Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive427

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 FSFS (talk · contribs) 2 Theft of Wikipedia content to populate fraudulent web sites for pupose of link farming or similar 3 Underbelly (TV series) 4 I.R. 5 Evolutionary psychology 6 User: Archilles last stand 7 Darwinek 8 Betacommand and Locke Cole blocked for editwarring on WP:BOTS 9 Complex IP vandalism -- again 10 User:TinucherianBot malfunctioning, and not supervised 11 Disruptive IP 12 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writetomorrow? 13 Vandal IP 14 Harvey Korman 15 User:Greg L 15.1 Figure of Merit—Binary prefixes (Purplebox) 15.1.1 Vote Comments 16 Falung Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom_related) 17 User:Sheepnacidadegrande 18 Arbitration enforcement on User:Xasha 18.1 User:Xasha 19 Creationism series image 20 User creating multiple articles of questionable notability 21 POINTY article creation 22 !BADSITE! hacked? 22.1 Seems OK now? 23 IP troll 24 Odd sockpuppetry and vandalism by editors on articles related to The Intruder (1986 film) 25 CSD tag removal 26 User Luobos (contribs) malware links 27 User Blaxthos reported me for 3RR with no reason or notification. 28 I want a block to be reviewed 29 "Unreliable prodders" 30 London cities template - slow edit war 31 User:Tancarville 32 Massive and confusing revert war at WP:V 33 Edit/Revert War in progress... 34 Massive redirect deletions 34.1 Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 1 34.2 Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 2 34.3 Massive redirect deletions - Call for immediate robot-restore 34.4 Lack of response by deleting admin 34.5 Block of User:MZMcBride 34.6 I'm confused now 34.7 Transclusion of MZMcBride talkpage 34.8 Detailed look at what happened 34.9 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Pilotguy 35 Edit War on User:Jimbo Wales

[edit] FSFS (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it has confirmed that FSFS is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). Can an available admin issue the appropriate block whenever possible, please?

Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done by Tiptoety. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theft of Wikipedia content to populate fraudulent web sites for pupose of link farming or similar

Someone has registered a number of web sites whose domain names include the character string "-pedia". Content from Wikipedia, related or not to the domain name, is stolen and somehow copied to web pages under that domain name. At the bottom of many pages are a list of randomly-generated links. The links are generated using a PHP script found here: http://www.mutib.com/randomlink/link.php. The links generated reveal the inventory of fraudulent web sites. The aforementioned link failed once and left an error message--that's how I found out about the link.

Some of the pages have banner ads at the top. Surprise, surprise...the ones I've seen look like they would take one to a porn site.

I hope an administrator finds this and can take action against it.

Kelly Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellydcarter (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a page we have to report these, but I've right now forgotten where it is. :/ Can anyone help? Orderinchaos 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All or something similar. Good night, all (it's 02:00 where I live). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin of Wikipedia != admin of the Internet; we don't have any special authority in these matters. If the reproduction in question complies with the GFDL then it's perfectly legitimate, and if it doesn't, chances are the infringement isn't actionable anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There could be trademark (confusion among the public) concerns but that's for the lawyer(s) to deal with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a GFDL violation. They don't credit Wikipedia or its contributors anywhere. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send the standard email to the site owner and web host. Should I get a reply, I'll report back. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Underbelly (TV series)

Anon 124.190.198.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is adding a list of people unsourced and based on original research (Sources added don't state that they have been in the series) and there has also been a past discussions on the very same thing Talk:Underbelly (TV_series)#Brincat and Faure as mr t and mr l Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of this page and I've also replyed to there latest comment on the Underbelly talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave him another warning. I think he is failing to understanding our OR and V policies (not to mention edit warring and consensus) rather than being deliberately malicious. Sarah 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I.R.

Just a few minutes ago I received a personal threat from someone claiming to be the singer I.R. (whose page is currently under deletion discussion) regarding the deletion of an album image he uploaded. He left the following comment on my talk page (diff):

I would like ti adress of the person/administrator whom added the template of deletion for Image:Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.]]. The image is copyrighted by my record label Atomix Productions and is held copyrighted laws by me I.R.. I will remove the template and it shall not be added, its a stricit violation to our policy: paragraph 7: any information added about our musicians shall stay, may be edited by shall not be deleted as code 412367 states "Editing shalt not be done unless the musician decided to do so." if this template is shown again in Image:Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.jpg Image:Puakenisweet.jpg your account will be deleted.

I don't know what to do here. I have already dropped the user a note letting him know that conflict of interest is frowned upon (someone else already told him that but he won't listen), and that his images serve no purpose since they're for non-notable albums. I don't know what else to do though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiight. "Editing shalt not be done"? I mean, seriously? Why don't you ask him to point you to this "policy", such as in the label website? While you're at it, you may want to let him know that

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

You know, in case he missed it at the bottom of every single edit window on Wikipedia ;) A link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem may always be in order. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, our policies trump his... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the GFDL trumps both, and the GFDL says Ivan is full of it. If he's really the copyright holder, then he has already released the image in question under the GFDL and has forfeited a number of legal rights regarding the intellectual property. If he's not the copyright holder, then the image is a copyvio and deletion is the appropriate response. Either way, I think the proper response is to ignore him, warn him if he doesn't stop, and if he still doesn't stop then report him here to have him blocked.

My prediction: He'll get exasperated when all of "his" articles and images get snowball-deleted, and go back to MySpace. --22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

He's 14 years old, FWIW. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the article as an A7, but the fact it included his DoB was disconcerting. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He also apparently doesn't really understand copyright, since his ripoff at Image:EniSweet.jpg is a copyvio of the original image. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just snowballed the last of the articles. The above comments are ridiculous attempts at sounding legal, nothing else. WBOSITG has warned - we'll see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this looks to be related to this AFD. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal threat? Are you kidding me? You must be kidding me... --Badger Drink (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary psychology

I need some eyes over at evolutionary psychology. According to the page history, someone is using WP:SPA accounts and anonymizing proxies to delete content from the article, edit war, and avoid the 3RR. Having just seen this, it appears to have been going on for some time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect filed here. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Archilles last stand

Given the behaviour of Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his edits to Usury, (Incident archive 425) I was bored enough to check his latest contributions. In both his latest page edit and in the edit summaries for Scott McClellan I think he's still being a dick as Neil so amusingly puts it. Can someone wield a cluestick in his direction please? --Blowdart | ^talk 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blowdart - I am keeping an eye on Archilles' editing. You don't need to keep reporting this. He's just about okay, for now - the McClellan edits are brash but not really incivil. Neıl 龱 08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darwinek

The above user persists in editing an article on Javorník (Jeseník District) on which I have worked hard for very long time and refuses to even consider a remotely flexible approach to discussion. Several days ago, I added a new references to the article to help readers and editors alike. He keeps on removing these without explanation. I have had some experience with this person before and he often acts in league with other editors in order to avoid the 3RR. I frustrated that he keeps on bullying other editors and should be stopped at once. Thank you. Bolekpolivka (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This RFCU might be of some relevance here. I am not blocking Bolekpolivka here because I don't have the time to review the case at this time. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the blocking of Darwinek that's been requested, not the blocking of Bolekpolivka. Although at the moment, it seems to be an article dispute that's got out of hand, as Darwinek is a respectable admin. Discussion between the pair has taken place since this comment was posted by Bolekpolivka. Lradrama 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Darwinek and Bolekpolivka have both reverted 3 times on the affected article (including Bolekpolivka's logged out editing). The question is, is Bolekpolivka logging out on purpose to avoid scrutiny or accidentally. This edit suggests the former. Thatcher 12:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So does this one. Lradrama 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

@Lradrama: Yeah I know, but I wanted to point that before a good willing admin blocked Darwinek for 3RR without a full review of the situation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolekpolivka is a wiki-recidivist, been blocked in the past for intentional use of sockpuppets in similar situation. I suggest not taking him seriously, everyone who would read his excuses and tricks back then before he was blocked would agree with me. He tried to "lie-out" from it back then. As for the article, there is really no case here. I have edited list of municipal parts of the town added by him, because it was wrong. I provided a reference to the State Administration website and corrected his edits. No case here, Bolekpolivka should be blocked for using sockpuppets again, this time longer block should be applied. Meanwhile he can read WP:OWN and our other policies. - Darwinek (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there point giving him links to essays he probably won't read? I'll send him a few words of advice in the meantime... Lradrama 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it is sometimes hard to fight for decency and firmness on Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Unfortunately, thats what you get when you persist with working here, because there will always be those who are just plain ignorant or simply can't grasp what it means to be one of our community. If he continues, he will be blocked for a longer period of time. Lradrama 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

After carefully reviewing the situation, myself and Darwinek have reached the decision to block the disruptive editor / sockpuppeteer Bolekpolivka for 1 month. Lradrama 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand and Locke Cole blocked for editwarring on WP:BOTS

I've blocked both Betacommand (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs) for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. Locke Cole made 4 reverts, and Betacommand made 3 reverts. Part of a long, protracted, edit war on that page. — Werdna talk 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A valid block, let's not this devolve into another Betacommand focused thread. Two blocks, for 3RR, cut 'n dry. Keegan^talk 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well not technicaly 3RR cut and dry, as Beta apparently didn't violate that, but probably a good block anyways. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I sort of hate to do this, but it actually looks like Beta only made 2 reverts, not the four required to violate 3RR. As for edit warring, it looks like other editors were involved as well, (SQL made the same revert that Beta did). Looking at the whole scope, I guess I do agree with a general block for edit warring, although I'm not sure what good a 24 hour block will do to an edit war that has been ongoing for weeks/months.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If it resumes, then a 48 hour block might be appropriate. If it resumes again, then a week's block would be appropriate. Sooner or later, warring editors either get blocked indefinitely or learn to play by the rules and work collaboratively. Neıl 龱 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that no-one has changed the last edit to the page that Locke Cole made. Does that mean he is right? That there is consensus on the talk page that There is presently no method for joining the Bot Approvals Group which has consensus? Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed, sorry, returned WP:BOTS and WP:BAG to the versions that everyone settled on (happy-melon's last version IIRC). Thanks for the heads up. SQL^{Query me!} 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, the two of them edit warred about this issue (though not the identical diff each time) on April 21, May 5, May 15, and again now. Someone needs to take both of them out to the woodshed about this. Good job Werdna. GRBerry 14:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if 3RR isn't technically being broken, edit-warring is edit-warring. HalfShadow 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complex IP vandalism -- again

One of the IP addresses I mentioned earlier (User:70.178.157.166) just had its block expire, and the editor promptly began vandalizing again. I'm pasting below the bulk of my post that was archived -- would appreciate a response, or someone to semi-protect this editor's apparent targets (problem being that part of the vandalism is the removal of maintenance tags from seemingly random articles).

Hi. An editor in Arkansas takes exception to . . . well, to not being a WP:DICK. During the school year from an IP address registered to the University of Arkansas, and over winter and now summer breaks from a series of proximate IP addresses, the editor has continued to undo a series of redirects and to remove maintenance tags. Several of these IPs have been individually blocked, but I thought I’d mention it here to see if a range block would be appropriate or if there’s anything to do other than have a beer sitting nearby when this fellow acts up again. The editor's talk-page comments make clear he/she has no intention of abiding by consensus or contributing anything useful to Wikipedia. A few of the popular targets -- Simon Tam, Eden McCain, Planet Express -- have received temporary semi-protection, although my most recent request for two of them to be semi-protected again was denied.

School IPs:

• 130.184.82.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 130.184.105.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 130.184.105.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 130.184.211.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 130.184.211.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 130.184.250.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

More recent (home for break?) IPs:

• 70.178.120.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 70.178.56.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 70.178.157.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Statements of non-good faith: here and here

I'd request for now either a long-term ban on those specific 70.178.*.* addresses, with the option to automatically expand that block of this editor clearly shows up under another IP from 70.178. I'm reluctant to suggest a range block on 70.178.*.*, since that's 65,536 addresses that'd be axed -- yikes. As for the 130.184, let's see what happens in the fall. --EEMIV (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As the person responsible for the merger of Firefly characters (e.g. Simon Tam), I endorse this summary as far as 70.178.*.* is concerned, and would like to see something more effective to be done because bureaucracy is currently not in favor of us (regular temp-semiprotection requests and AIV reports). – sgeureka ^t•c 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have anonblocked the three 70.178 addresses for 3 months, which should get us through the user’s summer break. —Travis^talk 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, since most of the edits from these IP addresses are to redirects, the simplest, least disruptive approach would be to semi-protect the redirects that have been edited. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At least one -- Simon Tam -- has been. Planet Express could probably stand to have permanent (or at least very long-term) semi-protection. But, the catch is that this editor also runs through and randomly removes maintenance tags. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If more IPs pop up and start the same disruptive editing, I suppose that semiprotection would be a better solution, but as it stands, it is simply easier to anonblock the identified IPs IMO. I’m certainly open to suggestions, though. —Travis^talk 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TinucherianBot malfunctioning, and not supervised

I have temporarily blocked TinucherianBot (talk · contribs) (15 min). The bot was approved for the following function:

"To tag talk pages with {{WP India}} banner for assessment purposes, and if the category is a stub category with a class rating of Stub (Purpose:WikiProject India. See related discussion here... I am from the Assessment Team of WikiProject India)."

However, it is tagging articles unrelated to WP India. Despite my repeated request to stop the bot until the issues have been solved, the bot had been running, apparently unsupervised. I had to clean up 50+ mistagged articles.

Examples:

• Pola Uddin, Baroness Uddin, a British-Bangladeshi politician. [1]
• Rudra Mohammad Shahidullah, a Bangladeshi poet. [2]

This is not the first time the bot malfunctioned. I had reported the bot malfunction yesterday to the bot operator (see User_talk:TinucherianBot#Bot_malfunction). I have again repeatedly requested the bot operator to stop the bot till these issues are fixed (see User_talk:TinucherianBot#Miscategorization.2C_again). I'm getting no response from the bot operator at this moment, so I've blocked the bot temporarily for 15 minutes. If I don't get any further response after this block expires, I'll block it for longer.

I put the block up for review here by other admins. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: The bot is still running unsupervised at this moment, so I've blocked it for now, till I hear from the bot operator. --Ragib (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive IP

81.110.106.169 (talk • contribs • count) Edit warring on many articles, reported legitimate editor to AIV four times, leaving irrelevant warnings on my talk page, etc. Enigma ^message 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV for fast action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User does not really fit the "AIV" type, as he is not a clear vandal. I mean there have been some constructive edits mixed in there, or at least some attempts at being constructive. Tiptoety ^talk 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given the user 24h block for edit warring Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Writetomorrow?

