Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• July 30 - August 5 2005

Contents 1 Do protected blank pages need {{deletedpage}}? 2 Criticism of Islam 3 User:MANOS 4 User:SPUI and WP:CSD 5 VfD closure request 6 Removal of user accounts 7 French Franc 8 baby 'pedia 9 yāā hā-hāāā 10 Six Sigma (in over my head) 11 Esther scholle 12 Adequacy Style Troll 13 User:Shane Lively 14 Kindly move User talk:Masatran, R. to User talk:Masatran 15 A type of vandalism I am not sure how to deal with 16 William Colby, Louis Freeh, and Aldrich Ames 17 User:Zoe page still being vandalised 18 Factual accuracy 19 Help! 20 Blocking IP addresses and proxy ranges: recap/summary/personal advice 21 Persistent low-level but maddening vandalism 22 ArbCom temporary injunction on JarlaxleArtemis 23 "Did you know" template correction 24 Am I tainted?

[edit] Do protected blank pages need {{deletedpage}}?

Jewish Anti-Polonism is certainly a candidate for it. Alphax ^τεχ 11:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thus far, I have seen this template being used only as a last resort, for example when an article has underwent VfD obtaining delete consensus and then was subsequently seepdied several times. In this case, however, it would be best for the page to have it, no... it might leave some people quite confused. --Sn0wflake 14:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a strange page. It has no deleted revisions on history, and the only edit before blanking is a redirect. It should either be deleted (via VfD if needed) or changed into something else. If deleted and starts being recreated, yes then {{deletedpage}} would be appropriate. --cesarb 20:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Witkacy. SlimVirgin protected the pages to prevent Wiktacy reverting her blanking of them. I think WP:RFD would be more appropriate than keeping these as blank pages. Angela. 05:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Islam

this article was apparently deleted because it was a collection of links, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Islam. Now, on the epic Talk:Islam, I have been urging anti-Islamic editors to write a decent Opposition to Islam (paralleling Opposition to Mormonism and similar). Now I find that Criticism of Islam is blank-protected. I do not propose to undelete the deleted material. But I find it inappropriate that we should forbid creation of a decent Criticism of Islam article. Rather, I suggest Criticism of Islam be redirected to the (inexistent) Opposition to Islam, in the hope that some of the editors trolling harrying frequenting Islam will put their anti-Islamic bent to constructive documentary use there. (the deleted content was an essay. It should of course not itself contain a 'criticism of Islam', but it should be about such criticism, i.e. contain a discussion of notable critics of Islam, instead) dab (ᛏ) 14:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm the one who protected it after repeated recreations; I don't have any involvement in the dispute at all, I ran across it in RC patrol. I don't have a problem with a redirect or a legit article, as long as its not a reposting of deleted content (which is what I was hoping to prevent with the protection.) If it's still protected, leave me a note and I'll undo it. -- Essjay · Talk 09:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:MANOS

Someone keep an eye on him. I have tried reasoning with him as show here [1] and I'm unsure if I got through.--Tznkai 20:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, Chronographos and I have had some problems with him at Talk:Macedonian language.--Wiglaf 20:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:SPUI and WP:CSD

This seems a bit silly to report here, but it's irritating me. User:SPUI has repeatedly added that image that is current at WP:CSD of a blank signpost. It's largely irrelevant, but that is an official policy page and is not really the place for jokes. I've reverted twice, and he's reverted back again (with an edit summary of "ha"). I've asked on his talk that he stop. Perhaps I'm just tired on a Sunday, but is that image really appropriate? -Splash 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I generally respect SPUI's opinions, but in this case he might be pushing it a little too far. Policy pages are not the ideal place for jokes. Try argumenting with him some more. --Sn0wflake 23:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I left him a note. --Sn0wflake 23:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Isomorphic 02:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD closure request

I wouldn't normally ask this, but could a neutral admin pretty-please close these two interrelated VfDs:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2 and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tom G. Palmer ?

