 1% of the time he spends on somewhat silly things that don't cause anyone any harm.

It's right there in the userpage policy:

The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.

Until such time as the account's activities become genuinely disruptive, there's no need to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If Raul had put the cat jokes on his own userpage would we even be having this conversation? Yes we don't akkow peopel to use Wikipedia as Myspace but we do allow editors a bit of fun if it does no harm. And Raul is an editor is he not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I personally don't care what Raul does with his Cat account. It doesn't seem particularly disruptive or harmful to me, and I'd just as soon close this thread and move on. It's a running joke, which I believe started on Talk:Main Page (at least that's where I first saw it).- auburnpilot talk 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen loads of accounts with similar edit histories blocked before. I'm not saying it should be blocked, but rather that double standards don't contribute to a positive atmosphere. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I only remember seeing editors with similar edit histories getting blocked (I might be wrong though, but I'd be disappointed if we did that). I really can't care less if editors create a secondary account for a joke, as long as it's not breaking any rule. Maybe someone could raise his concerns to Raul on the use of this sock, if they feel the need. (I can't believe I'm wasting my coffee break talking about this :)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There's not a double standard. Editors who primarily work to build the encyclopedia (like Raul654) are allowed to use (very small amounts of) project resources to have a little bit of harmless fun. People who come here to use us as a free webhost or MySpace substitute without any apparent intent to contribute to the encyclopedia are offered the choice to contribute or leave.

This is no different from the way things work in the offline world. If you're in the office and you take a fifteen minute coffee break in the afternoon to chat with the guy in the next cubicle before you go back to work, it's no problem. If you spend all day every day playing solitaire, drinking coffee, and wandering about the office having conversations, you're going to be asked to pack up your stuff and leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at first, I didn't even realise it was Raul, I just seen that account make an edit to a userpage that's on my watchlist with the edit description "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ"; which made me think an obvious troll (not saying it is a troll, but that's what it seemed like to me at first). Then checking the contributions, it seemed to me that it was created numerous subpages for no reason. The accounts that AubornPilot pointed out earlier, Gurch (talk · contribs)/Gurchzilla (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs)/Bishzilla (talk · contribs), actually all seem constructive, so there is no problem there, they are there to help with the encyclopedia, I don't see constructive with Ceiling Cat. Also someone called it a "silly account" - if any other account was caught doing that, a block indef would probably be coming their way. D.M.N. (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have accumulated a list of all the people that care, but unfortunately it was deleted as WP:CSD#A3... Guy (Help!) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow day at the office Guy? DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not especially. Why? Guy (Help!) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's jolly decent that you can edit Wikipedia at work. More employers should support voluntary work by their staff. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Want some vinegar for that chip? Or is your naturally acidic personality sufficient? Guy (Help!) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I don't falsify deletion debates when closing them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that please.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban of the cat. He's been...watching me. Friday (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sakes, what is Wiki coming to when I don't even realize Raul's cat left me a message, because someone else reverted the message, and I have to find out about it on WP:AN? What's next, do I have to step back through all the diffs on my talk page to find out when friends have left me fun messages? I can't believe someone blocked Raul's cat: is Bish next? We need to add a big cluestick to admin school, including some basic Wiki history. I think I feel a sock account coming on; I'm starting to feel left out without an animal account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No one has blocked it. Read the thread above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Wait. Why wasn't my talk vandalized? This account is clearly biased and needs to be blocked. /end joke. Synergy 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Maggot here, seriously, this Cat is too biased. At the very least, it needs to have a session with Therapist Cat... Lucifer (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ApprovedI concur with the diagnosis. Synergy 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we mark this thread closed? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I come across an edit by Ceiling Cat (talk · contribs) on my watchlist directed at several people's talkpages with "spam-like messages" with an edit summary "NEEDZ MAOR KATZ". I then checked it's block-log. Without even realising what the date said, it said the account had been blocked indefinitely, hence why I came here to request all the subpages deletion. It didn't even occur to me it was Raul's "cat" until someone mentioned it in this thread. D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We understand that :-) You did the right thing, but there is nothing more to do now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarified in the blog log [8].--chaser - t 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Treat him like anyone else and block the account. Accounts that don't exist to improve the encyclopedia and merely indulge in foolishness should be blocked, and the user should be warned on his or her main account to refrain from such behavior in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My sockpuppet account has done a little here and there to improve the Encyclopedia, but admittedly not much. On the other hand, it has certainly not disrupted the encyclopedia. But if we're looking to ban accounts, I suggest we start with people who have actively hurt the encyclopedia by driving away good users, or harassing admins based on a limited or nonexistent understanding of the facts surrounding their actions. In fact, I have one or two people in mind. Raul654 (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion is intriguing, Raul! Would you like to present a proposal? Everyking (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Lets put an end to it. Synergy 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I am touched by this blossoming Everaul654 friendship! El_C 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<- While I'm sure Raul's done more than enough to be allowed some indulgence, let's be at least a little serious here for a second. What's a new user meant to think, and indeed do, when she sees Raul's MOAR KATS efforts on the Main_Talk page? You've many friends in the project and therefore many, many talk pages on which to share the 4chan humour that will not cause confusion. Could you perhaps limit your self expression to just those situations which don't have the huge potential to confuse the newbies, Raul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.166.245 (talk • contribs)

lol -Pilotguy contact tower 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish to view a deleted article

Resolved

could someone here enable me to view the deleted article "List of Deus Ex machina examples" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deus_ex_machina_examples_%282nd_nomination%29

--Ted-m (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it--I just restored the article for review >.< --jonny-mt 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redeleted it under both CSD G1/A1 and common sense. We don't maintain blank pages in articlespace so non-admins can casually look over the history. If someone wants the content they can have it emailed to them. Daniel (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A fine idea when they have e-mail enabled--when they don't, it's kind of difficult. Leaving a blank, orphaned page in userspace for a short while seemed like a good compromise, but if you're in a rush, then you're in a rush! --jonny-mt 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost AfD

Resolved

 – mandatory short wikibreak/nap

Can anyone find the log that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Batts is currently in? I relisted it, then went to comment it out of the old log and add it to the new one - and I can't find it. It shows that it started on July 30, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old it's listed under the 29th... and I can't find it in either. Maybe I'm too tired. Tan ǀ 39 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: it is currently #3 on the 29th listing, but of course that may change. It occurred to me that maybe it just didn't get listed in the logs and DumBot dropped the ball... but then why would it be listed on /old at all? Weird... Tan ǀ 39 06:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it, I'm too tired. See y'all in the morning ;-) Tan ǀ 39 06:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, just do a whatlinkshere search for the AFD and you'll see that it's now at August 6th. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I moved it there after I found it. But you have a good point; use the "what links here" function. Thanks! Tan ǀ 39 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce#Notes

There seems to be an error in formatting here. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me – am I missing something? – iridescent 14:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone else rv the vandalism here. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:S.C.Ruffeyfan

User:S.C.Ruffeyfan is self-identifying as a minor. Is the information on his User page sufficiently vague, or should it be removed? Corvus cornix_talk 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty vague, I don't see much harm there. I'll leave him a note. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is an issue, then perhaps we need to look at userboxes like Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education#Students by schooling level. I think there are some age userboxes as well. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

New spammer

Various IP users have been editing the articles of corporate managers, adding the phrase "(name of article) is one of the best paid managers" and a link to a website. (Example diff: [9]) This has been reverted and blocked, but different IPs, all from Qwest Communications Denver, continue it. Maybe the link could be put on the spam blacklist? It's http://www.neumann-compensation.com/managers/salary/firstname-lastname. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other IPs were doing the same a few days ago. This one's be blocked and had all his edits reverted. Please report any more you find. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?