Not sure this needs an admin but, I can't seem to locate the proper policies/pages to tell me what to do. Could someone have a look as I can't see this actually listed at RfA to comment one way or the other (or if I even should). Is this a MfD candidate? Should I be putting this question elsewhere? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This could probably just be CSD'd as a test page if it is not properly formatted or transcluded within the next day or so. Maybe drop a friendly note for the user. In future, these kind of things can be brought up at WT:RFA. best, xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it yet - it's only a day old - the editor may have created it with the intention of working on the Questions. Per Xenocidic a short note at Writetimorrow's talk page is the way forward. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to be reasonable here, but an account that was created yesterday, who's only edits are to two rather marginally notable people is creating a request to be an admin? Something just doesn't seem right. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is no response from Writetimorrow, CSD as housekeeping since it isn't even listed at RfA. If he does list it later, it will be closed/quick failed pretty quickly.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wild, it's usually not funny-business in these cases (they happen all the time). Many people join Wikipedia and believe adminship is a formality of requesting it and stating a good intent. The other likely thing is they are basically seeing if "is it really that easy for me to run for this?" Of course, on occasion it is probably a joke or a request in bad faith. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Gywnand, I realize that, just struck me as kind of odd, especially for such a new user to go right to WP:RFA. I've been here 2 years and only tried once after about a year, and I'm waiting until I feel like I'm ready fully, or if I'm nominated somehow to give it another try. Either way in good faith, it's just an eager new user who doesn't understand what's quite needed for adminship. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: how does the RfA's mere existence matter? I'm always curious when I see people gunning to delete throw-away RfAs like this; they (the RfAs) aren't doing anything, aren't causing anyone harm, so why not just ignore them? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed per WP:PERF they can be safely ignored. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

They take server space :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting them technically takes up more space; the history is still there, but now it has to log the deletion as well. And then there's all the resultant discussion that comes from not ignoring them... :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

True, he says adding to that space, but deleting the RfAs of new users is the humane thing to do. The last thing we want is for a brilliant editor, 6, 8, 12, 24 months later, to be haunted (and judged rigorously) by them having an RfA1 being the ghost at the feast of RfA2. Better to forgive and forget early mistakes in a Wikipedia career by deleting them. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One could also make the argument that MfDing inappropriate pages is a deterrent to using Wikipedia as MySpace, so in the end you might end up saving server space in the long term. That said, I usually look the other way when I see inappropriate userpages, unless they are spam, offensive, or extensive. (e.g. I know of one user who has a few K of fan fiction that he wrote stored in his user space. I suggested he might be better off storing it at Google Docs, but I'm not going to force the issue) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal IP

User:218.28.49.172 Is adding spam links to anontalk.com or something --LiteralKa (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is where you need to report :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry LiteralKa (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is legitimate to report here: it's an IP-hopping spambot which could use a few more eyes. This one has been around for a while. It's currently using an edit summary of "Reverted vandalism." with +24 of content. As soon as you block one, it finds another proxy. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I unblocked the IP to reblock as an open proxy, but it kept spamming while it was unblocked. Over 30 IPs have been spamming that link. Is there a way to modify the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist so it blacklists any variations of "anontalk.com"? Spellcast (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn’t adding links, it is adding “www.'''AnonTalk.com'''” and I doubt that the blacklist will catch it. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken. —Travis^talk 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the link to the blacklist some time ago. I'm not sure how one could blacklist the link with that formatting *scratches head*...anyone think they can figure this out?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I know you're right; we can't prevent addition of simple text strings. Anontalk is already in the blacklist.

Anyone with a little extra time might find it worthwhile to go through all the edits by these IPs, since they were deliberately targeting high traffic articles (possibly from recent changes), so some may have crept through in between other schoolkid vandalism and RC patrol reverts. Antandrus (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted some of these from yesterday and they weren't high traffic artciles at all. The insertions seemed to be bookended by other IP edits of dubious quality. Is anyone gathering up IPs involved in this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yah, that's what I meant ... "recent traffic" articles. Its tactic is to try to sneak edits in adjacent to others. Antandrus (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A Google search didn't find anything, though the cache is a few days old. The spammer seems to be using open proxies, so list any IPs that haven't already been blocked as open proxies at WP:WPOP so someone can check. Hut 8.5 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Korman

Man just died. People are posting cause of death as heart attack during sex and "complications from stupid head disease". Please lock this biography. Edits are being made in very poor taste.

Timestamp so this gets archived. --Rividian (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Greg L

(Sorry for the length.)

For several months, User:Greg L has been on a single-minded crusade to rid Wikipedia of a standard unit convention that he really doesn't like, by pushing a rule into the Manual of Style without consensus. The issue has been disputed off and on for about 3 years now, but his intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.

Incivility

He constantly ridicules and belittles the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him, and doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with this ( 'That’s “ridicule” of certain arguments, not a “personal attack”. No whining.' [3]) His tone is very often personally-targeted, combative and mocking:

• "“Oh God! The people who go to Star Trek conventions wearing Spock ears have hijacked Wikipedia.” That’s not intended as a personal attack whatsoever. It’s the simple truth; an observation intended to help yank some authors here back to reality!"[4]
• "I’m sorry, I can’t debate something with someone who doesn’t have a remote connection to reality. ... You can don orange robes, douse yourself in gasoline, and set yourself alight over how you don’t think FCL had or has consensus. I don’t care." Greg L (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• "You should read more before being so anxious to play the role of den mother and admonish others for not being as logical and organized as you pretend to be." Greg L (my talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• "What’s going on with you Jimp? Have you been up too late? ... I’m quite done trying to have a rational discussion with you; I can’t handle writings that exhibit military-strength detachment from reality and wholesale disregard of simple facts; I’m going back to Earth now." Greg L (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• "I won’t rest until I’ve done my part to help put an end to this hogwash." Greg L (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• "I can’t see any evidence that trying to accommodate any of the “oppose” elements’ concerns accomplishes anything." Greg L (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Your above post is purely specious garbage. You’re now running around to articles and mucking them up with stupid edits ... Stop acting like a stubborn child, go with the flow of the level-headed majority here that has spoken clearly, and grow up!"[5]
• "No. I’m not willing to be unnecessarily dragged down a path of mental and verbal gymnastics for something that is so simple a sixth grader could settle it. ... I am truly not interested in wasting my time in the name of “finding common ground”" Greg L (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More inside the yellow box:

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
"I really do wish you’d stop waiving your hands in the air, playing a logical game of “you can’t catch me”, and just admitted that you really intend on fully messing up Wikipedia" Greg L (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) "Trying to format numbers in a European way would baffle Americans. Conversely, the American way of formatting numbers is readily accepted by other English-speaking countries simply because they are more sophisticated than Americans (don’t bother whining to me about that statement; it’s true)." Greg L (my talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC) "When you begin an argument with totally fallacious charges, I tune out the rest of your arguments; they aren't worthy of the time to refute them. Goodbye." Greg L (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC) "Who is this anonymous chicken shit? ... How old are you? Sixteen? Grow up. ... you appear to have confused me with someone who gives a crap about this."[6] "Two options (because “Are you smarter than a fifth grader” wasn’t suitable for a third)"[7] "All this “let’s find common ground” business of Thunderbird2’s, with its gamed questions that have had the examples stripped completely the hell out of them so they are ambiguous beyond all reason, is a colossal waste of time. Get to the point!" Greg L (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) "makes Wikipedia appear as if it has been hijacked by foolish, idealistic young people who’ve read way too many sci-fi books." Greg L (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC) "I figured you’d pipe up with such a horse-crap accusation after I wrote that." Greg L (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) "makes Wikipedia look like it’s been hijacked by a bunch of space cadets." Greg L (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) "I think that if you really feel that way, you need some more maturing. ‘Ridicule of conduct’, though you may not like it, is not a prohibited personal attack." Greg L (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) "I pretty much guarantee you that twenty years from now, you’re going to look back at this time of your life and think: “Gaad, I was such a dill weed back then.”" Greg L (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC) "getting Woodstone to agree to such a point is like trying to compress a balloon between cupped palms: push a bulge in here and one or two others are bound to pop out elsewhere. Someone take the hammer away from me; banging my head over and over with the thing is starting to feel good!" Greg L (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) "No. I reject such an attitude as arrogant and utter nonsense." Greg L (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC) "I bound into the brush like a hunting dog to flush ‘em out, and Fnagaton swings around his ol’ 12-gauge." Greg L (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) "smeared lipstick on their pig and tried to pass it off as a prom date" 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) "That’s pure B.S. and these proponents of using them have to get real." Greg L (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) "P-u-h-l-e-e-z-e, who are you trying to kid?" Greg L (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC) "a ridiculous extremist movement"[8] "What is wrong with you?!?" Greg L (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC) "Give it up for God’s sake." Greg L (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC) "I think I’ve just had my belly full of a voiciferous minority of editors making Wikipedia look brain damanged by running off using weird units of measure ... And you guys still support this train wreck of a policy! Unbelievable. ... just pardon me all over the place but I’ve seen that kind of language out of you before and it never went anywhere. You just happen to be the only editor who gave such a piss-poor vote on the purple box." Greg L (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC) "we’re still battling a minority of holdouts that buzz around like agitated killer bees and make it nearly impossible to go about with life. Cease and desist." Greg L (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

...and you can find more in the talk page archives and other related pages. He's been called out on this many times,[9][10][11] but continues unabated. Where do we draw the line for "gross incivility"?

Edit warring

His objective is to get his preferred style "turned into a policy as fast as the process will allow."[12] As such, he repeatedly re-adds his text to the Manual of Style, despite a number of other editors opposing the changes and removing them.[13] When they put {{disputed}} tags on the section, he removes them.[14][15][16] He's violated 3RR at least once during these wars.[17][18][19]

Vote stacking

He repeatedly claims that "his side" has "won" consensus through majority rule (like a 7:5 vote when dozens of people have expressed opinions in the debate), proposes votes regularly,[20] and ridicules the notion that we don't make decisions this way.

After creating a vote, he notifies a number of users about it on their talk pages,[21] selected because they had voted "support" on a previous poll.[22] When criticized for canvassing, he responds, "I never let myself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules."[23]

Few of the people who oppose him are actually participating in his votes, and a number have stated that they are avoiding the discussion altogether because of the poisonous atmosphere and unproductive argument. His claimed majority includes at least one sockpuppet.

He will likely come here and complain about me "abusing my admin powers" by removing the text from the guideline page, but I believe the burden of proof for consensus rests on the person adding the content to the policy or guideline, not removing it. When a number of editors immediately add a "disputed" tag to a new section and then revert war over the placement of the tag itself, it can hardly be said to have consensus, can it? — Omegatron (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the squabble over SI or Imperial units was still going on - I remember nearly getting dragged into it back in 2005 when I started editing. Why is this not at RFC? Greg is clearly very upset, but I think a warning from someone wholly uninvolved would suffice, rather than resorting to blocks. I won't do it, as I am very biased in this dispute, having a personal preference for SI.

This dispute needs to go to RFC for concerted community input, to get a consensus on the matter. Neıl 龱 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Who doesn't have a personal preference for either SI or Imperial? I'd hardly consider that a bias. Basically, that perceived bias renders everyone powerless to act if you look at it your way. I agree with the RFC though. This issue needs a more directed attempt at community input.--Atlan (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg's writing style is colorful but he has a powerful argument. Wikepedia should follow the general style that other encyclopedias, the technical press, the general press and the computer industry follows. The proponents of the IEC binary prefixes claim that it doesn't matter if no one else uses them, they are blessed by SI.

This is a content dispute. Omegatron was instrumental in getting the IEC binary prefixes into the manual of style and has been a persistent supporter of them. An RFC to a wider audience would be a good idea. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I am one of the editors involved in the 7:5 vote referred to above by Omegatron, and was at the receiving end of some of the edits that he mentions. I wish to clarify that the dispute has nothing to do with SI or Imperial units. It involves the units used to quantify computer storage.

• In a nutshell, there is an international standard for such units that Greg L and other like-minded editors seek to deprecate; another group of editors, including myself, prefers to avoid such deprecation.

Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been in and out of this discussion over the months, usually just lurking. A large reason for my disengagement has been GregL's tone. While it may be colorful, nobody enjoys having their ideas mocked and belittled. It amounts to a ready assumption of bad faith on the part of anyone whose position he disagrees with, and is very fatiguing even if not formally incivil. He does know how to be constructive, but still he habitually chooses to make fun of other editors. When not engaging in this behaviour, GregL can be both energetic and perceptive in his analysis. It is unfortunate that so much of that energy goes into squabbles around this one trivial aspect (IEC units) that affects few articles touched on by the guideline as a whole.

It should be clarified that the content dispute seems to a considerable extent to have its roots in a weak definition of WP:CONCENSUS. We all know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but with a little intransigence on both sides it seems this style guideline will be fought over ad inf. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it disputed or accepted that at least people should not go changing articles where one form or another is used? Perhaps the disputed tag can be limited to the matter under dispute. It's hard for someone not previously inbolved to tell without going through this whole debate--can someone summarize the issue?DGG (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily ad infinitum. I'm sure that in a few years, a generation at most, use of the IEC prefixes will become common, perhaps even predominant, and the argument will become moot.

For those new to this, Greg and others (myself included) have argued that Wikipedia should not use the IEC units, because essentially no one else does, and Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Others have argued in favour of IEC units based on their consistency with the SI system and lack of ambiguity. Real-world usage is inconsistent (if you see 1MB it might be used to mean 1,000,000 bytes or 1024 x 1024 bytes or even 1000 x 1024 bytes) but the IEC-approved unit 1MiB always means 1024 x 1024 bytes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The substance of the discussion centres around the fact that the most common units of computer storage (kilobyte, megabyte etc) are ambiguous. Everyone involved agrees that editors should be required to disambiguate by stating which kind of (eg) MB they are referring to. The dispute revolves entirely around how to disambiguate. One view is that the guideline should be prescriptive, stating precisely how it should be done (and banning an alternative method in all but exceptional circumstances). The other view does not wish to see the deprecation of that alternative method.

But the issue raised by Omegatron is not about substance. If someone can find away of getting Greg L to avoid using inflammatory language, and listen to opposing arguments instead of ridiculing them, I am confident that we can find a solution at the page itself. But for as long as LeadSongDog (and others who avoid the page for similar reasons, including Omegatron) feels unable to contribute, it is hard to see how a consensus can be reached. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say unable. It just seems like the aggravation isn't worth it if there's no resolution in sight. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure some users got sanctioned at RFAR over disputes over m/z nomenclature, not to mention that interminable dispute over highways names. We tell non-notable bands, companies and authors all the time, "Wikipedia is not a tool to make you famous but we will write about you when you are famous." So when the rest of the world adopts mibibytes or whatever they are, we will too. Until then, editors who can not be flexible in their demands for change will likely find themselves at the receiving end of Arbcom's big 'ole cluebat. Thatcher 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is not about deprecation as Thunderbird2 claims, but rather it is about making sure guidelines accurately reflect what would be suitable to go into an article. In a nutshell we have Omegatron and a mintority of others trying to advocate the virtually unused and unfamiliar IEC prefixes which goes against several Wikipedia policies about using notable content in articles with a neutral point of view. It is also about the undue weight for IEC prefixes advocated by some. Omegatron claims there wasn't consensus when actually the fact is there was consensus for the change and Omegatron personally disagrees with the result of the debate. The burden of proof for consensus has been demonstrated several times already and several uninvolved editors have stepped in and said so over the past few months. Omegatron's personal disagreement with the consensus is not a good enough reason to keep on reverting something that was placed with consensus. As for the "incivility" one only has to look at the repeated edit warring from Omegatron (removal of content with edit comments incorrectly claiming there isn't consensus) and uncivil comments (for example trying to belittle Greg by calling him fanatical) which is probably why Greg sees Omegatron as abusing his position as administrator. Omegatron had one simple solution which was to stop reverting content but Omegatron did not stop doing that. Omegatron's actions have escalated the situation to where it has reached now. Omegatron should know better than to try to game the system by continuously reverting the same bit of text, even if Omegatron keeps on doing it every few days it is still tendentious editing. I would also say to Thunderbird2 that Greg does listen to opposing arguments, however the opposing arguments (for IEC use) have been refuted many times and are very weak but still they are repeated ad infiniteum. Thus, one can only see the same old refuted arguments so many times before laughing at them. Fnagaton 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• From Greg L: For the benefit of the administrators who have to quickly sort this out, Let’s take a look at what the real issue is. This dispute with the use of the IEC prefixes has raged for years on Talk:MOSNUM. The fact that there are now twelve “Binary” archives devoted to this one topic, shows that its use on Wikipedia has likely proven to be the most contentious, most disputed, least successful guideline/policy on all of Wikipedia. A clear majority of editors want it changed but a highly active minority has blocked change from the beginning. Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus to use the IEC prefixes when he lead the effort in getting the policy posted to MOSNUM but he went ahead and did so anyway. It has had its extreme detractors and extreme proponents and this brings about passions. I’m relatively new to this dispute but have studied the past history and am now up-to-speed on what has transpired in the past.

  As for charges of “vote stacking”, many, many editors have voted on various incarnations of a policy that would discontinue the use of the IEC prefixes. In each vote, a clear majority of editors wanted to discontinue the practice. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), most of these editors aren’t nearly as passionate about the IEC prefixes; they just weigh in with a vote comment along the lines of “makes sense to me and will solve a long-standing problem that has been a source of friction for years” and then go off to happier editing waters where there is less bickering. After those votes had been conducted, the opponents of change (proponents to continue using the IEC prefixes) moved the discussion to hard-to-find backwater venues and took the issue completely off the radar screens of all these moderate, less impassioned editors. It magically seemed that they also knew how to work in a highly coordinated fashion when doing so. Then, when a new vote comes up, the only people voting on it were a very small subset of the original editors who had voted on the original proposals. Because of these tactics, the issue was off these moderate-minded editors’ radar screens and they had every right to know they were now disenfranchised and their original votes were completely meaningless. I did this out in the open using postings on talk pages and did not use e-mails whatsoever. First I was told this was “canvassing”. When it became clear that I had only contacted moderate editors who had lost track of the issue, I was told it was “vote stacking.” I responded that the proponents of the continued use the IEC prefixes could contact “no-vote”-minded editors if they liked. They didn’t take me up on the offer and the obvious reason is that all the editors who were ever going to continue to vote “oppose” to the new guidelines were the ones who were active on the discussion and were working in consort; the tactic of moving the discussion to remote backwaters had achieved the intended effect of taking it off radar screens. And my letting these other editors know about that their original votes had been nullified amounted to playing right into a trap. I feel like a civil rights advocate working in the deep south, trying to alert poor votes than the voting precinct “magically got moved” and the cops are trying to throw me into jail for doing so.