Both are well past their sell-by date and continue to generate considerable ill-feeling among the main protagonists (some of whom are also in the midst of an unrelated RfC). It will do everyone a favour if the carping is brought to an end. (I have no vested interest in either vote, btw.) Thanks. -Splash 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Both votes have been closed now. Eugene van der Pijll 21:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both (Eugene van der Pijll and Sasquatch). -Splash 21:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of user accounts

Where do we suggest ? I am sure that the following and more are not used or should be deleted. Pls investigate and remove.

• User:!Linuxbeack is a faggot
• User:!!!!!!WIKIPEDIA SUCKS!!!!!!
• User:!Vandalize Linuxbeak's page

and more from Special:Listusers

--Jondel 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Administrators can't delete accounts. This sort of thing should probably be brought to a developer's attention. Rhobite 02:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I also found the RFC where I can suggest. They are not strong suggestion meaning they could be valid user names depending on the developer's disgression.--Jondel 02:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French Franc

Could someone please move French Franc to French franc? See Talk:French Franc for consensus. AlbertR 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] baby 'pedia

I have questions about the early history of wikipedia. I was wondering what september 11 attacks article looked like back in the days following the attacks. I found that the article was only created dec. 20, 2001. My understanding is that wikipedia was a smaller enterprise back then, but I'd imagine something would have been created right away. Of course, I'd bet there was an article with a different name, that was moved the current september 11, 2001 attacks. So then I guess my question becomes: when an article is moved, is the old history moved? is the old history saved anywhere? I also looked at World Trade Center. It seems to have been created 28 November, 2001.

Oh- and my favorite- al qaeda. created november 2001. I first started looking for these old versions out of curiosity. to glimpse history- to get an idea about what was different about life before these attacks. then I my curiousity grew, when I found nothing as old as what I sought. that's enough for now.

Does anyone else wonder about such things? who can help me out here? thanks, Kzzl 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

it was way before my time but I understand that most of the oldest histories have been lost in various crashes.Geni 08:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

over at nostalgia.wikipedia.org i found this which shows the oldest revision of that page on record (if I am not mistaken). It is dated November 21, 2001. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

never mind that, read down... i'm blind aparently... Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yāā hā-hāāā

I just found out about User:Conversion script, so I have part of the story. any other info would be great. thanks again, Kzzl 19:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This question would probably be better at the Help Desk. The article was called September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack at the time of its first recorded edit (21 November 2001). The history before that might be lost for that article, but World Trade Center/Talk has a first edit on September 12. See nostalgia.wikipedia.org. Angela. 20:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ang. that allayed a little. As for everything else I mentioned above that has not really been addressed by anyone, I'm still a bit irked. I will look for the best place and time and people to involve in further exporation of this type of... stuff. thanks to all those who keeps it real. later. Kzzl 02:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No-one is under any obligation to help you ;). A lot of the original 9/11 article was written by User:The Cunctator as events unfolded. The earliest mention of the article still online is Larry's message on the mailing list http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-September/018083.html from 9/12. Pcb21| Pete 15:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Brion VIBBER might entertain requests to explain why much of the history from Jan-01 to Nov-01 is missing. I know at least some of it is simply lost completely and unrecoverably. However it may be that some data exists somewhere that was not folded in to the phase3 database because it was mangled, but not deleted, so do check. Tangentially related: Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. Pcb21| Pete 16:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma (in over my head)

I'm new at this persistant vandal fighting thing, and I'd like to get some advice/help. The external links at Six Sigma have lately been a matter of serious contention, with several anon editors eliminating all the links and several more (I believe all one person) continually adding his own website. The discussion has been rather helpful, but the user(s) who continue to delete all the links have not joined the discussion. Only one other user involved in the discussion (besides me), User:Spalding, has edits in areas unrelated to Six Sigma topics. I've already blocked one anon for breaking the 3RR, but that ban expires this afternoon and didn't seem to solve any problems, since s/he apparently just got a different IP and made the same changes (note the similarity of the edit summaries). And I'm pretty sure that User:UtterUser is a sock puppet of User:FeralTitan. Any insight/assistance would be great. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Protect the article, forcing the anons to visit the talk page, where, it is hoped, they will talk. Er, actually, if you've been editing content on the article yourself, then ask another admin to protect. Func( t, c ) 12:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected. --khaosworks 12:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and for protecting the page. We'll see what happens now... --Spangineer (háblame) 13:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esther scholle