Even though the official name of this financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, the article has been renamed ABN Amro. Past and present subsidiaries are also being affected by this editing such as LaSalle Bank. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this move and the related naming question have been and are still being discussed at the article's talk page. If consensus emerges between interested editors to move it back, that can be done, but right now I don't see what else here is to investigate or what other administrative assistance is required. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are resolved by using the article talk page to gain consensus, not by trying to get admins to force a consensus to your preferred option. Minkythecat (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus there for the move in the first place, just people waving a disputed section of the MoS as if it trumps all. The company name is ABM AMRO according to the kamer van koophandel, but what a company calls itself and what the government calls it and what the regulator calls it are as nothing to the mighty MoS and its "no capitals" rule. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. I moved it back. ABN AMRO is a customer of mine, and Redvers is spot on: they self-identify as ABN AMRO and it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. A redirect is fine fomr the uncapitalised version, of course. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what is 'absurd' about it, but as a former ABN AMRO employee I can safely say that it's all capitalized. However, the North American regions of the bank are in fact ABN AMRO NA. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gidonb changed it back to "ABN Amro." I suggest that all administrators who agree with me that the company is officially ABN AMRO change it back and possibly lock the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I request that the article will be protected. We have just completed the longest possible procedure for name change and come to a clear community decision based on WP:MOSTM and WP:UCN. Steelbeard is of course welcome to differ in opinion, but should adhere to our policies just like everyone else. The discussion should be held at the talk page, not in the article or even here. For a name change the same procedure should be followed as the one just completed, if not a more rigorous one. Until then our peer decision, based on our policies, should be respected, whether we happen to like it or not. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I discovered the changes when they were also made later to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank. That's why I raised my objections later. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Our peer decision is binding across the board. It was done according to the best our best of procudures. It is a pitty that you wish to push your opinion through by force and edit wars. My request from the admins is that the decision will be restored and the article will be protected. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if there was no peer decision judging from the discussion in Talk:ABN AMRO as there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a consensus according to our policies. But if you believe there was no consensus, you could appeal against the decision of the closing admin. Please restore his/her decision until your appeal is heard, because what you are now doing is bullying Wikipedia through editwars. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the "consensus" was done behind our back and by the time I found out about it, it was too late. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly impressed that JzG has moved it back to his prefered version and locked it in place, but in the grand scheme of things, due to the magic of redirects, it isn't a critical issue. Why not reopen the discussion, and make a final decision then? It does look like the previous discussion was lightly attended, and might benefit from broader input. Any particular reason, Steelbeard1, to assume bad faith and consider this "behind your back", when it took place on the talk page of the article in question? Any particular reason, JzG, that it was critical to change it again first, and then lock it, rather than just lock it in the wrong version? --barneca (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, I entered the fray after changes were made to the Bank of America and LaSalle Bank articles which I closely monitor as I am a customer. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that already. Doesn't really answer my question, though. --barneca (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward, really: I have emails from the company's employees, the email footer is capitalised ABN AMRO. The company's website is also consistently (from what parts of it I've seen) capitalised ABN AMRO. If John Smith comes here and says that actually it's John Smyth we don't tell him he is wrong because the BBC spell it Smith, we put it right and then perhaps put a note in that it's sometimes spelled Smith. Here I think we have a piece of overzealous application of MOS, looking at sources followed on from the assertion that MOS says not to capitalise. Well, MOS is a general guideline but in the end we should (and always do, where I've seen) go with how the subject self-identifies. We don't go through the article on John Wayne changing all references to Wayne to Morrison, and we certainly don't change the many films to say they starred Marion Morrison. If the bank self-identifies in all-caps, and there has been no evidence presented that it does not, then that is surely how we should primarily identify it. The alleged "consensus" looks to me to be a brief discussion between a few users with a like POV, none of them on the face of it much active on banks or the Netherlands business communtiy in general. Anyway, I took my usual simplistic view, I went to http://www.abnamro.com/ and looked how they spell it there, and since that agreed with what I've seen on communications from the firm, that should be the default unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise. By which I mean a better reason than some generalised house style guideline. I thought that was pretty reaosable myself, but maybe not, who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I agree it should be ABN AMRO. If the talk page of that article ever rises back up above it's current level of discourse, I may comment there to that point. My problem is, we usually don't revert good faith editors we disagree with, and then lock the article. That's basically saying to the other editor, "I win, because mine's bigger than yours." There are several people on that talk page who (incorrectly, IMHO) think it should be ABN Amro. They have their reasons. FWIW, there actually was something of a consensus to make the move; it wasn't done sneakily, behind someone's back. If the wrong decision was made, argue that consensus can change, reopen the discussion. If you win, great. If you lose, take it like a man and move on. But by changing it then locking it, you've probably just done your small part to ensure that User:gidonb, and the rest of the people that honestly disagree with you, think that admins can do whatever they want on an article, and everyone else's job is to sit there and take it. --barneca (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Guy is being Guy again. Why bother to reach consensus when you can bring out the big 'ol tools and clobber the opposition into senselessness. Also, Guy volunteered that ABN AMRO/Amro is his customer but fobbed off the invitation for him to disqualify himself due to WP:COI as 'absurd'. What is absurd about disengaging when you have a direct financial interest in a topic? Poorly played. Ronnotel (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it classy; "Guy being Guy" deosn't help. The COI thing is a bit of a red herring; I seriously doubt Guy has some kind of bizarre financial interest in keeping it spelled AMRO. --barneca (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec] It's certainly something of a stretch, claiming WP:COI on the name because the company is a customer of my employer! In any case, WP:BRD - they boldly moved it, I reverted, the problem really started when they simply moved it back again. There really is no sense in leaving something in a state we know for a fact to be wrong just for the sake of form, especially when form here demands that the change be reverted, but the uncapitalisers refused to accept that. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state unequivocally that I do not suspect Guy of taking cash payments for his defense of ABN AMRO's corporate logo (I wish it were that easy). If I left anyone with such a notion then I apologize profusely. However, having a close association with a subject, such as customer/vendor, in my mind is usually a good reason to steer clear. Ronnotel (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, replying to Guy) They didn't boldly move it; they moved it after discussion. And nowhere in BRD do I see "use your admin tools to lock it at your prefered title". If User:gidonb had found an admin that agreed with his position first, would you have been happy if they locked the article at Amro? This is a content dispute; like all content disputes, it's a serious pain in the ass. Editors have to deal with content disputes every day. I don't enjoy them, and it's one of the reasons I don't contribute content much at all. But I'm pretty sure if we do want to wade into a content dispute we're not supposed to use our admin tools to get our way in one, even if we're sure we're right. But I'm making the same point for the third time now, I'm evidently not getting through, so I'll go find another windmill to tilt. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is nugatory and based on stylistic not factual points. And I have absolutely no tangible connection to ABN AMRO, other than the fact that as a mail admin I sometimes have to diagnose mail issues between us and them. It's not in any way a conflict, it's really rather silly to paint it as such. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens with this (and I believe Guy has this one right based on his websearching and the company's self-labelling), the article needs to be updated to be consistent throughout. Either the title (and every subsequent mention of the title in the article) needs to be ABN AMRO or it needs to be ABN Amro. Not both. Keeper ǀ 76 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I think the issue comes from the fact that Amsterdam and Rotterdam merged to form "Amro" (intercapping not much in fashion then, maybe), and some have continued to use that capitalisation. Amro is right for that (historical) bank, but the present bank styles itself ABN AMRO. Or rather Fortis-RBS-Santander :-) So we need to be careful about the exact context. Oh, another example where MOS conflicts with the self-identificaiton: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And I think that one is fatuous, but I still go with it per self-identification. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I of course am watching this with great interest, as it's not just a matter of the redirect vs. article question, it's also a matter of how the articles referrring to the firm capitalise the firm name. Some of you may know that my favourite corporate organization wishes that it be referred to in all capitals, but some blockheads insist that it be known as Lego instead. OK, they're not really blockheads, I just wanted to work that bad pun in... However, I do have to wonder why this is here, it seems a content dispute. Well, except for the edit warring and protection and stuff. Oh, bonus points for using "nugatory" in a sentence! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's self-evident that almost any edit-war over whether a particular phrase should use capitals or minuscule type is WP:LAME, and yet with one disagreement that I'm involved in, I do wonder if some of our otherwise diligent editors ever read WP:MOSCAPS as applying to their particular walled garden. For me, common sense says that if the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines don't say that corporations known by all-caps versions should be in all caps, then it is the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines that are wrong. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the following in Talk:ABN AMRO. This dispute is getting to be almost as long as the "The/the Beatles" dispute which flares up occasionally in Talk:The Beatles. The difference is that in the Beatle dispute (note that I'm using this as an adjective, not a noun), it split the Beatle Wikipedia community down the middle with absolutely no consensus. The noun "The Beatles" continues to prevail in all Wikipedia article related to The Beatles. The difference in this dispute is that all parties familiar with ABN AMRO as a financial institution are united in using that company's legal name in all-capital letters. The opponents--let me break for a moment to say that the term anal retentive is not supposed to be an insult but fits perfectly the behavior of obsessive "by the book" editors who follow the Wikipedia MOS as a Holy Bible not to be questioned--are not familiar with ABN AMRO at all but wish to impose their naming conventions on everything else despite what they call themselves. When this editor reported the ABN AMRO editing dispute in the Administrators' Notebook, the ABN AMRO article name was restored and subsequently locked with nearly all the ABN AMRO references in all-caps restored. That's because a key administrator who locked the article happens to have ABN AMRO as a client in his day job. I've requested a re-evaulation of the MOS in cases like this in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam blacklist at Bramson ORT College

I'm trying to put a db-copyvio tag on Bramson ORT College since it's a copyvio from www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NY/Bramson_ORT_College.html, but I keep getting a spam blacklist warning. I've tried removing all links from the page, and even took the http:// off of the front of the URL that it was copied from, but it won't let me save the page. Could some kind admin please delete the page as a copyvio? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the stateuniversity.com link, apparently, since that wouldn't let me report here until I removed the http://, I wonder why it wouldn't let me do that on the article page? Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Spam blacklist. Specifically, on m:Spam blacklist. The discussion can be found ]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com here]. If you definitely need it, please show how provides information that isn't better served by other sites as it's most definitely not a primary source on anything. Sasquatch t|c 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well from what Corvus is saying I don't think he wants to use it as a source, just as a required parameter in {{db-copyvio}}. I've had a quick look at the article, and it looks like at some point in the past it was just a stub and not a copyvio. Is there any reason you couldn't revert to a pre-copyvio state? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to the pre-copyvio stage, circa 2006. Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My attempt at reverting to the pre-copyvio version has been reverted by User:Alansohn. I've re-reverted him and left a note on his Talk page to please read this. Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not question that stateuniversity.com is on the spam blacklist. The problem is that the stateuniversity.com link used to justify the WP:COPYVIO claim specifies that the "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". Stateuniversity.com appears to have copied material from Wikipedia, not vice versa, nor does the source used to justify the copyvio match all of the material removed. I will also point out that your latest edit still removes reliably sourced material as well as an infobox. A clearer case of the exact details of the alleged copyvio needs to be made. Per WP:COPYVIO, a revert to a previous version should only be done if "all [emphasis in original] of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement". As this is not the case, only the material that is in violation should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn wants to revert the copyvio again, claiming my justification for the removal of the copyright violation isn't appropriate. I will not revert him again if he reverts me. If he wants to take responsibility for having a copyright violation here, then so be it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify -- and I would appreciate some admin guidance on this issue -- it appears that Stateuniversity.com has copied text from Wikipedia. The page in question at stateuniversity.com says flat out that "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". The fact that there is overlap between the page at stateuniversity.com and the Bramson ORT College article is not evidence of a WP:COPYVIO. As I do not own the article, I cannot take responsibility for what is there, other than to try to add the sources that the article needs. My primary question is does stateuniversity.com constitute evidence of a copyright violation? Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is pretty vague as to eaxctly what content is courtesy of wikipedia, all that section, part of it, buts elsewhere or what? But since it provides no link back, adds additional information of it's own (and thus is a derivative) and doesn't give any authorship details it may well be a copyvio itself, and so we shouldn't link to it per WP:EL. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the DRV ongoing suggested some maybe copied from here, I haven't looked closely but this maybe a case of stateuniversity reusing content from here which was a copyvio from elsewhere anyway... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Internet Archive, it looks like they copied from us. The content in question appeared in Wikipedia on January 17, 2007, while the Internet Archive copies for January 9, 2007, and January 24, 2007 do not have this content. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM's indefinite protections