  As for incivility, my read on policy is that I am not permitted to do “personal attacks”, which I have no interest in remotely getting close to. So it comes down to whether my “incivility” has risen to the level of being terribly rude and disruptive. I’ve come across other pages where editors where sanctioned for calling other editors “stupid” or suggesting that certain editors should leave editing to others who “are more intelligent.” Again, I don’t think I’ve written anything that rises to this level, and if I did, I apologize. At the same time, I have no difficulty calling childish behavior childish. For instance, to choose just one of the above quoted “charges” against me, I feel that Thunderbird2 had gone to an article (Mac Pro) and purposely did an extraordinarily poor job at disambiguating it without using the IEC prefixes just to show how “impossible” the task was. He even wrote on the Talk:MOSNUM pages that “Something isn't working. I have attempted to apply Greg's new guideline on a number of different articles, but the success rate is patchy.” I checked, and there wasn’t a “number of different articles” that he tried it on, just the “Mac Pro” article. I’ve written numerous times that what he did was a simple case of passive resistance to prove a point. It took me only a half hour to disambiguate the article without using unfamiliar terminology and I did so using common techniques and terminology that were in conformance with common practices seen in current literature on the topic. I am a believer in “assuming good faith.” But when certain editors have clearly demonstrated a clear pattern of behavior, such as pledging to support a proposal with a “support” vote if I do exactly as they request with some modified wording (removal of some text and addition of some other), and then they reciprocate with an “oppose” vote, I don’t think any policy on Wikipedia requires that editors have to suspend common sense.

  Finally, as to the charge that my “intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution”, that is utter and complete nonsense. The only reason this issue is being discussed at all is because I first got involved back in March with my Third, hybrid proposal: Binary prefixes in computer memory and storage. That developed into Fourth draft in April, which a number of outside, uninvolved editors declared as having achieved consensus and was posted to MOSNUM as Follow current literature. That new guideline calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. Thunderbird doesn’t like it. Both he and Omegatron allege that it didn’t have a consensus for being posted. Of course, both can’t be considered as unbiased as to whether or not a consensus was truly achieved. It is notable that uninvolved editors, one of whom Francis Schonken, who is active in dispute resolution and policy issues on Wikipedia stated as follows: “A rough consensus seems to have formed.” And that was before yet another major vote was conducted, which was 8:3 for adoption to MOSNUM, with no more “oppose” votes in over two days. No, in fact, the only reason Omegatron has come to Administrators’ noticeboard is because a consensus has been building in a direction he does not want it to go. Below is the vote, as of this writing on an alternative policy that would still call for no longer using the IEC prefixes:

The consensus has been building (again) to not use the IEC prefixes. The wording Thunderbird2 had been advocating would have made it less clear that the IEC prefixes should not be used. We tried voting on a version with some key wording stripped out. After a day of thinking about it, Thunderbird2 voted with a reduced vote after concluding that the present wording still didn’t allow the use of the IEC prefixes. Indeed, that’s what the proponents are trying to do here; we solve nothing by allowing policies to be posted that have ambiguous wording that allows a handful of editors to continue to use the prefixes. We’ll have a “B24” archive before this bickering finally ends. Note too that since this weekend, I have had very little involvement here this week (my contributions). Note my limited activity Monday and Tuesday, except to motion that a policy was close enough to consensus that it should be adopted into a larger policy proposal for unitized voting. I did so at 00:13, 2 June 2008. Omegatron comes here to complain.

I think the main problem here is that “Follow current literature” (the policy that is currently posted to MOSNUM) has not been voted on by a wide enough spectrum of editors. I suggested on Talk:MOSNUM that a big, BIG vote be conducted where wide spectrum of editors from all over Wikipedia’s computer and technical articles be invited to comment on whether FCL is something they support. I think it is highly revealing that NONE of the editors who oppose “Follow current literature” and who support the continued use of the IEC prefixes like the idea of soliciting wider input. I suggest we put an end to the bickering here (and this outrageous attempt at exploitation of Administrators’ noticeboard) and solve this issue once and for all. The question is simple: all other general-interest encyclopedias use the conventional binary prefixes like “megabyte”. Why? Because all the computer manufacturers in their literature, and owners manuals, and packaging, and advertising to end users do so. As a consequence, all general-interest computer magazines use the same terminology that the computer manufacturers are using. As a consequence, The word “mebibyte” (symbol MiB) is not widely recognized by the typical Wikipedia reader. The issue we would put to a much wider spectrum of editors here on Wikipedia would be this: Is “Follow current literature”, and its call to put Wikipedia in line with real-world usage, a good thing? I further submit that this wider-input voting and discussion be monitored by a panel of three mediators, who would rule whether or not a general consensus had been achieved, and that their ruling by binding. I think this is a better solution for Wikipedia, rather than allow Omegatron to stifle the voice of the lead proponent of a move to reverse something he was largely responsible for three years ago; something that has had twelve archives devoted exclusively to bickering over, something that makes Wikipedia all alone as the only general-interest publication (either print or on-line) to use terminology that only confuses readers.

“[Greg L’s] intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.” OMG Omegatron! That is such a flagrant attempt to paint yourself as Mahatma Gandhi, and paint me as someone who suddenly interjected himself into the thoroughly peaceable goings-on of some editors who were r-e-a-l-l-y close to achieving a consensus on this dispute. Since—particularly in this forum—I must be “civil” in my response to this, I guess I will just say that the picture you painted isn’t at all true (in my opinion). Greg L (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• And now we get a new user appear who has removed the same text that Omegatron has a history of removing. Fnagaton 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• That’s why I used only historical links to FCL in my above post; I knew one of them would do that. This is likely User:NotSarenne (aka “217.87…”), who is banned for life. Now we do edit wars, exceed the 3RR, he goes to the noticeboard for 3RR violations, dresses up in Mahatma Gandhi robes and complains of your abuse of Wikipedia’s rules (which don’t apply in reverting the edits of banned editors and sockmasters), and then one of us has to defend himself in that forum too. Fun. But like I said, Wikipedia doesn’t require that editors suspend common sense. Greg L (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's not me. Ask yourself "Cui bono?" and who brought it up in the first place. --217.87.92.223 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already addressed Greg's accusations about my behavior here. This complaint is entirely about his behavior, not about the SI dispute itself. Please don't drag the entire dispute over here in an attempt to deflect attention from it. — Omegatron (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron, maybe Greg focused on you because your name is at the top of the first binary prefix archive. [24]

Farther down in that archive, User:Nohat suggested The Wikipedia should only represent common usage. You dismissed Nohat's suggestion with a "Greg L" style response, "Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. - Omegatron 12:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)" It appears that you have been against Greg's "Follow current literature" proposal for 3 years. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the right explanation. I've provided diffs in the above link showing that I didn't start the discussion, didn't start the vote (in fact opposed it), and didn't add the section to the Manual of Style. Yet he repeats the same accusations.

Greg L's "Follow current literature" was written only in the last few months, purely to prohibit IEC prefixes (as evidenced by his refusal to remove that section from the proposal). He hadn't even registered an account 3 years ago.

Sorry if this was the wrong forum to bring this up. I've started an RFC. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L — Omegatron (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Omegatron: Deflecting? Like most of the other editors above already did? No, we see your complaint as a red herring so we’re simply ignoring your accusations of uncivil behavior and are just cutting to the chase. We see your complaint about my “uncivil” behavior—which is really rather mild and certainly isn’t “disruptive”— as really being one over frustration with the latest trend on Talk:MOSNUM. What I dish out isn’t much more than what you’d see from any college-level debate class; I think you’re a big enough boy to handle it. It’s also rather notable that you’ve stayed largely out of the discussions on Talk:MOSNUM so your postings there haven’t been the target of any of my rather mild ridicule. Yet, despite that no one seems to have seen fit to go to your talk page and complain about my outrageous behavior, here you are complaining about me. In fact, when I just went to your talk page to see if someone did complain about me, all I found is “Annoyed by top-posting recurring argumentative comment”, which is a complaint from an annoyed editor about you. Come to think about it, what was the last post on my talk page? Besides the very last post, the one notifying me of this complaint of yours, was “Thanks for supporting the Kilogram“ (I’ve been quite active on Kilogram, which some feel should be promoted to good article status).

  No, your complaint is more consistent with an administrator who rammed through a record-setting Wikipedia fiasco of a policy three years ago without consensus and is now willing to resort to games to forestall the inevitable. That’s the way I see it. And I’m not alone; see the above comments by other editors, including rather “uninvolved” editors who have watched the goings on over on Talk:MOSNUM and have taken the time to weigh in here in my defense. Note Swtpc6800’s posting. In his edit summary, he wrote “This is a content dispute”. See also the above responses of Neil, Atlan, LeadSongDog, Fnagaton, and SheffieldSteel. Note how consistently they are all homing in on the real issue? Most of these editors have a great deal of involvement on the IEC prefix issue. They are familiar with how I’ve conducted myself there. More importantly, some editors like SheffieldSteel are uninvolved; they just watch from the sidelines. Note how much play he gives in his posting to the issue of my being uncivil. Zero This uninvolved editor thinks it’s a content dispute.

  Given that the rest of us here think this is a content dispute, I repeat my offer. Let’s just have a Wikipedia-wide discussion and vote on “Follow current literature” by inviting editors from a wide variety of computer and technical-related articles. That will settle the issue and I’d be gone in short order from Talk:MOSNUM. The entire proceeding would be monitored by three mediators and their ruling would be final. Deal?

  Now I offer you this: I’ve got an FDA clinical trial going on at Washington State University and one of the study pigs just died of sepsis. I’ve really got other things on my mind right now besides responding to your fallacious claims here. That FDA study is the only reason my participation the last few days on Talk:MOSNUM has been so sparse. Why don’t you take your parting shot now, for I am quite done with wasting my time with you. You and Thunderbird2, the only super-proponents of the IEC prefixes, seem to be the only ones alleging that the issue is over my conduct; the rest of us think you’re just resorted to trumped up charges in an effort to get administrators to silence an editor who would undo what you were responsible for. Looking at the archive list on Talk:MOSNUM, I see 101 general archives. There appears to have been a lengthy debate over “Years and Dates” that produced five archives. And what you were instrumental in ramming through (without consensus) is a record-setter, at twelve “B” archives (and still growing). Do you really think this issue is going to go away by getting rid of me? If we don’t settle this now, once and for all, there will be endless bickering that could grow to 24 “B” archives. That just doesn’t seem like a viable option to me. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falung Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom_related)

If any administrator has a chance, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Falung Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom_related). MrPrada (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the related AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sheepnacidadegrande

Not sure what exact protocol is here, but this user has a record longer than Longcat and seems to have no mercy in destroying things. Ziggy Sawdust 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? A cursory look at their edits doesn't show any "merciless destruction". I see a talk page full of notifications, but nothing really blockable. Seems to me this is an editor that needs a little bit of guidance.--Atlan (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this thread. That should've been done first.Exxolon (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration enforcement on User:Xasha

This user continues to make racist comments and personal attacks on others. He was blocked and warned before. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See his attacks on Moldova, Moldovan language and many others. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

He trolls again and makes disruptive edits. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at this a little bit. I see a disagreement but it's not clear to me yet what exactly the problem is. I see where you said you were reverting trolling, but I don't know why you consider this trolling. Can you provide some relevant diffs? Friday (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Claudiuline is most likely a sock of User:Bonaparte and he is really harassing me (just check his latest contributions).Xasha (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You make again racist comments and personal attacks. Nobody can trust a troll like you. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Xasha for 72 hours regarding violation of the civility parole made in respect of the Digwuren Arbitration (which the editor appealed before I was able to provide the rationale together with template), and issued User:Claudiuline with a level3 NPA warning relating to this thread. I blocked Xasha for 3 days as they were the recipient of a 24 hour block for the same violations 3 days ago, but have not moderated their behaviour. I am not requesting a review of this block, as it appears that Xasha will appeal this sanction and I would not wish to influence the reviewing admin (one appeal has already been rejected been made, but the appeal has been commented upon and then modified and re-entered). I note that Claudiuline has now been blocked for further personal attacks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xasha

This user, recently warned and then blocked for making offensive remarks against me, has resumed his attacks. Here, here, here, here, here and here he goads and prods me, insinuating dark motives on my part. Let me elaborate: I noted at Template:Romanian historical regions that certain regions were part of Romania in 1941-44, which in fact they were. Now, how exactly the template should be constructed is open to interpretation. What is, however, completely unacceptable is that Xasha, despite his recent block and warning, and despite my pointing out to him repeatedly that he is violating AGF, CIV and NPA, accuses me of "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" - the Nazi German invasion of the USSR, in which Romania's fascist wartime regime also took part. Obviously these are very serious, but also entirely baseless charges. I have asked Xasha to withdraw the charge, to comment on content rather than on the editor, to stop attempting to smear my good name, but all to no avail. It is not up to him to air his "impression" and "supposition" that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", but if I can't convince him of that through discussion, then it only remains to me to seek a more formal means of clearing my name. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just note that your implications that I accused you of fascism or rehabilitation (?) are just the result of your gross failure to assume good faith. As for historical revisionism, your comment about Moldova's statality leaves no other interpretations.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't obscure the issue, don't "interpret" my edits in sinister ways, and things will be fine. Again: unacceptable to say that I am "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa", a charge that very clearly implies I am trying to put fascism and Ion Antonescu in a favourable light. Or, if it doesn't imply that (which I'm sure it does), then the best solution is always silence - not coming up with your own "impressions" and "suppositions" regarding my motives. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. It's not you who is trying to do it, it's the version of that template you created who does it. When a version edited by you is seriously flawed and biased, is my right to bring it to the community's attention.Xasha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You show you're racist. That's all that counts here. ClaudiuLine (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: ClaudiuLine (talk · contribs) was quacking too loudly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism series image

Howdy, I noticed that the box appearing beside pages related to creationism has as its image a picture of the flying spaghetti monster. While I can appreciate the humor, it's really not appropriate. Unfortunately I have no idea how to fix this or even if regular users can, so I thought I'd report it here. Thanks, Vonspringer (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User creating multiple articles of questionable notability

Not sure how to handle this one. Colors8 (talk · contribs) appears to be spamming new articles of actors with little to no notoriety by copying certain info from IMDB in a very regular fashion and providing limited context, formatting, etc. in the new wiki articles. Am I being overly sensitive or is this person making a huge mess? Thanks for looking into it. ju66l3r (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user has certainly racked up a nice list of warnings on their talk page. As for the articles, as long as the actors, etc. are notable, then I don't see why they can't have an article. Someone will have to look at each individual article to verify notability, though. Gary King (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POINTY article creation

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto is a deletion debate over some Brazilian soccer players. Since finding that other users weren't willing to dismiss WP:ATHLETE here, User:EconomistBR has taken off on a spree of creating articles that they believe should be deleted. I was hoping someone else can weigh in on this; perhaps I'm wrong, and this isn't inappropriate behavior, and if I'm right, I think I have no chance of successfully communicating with EconomistBR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's wrong, I accepted defeat already. I created 4 articles about soccer players just to show in practice what WP:ATHLETE is. The articles about non-notable soccer players are sourced, reflect nothing but the truth and meet WP:ATHLETE.

I didn't disrupt Wikipedia doing that since there over 10,000 articles just like the 4 ones I created, but Prosfilaes is for some reason not worried about them.

Can't I create articles about soccer players? If I can't, no problem, I will stop.