There is a new user who seems, um, very very confused, to say the least: Esther scholle (talk • contribs). I was wondering if someone with the patience of Job would like to try to talk to the individual, who's edits are often disruptive. Func( t, c ) 12:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite seriously, I think she needs a psychiatrist more than a patient editor. Her edits smack of psychological problems. --khaosworks 13:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there isn't much in the user contributions, a lot of sandbox and userspace stuff. Has the user created stuff that's since been deleted, and that's what you're referring to? Everyking 06:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the problem stuff was in article space and has been speedy-deleted. --Carnildo 06:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy Style Troll

I concede the point. Will an admin bring this vote to a close and delete the article? Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Er... Why? It doesn't look like a speedy to me. And the votes aren't even unanimous. Are you just afraid VfD won't be around when the five days is up? :) Just let it run its course... --Dmcdevit·t 05:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Meh. The whole thing is a bit of a farce, to be honest. It appear the vote has been taken over by trolls anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shane Lively

I was watching RC, and I spotted this. It seems like this user page and this user's talk page exist only to attack the page's namesake. The user's only edits are to the user page and the talk page, the pages have been edited dozens of times by anons whose only edits are to these two pages, and the content of the pages speak for themselves. Not sure what to do about it, but I figure someone else knows. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me as an attack page, albiet a well developed one. This should be treated no differently than if it were created in the articlespace. While the initial edits are from an account bearing the name of the attacked individual, the content consists of personal attacks, and I think we are all smart enough to know that individuals do not come to Wikipedia to insult themselves. Rowan Moore (talk • contribs) appears to have made useful edits in the past, but all contributions in the last several days appear to revolve around User:Shane Lively. Either it is a compromised account, or the user is no longer interested in making positive contributions. I'm going to delete User:Shane Lively as obvious vandalism, and warn Rowan Moore not to engage in this sort of vandalism again. If others think there is some redeeming value, feel free to undelete. -- Essjay · Talk 14:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like they're back. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm hitting this one hard and swift:

• User:Shane Lively (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) deleted and vprotected;
• Shane Lively (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (previously deleted) vprotected;
• Shane Lively (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) listed as sockpuppet of Rowan Moore (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), the puppetmaster of the whole deal;
• Shane Lively (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked indef. for vandalism/sockpuppetry/personal attacks as the only edits were to the attack page (adding the attacks, not removing them)
• Rowan Moore warned one last time.

If Rowan Moore or any of the IPs attempt to recreate, I will start with a 24 hour vandalism block and work up from there. -- Essjay · Talk 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rowan Moore (talk • contribs) assures me that he was not responsible for the creation of Shane Lively (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and that he has learned his lesson. As it stands, Shane Lively is permablocked (since the account was used to attack an individual with that name and for no other contributions) and the userpage/article has been deleted and vprotected. Unless the anons come back and try to find a way around it, we should be fine now. -- Essjay · Talk 08:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kindly move User talk:Masatran, R. to User talk:Masatran

Kindly move User talk:Masatran, R. to User talk:Masatran, because I am getting a new username. --Masatran, R. 11:38:39, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

[edit] A type of vandalism I am not sure how to deal with

Please check this user's recent contributions (August 3 in particular). Basically, what (s)he does, is remove blank lines from various articles and add an offensive edit summary. I issued the user a standard warning, but I do not have much time to watch how this develops. Please, assist. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. I honestly didn't realize that that counts as vandalism. Now that I know, I will refrain from it. Alexandru 13:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius, what the hell are you up to? Chronographos will fall off his chair laughing dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just amusing myself a bit. But "I hereby proclaim I will no longer engage in consecutive edit summaries of such an offensive character". Alexandru 13:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am left unamused. El_C 13:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

my reference to User:Chronographos was because he kept accusing Alexandru of constant inebriety; so I thought he would find it funny because A's behaviour appears consistent with that, not because it is funny in itself. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Colby, Louis Freeh, and Aldrich Ames