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a number of indefinite protections currently in place. In light of his inactivity, they should probably be reviewed and either evaluated individually or mass unprotected (and let RFPP sort it out). Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just review them and unprotect where necessary - Don't just mass unprotect them. Look at each article and review it on its own merits. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with an individual review is that CSCWEM has never set an expiry on hundreds of protections, dating back months to years. I'm not sure an individual review is really feasible. - auburnpilot talk 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There often wasn't much rationale given. For example 01:20, June 12, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) protected T-Pain ‎ (libel concerns [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]). –xeno (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mass unprotect them without looking at each one. To save any duplication of work, I believe I've already sorted out all his protections of IP talk pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned one seems to be a result of typical (albeit persistent) school-boy vandalism. –xeno (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask admins reviewing these protections, that, if they decide protection is still necessary, that they unprotect and then reprotect, with a rationale. This will ensure that editors will know why an article is protected, and that an active admin is listed as having done the protection. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• The way I see it, anything that's been semi'd for more than a year, and probably even more than say, 6 months, should be unprotected and no review would really be necessary. Am I wrong? –xeno (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm indifferent toward other pages, I do agree that articles should almost never be protected forever. However, before rushing to judgment, consider that the majority of these were probably protected prior to the new feature which allows an expiration date to be set, and/or before CSCWEM was aware of this feature. — CharlotteWebb 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can help a little bit there. The expiry date feature debuted last April (so April 2007), so yes they were after that. I'm sure he was aware of the feature (an extra box on the protection page gets your attention), but I don't believe he ever used it (ever, I can't tell you why). So, the majority were done after expiry dates were added. -Royalguard11(T) 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An examination of the older IP talk protections leaves little doubt about this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with CharlotteWebb. I am hesitant to do a mass unprotect, but suggest that it be taken one article at a time. There are likely a few legitimate protections in there, to start; as well, if they've been on some form of protection for an extended period without complaint, then there is no rush to unprotect without a thorough review. I am willing to work on some of these starting later this evening. Risker (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as we start looking into these, now that he isn't around to answer queries. –xeno (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of at least one page on my watchlist which has been indef-protected for eight months now, after going through *ten* separate protect/unprotect cycles in an 11 month period last year, and another that has been unprotected for a total of about five days since March 2007, for extreme BLP violations. If you are unprotecting a page, make sure that it's not a vandalism magnet. I know this would appear to be common-sense advice, but sometimes, the rush to unprotect everything overrides common sense, and it's why each page needs to be judged by a human, individually, rather than mass-reverted by an automated process. Horologium (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started reviewing his protection log starting with 1/1/08 and moving forward from there. While several of the articles I've encountered thusfar are heavily trafficked, and at least one was the target of a dedicated vandal, I haven't seen enough to justify indefinite semi-protection. I'm going to watchlist the more high-risk articles, just to monitor them for scurrilous activity. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I won't name the pages (WP:BEANS), the first page I mentioned above has had its *talk* page vandalized by frustrated IP vandals who want to mess with the article; the second one was the subject of an arbitration case, and four of the ten top editors of the page have been indef-blocked or banned (although not all as a result of activities on that page). Neither of these pages were last protected by CSCWEM, but my concern still holds. Please look at the protection log before unprotecting anything, as even lightly trafficked pages can become much busier if they are unprotected. Horologium (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To prevent duplication of effort, does anyone have a list of articles to review beyond just the protect log? Or, at least, a list of articles that have been reviewed? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeno says he has done IP talk pages, Caknuck is working on the list starting 1/1/08 and going forward. If you want, you can start with 31 Dec 07 and go backward, and then leave a message here when anyone stops and I will do whatever is left when I get to my other computer. Risker (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A mass unprotect would not be the best way; some may still legitimately need protection. Case by case is the way to go. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple comments here (and then I'll disappear from AN since I tend to avoid it). First, you need to look before 1/1/08. Like start at June 07 at least (yes, they go back that long). That's where all the very long term ones are. You can use Special:Protectedpages too to find older ones. Just look at any bio articles, most of them are his. If someone wants me to look through them I can but it seems that people just end up mad when I jump in myself. (Ok, I'm disappearing now) -Royalguard11(T) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just picked 1/1/08 as a logical, but arbitrary starting point. I didn't know how many others would be joining in, so I figured declaring a starting point would be the wise thing to do to avoid duplication of work. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have finished checking the articles protected by CSCWEM between January and March. Has anybody started looking at the older ones? On a different note I left four pages with the indef protection on -- Dora the Explorer, Teletubbies, Sexual attraction and Harry Potter -- due to histories of extensive vandalism and cycling between protection and unprotection. Feel free to comment on my choices below. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I started with his oldest protections, back in April 2006, and got as far as completing June 5/06. There were a significant number of IP user and user talk pages in amongst these; protection has been lifted on all of them (I left move protection on the talk pages where it existed, it won't do any harm). I did not bother unprotecting deleted articles or redirects, as they are doing no harm as they are (most of them would qualify for CSD if they were recreated anyway). None of the protections he placed on currently existing articles were still in place, although some of the articles have been reprotected since then. I will continue tomorrow where I left off, although if someone else wants to continue from here, just leave a message in this thread to say where you have left off. Risker (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Smoking Gun article says Bruce Ivins frequently edited Kappa Kappa Gamma

Article can be found here. Just a heads up that the article may get more attention. Ever since I added some information in it about 6 months ago, I've had KKG watchlisted. I have not seen this User:jimmyflathead mentioned in the Smoking Gun. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at his contribution history shows that he was active on the talk page up until September, 2007 (His last three edits on Wikipedia were to that page), but his last edit to the article itself was in July, 2006. I suspect that that account will not be used any more, since there is a well-publicized investigation surrounding it. Horologium (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, no one from law enforcement seems to have asked for Jimmyflathead's IP address. Although if he gave out the yahoo address on the talk page [10], there would have been no need. Interesting connection. Thatcher 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure nobody from law enforcement has made such a request? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, at least not back when it would have done any good. Thatcher 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please close a move request?

Yeah, it's a formality, but at Talk:New York we've had a ridiculously large discussion on moving the page that seems to have devolved into "no consensus". (This is because there's, well, no consensus. In fact, most everyone involved realized yesterday we had no chance at getting any sort of consensus.) Could an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion officially? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. It took me five minutes just to figure out where that all started. Anyway, it's closed, hopefully if that gets brought up again it'll be less cluttered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO or ABN Amro?

Even though the official name of this financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, the article has been renamed ABN Amro. Past and present subsidiaries are also being affected by this editing such as LaSalle Bank. Please investigate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this move and the related naming question have been and are still being discussed at the article's talk page. If consensus emerges between interested editors to move it back, that can be done, but right now I don't see what else here is to investigate or what other administrative assistance is required. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are resolved by using the article talk page to gain consensus, not by trying to get admins to force a consensus to your preferred option. Minkythecat (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus there for the move in the first place, just people waving a disputed section of the MoS as if it trumps all. The company name is ABM AMRO according to the kamer van koophandel, but what a company calls itself and what the government calls it and what the regulator calls it are as nothing to the mighty MoS and its "no capitals" rule. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. I moved it back. ABN AMRO is a customer of mine, and Redvers is spot on: they self-identify as ABN AMRO and it's not for us to tell them they are wrong. A redirect is fine fomr the uncapitalised version, of course. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what is 'absurd' about it, but as a former ABN AMRO employee I can safely say that it's all capitalized. However, the North American regions of the bank are in fact ABN AMRO NA. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gidonb changed it back to "ABN Amro." I suggest that all administrators who agree with me that the company is officially ABN AMRO change it back and possibly lock the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I request that the article will be protected. We have just completed the longest possible procedure for name change and come to a clear community decision based on WP:MOSTM and WP:UCN. Steelbeard is of course welcome to differ in opinion, but should adhere to our policies just like everyone else. The discussion should be held at the talk page, not in the article or even here. For a name change the same procedure should be followed as the one just completed, if not a more rigorous one. Until then our peer decision, based on our policies, should be respected, whether we happen to like it or not. gidonb (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I discovered the changes when they were also made later to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank. That's why I raised my objections later. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Our peer decision is binding across the board. It was done according to the best our best of procudures. It is a pitty that you wish to push your opinion through by force and edit wars. My request from the admins is that the decision will be restored and the article will be protected. gidonb (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if there was no peer decision judging from the discussion in Talk:ABN AMRO as there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a consensus according to our policies. But if you believe there was no consensus, you could appeal against the decision of the closing admin. Please restore his/her decision until your appeal is heard, because what you are now doing is bullying Wikipedia through editwars. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the "consensus" was done behind our back and by the time I found out about it, it was too late. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly impressed that JzG has moved it back to his prefered version and locked it in place, but in the grand scheme of things, due to the magic of redirects, it isn't a critical issue. Why not reopen the discussion, and make a final decision then? It does look like the previous discussion was lightly attended, and might benefit from broader input. Any particular reason, Steelbeard1, to assume bad faith and consider this "behind your back", when it took place on the talk page of the article in question? Any particular reason, JzG, that it was critical to change it again first, and then lock it, rather than just lock it in the wrong version? --barneca (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, I entered the fray after changes were made to the Bank of America and LaSalle Bank articles which I closely monitor as I am a customer. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that already. Doesn't really answer my question, though. --barneca (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward, really: I have emails from the company's employees, the email footer is capitalised ABN AMRO. The company's website is also consistently (from what parts of it I've seen) capitalised ABN AMRO. If John Smith comes here and says that actually it's John Smyth we don't tell him he is wrong because the BBC spell it Smith, we put it right and then perhaps put a note in that it's sometimes spelled Smith. Here I think we have a piece of overzealous application of MOS, looking at sources followed on from the assertion that MOS says not to capitalise. Well, MOS is a general guideline but in the end we should (and always do, where I've seen) go with how the subject self-identifies. We don't go through the article on John Wayne changing all references to Wayne to Morrison, and we certainly don't change the many films to say they starred Marion Morrison. If the bank self-identifies in all-caps, and there has been no evidence presented that it does not, then that is surely how we should primarily identify it. The alleged "consensus" looks to me to be a brief discussion between a few users with a like POV, none of them on the face of it much active on banks or the Netherlands business communtiy in general. Anyway, I took my usual simplistic view, I went to http://www.abnamro.com/ and looked how they spell it there, and since that agreed with what I've seen on communications from the firm, that should be the default unless we have a really good reason to do otherwise. By which I mean a better reason than some generalised house style guideline. I thought that was pretty reaosable myself, but maybe not, who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I agree it should be ABN AMRO. If the talk page of that article ever rises back up above it's current level of discourse, I may comment there to that point. My problem is, we usually don't revert good faith editors we disagree with, and then lock the article. That's basically saying to the other editor, "I win, because mine's bigger than yours." There are several people on that talk page who (incorrectly, IMHO) think it should be ABN Amro. They have their reasons. FWIW, there actually was something of a consensus to make the move; it wasn't done sneakily, behind someone's back. If the wrong decision was made, argue that consensus can change, reopen the discussion. If you win, great. If you lose, take it like a man and move on. But by changing it then locking it, you've probably just done your small part to ensure that User:gidonb, and the rest of the people that honestly disagree with you, think that admins can do whatever they want on an article, and everyone else's job is to sit there and take it. --barneca (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like Guy is being Guy again. Why bother to reach consensus when you can bring out the big 'ol tools and clobber the opposition into senselessness. Also, Guy volunteered that ABN AMRO/Amro is his customer but fobbed off the invitation for him to disqualify himself due to WP:COI as 'absurd'. What is absurd about disengaging when you have a direct financial interest in a topic? Poorly played. Ronnotel (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep it classy; "Guy being Guy" deosn't help. The COI thing is a bit of a red herring; I seriously doubt Guy has some kind of bizarre financial interest in keeping it spelled AMRO. --barneca (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[ec] It's certainly something of a stretch, claiming WP:COI on the name because the company is a customer of my employer! In any case, WP:BRD - they boldly moved it, I reverted, the problem really started when they simply moved it back again. There really is no sense in leaving something in a state we know for a fact to be wrong just for the sake of form, especially when form here demands that the change be reverted, but the uncapitalisers refused to accept that. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state unequivocally that I do not suspect Guy of taking cash payments for his defense of ABN AMRO's corporate logo (I wish it were that easy). If I left anyone with such a notion then I apologize profusely. However, having a close association with a subject, such as customer/vendor, in my mind is usually a good reason to steer clear. Ronnotel (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, replying to Guy) They didn't boldly move it; they moved it after discussion. And nowhere in BRD do I see "use your admin tools to lock it at your prefered title". If User:gidonb had found an admin that agreed with his position first, would you have been happy if they locked the article at Amro? This is a content dispute; like all content disputes, it's a serious pain in the ass. Editors have to deal with content disputes every day. I don't enjoy them, and it's one of the reasons I don't contribute content much at all. But I'm pretty sure if we do want to wade into a content dispute we're not supposed to use our admin tools to get our way in one, even if we're sure we're right. But I'm making the same point for the third time now, I'm evidently not getting through, so I'll go find another windmill to tilt. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is nugatory and based on stylistic not factual points. And I have absolutely no tangible connection to ABN AMRO, other than the fact that as a mail admin I sometimes have to diagnose mail issues between us and them. It's not in any way a conflict, it's really rather silly to paint it as such. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens with this (and I believe Guy has this one right based on his websearching and the company's self-labelling), the article needs to be updated to be consistent throughout. Either the title (and every subsequent mention of the title in the article) needs to be ABN AMRO or it needs to be ABN Amro. Not both. Keeper ǀ 76 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I think the issue comes from the fact that Amsterdam and Rotterdam merged to form "Amro" (intercapping not much in fashion then, maybe), and some have continued to use that capitalisation. Amro is right for that (historical) bank, but the present bank styles itself ABN AMRO. Or rather Fortis-RBS-Santander :-) So we need to be careful about the exact context. Oh, another example where MOS conflicts with the self-identificaiton: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. And I think that one is fatuous, but I still go with it per self-identification. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I of course am watching this with great interest, as it's not just a matter of the redirect vs. article question, it's also a matter of how the articles referrring to the firm capitalise the firm name. Some of you may know that my favourite corporate organization wishes that it be referred to in all capitals, but some blockheads insist that it be known as Lego instead. OK, they're not really blockheads, I just wanted to work that bad pun in... However, I do have to wonder why this is here, it seems a content dispute. Well, except for the edit warring and protection and stuff. Oh, bonus points for using "nugatory" in a sentence! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's self-evident that almost any edit-war over whether a particular phrase should use capitals or minuscule type is WP:LAME, and yet with one disagreement that I'm involved in, I do wonder if some of our otherwise diligent editors ever read WP:MOSCAPS as applying to their particular walled garden. For me, common sense says that if the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines don't say that corporations known by all-caps versions should be in all caps, then it is the Manual of Style and the naming guidelines that are wrong. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the following in Talk:ABN AMRO. This dispute is getting to be almost as long as the "The/the Beatles" dispute which flares up occasionally in Talk:The Beatles. The difference is that in the Beatle dispute (note that I'm using this as an adjective, not a noun), it split the Beatle Wikipedia community down the middle with absolutely no consensus. The noun "The Beatles" continues to prevail in all Wikipedia article related to The Beatles. The difference in this dispute is that all parties familiar with ABN AMRO as a financial institution are united in using that company's legal name in all-capital letters. The opponents--let me break for a moment to say that the term anal retentive is not supposed to be an insult but fits perfectly the behavior of obsessive "by the book" editors who follow the Wikipedia MOS as a Holy Bible not to be questioned--are not familiar with ABN AMRO at all but wish to impose their naming conventions on everything else despite what they call themselves. When this editor reported the ABN AMRO editing dispute in the Administrators' Notebook, the ABN AMRO article name was restored and subsequently locked with nearly all the ABN AMRO references in all-caps restored. That's because a key administrator who locked the article happens to have ABN AMRO as a client in his day job. I've requested a re-evaulation of the MOS in cases like this in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters). Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam blacklist at Bramson ORT College