I want to create 2 more articles, can I do that?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, but Creating articles to demonstrate a policy seems to be pretty much exactly what WP:POINT cautions against, isn't it? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate WP:POINT because I was not disruptive. How can the act of creating 4 articles be disruptive?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. No one's "won" or "lost" anything. shoy 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is that way > Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia to make a point is okay. Editing Wikipedia disruptively to make a WP:POINT is not okay. EconomistBR is not being disruptive, so he is okay. Neıl 龱 09:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think EconomistBR's behavior is approaching the level of disruptive. This user created 4 new articles that were sub-stub quality (misleading because in one example the article indicated that a soccer player began his career at age 32, although he really began his career many years earlier). I cleaned up that particular article and asked the user to cease doing so. However, EconomistBR created 3 additional articles today that have the same sub-stub quality. I am trying to assume good faith, but it would be nice if he listened to advice before creating more problem articles simply to prove a point. For full disclosure, I completely disagree with his point about WP:ATHLETE. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating articles is not disruptive. The fact that EconomistBR thinks he is harming the encyclopedia when he is really helping is besides the point. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, I would agree that creating articles is not disruptive. However, if you read this user's comments on the AfD mentioned above, you will see that he has no intention of making accurate articles and is going to leave the work of cleaning them up to others. I am tired of this behavior and think there are much more constructive things EconomistBR could be doing (e.g., discuss the merits of WP:ATHLETE at the appropriate page). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  !BADSITE! hacked?

Not that this is strictly related to Wikipedia, but it appears that WR has been hacked - going there resulted in an attempted infection by an ActiveX downloader virus which tried to get control of my e-mail. Just a heads-up. Kelly ^hi! 06:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel kind of bad about asking my friend to check to see if it worked for him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ActiveX is IE only isnt it? Viridae^Talk 07:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can work in firefox, however, not running windows, I'm not sure. SQL^{Query me!} 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since linking to this site now creates a security danger for the 80% of the world using MSIE, can a smarter admin fulfill my request at Spam blacklist and blacklist the site? MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not do that right now, given that the link is already on many, many pages (go check) and that it will cause future editing problems, etc. It's hardly likely to have any effect security-wise at this point, so I'm not really seeing a reason to add it ... - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me, but I would prefer the links were stripped or delinked at this point given WPs ability to reach millions. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 409 pages with links to WR, most are archives and talk pages, so the danger of a user hitting the spam filter and not knowing how to remove the link seems to be less than the odds of some less skilled user running upon the link or it being spammed into articles. MBisanz ^talk 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ONly super active page i can see on there is a current arbcom case evidence page. Viridae^Talk 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Owch! Well, I'm kinda glad to be on a Mac, so :) I note that the site is simply blank right now - Alison ^❤ 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's how it's appeared to me all day (on Mac and Windows versions of Firefox). I assumed that something was just blocking the site, because I was able to view it via an anonymous proxy site. But I think I also know less about computers than everybody else in this thread, so perhaps I'll stop speculating. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, which one of you guys did this? :-) - Alison ^❤ 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I detect a noticeable improvement. :) And yes, it should be blacklisted, at least temporarily, given the amount of links here and the amount of people that view this site. Enigma ^message 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ok - I think it's ok to break my deep agent cover now.... I'll be accepting the vacant position on the arbcom shortly as a bit of a thank you, and look forward to ruling you people with a rod of iron, working together for a better project.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (whose poor sense of humour has a tendency to get him in trouble once in a while...... ;-) )

"once in a while"?? Mate, your poor sense of humor is almost as bad as mine. More seriously, an enhancement that disables link following (rather than addition) of links on a list might be a good feature. WAS a bugzilla bug raised? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone confirm that activeX is IE only please? I seem to remember that it is, but I would rather like to know. Viridae^Talk 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope Firefox isn't able to load ActiveX according to their ActiveX FAQ.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

whoop! Thanks PPG. Viridae^Talk 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've caught the initial hack. Don't think any blacklist needsd to be taken.. SirFozzie (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the blacklist, as the hack has been fixed. Note it wasn't solely on Wikipedia Review - it was to many high traffic sites using Wordpress. Neıl 龱 09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the links should be checked, or at least spot-checked, to make sure they still go to the same place after the restore from backup. Thatcher 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More than happy to take that on if someone can show me how to find all the WR links currently sat on Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this --> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.wikipediareview.com - Alison ^❤ 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is why we need a quick-response way to actually stop links to a given place from rendering, without actually requiring pages to be edited/saved without the link. The current system is geared towards A) preventing addition of the link and B) forcing people to remove it (or don't bother saving), which is fine for spam but not at all the right solution for viruses. --Random832 (contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Bugzilla feature request for this? This is code for "can anyone less useless than me find it in a search, coz I couldn't". And, I'd just like to say that this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of sociopaths. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just run Linux folks, you will be fine. _{1 != 2} 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

...a solution which suggests a degree of technological sophistication in our readers and editors that I had not previously noticed :o) And I speak as someone who is sitting on the floor in order to be close enough to his new, first, Mac so that the keyboard will stay in contact with it. I've owned a computer since 1982: if Bluetooth pairing is beyond me, Linux might as well be Linear B :op ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mozilla ActiveX Plug-in, which isn't supposed to be compatible with Firefox 2.0 and above, apparently can be installed and configured wrongly. This plug-in allows Internet Explorer ActiveX controls to be installed and run in Firefox, which is dangerous. One of the main reasons I use Firefox is because of the very insecure ActiveX environment. It is relatively easy to hack the Firefox plug-in installation process to get a plug-in to install in many versions of Firefox, where it may, or may not work, and may, or may not cause unwanted effects. I have hacked a plug-in to get it to work with an upgraded version of Firefox until an upgraded plug-in is released. The following from the Mozilla ActiveX FAQ: Note: Installing a version of the ActiveX plugin that did not match your Firefox version could cause it to ignore its configuration and run any ActiveX control - a significant security risk. So we cannot say that all Firefox browsers are safe, only those without the ActiveX plug-in installed. — Becksguy (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seems OK now?

Seems OK now:

"A regrettable incident has occurred, involving a rather nasty and malicious "hack" perpetrated against numerous websites running WordPress - including Wikipedia Review. Apparently no actual data was affected, only files - which we have backups of, though it might take a while for us to get everything restored properly. However, we expect to be back in business within the next 48 hours.

More importantly, though, we can't guarantee (at least not yet) that the hack in question didn't attempt to redirect browsers onto other sites that could have, in turn, attempted to deliver various forms of malware to visitors' computers. We don't wish to alarm you, but we would nevertheless urge anyone who visited us recently (and saw only blank pages) to scan their machines for viruses as soon as possible."

--Justallofthem (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP troll

77.78.197.181 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) made this disgusting comment (and this) on Talk:Slavic peoples, a page that he has been trolling for a long while. He has been using (at least) these following IPs as well:

• 77.78.198.147 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.197.84 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.196.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.199.224 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.196.52 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.197.6 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.197.74 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 77.78.196.131 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• along with the disruptive account Noonien Soong (talk · contribs), active on Bosniaks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Surely this guy can't be tolerated any more. BalkanFever 10:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear that multiple accounts have been used to do wholly inaproppriate damage such as in the diffs you provided. All IPs block indefinately under abusive sockpuppetry. Lradrama 10:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked" (etc) suggests that indef IP blocks are unwarranted here. Bencherlite^Talk 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not an isolated incident. The sockpuppety dates back a few months. Have you not seen the comments that were left? Such abusive sockpuppetry over such a wide range of IPs, which has been used to intimidate others should be one of the exceptions to alomst all. Lradrama 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about the potential collateral damage from indef blocking a number of IPs, rather than downplaying the severity of the abuse. We're not even talking about one static IP. But I'll defer to others on this. Bencherlite^Talk 10:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought a case as severe as this might be one exception. It certainly makes sense. I'll let you be the judge of the period then --> unblocked. Lradrama 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

←Gee, thanks(!) Just as well I was still here, then... 6 months each, but if anyone wants to vary up or down, go ahead. Bencherlite^Talk 11:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I suppose he thus has time to consider what he's doing, but we'll be the ones crying when Wikipedia is once more under ihs wide-scale attack. I suppose it 'fits the policy though'. But in situations like this...surely... Lradrama 11:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorted via talkpage discussion. Resolved. Lradrama 11:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sockpuppetry and vandalism by editors on articles related to The Intruder (1986 film)

I came across this while new page patrolling and spotted The Intruder 2: Fatal Intrusion (a.k.a. The Intruder 2: Intrude Harder - US title) 2003, which I have since nominated for deletion as a hoax. While looking at the articles for Peter O'Brian (actor) and Craig Fairbrass I saw a bunch of BLP violating and largely vandalism edits all of the same type by separate users:

• Peter Goldson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Gaz202202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 83.104.55.201 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• Charliethehitman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Could I get a second set of eyes on this? –– Lid^(Talk) 10:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sudden onslaught of edits certainly appear to be a coordinated meatpuppet attack at the very least. I'm inclined to indefblock the three accounts. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done. I speedied the hoax and blocked the hoaxers (accounts indefinitely, IP - which appears static - for 12 months). Neıl 龱 10:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is very little sourcing in the O'Brian article before the edits. I'd either find some sources or stub it. Mr. O'Brian clearly has some non-fans out there. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Stubbed and cleaned up. Neıl 龱 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD tag removal

Ajacob4 (talk · contribs) is continually removing CSD tags from the article they created: Khiladiz. I have given him a template warning to not do this but the behavior persists. Can an admin look into this? Thanks. The article pretty clearly meets WP:CSD#A7 and is a loosely reworded copyvio. --Rividian (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted. Nothing more than a warning needed for user. Rudget (Help?) 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I left a 3RR warning. Note, he just recreated the page. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page has been deleted again. Thanks... hopefully the second round of warnings will get his/her attention. --Rividian (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And deleted again. If it comes up again, I'll block for 24 hours. Rudget (Help?) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

...and salt the article for good measure, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Salted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. Rudget (Help?) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Luobos (contribs) malware links

I blocked this user indefintely for inserting unrelated links to odd URLs into many articles, sometimes in a manner clearly meant to obfuscate the destination – prima facie evidence of bad-faith. I recommend against following the links. I work in computer & network security and would classify the sites linked to as at least borderline malware. E.g., the first thing they do is to try to execute some JavaScript to add themselves to your "Favorites" list. Even if they do nothing worse after that than to display ads, that in itself is underhanded and unfriendly. Unexpected links to .cn domains are inherently suspicious.

Request: It is my understanding that some but not all admins can determine the IP address employed by a registered user. Is it possible for someone to investigate whether additional mischief has been perpetrated from the same source under other names, or anonymously from the same or related IPs? Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious: You’re an admin and you don’t know about WP:RFCU? —Travis^talk 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the request was more referring to the fact that there is no obvious sign of abusive sockpuppetry, but the severity of the offense (and malware is pretty severe in my book) might justify a checkuser. I'm really hoping that's the case, as everyone should know about checkuser. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that either WP:RFCU is new since I became an admin, or it wasn't advertised well enough for me to learn about, or both. Regardless, I'm aware of it now, and your ignorance of the cause of my ignorance is excusable. ;o) Reading RFCU, this seems to fall under "Code A: Blatant attack or vandalism accounts". I'll follow the guidlines for that. Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Na, RFCU is ancient, you most likely missed it because no persistent sockpuppeter has appeared in articles that you edit, it happens. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Blaxthos reported me for 3RR with no reason or notification.

Intially I was upset, but the more I think about it the more upset I am. User Blaxthos reported me in violation of the 3RR on the Gretchen Carlson article with no notifcation. I would not have known at all if not for the admin that notified me. I find it particularly upseting because I had removed vague critical matierial from a BLP which was not only vague but had either no references 1 references which did not even mention Carlson or were blogs twice.2 3 no references again 4 and again 5 The anonymous editor was warned by me after the 5th revert. The report was filed by Blaxthos shortly after. The Anoyn was not reported even though they did the same thing that Blaxthos accused me of doing. Futhermore per WP:BLP contentious material can be removed without the 3RR applying WP:GRAPEVINE. The result of the report was no violation. What is most anoyning is that Blaxthos is a veteran editor, yet has had a problem with me personally in the past, and I believe it is this past history which lead to the report. Blaxthos has never commented on the talk pages of Carlson talk history nor made any edits edit history so I can only conclude that he is monitoring my edits here. I suggest that he be warned regarding this kind of behaviour. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason? After watching Arzel edit war for several days, I submitted an 3RR Report with evidence of Arzel edit warring, the opposing edits came from multiple sources (hence no 3RR report); I registered this account in 2004; I've not once broken 3RR for any reason, and I don't believe these circumstances mitigated Arzel's responsibility in this case. I respectfully disagreed with the admin's response; I won't waste anyone's time making a content argument here. I fail to see how I've done anything warranting discussion here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you sat ildly back watching two anoynomous users (who I believe would end up being the same user) add uncited information that says that Carlson has been criticized and you did nothing? Hmm, seems to me that your goal of getting me blocked or reported was more important than following WP policies. You won't waste anyone's time making a argument here, but you will waste their time by making an unwarrented report on me? At least you admit that you are watching my actions and edits, maybe I will have to do the same to you. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:ANI is not the forum for content disputes.
2. Not withstanding #1, citations were present, but there may have been some concern as to their reliability; the content itself (referencing the allegations of bias evidenced by FNC generally and the subject of the article specifically) does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of "libelous material" requiring edit warring under the guise of WP:BLP.
3. When faced with the prospect of intentionally violating a policy, it is always best to seek a second opinion. There are plenty of other ways you could have handled the problem: WP:RFPP, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:EA, etc.. This was not a situation where edit warring for days was necessary.
4. I fail to see any "policy" that I have "failed to follow." When you make those sorts of accusations towards me, please specifically justify them with explanations and diffs.
5. I don't believe the 3RR replort was unjustified, as you continued in edit warring for several days.
6. If you feel it necessary to investigate my behavior and report violations, I strongly encourage you to do so. It's of no consequence to me, as I've never been the subject of any sort of sanction, admonishment, or block. I think that the "maybe I will have to do the same to you" attitude is immature and unproductive, but if it makes you feel better then I am all for it...
7. I don't really understand what you're asking for here... I am not the one who violated any rule or policy; if you don't like the fact that your behavior has been reported, then it's probably wise to avoid engaging in the behavior that gets you into trouble. You didn't end up getting warned or blocked, so I really fail to see why you're trying to bring this up on ANI. Best thing to do is to learn and move on...

Hopefully this will be the last of this thread, though I'm welcome to have some of the WP:ANI guys weigh in... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not a content dispute. This was in regards to your unjust report filed against me.
2. Ha, as I pointed out in my diff's, three times there were no references. Twice the references were either a blog or an article that failed to even mention Carlson.
3. What policy did I supposedly intentially violate? I removed uncited critical vague statements from a BLP. It wasn't even an edit war, and I at least notified the anoyn of their behavior, something you didn't even do me the favour of.
4. Well you didn't assume good faith, futhermore I consider what you did as a form of wiki stalking me.
5. That is a bold faced lie.
6. Well, I haven't done that before, but you apparently have.
7. An appology would be nice, but I don't see that happening. Perhaps an explanation why you didn't remove uncited or porly sourced criticism from an article you were obviously watching yourself. Or were you more interested in filing a 3RR report on me.