Could someone have a look at these pages. An anon user seems to be adding unreferenced conspiracy theories, and presenting them as fact. - SimonP 14:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked that anon for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on William Colby; will post a link to WP:NOR on their talk page. - jredmond 15:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The user has been repeatedly reverted, and asked to discuss on the talk page, which he/she has failed to do. There is an obvious 3RR violation on William Colby and Louis Freeh. jredmond beat me to the William Colby block, but I hit the IP with an additional block for Louis Freeh. In the interests of fairness, since there are technically four reverts within 24 hours by SimonP, I'm going to give a "be very carful in the future" warning. I feel that SimonP is justified in his reverts, as the inserted text appears to be unsubstantiated and most likely vandalism, but in the interests of avoiding "you are favoring one side over the other" I am going to issue the warning. I've also warned the IP to make sure to source edits in future. -- Essjay · Talk 15:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

SimonP has brought it to my attention that the four edits on Louis Freeh were not direct reverts and therefore did not violate the 3RR. I hereby retract my warning to SimonP, and admonish myself: Essjay, be more carful to check the edits you are calling reversions. Now, I'm going to go whack myself with my vandal whacking stick and recite the WikiCreed as my penance. My apologies to SimonP. -- Essjay · Talk 15:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zoe page still being vandalised

User:Zoe is still being vandalised here and here. I want to assume good faith, so I'm just going to state the facts without drawing any conclusions, but I have to say that this vandalism of her page looks very familiar to vandalism I've seen from previous vandals before. I'm just very surprised that her page is still being vandalised, even after all this time of inactivity. --Deathphoenix 19:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean you have to be a sucker. IP addresses vandalizing a user page so long after that user's departure are acting in quite blatant bad faith. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, what I meant was that I have a suspicion who it is, but I don't have any evidence to support it. --Deathphoenix 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy

User:AI is tagging sections at Ahmadinejad. After being prompted to use the talk page, he left some puzzling communications there (including a photo of a nuclear explosion) and readded the tags. Essentially, the rationale that User:AI presented for the accuracy tags is that the sections aren't notable, even though he doesn't dispute that everything there is factually correct. Over the past few weeks, many editors have worked on the sections in question, and there seems to be consensus over the existence of those sections. I don't want to get into an edit war (I've already reverted twice), and I'm not sure of the proper scope for the accuracy tags, nor of the protocol for using them. Perhaps some people can keep the article on their watchlists to monitor the situation. Thanks, HKT ^talk 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