I'm trying to put a db-copyvio tag on Bramson ORT College since it's a copyvio from www.stateuniversity.com/universities/NY/Bramson_ORT_College.html, but I keep getting a spam blacklist warning. I've tried removing all links from the page, and even took the http:// off of the front of the URL that it was copied from, but it won't let me save the page. Could some kind admin please delete the page as a copyvio? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the stateuniversity.com link, apparently, since that wouldn't let me report here until I removed the http://, I wonder why it wouldn't let me do that on the article page? Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Spam blacklist. Specifically, on m:Spam blacklist. The discussion can be found ]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#stateuniversity.com here]. If you definitely need it, please show how provides information that isn't better served by other sites as it's most definitely not a primary source on anything. Sasquatch t|c 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well from what Corvus is saying I don't think he wants to use it as a source, just as a required parameter in {{db-copyvio}}. I've had a quick look at the article, and it looks like at some point in the past it was just a stub and not a copyvio. Is there any reason you couldn't revert to a pre-copyvio state? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to the pre-copyvio stage, circa 2006. Corvus cornix_talk 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My attempt at reverting to the pre-copyvio version has been reverted by User:Alansohn. I've re-reverted him and left a note on his Talk page to please read this. Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not question that stateuniversity.com is on the spam blacklist. The problem is that the stateuniversity.com link used to justify the WP:COPYVIO claim specifies that the "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". Stateuniversity.com appears to have copied material from Wikipedia, not vice versa, nor does the source used to justify the copyvio match all of the material removed. I will also point out that your latest edit still removes reliably sourced material as well as an infobox. A clearer case of the exact details of the alleged copyvio needs to be made. Per WP:COPYVIO, a revert to a previous version should only be done if "all [emphasis in original] of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement". As this is not the case, only the material that is in violation should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn wants to revert the copyvio again, claiming my justification for the removal of the copyright violation isn't appropriate. I will not revert him again if he reverts me. If he wants to take responsibility for having a copyright violation here, then so be it. Corvus cornix_talk 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify -- and I would appreciate some admin guidance on this issue -- it appears that Stateuniversity.com has copied text from Wikipedia. The page in question at stateuniversity.com says flat out that "Summary content courtesy of Wikipedia". The fact that there is overlap between the page at stateuniversity.com and the Bramson ORT College article is not evidence of a WP:COPYVIO. As I do not own the article, I cannot take responsibility for what is there, other than to try to add the sources that the article needs. My primary question is does stateuniversity.com constitute evidence of a copyright violation? Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is pretty vague as to eaxctly what content is courtesy of wikipedia, all that section, part of it, buts elsewhere or what? But since it provides no link back, adds additional information of it's own (and thus is a derivative) and doesn't give any authorship details it may well be a copyvio itself, and so we shouldn't link to it per WP:EL. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the DRV ongoing suggested some maybe copied from here, I haven't looked closely but this maybe a case of stateuniversity reusing content from here which was a copyvio from elsewhere anyway... --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Internet Archive, it looks like they copied from us. The content in question appeared in Wikipedia on January 17, 2007, while the Internet Archive copies for January 9, 2007, and January 24, 2007 do not have this content. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM's indefinite protections

Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a number of indefinite protections currently in place. In light of his inactivity, they should probably be reviewed and either evaluated individually or mass unprotected (and let RFPP sort it out). Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just review them and unprotect where necessary - Don't just mass unprotect them. Look at each article and review it on its own merits. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with an individual review is that CSCWEM has never set an expiry on hundreds of protections, dating back months to years. I'm not sure an individual review is really feasible. - auburnpilot talk 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There often wasn't much rationale given. For example 01:20, June 12, 2007 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) protected T-Pain ‎ (libel concerns [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]). –xeno (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mass unprotect them without looking at each one. To save any duplication of work, I believe I've already sorted out all his protections of IP talk pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above mentioned one seems to be a result of typical (albeit persistent) school-boy vandalism. –xeno (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask admins reviewing these protections, that, if they decide protection is still necessary, that they unprotect and then reprotect, with a rationale. This will ensure that editors will know why an article is protected, and that an active admin is listed as having done the protection. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• The way I see it, anything that's been semi'd for more than a year, and probably even more than say, 6 months, should be unprotected and no review would really be necessary. Am I wrong? –xeno (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm indifferent toward other pages, I do agree that articles should almost never be protected forever. However, before rushing to judgment, consider that the majority of these were probably protected prior to the new feature which allows an expiration date to be set, and/or before CSCWEM was aware of this feature. — CharlotteWebb 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can help a little bit there. The expiry date feature debuted last April (so April 2007), so yes they were after that. I'm sure he was aware of the feature (an extra box on the protection page gets your attention), but I don't believe he ever used it (ever, I can't tell you why). So, the majority were done after expiry dates were added. -Royalguard11(T) 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An examination of the older IP talk protections leaves little doubt about this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with CharlotteWebb. I am hesitant to do a mass unprotect, but suggest that it be taken one article at a time. There are likely a few legitimate protections in there, to start; as well, if they've been on some form of protection for an extended period without complaint, then there is no rush to unprotect without a thorough review. I am willing to work on some of these starting later this evening. Risker (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as we start looking into these, now that he isn't around to answer queries. –xeno (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of at least one page on my watchlist which has been indef-protected for eight months now, after going through *ten* separate protect/unprotect cycles in an 11 month period last year, and another that has been unprotected for a total of about five days since March 2007, for extreme BLP violations. If you are unprotecting a page, make sure that it's not a vandalism magnet. I know this would appear to be common-sense advice, but sometimes, the rush to unprotect everything overrides common sense, and it's why each page needs to be judged by a human, individually, rather than mass-reverted by an automated process. Horologium (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started reviewing his protection log starting with 1/1/08 and moving forward from there. While several of the articles I've encountered thusfar are heavily trafficked, and at least one was the target of a dedicated vandal, I haven't seen enough to justify indefinite semi-protection. I'm going to watchlist the more high-risk articles, just to monitor them for scurrilous activity. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I won't name the pages (WP:BEANS), the first page I mentioned above has had its *talk* page vandalized by frustrated IP vandals who want to mess with the article; the second one was the subject of an arbitration case, and four of the ten top editors of the page have been indef-blocked or banned (although not all as a result of activities on that page). Neither of these pages were last protected by CSCWEM, but my concern still holds. Please look at the protection log before unprotecting anything, as even lightly trafficked pages can become much busier if they are unprotected. Horologium (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To prevent duplication of effort, does anyone have a list of articles to review beyond just the protect log? Or, at least, a list of articles that have been reviewed? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Xeno says he has done IP talk pages, Caknuck is working on the list starting 1/1/08 and going forward. If you want, you can start with 31 Dec 07 and go backward, and then leave a message here when anyone stops and I will do whatever is left when I get to my other computer. Risker (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A mass unprotect would not be the best way; some may still legitimately need protection. Case by case is the way to go. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple comments here (and then I'll disappear from AN since I tend to avoid it). First, you need to look before 1/1/08. Like start at June 07 at least (yes, they go back that long). That's where all the very long term ones are. You can use Special:Protectedpages too to find older ones. Just look at any bio articles, most of them are his. If someone wants me to look through them I can but it seems that people just end up mad when I jump in myself. (Ok, I'm disappearing now) -Royalguard11(T) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I just picked 1/1/08 as a logical, but arbitrary starting point. I didn't know how many others would be joining in, so I figured declaring a starting point would be the wise thing to do to avoid duplication of work. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have finished checking the articles protected by CSCWEM between January and March. Has anybody started looking at the older ones? On a different note I left four pages with the indef protection on -- Dora the Explorer, Teletubbies, Sexual attraction and Harry Potter -- due to histories of extensive vandalism and cycling between protection and unprotection. Feel free to comment on my choices below. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I started with his oldest protections, back in April 2006, and got as far as completing June 5/06. There were a significant number of IP user and user talk pages in amongst these; protection has been lifted on all of them (I left move protection on the talk pages where it existed, it won't do any harm). I did not bother unprotecting deleted articles or redirects, as they are doing no harm as they are (most of them would qualify for CSD if they were recreated anyway). None of the protections he placed on currently existing articles were still in place, although some of the articles have been reprotected since then. I will continue tomorrow where I left off, although if someone else wants to continue from here, just leave a message in this thread to say where you have left off. Risker (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Smoking Gun article says Bruce Ivins frequently edited Kappa Kappa Gamma

Article can be found here. Just a heads up that the article may get more attention. Ever since I added some information in it about 6 months ago, I've had KKG watchlisted. I have not seen this User:jimmyflathead mentioned in the Smoking Gun. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at his contribution history shows that he was active on the talk page up until September, 2007 (His last three edits on Wikipedia were to that page), but his last edit to the article itself was in July, 2006. I suspect that that account will not be used any more, since there is a well-publicized investigation surrounding it. Horologium (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, no one from law enforcement seems to have asked for Jimmyflathead's IP address. Although if he gave out the yahoo address on the talk page [11], there would have been no need. Interesting connection. Thatcher 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure nobody from law enforcement has made such a request? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, at least not back when it would have done any good. Thatcher 05:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please close a move request?