It would be nice for an ANI guy to weigh in. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You came crying to WP:ANI because you want an appology[sic] because YOU got reported for violating WP:3RR?! You want me to explain why I chose to report your violations instead of engaging in an edit war? I'm embarrassed for you, Arzel. There will be no apology forthcoming, nor will I participate in this petty back-and-forth pity party you've thrown here. Stop wasting the time of everyone involved, most especially mine and the people who attempt to answer real incidents. Good day. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was too much to ask for. Thanks for not answering my quetion though, pretty much your MO, ignore the question and attack the questionner. Typical. Arzel (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish here? No one is going to scold Blaxthos for reporting a 3RR violation, regardless of whether or not it violates your personal standards of etiquette. Let it go. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance at this argument reveals that Azrel's beef isn't that his "standards of etiquette" were offended, but that user Blaxthos: 1. Filed a spurious 3R report against him with the intent to cause distress 2. Monitored Azrel's activities on Wikipedia deliberately with the intention of finding a reason to file such a report. Whether or not you agree with the personal politics of the two, if Azrel's accusations are true then Blaxthos' behavior is indeed quite disturbing and disruptive. I would say that if nothing else Azrel's report here serves to establish an e-trail should this behavior ever occur again. Billdozer33 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— Billdozer33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you Billdozer33 for understanding my issue. I offer as prima facie evidence that Blaxthos has a longstanding grudge against me. So Gamaliel, if someone puts uncited critical information or poorly cited critical information into a BLP and nooone else removes it it should just stay because of the 3RR? Blaxthos has been trying for months to get me on something, and the moment he had a chance at something he struck. That is BS. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's plenty of indications that the grudge is mutual. You weren't blocked, so what's the big deal? I'm not saying the report was bogus, but I've had bogus 3RR reports filed against me before by trolls. Shrug and move on. You two don't like each other, no reason to waste everyone else's time on the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I assume you were acting in good faith by removing the contentious information and not sanitizing the article of a conservative pundit, something you have been accused of before. And I assume Blaxthos was acting in good faith by reporting what he saw as a legitimate 3RR violation and not following you around waiting to pounce, as you accuse him of doing. If you both assumed good faith of each other, you two might get along better. Gamaliel (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had actually started to gain some respect for Blaxthos over the past few months, prior to this incident. As I have earlier, what is most upsetting is that if Blaxthos had not been watching my edits he would never have filed that report. It is quite annoying to have some self-appointed watchdog making sure that you are following the rules "They" think you should follow, especially when they are not upheld by WP policies. You don't see me following Blaxthos around to other articles to make sure he isn't scrubbing criticism from left-leaning articles. The fact that he wrote is little article on policy shopping because of me doesn't help matters much either. Arzel (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But you are here, asking for an administrator to enforce the rules you think he should follow: don't edit the same articles as me, don't report me for 3RR without my okay. The fact is that you have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and if you don't, if Blaxthos doesn't report you, someone else will. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I'm not saying he can't or shouldn't edit the same articles as me, or the other way around. I am saying he filed a bogus report against me because of previous history, and I am sick of his personal attacks against me and continuous snide remarks to my comments, continuous correction of my spelling an grammar, and basically treating me with absolutely no good faith from the start. The fact that he had NO activity there, and then suddenly files a bogus 3RR on me is suspicious to say the least. The fact that Blaxthos has had a great deal of interaction with me over my time here only strengthens my suspicion. Any reasonable editor or admin would review what I did and see I wasn't breaking any WP policies, and was certainly within the spirit of what WP is about. The fact that it was ruled no violation almost immediately is validation of this fact. Arzel (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Why is the report "bogus"? If it's inappropriate, an admin will look at the report and ignore it, perhaps telling Blaxthos. If it's appropriate, you'll be punished. Why cares about who catches you? Would you rather Blaxthos message some admin personally and let them block you without a report? I don't get what you want. Do you want everyone to inform you every time you are going to get reported? Do you only want Blaxthos to inform? Only people you don't like? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I want a block to be reviewed

If this is not the proper venue for this request, please let me know. Thank you.

User User talk:Psychmajor902 has been blocked by User:DGG. The point is that both of them entered in disputes about the content (Talk:Primal_therapy#Criticisms) and "edit warred" about the cause of the block ([25])

AFAIK this block is against Wikipedia:Block#Disputes

Please, comment. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to recognise here is that these are poor links that would go against the external linking guidelines. They're both very clearly OR. Now, he's been warned for this a lot on his talk page and his problematic actions have spread more than one page. There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting - I'd say this is one of those as he was clearly being disruptive and had been asked many times to change his behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting"...seems to me that goes against Wikipedia:Block#Disputes. Moreover: User:DGG stated that the sites are "blogs" (are not). OK. I shall see other opinions here. Thank you for your feedback anyway, sir. Randroide (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting", yes it is called vandalism. A disagreement about content is not an exception. While the block is most likely correct, this really should have been left to an uninvolved admin. I really don't know how administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute can be made more clear than it already is. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to please check the history of the article before calling "vandalism" User:Psychmajor´s contributions. Thank your for your feedback. Randroide (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You misread what I said. I was saying that an admin may revert then block in the case of vandalism. This was not a case of vandalism but a content dispute. Admins may not block people they are involved in a content dispute with, especially when the reason for the block is directly related to the content dispute. _{1 != 2} 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But looking at the users talk page, he's been having many similar problems with his editing here. I don't think it's fair to label this a content dispute when there have been many concerns about his external linking. In fact, that's all what his talk page is, warnings about linking. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh. You are right. I misunderstood you. Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, what else could a disagreement over the addition of a link be other than a content dispute? I am not saying that the block was not warranted, but it should have been made by somebody uninvolved with the dispute. Not saying anything needs to be done other than a refresher course on the the block policy though, unless a pattern shows itself. _{1 != 2} 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Geeez, I just realized DGG had not been notified of this discussion. That is the very first thing that needs to be done when you challenge a person's behavior. I have left a note of DGG's talk page. _{1 != 2} 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RedGreen. I was not even sure this was the proper place for this discussion, so I missed that obvious step. Randroide (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition users Psychmajor902's 81 article space contributions, 29 involve adding or reinserting the link debunkingprimaltherapy.com ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]) Clearly disruptive.

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Persistent spamming

--Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So DGG's reverting of a habitual spammer's spamming, and then blocking the spammer when he refuses to stop spamming, amounts to being in a content dispute with the spammer? Nonsense. No, it's not vandalism DGG was removing, but neither is it remotely accurate to wikilawyer it into a content dispute. Neıl 龱 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have enormous reservations about the accusation of "spamming" against User:Psychmajor. I am disccussing the issue with Hu12 here Randroide (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Psychmajor902's contributions. 29 of 81 contribs is adding this link, rejecting community consensus and employing the use brute force for its inclusion. Attempting to interpreting policy looking for technicalities to justify this users inappropriate actions by Wikilawyering the definition of "spam" on my talk page, is innapropriate. This is common sense. Clearly fails Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material" and there is clear consensus for this links Exclusion, --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 does make a compelling point, it is reasonable for an admin to revert spam then block. I was not aware of the extensive pattern of adding such links. _{1 != 2} 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this and see no hint of a content dispute, linkspam is not content. I support this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There´s no community consensus on the disputed link being "spam" or not. Several editors disagree on that point (me -Randroide-, Psychmajor and Aussiewikilady think that the link is linkable). Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy to see the relevant discussion. Please do not invoke a "consensus" that does not exist.

OTOH, if Hu12 accuses me of "wikilawyering" as sole answer to my questions at his/her talk page, sorry but I must conclude he/she placed a warning note at User:Psychmajor with no basis on WP policies Randroide (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Once you have justified these edits ([52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]) beyond a reasonable doubt that this behaviour is not spamming, does any burden of proof shift to others, however the diffs and Psychmajor902's contribution history speak for themselves. This is clear-cut Spamming. please read Wikipedia:Gaming the system and WP:TE--Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem you are wikilawyering. It sure looks like spam to me in light of all the other attempts to add it. _{1 != 2} 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, RedGreen. Randroide (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support block which user Psychmajor902 is in apparent violation of Wikipedias Disruptive editing and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the WP:TE link, Hu12. I see still no basis for your "spam" warning at PsychMajor userpage, but this TE link at least is something.

Did you notice that Psychmajor is NOT the only editor reinserting the disputed external link?. Did you notice that editors (as you) deleting that link over and over could also being accused of TE? (repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors WP:TE) Randroide (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to Game the system for your own adjenda. "An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support."--Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an editor who's spent most of his Wikipedia life edit-warring to insert external links which obviously lack anything resembling consensus. This is a good block - that is, one which prevents damage to the encyclopedia. When the block expires, this user can either seek consensus to include the links through the dispute resolution pathway, or be blocked indefinitely if they continue to edit-war over the links. If the only argument against this block is a borderline technicality, then we're done here. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam; good block. Durova^Charge! 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback, MastCell and Durova. Consensus is very important here. If so many admins (5 so far) see this issue the way you do, likely I am wrong about my reservations about User:PsychMajor block.
• To Hu12: I have no "agenda", but to write an encyclopedia. I invite you review the history of Primal Therapy since 2006 to check this assertion. I beg you to follow WP:FAITH. Thank you Randroide (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12 and I do not always agree about external links, as anyone can see from the relevant talk pages. But we certainly do agree on the essentials--both the principle of preserving a neutral encyclopedia and on what represents grossly excessive and clearly inappropriate linking. I am not exactly sure whether to call this a spam link or an inappropriate external link in a more general sense--there is not really that much of a clear separation between them. The persistent insertion of either against consensus is wrong. I first looked at these articles in response to an outside request--I have no particular interest in the subject. I tried to achieve some balance between those who were committed to the defense of the therapy and those attacking it, both equally passionate, both equally eager to insert inappropriate material--at a number of related pages. I and other editors--including supporters of his point of view--have warned this editor numerous times, including final warnings from others than myself. I am extremely reluctant to block at all--my block log shows how little I use it. On the other hand, I issue a good many formal and informal warnings, for I find they almost always do the necessary. Blocks are like deletions--a last resort. I've typically blocked only when someone simply does not respond to anything else & seems likely to continue-- and usually only when others have tried persuasion also. I would not have blocked had this been the only item in question--one of the differences between myself & some other admins is that I do not block over a single item no matter how persistent, because there can always be disagreements over that particular one. As my block rationale here says "multiple items, and multiple articles".
• The COI problem is a real one for any admin trying to reduce COI in an article over an extended period. After a while, one can sometimes start to understand the issue, and as one does, one generally forms an opinion. But requiring admins to step down at that point would prevent any continuity in persuasion and enforcement; we are trusted to know when it interferes. I don't think I had reached that point, and I can prove it: there have also been some complaints from the other side of the issue. And there is a less dramatic way of asking for a review of an admin action than coming here--which is simply asking some other admin to comment. People sometimes ask me about other admin's actions, and if I think they're wrong I'll let the admin in question know, so they may quietly fix the problem. If they don't, then is the time for AN/I. I sometime advise my friends off-wiki about this if I notice, even if nobody asks first And other admins have asked me similarly from time to time, both on and off wiki, and I've given their views serious consideration & almost always done as they suggested. Again, even if there have not yet been complaints. I can certainly be as wrong as anyone else, and I'd never pretend otherwise. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02. First, a discolsure: I was the editor that initially brought this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. And another disclosure: I have previously gotten into disputes with PsychMajor902.

As I said, I intially raised this issue on the noticeboard. Although I did not request that the debunking link be removed, I did request that a quotation of the website author's personal opinion which was inserted into the article text itself should be removed. I approached the issue by placing a notice on the reliable sources noticeboard, and informed PsychMajor902 of the discussion. After I placed the notice, the neutral editors from the realiable sources noticeboard agreed that the quotation was not acceptable.

After which PsychMajor ignored the consensus and pressed "undo" very often, every time an editor tried to remove the quotation. Then PsychMajor was reminded of the consensus, and he continued pressing "undo", again ignoring the consensus. Then PsychMajor was solicited for discussion repeatedly, and he ignored discussion and offered nothing relevant to the topic. Then an administrator showed up and found the entire link unacceptable, and PsychMajor started an edit war with the admin and kept pressing undo. Then the admin issued a warning, then issued a final warning, then issued a second final warning--but PsychMajor kept pressing undo, ignoring consensus, and flouting policy.

PsychMajor902 repeatedly and blatantly flouted consensus, policy, and administrator warnings, including two "final" warnings. At that point, the primary issue was no longer one of content--the content of the link was irrelevant. At that point, the primary issue was one of behavior. Regardless of the content, a user cannot impose his will by warring, violating policy, ignoring consensus, and offering no relevant discussion. I would support the block even if I agreed with the content of the disputed link and even if I thought the link was appropriate.

Not only do I feel that the block was justified, but I feel that DGG was very restrained and probably waited a bit too long to issue the block. I felt that one "final warning" was probably enough.Twerges (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see above the assertion that the link is not only used by Psychmajor902. Records:

• debunkingprimaltherapy.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

From the COIBot report, which holds the linkwatcher content from the last 6 months (approx.) I see three editors with no userpage:

• Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
• Zonbalance (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
• Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

one IP recently:

• 76.90.103.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)

and one IP who adds the link to other wikipedia:

• 67.150.124.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)

(All other edits (by more established editors) are reverts of removals of links inserted by the above accounts or simple cleanup edits (I can't read Finnish, but it does look like a revert as well))

Seen the focus of the three named accounts and the first IP (all mainly editing Primal therapy, Arthur Janov, The Primal Scream and discussions with editors and on talkpages related to these three), I would guess that these are sockpuppets pushing the same information.

The latter IPs has only one edit on each of the two wikis (fr and sv), both of the same nature, adding debunkingprimaltherapy.com to these two wikis.

Maybe checkuser should check these accounts and IPs. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

From Dirk Beetstra's report (just formatting)

• Psychmajor902 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Zonbalance (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 76.90.103.220 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 67.150.124.231 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) Note: this is a cross wiki addition

..for checkuser--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dirk. I don't believe those other accounts are sock puppets. I believe they're separate users because of differences in tone, style, etc.

However I believe (although I'm not certain) that those other users were recruited to edit the page, or were informed of the wikipedia dispute, by the author of the questionable website, who has taken out advertisements etc to find and interview people who are disaffected with primal therapy (see his webpage). In other words, they may be meat puppets. I believe so because those 2 other editors repeatedly invoke the 3 books which the intial editor recommended, and only those 3 books. I also saw that the editor added a notice to his webpage informing people of the wikipedia dispute.

But I don't have any particular problem with it. I don't believe the editors are strictly meatpuppets because I believe they have independent reasons for being disaffected with primal therapy and would have edited the page if they'd found it independently.

So it should not be surprising that those 3 editors make similar edits for similar explanations, as they probably come from the same place and have had contact with each other. Nevertheless, I don't think they're sockpuppets and I have no problem with it.Twerges (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Twerges. Nice to read you.

For the record:

• I live in Europe (so much for the "probably come from the same place" theory)
• I edited Primal Therapy 47 times (to a total of 8000+ edits)
• I added several times the disputed "Debunking primal therapy" link.

User:DGG wrote: "The persistent insertion of either against consensus is wrong"

Where´s the consensus?. I see three editors supporting that link on the page.

User:Beestra wrote: "All other edits (by more established editors) are reverts of removals of links inserted by the above accounts". Beestra, please check my edits to see how wrong you are.

I ask for a checkuser of all involved parties. Randroide (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. If someone wants to, suggest unblocking and reblock to eliminate this argument. I consider this all moot as Psychmajor hasn't even asked for an unblock on his page. Let him argue this himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychmajor is blocked, so he/she can not argue anything. Besides, I was not requesting comment just about his/her block (that would be a different issue), but about his/her block by an admin who engaged in content dispute with him/her Randroide (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Randroide. You were not one of the users who was suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. When I spoke of the "3 users" who probably come from the same place, I was referring to the users listed above: PsychMajor, Zonbalance, and AussieWikiLady. Anyway I was not referring to the same geographical address but rather the same person/website which led them here (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Nobody doubts your independence, or suspects that you're a sockpuppet.

With regard to consensus. I was referring to a consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard. There obviously was not a consensus including the 3 editors suspected of being sockpuppets, because they all revert no matter what, even after administrator warnings and even when their edits clearly violate several wikipedia policies. As a result, there is no possibility of consensus with them, which is why I brought the issue to the realible sources noticeboard.