A user, User:DHarjo with a nasty dispostion and likley sockpuppet accounts has taken up residence at Talk:Western United States and Talk:American West. He's intent on only portrarying one model of how the region is defined, his. He is determined to include areas that are not always included and exclud areas that sometimes are. His view is already included in the article, but he's seeking to suppress differing views. I've tried to reason with him; Jmabel, Katefan0, and myself all of whom live in or are from areas that can be considered the West- and therefore have personal experience and knowledge of our homestates. I'd file an RFC, but I need Katefan0 to certify the basis and she's on vacation. Without an RFC, this is the only other place I can think of to turn for help. HELP!!!. -JCarriker 04:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I can generally certify that DHarjo's behavior has been bad, including a lot of personal attacks. I can certify JCarriker's specific complaints about DHarjo, but I can't certify that I have also tried and failed to work with DHarjo on this because the dispute is about a topic I am not significantly involved in. For all I know, DHarjo may have some legitimate issues about the content of the article: I can't tell, because DHarjo seems to be attacking personally rather than stating a case. (In particular, just giving a list of books does not amount to citation, especially for removing material from an article: you can't just say "go out and read these nine thick books and you'll know that other one you specificaly cited is wrong".) -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• PerhapasWP:RFC?Geni 06:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• If the misbehaviour continues, perhaps Joe would be willing to certify it in the interim. El_C 06:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  But I can't certify that I've tried to work this through with DHarjo, because I haven't (and have no desire to try). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps someonelse could step in and try to work this out. If their efforts succeded there would be no need for an RFC, if they failed they could certify it. -JCarriker 06:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • • I'm willing to come in and see if some kind of middle ground can be reached. I need to hear from DHjaro before I come to any real conclusion, but I think that the confusion and conflict comes from both sides wanting the article to be about different things. The Western United States is a geographical article, but what DHjaro seems to want to talk about is how, historically, the American West has been treated. Many of the books he cites are history books; particularly those from so-called "New Western" historians, who (in a general sense) define the West as a region starting from the 98th parallel, and also define it in terms of aridity to distinguish it from the East. The article as it stands adheres firmly to the Census Bureau definition, which is demographic, not geographic or historical. TX and OK may not be in the CB-defined West, but certainly for most historians they would want to talk about the settling of OK in their story of the West, and TX is a special case on its own. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and see what input I can offer, although strictly speaking I'm not a Western historian. --khaosworks 07:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking IP addresses and proxy ranges: recap/summary/personal advice

Legitimate Wikipedians may be blocked through no fault of their own, because their edits come from proxy servers maintained by major Internet service providers like AOL and NTL. For an example, see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. Keep in mind that for every user who perseveres and gets unblocked, there are probably more who just give up and go away.

Blocks in proxy ranges should be kept to a minimum:

• Vandals may use these proxies, but many more potentially legitimate users will do too.
• The effort needed to revert vandalism is negligible. Administrators often block because they're tired of "personally" taking care of it or desire to "punish" the vandal, not because a block is really necessary to prevent wide-scale damage. A block is a time-saver, not a panacea. Vandalism is reverted incredibly fast on Wikipedia—and that's not because we block vandals.
• A short block (in the order of 15 minutes) is often just as effective as a long one. A blocked vandal will quickly lose interest and move on.
• Persistent vandals cannot be stopped even by long blocks, because they will sooner or later be assigned a new proxy by their ISP (for legitimate users, it obviously feels more like "later"). This is not taking into account persistent vandals who are knowledgeable, and will seek out proxies on their own.

While Special:Blockip has a big and obvious list of IP ranges that contain proxies, administrators routinely overlook, misunderstand or ignore the advice to keep blocks as short as possible. Two things conspire to make this situation extra bad:

• These ranges are maintained manually. There is no software support for checking if an IP address is within the range and reminding administrators. This is bug #2879.
• There is a so-called "autoblocker", which blocks anyone (registered or anonymous) editing under an IP address formerly used by a blocked account (registered or anonymous) for 24 hours. There are currently no means to selectively turn off the autoblocker, or a way to block only an account or only an IP address. It is possible to unblock the autoblocked accounts without affecting the original block, but you'd have to know it happened in the first place.

The net effect is that if a proxy is blocked, everyone who edits through that proxy is blocked, vandal, anonymous editor and account-holding Wikipedian alike. I've noticed a startling lack of concern from many admins, who seem to think AOL customers aren't worthy of editing Wikipedia anyway, or who believe the benefit of blocking a vandal outweighs the possibility of losing legitimate editors. If that's really what you think, I'd personally be grateful if you didn't block at all and limited yourself to using rollback. Then again, I don't spend hours every day patrolling recent changes, so the battle-hardened veterans may consider me soft and lazy. So be it. I'm not here to tell you how to do your job, I'm just telling it like I see it.