Yeah, it's a formality, but at Talk:New York we've had a ridiculously large discussion on moving the page that seems to have devolved into "no consensus". (This is because there's, well, no consensus. In fact, most everyone involved realized yesterday we had no chance at getting any sort of consensus.) Could an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion officially? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. It took me five minutes just to figure out where that all started. Anyway, it's closed, hopefully if that gets brought up again it'll be less cluttered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The walrus vandal

Resolved. Blocked by Tanthalas39. Keegan^talk 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They're now using Walrusman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which first vandalized the article back in January and never got a vandalism warning. Corvus cornix_talk 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a walrus vandal now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev and Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, an arbcom probation article, had seen massive changes by a single editor, User:Dilip rajeev, without any sort of consensus on the talk page. He replaced most of the article with POV statements and puts undue weight on reports such as the Schechthe report and in general put the article in worse shape than before. In fact these changes are against the consensus on the talk page, and I have left a warning and more comprehensive reason on why his edits are disruptive on User talk:Dilip rajeev but he had been oblivious to them. I have tried to revert the article back to its original condition but had been reverted by user:Dilip rajeev and an IP editor, whom I suspect to be also user:Dilip rajeev. I suggest a temporary block on user:Dilip rajeev and semi-protection on Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to stop the inflow of non-consensus edits, to make time for analysing his edits and create a consensus on which additions to include to ensure the NPOV nature of the article. Do correct me if I'm in the wrong place for this though. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have executed a 48 block on the Dilip rajeev account, and given my rationale on the users talkpage. I have not semi protected the article, as I hope the current editors can revert any vandalism while allowing good ip edits; if the ip "vandal" edits increase sprotection may be considered again (and perhaps a SSP report). I trust that editors will engage with Dilip rajeev, rather than blindly revert the edits, and see if any concerns might be better addressed. If this isn't the right place to bring this matter, you seem to have got lucky... 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

BenBurch comments on the recent suit against him for editing Wikipedia

This just showed up in my watch list; User:BenBurch I suggest ppl read it. (If this isn't the right notice board for this, feel free to move it!) --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs deletion and oversight. It's pretty strong stuff. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Reading through again to check whether it fully warrants oversight. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Under what condition for oversight does it (perhaps) meet?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it does; the other party instigated the matter (if BenBurch is to be believed - per AGF), meaning there will be public records, and BB did not give the RL name of the party. The offending edits are deleted, BB has retired, and I think we can all move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What condition did it even meet for deletion ??? Yes, it's strong, and includes information about a real-life legal case, but it doesn't evidently violate any of our policy that I could see. What gives? If you can articulate a policy problem with it, fine, but ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant oversight. However, the deletion was appropriate. We don't need strong records of legal action in the page history. If another admin disagrees, as always, I'm fine for it to be overturned, but I think we should just move on. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if deletion was necessary, but WP:BLP probably called at least for reverting or blanking it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any BLP related issues in the final deleted edit - a possibly sensitive name was removed by BenBurch himself before anyone asked him to, but that's it. Specifics please, on what is a BLP problem?

WP:LEGAL is all about "Don't threaten editors with lawsuits", which is not what happened here at all. BenBurch was sued (or more precisely, a restraining order filed for...), for Wikipedia activities. He reported on what happened, without including (as far as I see) any threats against anyone or any information which is private info about any participants. That someone in the community was sued is open knowledge - his report on what happened seems entirely appropriate here. How does deleting that info fall under any of our policies or help the community or project or encyclopedia? I don't see there being any point to deleting it, and though it's not "an abuse" of process or someone it seems to clearly have been a mistake that should be un-done... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's uncited contentious POV material about a living person. That's what BLP is all about, right? -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The online court records appear to support this as far as they go. I am betting that if we get the actual records (Original research I understand) that they will say the same as he said here. This did not sound contrived. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I posted that here because I thought people needed to READ it not DELETE it. It ought to be restored and protected. Geeze, guys. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think Ben deserves our congratulations. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've restored and reverted back to the last revision by Sarah. I'm not sure if the deletion was a mistake, but my actions are unsupported, so I'm happy to bow to the community. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I still don't see the statement. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (edit) Sorry, I see it, I am an idiot. Arkon (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the history, the last three edits before my reversion. Per WP:BLP, his edits should not be un-reverted. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be unreverted, too. It says a lot that others need to read, I think. But then IANAA. --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the user's original statement. It needs to be said. Enough with the fucking WP:BLP whining, Violet was a liar and any cursory search of google shows this to be the case. I recommend any and all assist in deterring Peter's vandalism. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to war with you; I undid your edit before you came here. My edits, however, are not vandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Peter, it isn't unsourced information, Ben Burch is a primary source. We need to stop censoring stuff that isn't a violation of our policies. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What Ben did was finally stand up to the pathetic whiners who bitch to OTRS, threaten to sue, and anything else just because they don't like the truth. Well the truth hurts, and this incident has galvanized my believe that we must be as apathetic as possible towards the subjects of our articles. WP:NPOV must and always will trump WP:BLP. What Ben has done is win one for the good guys. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, can you avoid describing the incident in terms this lurid? That does not help in any way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Are you saying his edits are NPOV? They aren't. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, for all external subjects, it isn't. However, when an editor, in good standing, is sued frivolously and has his name dragged through the mud on wiki, I think we owe him the courtesy of posting his vindication. It is the least we could do, considering I do not think WMF covered his attorney fees. It was Ben who stood up for WP:NPOV in the face of an unsavory, litigious character who wanted to POV push on her own article. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I realize that this incident involves Wikipedia, so of course, we're all interested and have opinions about it, but in any other case, we wouldn't allow anybody who had a personal encounter with another person to post a long screed about how terrible that person was on their userpage. There are forums for this sort of thing (Wikipedia Review or wherever), but this just isn't one of them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a screed, it is a statement that tells other editors to be bold and not be afraid of those who cry WP:BLP. Just because someone doesn't like the truth doesn't mean it should be removed. I will continue to revert any attempts to remove the very necessary statement on his userpage. I'm sick and fucking tired of people whining about WP:BLP, it is time someone stood for WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And which of those supports not elsewhere reported allegations of perjury against identifiable people? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? Violet filed a frivolous suit, it was dismissed with prejudice. At the very least, that makes her a liar. In order to bring the case, she had to lie to the court. Lying in court testimony is perjury. However, since you are WP:BLP fanatic, I'll excuse your oversight of these facts. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe both suits were actually dismissed without prejudice, weren't they? For the record.  :) -- Vary | Talk 01:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does not mean that. Having a complaint dismissed means that you lost, not that you lied. And it definitely doesn't mean that the loser committed perjury. You really need to moderate your tone. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Dragon, please stop the showboating. Just because Blue is clearly (and objectively) a dipshit doesn't mean we go no holds barred.Yeago (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not showboating. Yes, perhaps my language was strong, but I feel that we are under attack by those who wish to spin their biographies and those who would warp policy to fit this agenda. It is important that an editor's experience be given light to show that standing for WP:NPOV against WP:BLP is possible and that one need not cave because a subject is unhappy about it. I feel strongly that his userpage should be left in tact without being scrubbed by well-intentioned persons who have their hearts in the right places but who are taking things a little too far with WP:BLP. I WP:DGAF about Violet Blue or her feelings at this point, she had to lie in order to bring the claim as Ben pointed out. His statements are backed up by the facts and the correlation only involves minor original research. Given that it is a userpage and that many users who have retired in the past have left lengthy rationales for their departure, I see no reason that any part should be removed. He has been careful not to reveal any information that would personally cause harm, I think that is more than enough. --Dragon695 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it take to move this out of the realm of original research completely? I see only one matter at issue here; Her name(s) and age. And I did spend some time (not much was required) with google, and some of the people-search engines out there and even without paying money it would appear that the allegation is likely to be actually true, there being several aliases for this person with a matching age. But at what time does using search products available to the public, and which come from public records themselves, constitute original research, and when is it just plain old research? I see that we are allowed in some ways to use primary sources, but I am confused by the limitations of that use. And at some point isn't it perverse to maintain that we cannot use obviously-true information at all? Will some of you setters-of-policy expound a bit upon this? --Betta Splendens (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• SIGH - I hadn't intended to come back HERE at all, but an admin wrote me asking that I do so.

Here are source documents for this case. We do not have the ruling or the minutes of the hearing yet;

[12] [13] [14] [15]

Here is the court log of action in the case;

[16]

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm DONE here. --BenBurch (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sadden to see you go. In my mind, you did the right thing. Please know that there are users and editors who appreciate what you have done. Thank you for standing up for our rights! --Dragon695 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

heads up NonvocalScream (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Um, this is lame. Ben was sued by a litigious and distinctly odd individual (who ha salso had spats with Boing Boing and other places). I don't think there's much to be gained from writing up the case report on his user page, but I certainly can't see that he's done anything wrong or actionable here. I don't think we sanction people for being attacked and exonerated n the real world, do we? Guy (Help!) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reacted on seeing phrases like Her claimed fear of violence was, at best, delusional and, at worst, a lie. Even if not deleted, I think that the page (and some comments in this thread) might need to be edited for tone. Winning a lawsuit (or getting a case dismissed) doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want about someone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

The first section seems distinctly odd: "She also sought an order that I could not "harass, attack, strike, threaten, assualt (sexually or otherwise), hit, follow, [or] stalk [her or her partner Jonathan Moore], destroy [their] personal property, keep [them] under surveillance, block [their] movements, [or] contact [them]."....[1] She lost on all counts.[2]"

Surely you are entitled not to be harassed,attacked or assaulted regardless of whether or not you have an order to say so... Lemon martini (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen an old friend's restraining order against her abusive ex, such language would seem to be boilerplate for such a thing. IANAL. YMMV. Do not bounce Happy Fun Ball. --Betta Splendens (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the wording on the order that I was querying so much,as the impression given that 'she did not get this order granted, so I am free to harass or assault her as much as I want because there's no little bit of paper to say I can't'...Lemon martini (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Well, I think everybody already knows you cannot just rape somebody no matter what a court says about a restraining order. These orders exist so that police have a reason to hold somebody without bail pending trial should they violate them, or so I understand from my casual acquaintance with these matters. --Betta Splendens (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008

We're 4 months out from these elections, and the wiki pages have been unprotected to facilitate discussion etc. - I think it'd be great if everyone with time, energy, and particularly experience, could take a look, and help organise stuff well in advance.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I wonder why an arbcom-sanctioned and previously banned former sockpuppeteer is taking it upon himself to make up the election pages? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not helpful. Enigma ^message 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Privatemusings is an ok bloke in my book. We are none of us perfect, after all. He gets full marks for trying very hard to be helpful and redeem himself. If he wants to help make sure that this election runs smoother than last, and if it's all done within the consensus model, our norms and traditions, etc, more power to him. Besides, it keeps him out of real trouble. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In any case I created the paged and I've never actualy been outright banned.Geni 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass pointy AfD noms