If a consensus is reached on that noticeboard then they should abide by it. We clearly cannot wait until we have convinced everyone, no matter hor intrasigent or resistant to discussion they are, before we declare that a consensus has been achieved. If that were the criterion of consensus, then there has never been (and will never be) a consensus on things like evolution/creationism, flath earth, etc. By consensus we do not mean everyone in all circumstances. That is the reason the noticeboards exist, I believe: to gather consensus elsewhere among neutral parties when interested parties are intransigent.Twerges (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There´s neither consensus to remove, the link, Twerges. OTOH you did the right thing posting the contentious link at the noticeboard. Good move. Randroide (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out, that the addition was also wrong with respect to excessive weight. An article must be balanced, and aggressively trying to unbalance it against consensus is abusive editing. As I commented on the page, I don't really see why anyone would want to do it, because it makes a stronger case for a position if only an appropriate number of sources are added. Otherwise it looks like an unbalanced diatribe, no matter how reasonable the position. This is an encyclopedia, to give information about subjects, not a place for advocacy. DGG (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That´s not the point, DGG. The point is you blocking an user you disputed with, and blocking him/her for the reasons of the dispute. To make things worse you "argued" that the user inserted "blogs" (User_talk:Psychmajor902#May_2008), and that´s just not the case. Personally, in your position I should be ashamed of my behaviour and I would apologize Psychmajor. Unblocking him/here is not the point I raised. Is not the validity of the block what I am discussing here, DGG, but how you blocked him/her Randroide (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don;t care much about the subject, as I've made clear. If I thought the material were supported by consensus I would not have removed it. And I point out my block was after multiple other warnings--some of which could well have been blocks instead, as others have said above. As I usually do, I extended AGF as far as it could possibly stretch. Disruptive editing usually touches on a number of things, and which category it falls in exactly can be difficult to say I think almost everyone here agrees the sum of the editors work on these articles was disruptive. My reason was based on multiple problems, not just this single one. As i think I said above, I would not have blocked for this long over the readdition of a single link to a single article--if I would have blocked at all. U'm prepared to remove the block in favor of a ban on editing the related articles. DGG (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, I was referring to all edits mentioned in the COIBot report, there where you are in the link-addition database, all those edits are revert-like edits: 15:05, 2 June 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid' (the last two are the same edit, twice the link). I did check your edits, all edits that I see in the COIBot report that were not made by the 5 accounts were 'undo', 'revert' or similar edits, the link is used by these 5 accounts, and you are an account undoing removals of the external links by others. For other records see the edit history of the documents, but they do not involve that website (except where the linkwatchers have missed the edit). I have named these 5 accounts above, and they appear to be meat/sock puppets, and I do not suspect you are number 6 in that, your edit pattern and focus (if any) is completely different, you only happen to edit these pages as well (what is true for a lot of other people as well); the other 5 (Psychmajor902, Zonbalance, Aussiewikilady, 76.90.103.220, 67.150.124.231) hardly edit outside of the three pages mentioned!

As far as consensus, the link is being pushed by the 5 accounts (which may be 'one', actually), and removed by a large number of established editors (over and over again, otherwise there would not be so many inclusions of the link). You are the only person fighting that (and that is fine/great!), but as I see it, there is large resistance against inclusion of the link, I would suggest to leave it out for now (as that is what happens most, and where the consensus suggests to be), and reach consensus on talkpage first, before reinserting the link and accompanying information again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Beetstra. Did we have a checkuser on this issue I failed to notice? Randroide (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, or I have missed it as well. That's why I say that these 5 accounts "may be 'one'" (they behave similarly), not that they are. Maybe one should be filed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It should, of course. Frankly, I can not see the purpose of voicing over and over doubts about 5 users being ("maybe") shockpuppets and no one posting a checkuser request. I suppose you know the procedure, I do not. Please, do it. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, DGG has not been significantly involved with any of the content disputes on the page. DGG was not involved with this one until after I posted a message to WP:RS and after the consensus was ignored.

I'm not sure I even would characterize PsychMajor's spat as a serious content dispute. PsychMajor did not dispute the content on the discussion board, did not dispute the content on WP:RS, and did not respond with any relevant argumentation to DGG's notice in discussion that the link violated WP:EL. Instead, he ignored consensus and started a revert war with an admin and kept it up despite repeated warnings. Is that how we define "content dispute"?

I think DGG's block was appropriate, and I think he has no reason to apologize.Twerges (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to have your opinion, Twerges. I disagree with you.

Anyway, IMO this diff by DGG is a gesture that restores in some measure my confidence in her/him as an administrator. With this diff I think that DGG restores a measure of (much needed in relationships involving power) fair play in his/her relation with PsychMajor. IMHO this diff is a very good move, DGG.

After seeing the aforelinked diff by DGG, I, the creator of this section, consider this issue -afaic- closed.

The only exception is the lingering issue (vide supra) of the checkuser on the 5 accounts that were considered suspicious by some editors. I think it would be an excellent additional outcome for this section to check those accounts, just to clean the air. Please check those accounts. We absolutely can not left unchecked the accusation of 5 accounts being shockpuppets.

Thank you very much to all the parties involved Randroide (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I see my offer to change to a topic ban (not yet accepted, by the way) a possibly more effective way of handling it, with the same basic meaning. I also intended it to represent my general view that we ought to use such remedies more--unfortunately, unlike a block, topic bans are not self-enforcing. DGG (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with the "unfortunately". I think that it is better to trust on the self restraint of the editor than to technically prevent him/her to edit. OTOH, of course I do not have your experience with blocks and blocked users... What´s going to happen with the checkuser?. Randroide (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Unreliable prodders"

The Enchantress Of Florence (talk · contribs) has recently decided to deprod articles with the edit summary of "deprod, unreliabele proponent" [78][79] [80][81][82][83][84]. A prod may be removed if one "otherwise object[s] to its deletion for any reason", but the deprodder isn't giving a reason for the deletion objection. The reliability of the prodder has nothing to do with the "deletability" of the article. Request at his/her talk page, User talk:The Enchantress Of Florence#Margery Edwards, have been ignored. I basically propose that he/she be told (by someone with a little symbol on top of their userpage) to stop this insulting disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is insulting to be told that because I am employed, and not paid to engage in Wikipedian disputes during worktime with the apparently unemployed, that I have "ignored" their comments and am otherwise of bad character. The accusation is a conspicuous violation of WP:AGF, not that such principles matter to those eager to rush to an uninformed judgment. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to WP:IAR here and restore some of the PROD tags given that they were removed tendentiously. Judith Blake, for example, is clearly non-notable per WP:BIO, but is it worth wasting an AFD on? Black Kite 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're following Qworty. All of the deprods followed a prod2 made by Qworty. Probably started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherproof books. --Onorem♠Dil 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And also at here. I've restored the Judith Blake PROD, and will add others as necessary. Black Kite 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. All prods should be restored in this instance. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#question regarding BLP application to discussions may serve to clarify. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All restored or AfD'd except Natasha Bauman, may be some notability here. Black Kite 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if Margery Edwards may turn out to be a keep, I'm still waiting on a bit more info, but my initial concerns still stand. Reasons for dePRODing should be given rather than what appears to be "I don't like the nom" or prod2er. There also appears to be some history between the two from BLPN _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I read WP:PROD to mean you don't have to give a reason to remove it, you can do so simply as a personal privilege. The deprodder is not obligated to explain himself. He can deprod articles because the sky is blue or because he's just bored. The proper response is to either do nothing, take the article to AfD, or find some other resolution such as discussing it on the article talk page or proposing a merger, or even doing a WP:BOLD merge if you think it will be uncontested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Going around and removing PROD tags based on the user is rude at best and disruptive at worst.-Wafulz (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I could go either way on it. Here are the two applicable lines from WP:PROD: 1) Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion in the edit summary or in article's talk page. 2) Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). (The bolding is mine).

I sort of agree with davidwr, as I wouldn't have replaced the PROD tags (as evidenced by my creation of an AfD). However, as it looks like this editor wasn't so much against the deletion of the articles but was on a vendatta against Qworty, I think it's okay to replace the tags. If the editor then removes them again in an appropriate manner, someone can take it to AfD if they are so inclined. Tan | 39 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to get hypertechnical, if I'm behaving like a child and I know you want to delete X, I may object to deleting X at any time in the future simply because I know you want to delete X. Ergo, my deprodding is a legitimate deprod because I am objecting to the deletion of X. Editors who are disruptive like this/behaving like children need to be sent to time-out, but in this case, their individual edits qualify as legitimate, even if as a whole they indicate a disruptive editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz: True, but the remedy is not to undo the prod, the remedy is to take it to the "we have a disruptive editor" sanctioning process. Besides, it's simply more efficient to replace the deleted PRODs with AfDs and let the AfDs run their course. If the original PROD was legit and was likely to have no article-related opposition, it will probably get WP:SNOWballed as a speedy-close/delete or at worst, get deleted after 5 days. Taking the editor to task through the normal editor-dispute process will hopefully deter or, by blocks or other sanctions, prevent, similar happenings in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right, at least in that you definitely got hypertechnical. :-) I think we can consider this incident closed. Tan | 39 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can. What I didn't want to do is set a precedent where you can stalk someone around and remove valid PROD tags, thus causing wasted time for other people. All the PRODs I restored were pretty much uncontroversial (one was probably a speedy), and I didn't restore the one I think had a chance at AfD, so we're all good, I think. Black Kite 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this is resolved now, but I was invited to chime in. One of the articles I prodded recently, Zena Timber, was deprodded by Enchantress after a {{prod2}} by Qworty. Knowing full well that I am not an unreliable editor, I suspected this must have been a problem with Qworty, but I didn't have time to look into it this morning, although I did revert one other deprodding and had planned to do the rest. I haven't looked into the situation so I don't know if removing Qworty's edits was justified, but obviously Enchantress should have reverted only Qworty's edits. Qworty's chiming in on otherwise legitimate prods doesn't invalidate the original prod. Katr67 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll additionally chime in, one of the articles I prodded recently, Eric J. Wilson was prod2ed by Qworty which then was reverted by enchantress. In this case, qworty's edits were also (I think) worthwhile (he prod2ed, COId and asked for citations on the article) and Enchantress reverted them all with the text 'unreliable proponent'. I don't really care either way, seeing as the original prod is set to go off tomorrow night which'll take all of this with it. Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting addition to this apparently-not-yet-resolved event. Tan | 39 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned by EoF's extremely hostile response to timely questions. Engaging in dialogue, now (difficult, since they seem to make a habit of blanking threads). – Luna Santin (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be more concerned over your own participation in this lynch mob, and your manifested belief that commenting on a user's long, well-documented and undeniable pattern of abusive behavior is worse than the abusive behavior (which includes lying about the living and gratuitously abusing the dead. Is anything I have said have so bad as the comment which introduces this lynching, which assumes bad faith simply because I a employed, as I note above. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this simple, then: if you continue to treat Wikipedians with open hostility and contempt as you have in the past, you will find yourself blocked from editing for a time. You've had enough friendly requests and veiled warnings over the past month or two. It's quite possible to address a user's behavior and statements without commenting on them personally. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why is this not a concern of yours with regard to the troll whose misbehavior I cited, who regularly assaults other users (and article subjects) with far more open hostility and contempt, regularly laced with dishonesty? Your concern appears greatly misplaced. I would also note no small share of the warnings you cite relate to my responsive to an administrator who gratuitously (and, by consensus, falsely) characterized my spouse's editing as "deceptive," a characterization that inexplicably met far less condemnation that my more restrained (and much more accurate) "unreliable." I am sure you or your cohorts here will easily find rationales for silencing my criticisms, which are, after all, so much damaging to a supposed encyclopedia than the outright dishonesty, wilful and repeated personal abuse (not to mention occasional cultural insensitivity bordering on racism ([85], here an offensive comment from an editor whose later accusation of incivility you seem to endorse).The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Following an editor around and removing deletion tags simply because they they supported the deletion is not appropriate and is certainly not a "criticism" of that user. There are numerous venues where you can air greivances which do not hurt other editor's work on the project. Removing tags to "criticize" another editor serves no purpose to help the Wikipedia, and is essentially pointy grudge-mongering, which does little more than exacerbate drama and damage the encyclopedia. --Haemo (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I prodded Sophie Costa, which was prod2ed by Qworty. EoF removed the prod. Black Kite replaced it. EoF removed it again. I've taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Costa. EoF gave no explanation for removing the prod except for accusing me of being an 'unreliable proponent', even though I had tagged the article as non-notable in November 2007, and left a polite message on the creator's talkpage in April of this year [86]. Her edits have been disruptive, and her rudeness unwarranted.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London cities template - slow edit war

NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) has been slow edit warring (mostly against myself and DCGeist (talk · contribs)) on Template:Largest cities of the United Kingdom, which was until earlier named Template:United Kingdom cities; it was renamed by NuclearVacuum in what I can only presume was an attempt to reinforce his own position.

The dispute is regarding the images; the general consensus on the talk page seems to be to include one picture for each constituent nation, the most populous in each. NuclearVacuum insists that there should be exactly two pictures, of the two most populous in the UK. He has even used such misleading edit summaries as "this makes the box not so wordy and spacy" and "reletive cleanup" when restoring his preferred versions, if he gives any summary at all. When stating his position on the talk page (last time he deigned to do so), he simply headed the section "consensus" as if describing a clearly existing consensus. This is getting silly, frankly, and I don't know what else to do about it. SamBC(talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think the images add anything at all... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before, and it's purely a content dispute. There's nothing that an administrator can do here, so I'm afraid you'll have to deal with WP:DR. Alex Muller 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that slow edit warring and misleading edit summaries were a problem. SamBC(talk) 08:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it even a template? It is only used on United Kingdom (where the 4 images cause the article to exceed the page width). MickMacNee (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had that thought initially as well, but given the scope of the article, I can easily see this being a template to cut down on the size of United Kingdom. It's already 140k long. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in template form only shortens the raw wikitext. It won't affect things like load time, it might actually make it slightly worse. Mr.Z-man 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not remove the pictures, subst the template and let the argument move to the larger article space where more editors can debate? Then it's not just 3 fighting but a group forming consensus (or more edit-warring but more obvious). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tancarville

_TalkIslander 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from some massive WP:CIVIL violations, Tancarville has made legal threats on my user page; see diff at [87].  RGTraynor  14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user also makes bizarre accusations. An "organism" every night? Eek. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"I also will advise you to clean your act as a few people are considering taking you to court." is clearly an attempt to intimidate through a thinly veiled legal threat, I suggest at least a long block, but considering the type of behavior we have seen so far from this user probably indefinite blocking(pending some clear resolution of the mentioned court issues) would be better. _{1 != 2} 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The user was warned this morning, ignored the warning and made a legal threat, so I felt an indef. block was warrented. Contact me if you disagree. _TalkIslander 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't, regrettably. It's a shame it wound up coming to this.  RGTraynor  15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if wikipedia has ever actually been taken to court for any reason, and if so, how did it turn out? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. French and German were both taken to court and both won (so far).-Wafulz (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent information. Those decisions define a framework for protection of wikipedia from these kinds of suits: (1) The open nature of wikipedia is a "given" and hence defamatory material could slip in; (2) wikipedians make a good faith effort to remove such info; and (3) the verifiability requirement essentially equates to, "wikipedia didn't orginate this, someone else did - go talk to them." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive and confusing revert war at WP:V

We are currently discussing something like 12 seperate proposed and counter proposed changes to this policy page... Multiple editors are being overly bold and adding changes/reverting changes without obtaining a consensus on the talk page ... there is far too much activity all at once to make sense of what is being changed or offer constructive comments. I request that the page be protected so that people are forced to actually sit down and discuss the matter and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for three days. Marskell (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit/Revert War in progress...

on Video games notable for negative reception. While discussion is taking place the two sides are also reverting to their preferred version. I would suggest a lockdown on the article so a consensus on inclusion criteria can be reached before the article is opened up for editing again. Exxolon (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Request made at WP:RFPP <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive redirect deletions