If you are an admin, please take the following guidelines under consideration, even if you decide not to follow them:

• If you haven't already done so, please set an e-mail address in your preferences so blocked users can reach you. This will not reveal your e-mail address to anyone, unless you reply to them.
• Do not hand out blocks if, through circumstances, you have little time to spend on Wikipedia. A careless or overlong block is usually worse than none at all. We will always have alert editors to revert vandalism; admins reachable and willing to unblock people are rarer, no matter how you slice it. You are not personally responsible for driving every vandal off Wikipedia you happen to come across.
• Read and respect the instructions given at Special:Blockip. If you do not understand what an IP range is or how to check if an address falls into a range, then by all means do not block IP addresses. Ask a fellow admin to show you the ropes if necessary. Admins are kind, pleasant and patient folks, right? You should know. :-) Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of if you're willing to acknowledge it.
• I would caution against blocking IP ranges themselves too, but this isn't necessary: generally the people who know how to do this also know when and how to use it. If you're not one of them... just don't.
• In particular, do not block any IP address indefinitely, unless you happen to work for whoever administers the address and can guarantee that nobody else but the original user will ever edit under it. Admins may occasionally decide to block an IP address indefinitely if they are convinced that only persistent, regular and extensive vandalism comes from it, despite repeat blocks. Current wisdom is that open proxies are also to be blocked indefinitely—again, if you do not know how to check that an IP is an open proxy, do not block it indefinitely. Except for these rare circumstances, the benefits of indefinite IP blocks do not outweigh the risks. Vandalism can be undone, but we cannot reclaim users who gave up trying to edit Wikipedia.

Folks... let's be careful out there. JRM · Talk 20:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When dealing with AOL IPs, I find that it's often better to just {{vprotect}} the article for an hour or two.--nixie 01:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent low-level but maddening vandalism

I've tried bringing this to other admins' and non-admin' attention, and haven't got anywhere, but I need to keep trying, because the problem won't go away. I recently placed the following notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it's been removed twice, without adequate or any explanation:

• OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Ultimate Star Wars Freak (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) — their edits involve insistent reverting of my attempts to Wikify articles; they change Wikilinks from my corrected versions to redirect-versions, change capitalisation in headings, etc., remove section headings, etc., and latterly even simply removing information simply because I've reformatted it (see, for example: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (and compare, for example, [9] and [10]) — but there are hundreds, and the effect is cumulative). I have attempted to reason with them, but they refuse even to compromise, much less change their approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, nor a dispute about style (though style does come into it); it's mainly a problem of persistent low-level vandalism across a large number of articles. these two editors insist on reverting my (and a couple of others') changes to "their" articles in the pop-music area; these include correction of Wikilinks, and MoS corrections to headers, etc. There's nothing unclear or controversial about it, as some of the diffs above indicate. I've tried repeatedly to reason with them, to point them in the direction of the manual of style — but they're not interested (see also Talk:Vision of Love for more discussion of all this). I'm trying to deal with almost single-handed; a couple of editors are helping on a couple of the articles, but I'm spending more than half my editing time simply reverting this pair, and trying to Wikify other articles of which they've taken ownership. (They don't only disdain the MoS, they don't even follow the music-project's single- and album-templates — and they're not even consistent, sometimes reverting one article from style A to style B, and another article from style B to style C. At times it seems that they're simply reverting whatever I do, regardless of content.)

Help! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel, seeing as the AC has imposed sanctions against an editor for "wikistalking", I'd say it's pretty clear that the kind of behavior you describe is against policy in that way. If explaining the MoS, etc., has not changed their behavior, I think escalating this to an RFC or beyond is wise -- people just shouldn't do what they're doing (at least in the examples I read from the links you provide above). In the meantime, if you need help, I hope everyone will be more responsive (I know I'll do my best to keep an eye on articles for this sort of thing). Let me know if you need more or more specific help than this. Jwrosenzweig 00:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I think that the best first step is for the articles to receive attention from more editors, as I suspect that the problem has its roots in the fact that these two (and perhaps others) have been left alone to create and edit the pop-music articles, and have little experience of the wider Wikipedia community. They see me as just an individual with a bee in his bonnet; if my edits were backed up by others, they might begin to calm down and learn how to work by consensus, MoS, and Wikipedia custom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe these editors have, your view of them to the contrary, created a long series of excellent articles on songs and albums. Calling them vandals is really beyond the pale. Everyking 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

And I think that you need to think before writing comments here — just for a minute. And looking at the relevant discussions would probably be a good idea too, as well as reading more carefully what you're reacting to. Try living without lashing out at everyone at the slightest (or at no) provocation — you might find that you like it. Everyone else would.