Could a bored admin go through Sceptre's contribs and close the dozens of AfD nominations he's just made. He's nominated dozens of criticism/controversies pages for the simple fact that the word criticism/controversies is in the name. I think we all know the proper forum for these debates is the article talk page and a little help from WP:RM. I'm out the door in 15 mins and don't have the time. - auburnpilot talk 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They're not pointy at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the AfDs were nominated in good faith. People may find them misjudged, but they are not that obviously and grossly misjudged to warrant a speedy close, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointy or not, they're likely to WP:SNOW in a day or two. I believe consensus is against you here, Spectre. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the guidelines should reflect that. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done I handled the majority of these. Almost all of them had a severe amount of coverage, and this was entirely pointy. Now, Sceptre, as someone who is advocating that you just take a small break instead of a block, I'd like to ask that you stop overreacting, please. Synergy 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has happened before, hasn't it? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I can easily believe Sceptre put up these AfDs in good faith, they do stray beyond the bounds of WP:Point in that the AfDs have mostly to do with Sceptre's wider worries over PoV forks. I've never liked criticism of articles, partly because they can indeed fork but mostly because readers of a topic are somewhat less likely to read content in a sub-article (along with being unlikely to find it by typing something into the Wikipedia article search box). However, starting a blizzard of AfDs is no way to fix this: An AfD is a nomination for deletion of content which would not be helpful here and I don't understand why Sceptre didn't think of this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's encouraged that violations of NPOV are deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you didn't think that starting this many AfDs at once, in this manner, would start a ruckus. Tan ǀ 39 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually stopped at result 22 of this Google search because I knew that too many would flood AFD and actually be disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think 22 was about 22 too many. The presentation of these articles may indeed be PoV but there is seldom a need to delete sourced content, hence your AfDs were disruptive. A small batch of WP:Merge proposals would not have been disruptive and much more helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Person X is an idiot^[1]" is actually a good reason to delete sourced content. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out where in Criticism of Windows Vista, which you nominated for deletion, there is a statement as blatantly ridiculous as you state above? Tan ǀ 39 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see this as an reasonable action (in principle), I'm equally uncomfortable with the undue weight problem inherent in "Criticism of.." articles. This might have been dealt with over a longer period of time, but I think Sceptre has a very good point and was attempting to improve the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its good to remove the statements, not the entire article. Synergy 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, but when the criticism is not notable - in that the criticism has not been the subject of sources discussing the criticism as a subject in itself, then creating an article on "Criticism of.." is giving it undue weight. Such articles are frequently a NPOV problem, so do require close scrutiny and may often need to be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

True, scrutiny is wise on "Criticism of" articles, but putting them up for AfD en masse is not the proper first step. Something as simple as {{POV}} tags would be a proper starting point. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in principle with his point, but I don't think making the point in this way was very wise or particularly constructive. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps said articles should be reworked to be "Criticism and praise of..." –xeno (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is what I was thinking of, particularly Travb's comment. This isn't the first time this has happened. "Criticism" and "controversy" may be words to avoid, but I don't think they should be eradicated from Wikipedia, and certainly not by a unilateral campaign. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism can be both positive and negative; it means critical discussion. The fact these days most people see it as negative is why positive criticism has to be (unnecessarily) prefaced with "constructive". I like that Wikipedia does not feel the need to do so. Criticism is not the opposite of praise; the opposite of "praise" is "scorn". We read (and interpret) "Criticism of ..." as "Scorn of ..." far too often. Neıl ☄ 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, however, because criticize does mean to find fault with many do muddle it with criticism, wrongly taking both to mean scorn. There is no way to skirt this, hence my wariness of any article title beginning with Criticism of.... Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of rollback

Resolved

 – editor can ask to have the tool back again in a few weeks

I have removed Sceptre (talk · contribs)'s rollback for abuse of the function at [17] and notified him. MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A regretable action, but one I have to fully endorse. Pedro :  Chat  15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good call. His explanation that removal of speedy tags should only be done by administrators is wrong and even more so when Sceptre had made such a weird call. Why couldn't he have just removed the parts he saw as an attack? Seriously though,a complete abuse of rollback and Sceptre should have known better. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would require deletion of the whole article. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I made a mistake in assuming {{drmspeedy1}} applied to all users. The rollback and AIV progressed from there. What the hell happened to AGF? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume good faith when you've been acting like a dick for the past week. Cut it out now or you're going to be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Main thread is here - best to keep this in one place I think. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I thought we were supposed to WP:AGF regardless? And shouldn't ALL admins know better. You guys are supposed to lead from the front on stuff like that after all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How about this (and it comes from a non admin): I just spent the last 10 minutes closing out the majority of Sceptres AfD spree (the above section). Combine that with his rollback issue and its an instant block. The reason he isn't blocked? Take one guess. Synergy 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Sceptre briefly forgot the pith of WP:Point and then got very careless. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the carelessness of Sceptre has been going for a while now.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 16:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has, he/she sent Boy Scouts of America membership controversies to FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/archive1 because of this same issue (controversies in the title) in April. Hence, the mass AFD noms isn't the first time, and as such, I'd support a block. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The FAR was in good faith. As I've said hundreds of times, "controversy" is used incorrectly on Wikipedia ninety-nine times out of a hundred, and of those ninety-nine, ninety-eight push a POV. The BSA page was actually one of the 1% where the term is used correctly, but I didn't see that the time and thought it was a run-of-the-mill veiled POV page. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Much as I think Sceptre has been pointy and ridiculously childlike over this issue in refusing to accept the opinion presented here and move forward, a block would be pointless. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and blocking someone on the basis of an issue which is now resolved, on account of an issue which is 4 months old, is silly. You might be thinking of suggesting a ban, but that's generally for more extreme cases of POINTyness and DICKery. Martinp23 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, cluebat might be appropriate in some measure if he keeps this sort of thing up. Martinp23 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A block is not needed at this point. If this kind of thing keeps happening then that may be a different story, but not now. Chillum 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martinp23 here. A block is punitive at this point, not preventative. Rollback is gone (for the moment - I'll restore it myself at an appropriate time, not now), the AFDs are closed, they haven't been "reopened" by Will. Leave him be. Sceptre(Will), please go about your business. I've seen thousands (hyperbole is intentional) of editors ask you to "step away from the keyboard" in so many words. You are valuable here, and valued. Don't go any further with this, pretty please? Keeper ǀ 76 22:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But this sort of thing has been happening a lot recently. The link Martinp23 posted above is just another example. At this point I feel a block would be a preventative measure, before Will does something stupid again. ChaoticReality 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time that there's been any wide-ranging discussion on it, though. I'm in definite agreement with Martin and Keeper that a block is unnecessary right now, particularly against someone who just seems to have temporarily strayed from their normal habits as an extremely constructive contributor. --jonny-mt 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the ANI thread, I did give Sceptre a warning, which he promptly archived, but will have seen, that further trolling, dickery, pointy disruption, tomfoolery etc (call it what you will) will see him blocked. That should end this, unless he starts acting up again. Neıl ☄ 11:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Motto of the day

We need your help! MOTD has been running for over two years, as an informal project publishing a daily unofficial Wikipedia motto each day through the {{MOTD}} templates. It's intended to be a way to gather the Wikipedia community together to a common purpose and help portray our mission through a often clever or witty phrase. Unfortunately, activity in the project has started to drop of late, and we only have mottos scheduled for the next week. For this project to run smoothly, we need plenty of original suggestions from editors like you, as well as people to comment on existing suggestions, close old discussions, and schedule approved mottos. It's a great way to take a break from your run-of-the-mill editing, and you may learn something about Wikipedia in the process. Please stop by WP:MOTD and take a look around. If you have any questions, please post below, on our project's talk page, or drop me a line. Thanks for your time, and happy editing as always. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Community portal? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I couldn't find that yesterday. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Apollo's Fire: The Cleveland Baroque Orchestra

See: User talk:Apollo's Fire: The Cleveland Baroque Orchestra

Why are we blocking users like this? Rather, why are we forcing them to jump through hoops after they've requested another username? I've been seeing this waaay to often, and I'm getting tired of the COI paranoia. I mean, hell, the guy didn't even do anything except try to add two pictures. This isn't some profit hungry organization, or controversial subject. They choose the name of their orchestra, for crying out loud. We've got admins discouraging them from having any connection with their article, when we could very much use their input in some form. They'd probably be too scared to even use the talk page. COI is something to be cautious about, but it is never grounds for declining a block request when there is no evidence of disruption. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And I don't mean to attack any admins, but rather, I want to challenge the mentality that is used when reviewing these blocks. We often start doing things for the right reasons, but after a while of handling routine requests we sometimes forget the underlying logic. -- Ned Scott 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think people have conflated two issues: a blatant WP:COI and a heavily promotional article, and a username issue. The two should be separated and can be without too much effort if people want to. We can deal with single purpose accounts well enough, I think - although maybe not if the debate over user:Redsuperted and his serially reposted article on his website is anything to go by. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTAFORUM violations?

I've removed the following text [18] on the Pickens Plan talk page twice and been reverted twice. The first two sections seem to be a general discussion about natural gas and how it could be used in public transport fleets and private vehicles. The last sections seems like crystal-balling to me as well as an attempt at original research. However, I'm not sure if I'm applying the policy correctly since someone else keeps reverting me. Thoughts? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've rm'd it, please repost here if it comes back. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf - stalking and harassing

Resolved

 – Nothing actionable here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(note:readded as not answered as of 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

(note:readded by User:JRG without my prior knowledge but still needs to be addressed. Cbsite (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of stalking, harassing and disruptive editing. He has followed me around to several articles, reverting, deleting and leaving messages on my talk page. In particular, I point to the edit histories of Chris Barnes (actor) and the fact that the user then went on to nominate the article for deletion, presumably because I has worked on it extensively, and deleted the actor's name as a notable in the article about his hometown.

He received a warning about his abuse of Twinkle, which he used to revert edits I'd made as "vandalism."

He received a complaint on his talk page today from two other editors.

I admit I lost my cool after a while and left an uncomplimentary message on his talk page, for which I was unfairly banned for two weeks. I don't think it's right that someone like this is allowed to prowl around here the way he does without any kind of rebuke from the community and that an administrator would know what was going on and penalize one of his targets instead. Cbsite (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One article does not a stalker make. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the user has a strong sense about the use of non-free images - he doesn't think they should be used at all. He nominates for deletion at his own whim, reverts as "vandalism" edits that offer a rationale for the image's presence and harasses just about anyone who tries to go up against him. Here's a sample of his "submit or die" editing from July 15 and 16: [19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24].[25].