MZMcBride (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is using a bot (based on his log to delete thousands of redirected talk pages. While some may be valid, he also deleted a whole raft of template documentation talk pages (an example would be Template talk:PD-self/doc). Users are instructed to redirect those doc talk pages in Wikipedia:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage. Based on his responses to complaints on his talk page, it seems he doesn't understand why these massive robotic deletions are a problem. I'm not sure how we go about cleaning up this big mess. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with the pointless redirect cleanup. It doesn't need doing- there is no appreciable benefit to Wikipedia from these being deleted. Do we need a redirect from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 24, not really. Does it do any harm, no. Is it of some use, well maybe if someone mistypes the url... No one would bother doing these unnecessary deletions manually so the only time it happens is if someone takes it upon themselves to run a script to do it. Drama ensues, Wikipedia gets no better. I'm rather tired of asking MZMcBride to stop doing this sort of thing to be honest. WjBscribe 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He also deleted talk pages that redirect to centralised discussions, on the spurious grounds that "they were all orphaned". This is incorrect - all talk pages automatically link to their articles, and if those articles exist, a talk page is never an orphan. Removing these links - especially in cases where discussion relating to the page is continuing on the redirect target is not only wrong but also disruptive to the point of vandalism. "Wikipedia gets no better", as you say - in fact, it gets considerably worse. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also notified MZMcBride about a deletion I questioned. S/he quickly restored it but I agree with the above, there was no need for these deletions in the first place since the deletion sorting list was at the same location as its talk page. I suggest a centralized discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere else to get some conensus on what, if anything, needs to be done about so-called orphan talk pages before another such run since it has apparently happened before. Also suggest a better check on whether or not something is truly orphaned since there's something clearly wrong with that check. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've undeleted a bunch of /doc redirects. There are still a lot more that need undeleting, tho. Why the heck would anyone want to delete useful redirects? --Conti|✉ 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, they think the redirects are useless or a script they are using thinks the redirects are useless. FunPika 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: This issue can be quickly closed if he agrees to not delete or blank more than a few non-vandal/non-broken/non-looping/not-otherwise-explicitly-harmful redirects per day without discussing them on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for a period of time. I would suggest a limit of 10 per day for at least a month. For comparison, non-admins have a limit of zero deletions per day for the duration of their non-adminship. During this time he can think about whether his judgment on deleting redirects is causing problems, and if it is, either change his personal criteria or simply avoid deleting redirects. This isn't arbcom, so any such agreement would have to be voluntary on his part. However, repeats of this kind of incident may lead to formal sanctions. Personally, I'd hate to see someone who has this much time to give to the project be completely desysoped because of a mistake in one area. On a related matter: It goes without saying that bots should get approval first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC) PS: The robotic deletes that haven't been re-created already should be quickly undone and screened by a human for re-deleting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Several users have complained about this on this talk page in the last 24 hours. He's clearly in the minority here and if he doesn't cease doing this, stronger measures may be needed. To his credit, he seems to be starting to realize this. I hope so. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of these deletions. Even assuming that the bot being used was 100% accurate, what's the point? Given this it goes without saying that if there is less than 100% accuracy, the bot shouldn't be running. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the bot was working 100% correctly and it was designed in accordance with WP:SPEEDY and approved in accordance with WP:BOT, nobody would notice. Well, nobody except those who are mad because properly-speedy'd redirects got deleted. In general, no article or other page on Wikipedia should be summarily deleted - by a bot or human administrator - unless it fits the criteria in WP:SPEEDY. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is true: it's certainly possible to make edits with automated tools that while plausibly useful, are disruptive due to a combination of number and triviality. See e.g. the rejection of bots that make minor MOS changes and the warning to AWB users not to confirm edits that make only this type of change. This sort of thing just clogs watchlists and the deletion log for no reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions didn't use to clog up the watchlists, as they didn't appear there, but now they do, this sort of objections to mass deletions are becoming more common, as I predicted. It is good in a way, though I do have some sympathy with those who shovel away in the bowels of Wikipedia with deletion scripts having a bright light shone on them. Most of the deletions are fine, but these ones were not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find deletions in watchlists extremely useful. Even if a bot properly deleted 10,000 articles but improperly deleted one I cared about, I might miss it if it didn't show up in my watchlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What I am saying is that those using deletion scripts might be struggling to adjust to the new situation where they are under greater scrutiny. Not an excuse, more something to be said in mitigation. Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think (and I hope MZMcBride will correct me if I am wrong) that his philosophy is to make a judgment call and then undelete if he makes a mistake. This was rather a silly error though, and one that would have been picked up if he had checked with other people. He should do: (1) Ask; (2) Objection; (3) Abandon deletion. Instead, the process is: (1) Delete (after consideration or programming a script); (2) Objection; (3) Undelete. He doesn't often get it wrong, to be fair, but that may be, as I've noticed before, more to do with the pages being deleted being stuff no-one cares about or notices (the recent addition of deletions and other log actions to watchlists may explain why people are noticing these things more). In this case, deletions like that of Template talk:Nowraplinks/doc are clearly wrong. There are two common ways to reach Template talk:Nowraplinks/doc. The first is by clicking the talk page link at the top of Template:Nowraplinks. The second is by clicking the talk page link at the top of Template:Nowraplinks/doc (the same is true for any set of pages sharing a talk page, be they subpages or not. I'm more concerned that there seem to be at least seven threads on his talk page about this. He raises some interesting (if debatable) points here and here. The point is that these things should be debated openly on a project talk page, not batted around user talk pages with limited input, and certainly not as part of a debate triggered by deletions. The debate should have taken place before the deletions. My concerns here are mainly with MZMcBride's bypassing of community discussions in favour of his own judgment (an example I remember is here from April: "I see no reason to stop simply because there's a fuss on AN/I."), as seen in his ideas that it is OK to delete and then undelete if there are objections, rather than discuss first before deleting. There is a time and a place for that approach, and in my opinion he takes it too far. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Was MZMcBride's bot ever approved? I do not want to see another User:Marudubshinki, who as as an admin ran unauthorized bots using the sysop tools that generated many complaints, and he refused to stop so an arbcom case desysopped him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Betacommand also comes to mind. I can't find any approval for the bot. Kelly ^hi! 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a script, not a bot, hence no approval needed. As I said, most of the stuff is fine. If he would discuss more beforehand, I would have no problems with most of his work. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm - the edit rate on the "script" is sometimes over 20 deletions per minute, based on a quick review of the log. Seems too fast for each action to be approved, but I could be wrong. Kelly ^hi! 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 1

For those who weren't here at the time, the longest of the previous discussions was here. That was mainly East718, but at the time it was noted that MzMcBride was also doing a more limited set of deletions (he was using different criteria, mainly he was deleting redirects with no incoming links, whereas East718's deletions were not fully orphaned). There was also a terminology confusion, which Grutness has pointed out here (perpetuating the confusing usage, while also raising an important point that redlinked talk page tabs lead to inappropriate recreations of separate talk pages where a centralised one may be needed). Anyway, I covered the terminology confusion here. Forgive me for reposting this, but I think these redirects for centralised talk page discussions are another variant! :-)

• (1) "Orphaned" talk pages (CSD#G8) are talk pages where the corresponding page does not exist or was deleted. This is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned".
• (2) Broken redirects are redirects pointing at deleted or never-created titles. Sometimes these are called "orphaned" redirects. As for type (1), this is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned". User:RedirectCleanupBot deals with these providing they have no edit history beyond creation (see type C).
• (3) True orphaned pages are pages not linked to from anywhere else (ie. "what links here" shows nothing). This usually refers to articles not linked from other articles, but can refer to other namespace pages as well. These links from somewhere else are also called backlinks. Redirects can be orphaned in this sense (looking backwards at what connects to it) as well as in the other sense (looking forward at what it connects to, though this is more commonly called a "broken redirect").
  • (3a) Sometimes orphan status can be delimited by namespace. Thus it is possible for a page to be orphaned with respect to several namespaces, but still be linked from other namespaces. This is relevant here because some namespaces (in this case Wikipedia and User namespaces) are densely populated with links from article lists, such as the various bot-generated watchlists, wikiproject article lists, user lists, and the WP 1.0 assessment lists.

Also, redirects can be created in several ways and have a varied history.

• (A) Redirects can be created from scratch. These generally never have a talk page, and the edit history usually only shows creation, but in theory a talk page could be created for such redirects.
• (B) Redirects are created by the pagemove function. If the page has a talk page and the talk page is also moved, a redirect is created for the talk page as well. The edit history will only show creation of the redirect at the time of the page move.
• (C) Redirects can also be created by blanking a page and inserting the redirect markup. This is known as "redirecting" and is also a step seen in merging. This can also work the other way round, with a redirect being turned into a normal page, usually when undoing a merge, creating a disambiguation page following a page move, or just creating new content where previously only a redirect existed. These redirects are easily distinguished from others because they have an edit history that is more than just the creation of the redirect. When talk pages exist for these type of redirects, they are sometimes left alone, and sometimes redirected or merged to the talk page of the redirect destination.
• (D) Redirects of talk pages are also sometimes created for the purposes of centralising discussion for a set of pages. This could be a set of subpages where people clicking on the talk page tab get sent to the centralised discussion page (eg. the "doc" subpages of template pages, as described at Wikipedia:Template documentation), or they can be centralising discussion for a set of related pages (eg. the talk pages for the [[WP:REFDESK|reference desks). These redirects are normally created from scratch (type A), though if there was existing discussion at different locations before the centralising, then the redirects will be created by inserting the redirect markup (type C).

Hopefully that makes redirect and orphan terminology clearer! Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Among some of the talk page redirect deletions that triggered my watchlist directly tonight were a large amount of talk page archive redirects. Talk page archives themselves almost never have a project page attached to them, let alone a redirect. This needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what should be made clear to those running deletion scripts is that deletions appear in watchlists, so they are coming under greater scrutiny than before, so they need to improve their standards. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here to report MZMcBride's latest talk page deletion spree. But I see many of you beat me to it.

MZMcBride has done similar deletions several times during the last years. He has also been deleting /doc talk page redirects both now and before. (Note that such /doc talk page redirects are recommended at Wikipedia:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage.) I have discussed his deletions with him several times before and if he has answered it has been to the effect that he thinks that talk pages should never be redirected and that he thinks such redirected talk pages should be deleted on sight.

And yes, it seems MZMcBride was running a bot or a script. That bot could not possibly be an approved one and breaches policy in several ways. Since as far as I remember bots may not do tasks that need admin tools (such as deleting pages), they must be ran from special non-admin accounts marked as bot accounts, they may only do 10 edits per minute, and they should be formally approved before they run. Since I have discussed this with MZMcBride before I think his bot did exactly what he was intending. If it was "just a script" doesn't matter, bots are built from scripts so the difference is only academic, there is no reason that a script should be allowed to break the bot rules like doing more than 10 edits per minute.

I disagree with MZMcBride's deletions. Something needs to be done about this since this is a repeat behaviour and I don't think he will stop voluntarily.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a script be used to undo these deletions? -- Ned Scott 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know East718 has said he has an undeletion script. Which reminds me of a Betacommand image deletion issue that probably never got tidied up. The deletion of PNG and SVG images, IIRC. East offered to do undeletions, but the second stage (removing the deletion tags) never got sorted out. This is another point - reversability is rarely built in, at least not with the same amount of convenience. Invariably the undeletion is slower or requires discussion, and if the deleting admin doesn't take responsibility, then often discussion dies out, people mutter a bit, nothing gets done, and the admin responsible doesn't get properly warned or sanctioned. Then the behaviour repeats again. Breaking that sort of low-level cycle of behaviour can be very difficult unless someone keeps pointing out the previous stuff, and someone actually guides the discussion towards an actionable conclusion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 2

See Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#When is a script a bot.3F for suggestions on how to keep this from happening in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2008

Geez... what is all the fuss about? I for one do agree with deleting orphaned talkpage redirects. Redirects should not have talkpages; plain and simple. Though on this occasion, MZ made a mistake by not checking if the attached non-talk page was indeed a redirect itself. If that check is added, the script would work fine. — Edokter • Talk • 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the deletions of template documentation talkpages? Kelly ^hi! 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same error; MZ should have checked if the non-talk page otself was a redirect. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of that discussion is to establish what the difference is between a script and a bot (and whether there is a difference at all in cases like this). The fact that he can run a bot without approval by calling it a "script" is a tremendous loophole in bot approval. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter: You have misunderstood what this is about. Go and look again. MZMcBride is deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages. And he has been doing so for months or is it years now? And lots and lots of people have begged him to stop for a long time now, but he refuses to understand and just claims "I do no harm since I am an admin". Two examples of many: Diff1, diff2.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing some thinking and have come to some conclusions: MZMcBride has been deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages for months or perhaps years now. I have checked the logs and I see that lots and lots of experienced editors considers this to be disruptive edits and have asked him to stop for a long time now, but he refuses to understand. (I myself have discussed this with him several times during the last year or more.)

Even if an editor doesn't understand why his edits are considered disruptive, if lots of people tell him they are disruptive and ask him to stop he should stop. Failure to stop is vandalism and should be handled as such, no matter if the editor happens to be an admin. Even admins should obey consensus.

I am going to put a final vandalism warning notice on MZMcBride's talk page. If I see him deleting any more talk page redirects of existing pages I would like to block him for repeat vandalism. I hope other admins will agree with me on this? (And do the same if they see him vandalise more talk pages.) Since I am not experienced in blocking people I appreciate any advice on the proper length of such a block. And how long should the follow up blocks be if he continues?

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Blocking for running an unapproved bot or not respecting consensus is one thing, blocking him for vandalism - meaning he is intending to harm the project - is absolutely unacceptable, and like that pointless warning template you put on his talk page, only going to multiply the drama. Disruption is not the same as vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The first block should be for the typical 24 hours. If there needs to be a second block, how long it should be will be the least of our problems. I also agree with Mr.Z-man that "disruption" would be a better term than "vandalism". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Z-Man, vandalism is not the same as disruption. Please rephrase the warning message accordingly. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion but add me to the list of users frustrated by this pointless deletion spree. It does not comply with any existing criterion of WP:CSD. It adds nothing helpful to the project and has created considerable disruption. Redirects (and, yes, that includes redirects of one talk page to another Talk page) are helpful to those of us who care about and try to research the history of pages that have been moved. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many editors have talked with MZMcBride for months (or is it years now?) about his disruptive deletions of redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc sub-pages. He knows the rest of us thinks his edits are disruptive, still he continues. To me that makes it intentional disruption which I thought was called "vandalism" in English. But I am not a native English speaker, English is only my third language.

Anyway, no matter what we call it: Talking with MZMcBride has failed miserably, thus we have to use the next tool to stop his disruptive edits, and that is to tell him he will be blocked if he continues. (And of course block him if he does continue.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive redirect deletions - Call for immediate robot-restore

Seeing as how MZMcBride has taken the day off, I'm calling for the immediate robo-restore of all red-links that are in this list whose edit summary is "(orphaned talk page redirect)", dating back to at least 14:53, 31 May 2008. Shall I ask for help on Wikipedia:Bot requests or is this a bad idea? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and I support the request. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support the request. This episode seems to have been a good-faith mistake, and so the best solution would be to restore the status quo ante. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62: In what way is it "a good-faith mistake" when lots of editors have pointed it out to him repeatedly for many months that his deletions of talk page redirects are disruptive? I see that you are defending him on his talk page. I suggest you go look in the logs and the archives and see what has been going on for a long time now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have longer-term concerns with this editors' actions, why don't you try dispute resolution? I did not "defend him" on his talk page, I merely disagreed with your actions: there is a substantial difference! Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot requested, with a request that the bot owner place a notice here and wait 12-24 hours for any last-minute objections. Given that this mess started when someone made a decision without asking for others' opinions, it's prudent to go slow on the repair job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a blanket revert is not the way to go; a lot of those redirects needed to go. However, MZMcBride needs to have the following rules to prevent mistakes in the future: A talk page redirect may not be deleted if...

1. The non-talk page is not a redirect, OR
2. The talk page redirects to a parent talk-page (example WT:ANI points to WT:AN, should catch template docs.)
3. The talk-page has incoming links.