First, I haven't called them vandals, I've said that they're engaging in (low-level) vandalism. Secondly, I not only agree that they've contributed a great deal, I've said that to them in my attempts to reason with them (see, for example, [11]). However, it's possible both to contribute usefully in some respects and to behave badly in others (just look at the comments in the recent RfA against you). In fact in everything that I've said above I've stressed that I don't want heavy-handed action against them, just some experienced editors looking at and editing the articles in question so that they become aware of the Wikipedia community and its norms and standards.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, it's always possible (indeed, desirable) to keep quiet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, then take your own advice and keep quiet. Everyking 10:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom temporary injunction on JarlaxleArtemis

The following temporary injunction is in force while the Arbitration case is in force:

JarlaxleArtemis (talk • contribs) is banned from editing any Wikipedia article other than his own user pages and pages relating to this Arbitration until a final decision is made.

The user has been notified - David Gerard 22:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Did you know" template correction

The current entry for Battle of Cajamarca on Template:Did you know needs attention on both factual and grammatical grounds:

...that at the Battle of Cajamarca in 1532 the last Incan Emperor Atahualpa was captured by the Spanish and that the battle is considered the decisive victory in the Spanish conquest of the South America?

• Some may quibble that Tupac Amaru, and not Atahualpa, was the last Inca Emperor (Atahualpa could be called the last legitimate Emperor, but even that seems awkward, given that he won the throne from his brother Huascar in a brutal civil war).
• Spanish conquest of Peru might be more appropriate than Spanish colonization of the Americas
• "the South America" begs for an obvious correction. "South America" could also possibly be replaced with "Peru".

Personally, I'm not too fond of the phrase in its entirety, but at this point I think these few minor corrections are preferable to a total rewrite. If the latter is considered, I may suggest:

...that at the Battle of Cajamarca in 1532 the Inca Emperor Atahualpa was captured by Pizarro's conquistadors and that the battle was a decisive victory in the Spanish conquest of Peru?

Albrecht 23:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Because you were the one that created the article, and thus the expert in that subject, I made the copyedit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Am I tainted?

I just removed protection from therianthropy because IMO it was hastily and inappropriately applied, but Jayjg suggests that I shouldn't have because a couple of days ago I made an edit to the article related to the argument it was protected as a result of. He also suggests I shouldn't be enforcing the 3RR there due to my previous involvement in trying to straighten the argument out, and that I should bring the subject up here (which I'm doing now :). I obviously didn't think it was a big deal when I did it, does anyone have suggestions on what I should do now? Bryan 23:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, nevermind about the protection part - I reprotected the page, put a request for unprotection on RfP, and the original protector unprotected it again all within a couple of minutes. That's moot now. I suppose the part about 3RR still stands, though. Bryan 00:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the question largely revolves around taking a side in any given dispute; I have no knowledge of whether your attempt to, as you put it, "straighten the argument out" counst as that, one way or the other (because I haven't looked at the article at all). El_C 01:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did state an opinion on the substance of the dispute - that one edit I mentioned making was a result of that. And that opinion happened to be in rough agreement with the opinion of one of the parties involved in the dispute. However, I didn't take a side with either of them as individual users, and I have admonished both of them about what I felt was bad behavior in the past. Although I still consider myself unbiased as far as their behavior is concerned, at this point I suspect the appropriate action would be for me to just squawk loudly to other admins in the event of resumed warring on this page and hope that someone will use their powers in my place - I don't want to stretch anyone's comfort levels. Bryan 01:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's a clear 3RR vio (i.e., four edits in 24 hours that add/remove the same info), I'll volunteer; leave me a note and I'll do the block. -- Essjay · Talk 06:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)