And read his comments as he tries to get the article deleted: he's got an ax to grind, and he's not about making constructive contributions. Cbsite (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The misuse of Twinkle should result in him not being allowed to use it. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any Twinkle abuse after the warning, so we could jyst WP:AGF and assume he learned from the warning... Kusma (talk)

OK, this has been here for three days and this is the best you can do? This guy continues to get a free pass? The Teflon Deletionist? Cbsite (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem that requires urgent admin intervention, given also that Damiens.rf hasn't edited for two days. Kusma (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He's not an admin so nominating does what harm exactly? an admin needs to agree to delete after all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people here are probably considering the source, too. You have a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. Tan ǀ 39 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to you. Cbsite (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your block log is quite telling. You should drop this and move on. Kevin (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually support Cbsite in his complaint. The user concerned has been making spurious nominations of Australian images, and has concentrated on them, even after some Australian editors asked him to not participate in Australian debates when he didn't understand Australian history and the copyright situation of some images. Check out his nomination history. JRG (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Get over it. Damiens' image nominations are legitimate, as confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of them have in fact been endorsed by administrators and led to valid deletions. And this is not an Australian-versus-non-Australian thing, it's a keeping-policy-versus-ignoring-policy thing. People who do a lot of image cleanup sometimes have to concentrate on a certain area for a while, simply because they find that in that area people have systematically been playing fast and loose with image usage. Happens all the time, and doesn't mean the editor has an underlying grudge against that topic area. You need to stop your bullying ([26]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is fair image patrol and there is Damiens.rf, some of whose nominations are correct, but whose nominations are distinctly and consistently incivil. That sort of venom is not necessary. It's not an Aus vs non-Aus thing (I think the guy probably is Australian), it's just straightforward enforcement of Wikipedia policy against someone who seems to have turned malicious compliance into a fine art, with the attitude to boot. Orderinchaos 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:Deadman0603

I noticed this user asking for his talk page to be protected here. It looked somewhat unusual as the talk page link was red at that time so my first move was to revert and warn. Then I looked at his contributions which were for the most part good except for a weired edit this morning which broke a redirect. Both edits state that they use twinkle in the edit summary, so I figured maybe that's the problem but here is the strange thing- This user hasn't created a User:Deadman0603/monobook.js page so how can he be using Twinkle? I don't use it myself, maybe it isn't necessary to have the monobook page? Perhaps I am being overly suspicious. I can't see why anyone would pretend to use twinkle. Neither can I see why someone would ask to have their talk page protected citing vandalism when no one had edited until me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Twinkle is available as a gadget in Special:Preferences, eliminating the need for a monobook.js page. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So it is. Well that explains that bit then. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI

I was not satisfied with the way I presented my part of the story. Here again for the record, I am giving a full picture of the story. The content was not added by me, I just defended its inclusion. Here is the first time it appeared (case 1 and case2). Following is the content in dispute.

"A copy of the book was found in the home of the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist shooter Jim David Adkisson.ref1 and ref2."

The content cites two references one, a original "affidavit in support of search warrant" submitted by investigator Steven Still. You could find the title of the books in his handwriting in the last page.

Reference 2 is a newspaper Knoxnews (a reliable source) which picked up the story and reported the same.

Let me point out some facts and you can make your own judgement. The title of the books are Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. This is the killer in his own words "During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years."

I have to be fair to point out that it is not yet established whether the killer has ever read these books and the responsibility of the books in his actions. Because of that, all that was included in the article (like mentioned above) was that those books were found in his home.

Additionally, an important instance which convinced me to support inclusion was when an annonymous IP address in the talk page pointed similar circumstances in wikipedia articles such as The Turner Diaries and The Catcher in the Rye. Now having presented the full picture, I am not going to insist on the inclusion but i thought I make sure that issues are not misunderstood. Docku^Hi 00:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am involved in editing of Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. The user CENSEI is removing a well sourced edit referenced to this article. I reverted the edit explaining that WP:BLP can not be invoked for article on books. He reverted them again and the edit summary he provided was "I can and I have". Please have a look at these links for reference.1 2. Thanks. Docku^Hi 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all content which concerns living people; the nature of the article's subject is not relevant. CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too. CIreland (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you pls cite and explain the policies it has problem with??? Docku^Hi 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating that Book X was found in the house of notorious blaggard Y is doubly problematic. On the one hand, it serves to imply that the book is dubious by association. On the other hand, it also implies that Y is an adherent of the ideas in the book. Both ways round, this is problematic with regard to neutral point of view, original research and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To the extent that it implies something about a living person, WP:BLP is thus also relevant. CIreland (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, I think you'll find it's blackguard. But I agree wholeheartedly. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And so you might find blaggard informative, too. - Dravecky (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• That article qualifies for a template:

Sadly the problem is the book as much as the article... Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My point in the removal of this is that it does seem to be guilt by association, and the worst part is that its Wikipedia editors making the association, not a reliable source. 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CENSEI (talk • contribs)

It was the Knoxville News Sentinal which made the association, not Wikipedia editors. Per Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity on accused shooter's reading list: "Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly." Reliable, verifiable, published facts are facts. Is it okay in Wikipedia to whitewash reliable, verifiable, published facts we are uncomfortable with? I certainly hope not. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has disputed that the book was in the mans house. What has been disputed is the relevence of it in the article about the book. The Knoxville newspaper did not make the "association". They stated, correctly, that it was there. They made an implication that it was involved, as you are doing. WP:BLP directs to avoid "guilt by association". If Adkisson had quoted from the book or if the book had advocated violence as a means of polotical change in the US, you'd have a leg to stand on. I've read the book (unlike you Arthur) and it doesn't. Nor has any official source stated any connection. The media simply reported the presence of the book, among others. Thus far, you can't even show evidence the man even read the book. That is why you are wrong and that is why you are violating WP:BLP and why the inclusion is disputed. The factual basis of the book being present isn't disputed and isn't being "whitewashed". Also present and seized were a Ford Escape and an insurance bill from State Farm. Should we include references to the killer in those articles as well? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The news article does not mention that the Ford Escape was seized, merely that it was searched where it was parked right in front of the church. The news article doesn't mention State Farm at all. The Knoxville News Sentinal made the professional news reporting decision to include the books by name in the news article. Why should we whitewash their news report? --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the news article mentioned, they aren't the only source available. In the discussion, I posted a media source that shows the entire warrant application and return. The warrant request, which asked to look for books (and DVD's, CD's whatever), laid out the probable cause. While the probable cause mentioned specific quotes from Adkisson, it made no mention of the book specifically. Further, you should retract your statement. The Ford Escape was seized under the warrant (which is what I said). And the warrant return lists his State Farm bill, his First TN bill, a letter from Knox Co. Human Services, his lease contract and other items. It is common practice to seize items that MAY lead to either direct or indirect evidence. Just because an item is seized does NOT make it involved. They are seized for POTENTIAL involvement. If and when an official source makes that connection to involvement, we can revisit this. At this point, there is no more evidence to blame this book than State Farm or Knox County Human Services. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully realize that the search warrant contains lots of details which can be invoked as red herrings. But the manifold contents of the search warrant are not necessarily notable. On the other hand, the Knoxville News Sentinel is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it considers the ownership of anti-liberal books by an anti-liberal urban terrorist as notable enough to include in its news article. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear from administrators on this issue. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Knoxville News Sentinel can consider anything they want to be "notable", they are not an encyclopedia. Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia and the inclusion, without a real connection, in not encyclopedic. As for you wanting to hear from an administrator....obviously you only hear what you want Arthur. CIreland IS an administrator and he already said "CENSEI was correct to revert your edits and you should not restore them. Even if BLP were not an issue, the edits are problematic with regard to a number of other policies too." Then JzG, agreed it did not belong, So Arthur, there is your answer from 2 uninvolved administrators. Do you plan to just admin shop until you find one that will say what you want to hear? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

CIreland, you have just summed up my on-going battle. I pointed out that WP:BLP applies, particularly since the book consists of the authors opinions and the author is living. Further, wp:blp points out that guilt by association should be avoided and that a clear demonstration of relevance should exist. This isn't a case of where the murderer quoted the book, it was merely present in his home. There isn't even evidence that he has read it, nor anything in the book that advocates violence as a means of political change in the US. The only thing anyone has claimed as "evidence" is that the title calls it a "war of liberty". Yet none of those same editors would claim the "war on poverty" or the "war on illiteracy" advocate violence. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

District of Columbia Act Link is corrupt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act - The first link listed here appears to make you download some sort of corrupted text file. Seeing as this file is of great interest to conspiricy theorists I think it is in everyone's interest to ensure the original readable version of this link is put back into place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.191.171.10 (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Try to bypass your cache and if the problem is still there then give a more precise description of what you see. And do you mean it is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act or a page linked from there? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose slander account

Resolved

 – Username hard blocked. _Gb^T/c 07:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Admins,

Quick one, drawing your attention to an account by the name of Teamslanderyou. This user's edits are both to a single page, the BLP of Andrew Landeryou. One was a questionable addition of a blog that does little more than post schoolyard abuse of Andrew Landeryou (often variations of calling him fat), the second was to change the link to Landeryou's blog to the abuse site.

There can be little or no doubt the account exists only as a single purpose account made to (excuse the pun) slander Andrew Landeryou on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimaster (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this one - "Slanderyou" is a derogatory nickname for the guy amongst his opponents in blogosphere, so I'd guess it's related. He certainly has no shortage of enemies. Orderinchaos 07:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've hard blocked the username as their intention is clearly not to contribute productively to the project. _Gb^T/c 07:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage deletion question

Note: This is not an attempt to create drama. I would like to clarify something though. If a talk page for an article exists but only has a {{talkheader}} template with no other content, should it be deleted? I'm asking based on this [27] and other related talkpage deletions. It just seems unnecessary to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the big problem is with leaving it undeleted. It gives instructions for whomever wants to post there. Unless the article is deleted (thereby making the talk page eligible for CSD - G8), I don't see the point in deleting a helpful template. Seems overcooked when there are so many other more relevant and serious "problems" on wiki. Am I missing something? I realize that talkpage was deleted, I'm failing to realize why. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You could always find a WikiProject to put it in. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you could stuff beans up your nose. I would rather see a red link than slapping myself every time I open a talk page which contains no actual talk. — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever created a talk page containing only {{talkheader}} ought to be trout-slapped for violating both common sense and the instructions which say This template should be used only when needed. Do not add this template to every talk page. In particular, it should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages! — CharlotteWebb 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But instead of instantly A3'ing, it would be more helpful to add the relevant WikiProjects. They don't take a few minutes to find. And if the talkheader itself is misplaced, remove it. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get what is so bad about having a talk page that just contains a talkheader, regardless of what the instructions say (which I hadn't seen until now). I can't see what's so vexing about talkpages that don't contain talk yet. Seems like a kind of policy wonkery, IMO. And I think its a lot nicer than redlinks, personally. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people get agitated when they see redlinks because it feels like something is missing. Some people get agitated when they see an empty talk page because it's taking up space. It's not process wonkery, but more like human nature. It's something we can't really deal with. —Kurykh 22:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Practical matters are by definition anti-wonkery. If a talk page is completely blank I'd like to know before clicking on it. — CharlotteWebb 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not completely blank, there's a talkheader there. What if there were a couple Wikiproject tags there as well? Those aren't discussion, but I don't think someone would delete the talk page if it contained nothing but Wikiproject templates. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Still useless. Some talk pages contain several banners instead of one, and may be less likely to be deleted, but that does not make them more useful. — CharlotteWebb 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't just for discussion. WikiProject templates categorise articles for individual projects. They serve multiple purposes. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I would like to know whether it pertains to the {{talkheader}} template. — CharlotteWebb 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No. My argument was that a talkheader could be replaced with WP templates, instead of a simple page deletion. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This just creates more work. I pity the fool who spends an afternoon looking for the most applicable wiki-project tag to use in order to save an empty talk page with no salvageable value. — CharlotteWebb 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Well it's not that difficult. If it's a bio, tag with {{WPBiography}}. Most of the time it's blatantly obvious which tags to put on the article. For 90% of articles, it's no chore, but sure, there will be the odd exception. But my argument was in relation to strolling across talk pages. Instead of G6'ing, tag it; all biographies, for example, should use WPBiography even if there's no discussion on the page. This is especially important for BLPs. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd like to know too; the documentation says "see the talk page" for why adding this everywhere is wrong, and the talk page says "see the documentation". I could guess (Saving someone from wasting time clicking on a blue link, thinking there was discussion when there wasn't? Dragging down the server with lots of needless transclusion?), but would prefer someone who knows actually explain why it's not recommended, instead of just saying it. Quite possibly there's a good reason, but I'd like to hear it. --barneca (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c*2)Surely it is ok to have a talk page with just a banner - it provides guidance for new users on what's appropriate, how to sign etc. Seems a bit anal to be deleting pages like this, plus does it really come under G6? - Toon⁰⁵ 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I think too. It seems helpful and informative for newbies at least. I've added them to a number of talk pages just because I thought they contain helpful instructions. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If talkheader belonged on every talk page, it would be added to the interface. I remove it whenever I'm otherwise editing the talk page unless there's actual questionable discussion that it seems to be a response to. --NE2 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe the template was intended for talk pages which tend to receive comments from new users who don't understand the purpose of talk pages, generally articles about current events or very famous people or other web sites. However if we could find an appropriate interface page to contain this material (and then delete the bloody template) it would be more than acceptable as a compromise. — CharlotteWebb 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Talkpagetext appears when editing a talk page. Is that good enough? — CharlotteWebb 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<--I just re-"bluelinked" this particular talkpage (which I'm well aware is one of thousands of redlinks, perhaps rightfully so). I readded the talkpageheader template, and two wikiprojects that seem appropriate. Please see Talk:Freebie marketing. Now that I've read this particular article, I find it to be rather AFD-able, but still, there is no valid reason (policy is descriptive, not prescriptive) to leave it a redlink if there are valid and active WikiProjects that may find interest in any particular article. Keeper ǀ 76 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you can help me -- How many angels can dance in a talk page with no header? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merged from ANI

An admin has been deleting article talk pages. I can't see the sense in it? Don't we have enough server space at Wikipedia or something? I'm a little concerned because one page I had on watch had it's talk page deleted. So I didn't worry that much but added a cat to the page and then went to an associated page and added a cat also. Shortly after that article had its talk page deleted also. Gave me a bad feeling. So here I am. Articles are British Homing World and Royal Pigeon Racing Association. Also on my watch list with a deleted talk page Tendring Hundred Show. The admin doing the deleting is User:MZMcBride. So I'll see people here have to say about this? Oh, and I'm not sure because I cant access the deleted pages, but I was thinking one of the deleted talk pages was in a wikiproject? If not it should have been.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Talk page of the deleting admin, he's deleting Talk pages that have Template:Talkheader as their only content, since the instructions for that template indicate it should only be used on Talk pages that have other content anyway. It seems kind of an odd choice of endeavor to me, but I can't argue with his logic. Propaniac (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty talk pages is disruptive. It's confusing and wastes the time of editors who have the article watchlisted as they try to chase down what happened and why. Just a glance at the contents of the deleting admin's talk page shows what a timewaster this practice is for all involved, including the deleter. It's a net loss to the project. Please end this practice. --CliffC (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I echo Cliff's concerns. Could the deleting admins at least state explicitly in the edit summary (or deletion log, whatever) the precise rationale for the deletion? Skomorokh 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, deleting the page is fine, but a clear explanation of why the page has been deleted would save a lot of time and also be much more considerate on the part of the deleting admin. Tom H (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting empty talk pages is useful, as it gives pages with no WikiProject templates and no discussion a redlinked talk page. WE use {{Talkheader}} only where necessary (else we'd just use a MediaWiki message for this anyway). Kusma (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• When someone creates an article about a living person, especially one who has been in the news recently for some scandal or as an alleged criminal, it is important to add the usual BLP warnings to the article's talk page AND LEAVE THEM THERE even is there is no other comment on it. This way, when a newbie goes to the talk page to rail about how evil the article subject is, they will see the BLP header telling them about our policy that the talk page is not a blog for general discussion of the subject, and that information about living persons must be well sourced. It is a clear detriment to the project to leave an article about a living person and to remove the talk page which has the BLP warning. It prevents or reduces the incidence of likely and predictable BLP violations. Edison (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  Template:Talkheader doesn't contain a BLP warning. Kusma (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  My main concern is that, as I said, new biographical articles with no other comments on the talk page should have a BLP template like Template:BLP and the talk page with that template should not be deleted. As for the standard template, I see no benefit in deleting it from otherwisde blank talk pages. Why encourage newbies to barge in and treat the page like a typical blog? Why not post our basic rules at the top of the talk page? Has anyone gotten a blister on his mouse clicking finger from looking at a bluelinked talk page and finding only the Talkheader template, instead of all the well founded suggestions for improving the article that he was expecting to find? Edison (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked talk is a barrier to new users

Has anyone considered the fact that new users might be intimidated by redlinked Talk pages? It leads them to a page telling them they're creating a new page, with no instructions whatsoever for how the Talk page should be used or formatted. At least with a talkheader template, we've got a page the user can see and which has links to instructions on what to do. It's much more encouraging to see a page welcoming comments than a blank edit window telling you to dive right into the deep end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As has been said multiple times above, if {{talkheader}} is supposed to go on every talk page, it can be worked into the interface somewhere. Otherwise, if you're going to add it, at least add a WikiProject tag so he page will be useful. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually submitted a feature request to the developers? And I dispute that the page isn't "useful" if it only has the header. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one do this anyway? I think that talkpages should all come with a default header, as it gives everyone a concise summary of what they are for. I have in the (fairly recent) past created some of these otherwise blank talk pages, and I took them directly from the source of other (probably more populated) talk pages, because I saw it and thought it was a really neat summary and useful to your average Joe Bloggs who might be editing for the first time. At that point I was not aware that template guidance notes even existed.
I was then very concerned to see several talkpages from articles I'd either started or edited flagged up as deleted on my watchlist, with just a strange code as an explanation. I've wasted about an hour trying to find out why that is the case and whether it will remain so. Quite frankly I think the argument saying a lone talkheader is as useless, if not more so than a redlink is flawed. Maybe it was once the case, when WP was being edited by fewer people who all knew what they were doing (at least to a degree), but I personally think this needs strong consideration. At the very least, could you avoid deleting without a more self-explanatory message, because while creating (or deleting) a virtually-blank talk page takes no time, finding out why that page has then been deleted takes rather a lot of time. Hypothetically, if one's well-intentioned but not-quite-policy contributions are deleted without a good reason stated, one might be less inclined to contribute in the first place. That's my tuppence-worth. Finally, apologies if only admins are meant to post here.
--Peeky44 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone's allowed to post here; it's a mix between discussion of matters that pertain to admins and a complaints department (despite the text at the top). MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is the relevant text that appears above talk pages, and does in fact link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --NE2 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The "arguments" being presented here are rather silly. As I (and others) have said, if there is information that is so vital as to require it to be on the top of every talk page, go Bugzilla and file a bug. Redlinks indicate that a page is content-less. If a talk page has no content, turning the red link blue to make all of the tabs at the top the same color is silly and unproductive. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as silly as going to the trouble of writing and running a script to turn the bluelink red again :D. As has been said above, the most sensible way to handle these (if not the quick-and-easy solution) is to add useful content to the page, such as WikiProject banners. A list of these barren talkpages would be useful, but mindlessly deleting them just so they can be recreated again at some later date (don't forget the bitey "you are creating a page that has been deleted" warning that will now appear) is crazy. Deleting pages really doesn't make the wiki any tidier - it just messes up logs, histories and pages, bloats the database, and almost invariably requires more effort to undo when the time is right. Adding WikiProject banners to ten pages would be many times more beneficial to the project than deleting a thousand of these pages. That said, I do not condone the creation of these pages with just {{talkheader}} and that practice too should certainly be discontinued. Happy‑melon 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To agree here with H-m, (I think), it is equally useless to create a page with {{talkheader}} as it is to delete a page with {{talkheader}}. Especially for the BLP articles (there've been a few). It would be much easier to type {{blp}} then to delete (at least, without a script). Every blp article should be tagged with the blp header, if not a wikiproject with it. MZM, I like what you are doing with stale (indef) usertalk, and the housekeeping is invaluable, in general. Please see the reasoning being given here though that "what's done is done". Discourage the creation of usertalk "for the sake of a bluelink", yes. But, H-m makes a valid point about "you are creating a page that has been deleted" and the ominousness of that post to someone (non-admin) who would have no idea what was deleted, or why it was deleted, or whether they'd get "in trouble" for "recreating it". Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent again) Once again, User:MZMcBride has embarked upon a massive spree of deletions that, while arguably within policy, are not absolutely vital, and now we have the fallout to deal with at WP:AN. This has happened before (here, for instance). Is it going to happen again? I hope not. --RFBailey (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

God forbid empty pages be deleted! Anything but that! But really, I always like to use these fun sessions at AN to point out more housekeeping that needs doing. Y'know, instead of mindless bantering here? This is a list of about 800 indefinitely blocked user / user talk pages that need to be reviewed and either removed from CAT:TEMP or deleted. If you don't want to do those, let me know, I have plenty of other things that need doing. Things that are far more beneficial to the project than chatting here. It's obvious quite a few people have more time than they can fill. Anything I can do to help.

• (added: Never mind. Looks like a standard practice I had not noticed. We might make some reference to this on the page admins use for blocking, and in admin training pages.)MZMcBride is also deleting the user talk pages of banned users, which may contain extensive discussions of their problematic edits, which can be useful to nonadmins tracking down sockpuppets. It does not save any server space whatsoever, since the deleted edits are still there. Is there a policy which justifies or which requires these deletions? One example is at [28]. It seems like deletion for deletion's sake. If MZMcBride continues to delete all talk pages of banned users, it will be impossible for non-admins to judge the quality of vandalfighting when someone who goes to the trouble of placing appropriate warnings comes up for RFA. What exactly is the point? (Other than to have the joy of deleting a dozen things a minutes and upping the edit count.) It jyust makes it more difficult for other admins, and impossible for non-admins, to do research. Edison (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC).Withdrew complaint. Edison (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no? It's done quite regularly, by a large number of admins. It's also noteworthy that deletions have nothing to do with edit count. SQL^{Query me!} 07:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read CAT:TEMP, having hundreds of thousands of talk pages just so voters can see that you are competent enough to place a template is slightly pointless. You will also notice that pages of sockpuppets are not deleted through this process. BJ^Talk 07:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New "Notices" tab?

Personally, I think it would be useful if Wikipedia talk pages could once again be used for, well, talk. Maybe a new tab could be added for templates/notices pertaining to an article. Such elements do not actually constitute "talk" and are too often used as a substitute for meaningful discussion contribution. A large amount of them are either irrelevant, condescending, unnecessary, mundane or otherwise not too useful. I think putting them onto a seperate section would greatly restore the usefulness of talk pages, and any problems with templates can at least be pushed off to a separate section, allowing consideration of talk page problems to be free of having to consider templates into the bargain. zoney ♣ talk 11:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the point of placing them on the talk page is to increase that someone getting involved with the article will be aware of them. If you put them out of the way even fewer people will take them into account. — Coren ^(talk) 14:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)