Otherwise, talk page redirects should be deleted. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a robo-undelete and a manual or better-coded robo-delete vs. manual undeletes of selected redirects is one of erring on the side of keeping too much vs. erring on the side of deleting too much. There is less harm erring on the side of keeping. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with this opinion. Orderinchaos 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the data and code necessary to undelete all those "orphaned talk page redirect" deletions. There are 6307 deletions on the list, the bot will currently simply restore all revisions of any redlink. If we want this to happen, post here saying so, or if there are other caveats for the bot to follow, say so. I have no desire to RfA this, if someone wants to they can have the code, otherwise just let me know so I can start it up once there's consensus and it follows the necessary caveats. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have 4859 from May 10, 1812 from Apr 12, and 13943 from Apr 7. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume those 6307 are just the ones from 5/31-6/1. If not, trim the list to just those. Before you run it, can you give us some breakdown by namespace and by sub-page? In particular, how many articles are in a namespace other than the main-article Talk: space and how many of those in Talk: have either a /, \, or extra : in them to indicate some type of sub-page, OR which have the name "archive" in them anywhere? Unless someone objects within 12 hours/by 13:00 Tuesday, please run the bot against everything not in (main)Talk: and run it against everything in Talk: which looks like a sub-page or archive. Then we can discuss what's left. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The 6307 are from that day only. 3940 are in Talk:, 1225 in Wikipedia talk:. Of the talk: ones, 105 contain archive, 162 have a /, 77 have a colon. In total, 2602 from that day and 8032 in total are outside of talk or contain a /, :, or the word archive. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you put a list on one of your user subpages, sorted by date, namespace, and for Talk:, splitting out the likely sub-pages? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can remember how :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be the first set of restores. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and kick off the first list, and prep a list of others deleted on May 31 and lists from earlier dates. I'm not sure there is a consensus to auto-restore these or the earlier runs, having the lists available will make it easy for admins to spot-check, which can give us some idea if these deletes need mass-undoing or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That list has been kicked. You can watch the bot's progress at my ts account. I'll also be making lists for MZ's and other admins' previous deletes of this type for community's review. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was quite a few on that list in violation of G8 and other CSD criteria (I've redeleted those), plus ones on obscure templates which I've redeleted through personal knowledge of how the redirect came about. I would suggest putting the lists up for review so members of the community can tick them off as appropriate - in this particular case (we're talking redirects of talk pages here) mass restores would not fix the problem without the human review the initial process probably needed. Orderinchaos 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that it is better to err on the side to keeping unnecessary pages rather than deleting good pages. Future lists have been posted at User:ST47/restores2, User:ST47/restores3, User:ST47/restores4, please spot-check those. I will be posting a log of the restores from the first set once the bot finishes, and I'll wait on the rest for further review. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do so when I have time - thanks for that :) The only things I'm looking for are my own temporary pages and those of other WP:AUS contributors (none of which had talk pages with anything more than a project sign-in) and G8s. Orderinchaos 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for general review of the other lists I've posted. First run complete, log posted User:ST47/restores. Critical issues means the bot couldn't even check if it needed deletion. Warnings means the bot thinks it doesn't exist, yet has no deleted revisions - meaning it shouldn't have been on the list to begin with. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of response by deleting admin

MZMcBride‎ (talk · contribs) has simply archived his talk page without addressing the multitude of concerns placed there. I think this is a problem. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this particular user until the unwillingness to initiate a response ceases. Considering the blatant misuse of these admin tools as well as the unnecessary usage of disk space I feel that we are entitled to an explanation. There have been problems with this user performing unauthorized tasks in the past and refusing to provide an explanation. Let's stop that now. -Pilotguy contact tower 01:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish this hadn't been necessary, but at least now he will be forced to address these issues. As an operator of an adminbot myself, I know very well not to automate anything remotely controversial, so I'm wondering what his excuse is. --Cyde Weys 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you ask a bureacrat to temporarily desysop him in lieu of a block? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that necessary. --Conti|✉ 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop. Only stewards can. bibliomaniac15 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting...things...Must...get...sleep... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary block makes a bit more sense than a desysopping. Any admin can do and undo the block; no need for a steward. Anyway, it's standard bot policy that the bot account is blocked at the slightest sign of anything being wrong. Anyone running an adminbot on their own account is aware of the risks. Just to clarify, MZMcBride is blocked because of a malfunctioning bot running under his account. He's not being punitively blocked until he answers questions or anything, though answering the questions is now a necessary prerequisite of proving that the bot isn't broken (or at least that he won't do that again). --Cyde Weys 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a desysop would be in order if a good explanation isn't forthcoming shortly. He seems to have a policy not to post on AN/I, which frankly seems a silly policy for an admin, in my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a regular user, I recommend that we get this feller's attention. I see that he was blocked, but I am thinking that doing a boatload of deletes before taking the day off isn't the the wisest course of action - at least, not for an admin. Like it or not, admins are seen a template for non-admins on how to conduct themselves, and MZM's behavior hurt the Project. Admins are given bigger mops and trusted not to make the place messier than before. This has not been Mzmcbride's finest hour. We block people indefinitely for just this sort of thing, don't we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:MZMcBride

Pilotguy (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has indef blocked MZMcBride (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), See block log. Pilotguy has been questioned about this block by several admins in the admin IRC channel. Discussion did not go productively, as he was not able to justify his block with policy, citing (in other words) WP:IAR. It is at this time that many agree others should review this block. Regards, Lara❤Love 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say MZMcBride should agree to restore the previously deleted redirects and seek consensus before future deletions and that Pilotguy should be counseled to explain his block on-wiki when making them. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilotguy should have brought the matter here before blocking a fellow admin, this was a trigger-happy. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears the block was for actions that took place a couple of days ago. Lara❤Love 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the block was triggered by MZMcBride's archiving of his talk page without replying to the concerns raised in the last few days. (He did respond to Ned Scott tho, at least.) --Conti|✉ 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is discussed above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lack_of_response_by_deleting_admin -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard policy to block a malfunctioning bot. When you're running a bot on your main account, those are the risks you take. This is discussed in more detail in the section above. --Cyde Weys 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to archive this four times now. But I keep getting an EC. So I give up now. Lara❤Love 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

File an RFC, RFARB, or similar. A block at this point is punitive as would be a desysopping. --slakr^\ talk / 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a block seems more punitive at this point. Support unblocking, it's not like he is going to resume deleting redirects at this point. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd really be happier if he'd post somewhere that he agrees to undelete the page or not delete pages in the future. Or else we'll be back here soon. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually this block is preventative, because MZMcBride will continue to use scripts like these if he isn't blocked. --Chetblong (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Moved section inline with previous discussion on matter. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• MZMcBride shouldn't have run a script like that without asking others and without making sure it was more full proof than it showed itself to be, and him not responding to others concerns tells me that this block was in order. I agree with Pilotguy on blocking MZMcBride. --Chetblong (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::As do I. At the very least. Making a mistake is one thing. Ignoring those people politely inquiring about it is quite another. We block people to protect the project. He doesn't get special treatment because he is an admin, or at least, he shouldn't, if we are all to believe that admins are - as every admin says - just ordinary folk who occasionally make mistakes. MZM compounded and inflated the bot mistakes by ignoring and failing to explain what hell was going on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Almost nothing that is good for any society will ever be "fool-proof." Unfortunately, errors tend to be more salient in people's minds than successes, so even if a margin of error is significantly low, people will seem to think that a particular process fails as a whole— even if it actually doesn't. If MZMcBride doesn't want to respond, we have two choices: community ban him indefinitely, or unblock him. Seeing as the former is just plain silly, I'm thinking we should side with the latter— particularly since the block was based on actions that happened days ago. --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No one is faulting him for the failure of the bot, though it certainly should have been road-tested more before release. What I personally take exception to is the fact that he sets it loose before taking the day off, and then studiously ignoring requests for input. As for Slakr's "two choices", there is a third option: I suggest that any future bot is thoroughly road-tested, and MZM sticks around to make sure its running well. As this is something which would get a normal editor blocked or banned, I don;t support giving him extra leeway that we do not give every other regular contributor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of redirect-deletions has come up repeatedly. MZMcBride has not indicated sufficient understanding of the concerns raised and continues to run the bot/script which causes the concerns on their main account. The most recent concerns do not appear to have been adequately addressed and there is no indication that the script will not be run again. Thus, the block is preventative. Like all blocks, it can be lifted immediately upon the editor recognizing and agreeing to modify their behaviour. Franamax (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been just as frustrated about these talk page redirects as the next guy, but blocking like this is not how we handle these situations. If he was actually continuing the deletions, then maybe, but until then he hasn't done anything. We do not use blocks to force an editor to spew out some pretty little statement just to make ourselves feel better. Neutrality is a core value for the article space, but it works pretty well here. We don't care if they feel sorry or even if they apologies. We only care about what the actually do. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I would support blocking if he resumed running this script without first getting a broader consensus for it, at the moment this seems uncalled for. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's rather the problem, isn't it, Ned? According to David Gothberg, this isn;t the first time this particular issue has come up with MZM. We do not block punitively; we block to protect the Project. How many hours of precious admin time has been wasted on trying to undo the effects of MZM's labor- and time-saving bot which just so happened to Frankenstein on us. We are asking - not for "some pretty little statement" - but some assurances that this isn't a situation that will repeat itself with this particular user. I don't really care if the user is Christ On Toast; if he is disrupting the project with his well-meaning bot, then it would seem appropriate to expect him to agree to at least road-test the bot before release, or to stick around whilst it meanders the thousands of edits (so as to catch/disable/stop it if it suddenly decides to go on a Dick Cheney Duck Hunt). We would ask no less of any non-admin user. The same rules apply. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And how many hours has MzM's labor- and time-saving bot saved busy, time-poor admins like myself? While it clearly made mistakes elsewhere, I have a rather large watchlist covering pretty much all of Australian geography and administration and within that domain all are deletions I would have made myself in the holidays. I think this whole thing's been handled rather poorly. Orderinchaos 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more the lack of discussion. I get the distinct impression that MZMcBride has strong ideas about what should and should not be deleted. If there was more responsiveness and willingness to discuss things, then there would be less of a problem. An error rate (say) of 1% on 100,000 deletions is still 1000 deletions and drama and discussion that could have been avoided with a little bit more patience and care. These pages are not going anywhere. They are not actively causing harm. Taking the time to correctly identify the right pages to delete and avoiding the wrong pages, really, really does work. There is no need to deal with these things yesterday. An even if some of the deletions you would have done yourself, two people do not a consensus make. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm confused now

Wasn't this the place for centralized discussion of admin actions and situations requiring admin intervention? Doesn't it say above that MZMcBride is blocked? Does it say somewhere about being unblocked now? Any mention of the nudge-nudge wink-wink he promised me privately he won't do it anymore? Oh, how about the admin who refuses to participate at the admin noticeboards, due to "long-ish standing (personal) policy"? Policy apparently adopted after either this edit or maybe this one? Is there a special big purple font for WTF? /rant, but this is not a satisfactory conclusion for the general editorship. Franamax (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transclusion of MZMcBride talkpage

Below is a transclusion of MZMcBride's talk page to let him respond ot the issues without requesting an unblock. {{User talk:MZMcBride}}

• MZMcBride reverted the changes to his talk page facilitating this transclusion. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed look at what happened

I think it might help if what happened here were laid out in a bit more detail. I have tried to be objective in what follows, but my position is clear: I have grave concerns about: (1) User:MZMcBride's approach of carrying out deletions according to a set of sometimes debatable, sometimes reasonable, criteria, without discussing those criteria with others first, and only restoring or discussing when someone objects; and (2) The way MzMcBride responds to concerns raised, including a "standing policy not to post at ANI" ([88], [89]). Having got that strong criticism out of the way, I would like to repeat that the following is not intended to be a strong criticism of one or other side, though I have and continue to object to these deletions. Rather, this is primarily intended to clear up misunderstandings on either side.

• Deletion run in question - from looking at MZMcBride's logs (the logs are extensive, but the log summaries do help find what you are looking for, and the runs are fairly discrete blocks), this deletion run with the edit summary "orphaned talk page redirect" started on 14:53, 31 May 2008 and ended at 23:46, 31 May 2008. There were a total of 6306 deletions over a period of 8 hours and 53 minutes (533 minutes), ie. a rate of 11.8 deletions per minute, which is approximately one every 5 seconds for nearly nine hours. I presume from this evidence, and previous statements, that MZMcBride runs a deletion script over a set of filtered lists prepared in user space (see MZMcBride's sandboxes) or offline.
• Why the deletion run ended. I am presuming that the deletion run ended at 23:46, 31 May 2008 when MZMcBride saw a talk page message that had been left for him by User:Rlevse at 23:03, 31 May 2008. This action crossed with a one-minute block performed by User:Gimmetrow at 23:51, 31 May 2008: "To stop unwatched bot". Various discussions then ensued, which I will lay out in more detail below.
• Types of redirects and criteria used for deletion. First, though, I would like to take a look at the type of redirects that were being deleted. The point of doing this is that MZMcBride's deletion criteria don't appear to distinguish between different sorts of redirects. MZMcBride has said here: "When I deleted the most recent batch, the criteria was that they were only one revision, a redirect, not edited in over two weeks, and had absolutely zero incoming links." Using the deletion logs, I've been looking at the list of 6306 redirects that were deleted. By namespace they were: Category talk (10), Help talk (21), Image talk (3), Mediawiki talk (5), Portal talk (39), Talk (3939), Template talk (1065), and Wikipedia talk (1224). It is my view that the root of the problem was that this set of deletions included talk namespaces other than article talk namespace (Talk), and that many of the other talk namespaces have what can be called "redirects that centralise discussion". When these started popping up on people's watchlists (it is important to remember that deletions only recently, in the last few months, were added to the watchlists), they began questioning the deletions.
• Ensuing discussion (MZMcBride's talk page). Most people went to User talk:MZMcBride. The resulting threads are now archived at User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 9), though some of the discussions are split over several talk pages. In summary, in 17 different threads (most directly about the "redirects that centralise discussion"), posted over a period of 24 hours, I count 18 different editors expressing their concerns. The threads are:
  • FYI
  • Wikipedia talk:List of missing journals
  • talk page deletion?
  • Redirect deletions
  • Indiscriminate deletion of redirects does do harm
  • Suggestion: undo the recent mass deletions
  • Your talk page deletion spree
  • FYI:ANI (notice of this ANI thread)
  • Talk page archive redirects (thread discusses other issues as well)
  • Election box tempate talk page deletions
  • Redirects deletions, another matter
  • Orphaned talk page redirect?
  • Wikipedia talk:Dead-end pages/U-Z
  • From WP:RFD
  • erroneous deletions
  • Warnings (warning thread)
  • Deletion of Wikipedia talk:Peer reviews by date
• Later discussions, responses and arguments presented (placeholder)
  • Subsidiary discussions at other user talk pages
  • This ANI thread and its various subsections
  • Discussion at the Bot requests page
• Actions taken
  • Some redirects restored unilaterally or after notifying MZMcBride.
  • MZMcBride undeleted some of the redirects on request (though the vast majority remained deleted)
  • A warning was left on MZMcBride's talk page.
  • After returning after a gap of around a day, MZMcBride archived their talk page and did not immediately respond.
  • User:Pilotguy then blocked MZMcBride
  • After some back-and-forth, and reportedly some IRC discussion and private contact (to receive assurances while avoiding drama) MZMcBride was unblocked by User:Rdsmith4.
  • The latest is that User:ST47 is running an undeletion script over a list of redirects to restore.
  • Oh, and User:Physchim62 has filed a request for an arbitration case against Pilotguy over the blocks.

Still not complete, no times, not details, and no diffs, but I'll save what I've done for now, and come back to it later. I think detailed looks like this are important, because people are sometimes too quick to gloss over what happened, and many people don't take the time to look in detail or follow all the discussions. Hopefully the above will give a better idea of what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Updated 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Pilotguy

Due to the block by Pilotguy (talk · contribs) on MZMcBride, is looks like an RFARB case has been initiated. D.M.N. (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War on User:Jimbo Wales

Edit War on God

Ooops, I mean User:Jimbo Wales. There has been an edit war with several users over the placement of two letters on the userpage of him. Here is a list of diffs.

[90][91][92][93][94][95]

It appears to me that no users violated WP:3RR, but ::still.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm...and I guess a personal attack from an IP on Talk Page. [96] Should s/he be warned for it or blocked as s/he got a warning on the 29th? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wannabe Wiki was blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR in that edit war a few days ago. Hut 8.5 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is his user page and that thread on his talk page is trolling no matter how you look at it. This is a waste of time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not trolling Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have informed all users who participated in the edit "conflict" (in a different light) today, thus far. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&curid=8202363&diff=216367233&oldid=216231994 QuackGuru 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether Jimmy Wales is founder or co-founder of Wikipedia doesn't mean anyone (not pointing fingers) can edit war on a userpage. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The presumed facts of Wales and the founding of wikipedia are covered in the article called Jimmy Wales. Messing with someone's user page is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the page is misleading?:) Sticky Parkin 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think he's being misleading on his user page, then you could raise that issue on his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And not by vulgar personal attacks, i.e. not the way User:Wannabe Wiki did it, which undermines whatever credibility he might have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The point has been raised on numerous occasions on his talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's nothing I personally would be interested in getting involved with, I'm just saying. Haven't people frequently inquired about it on his talk page? I thought they would have. I agree that Wannabe Wiki is out of line with the reinsertion if he is reverted repeatedly though; but on the other hand that means the userpage claim problems need to be resolved here or somewhere else, because an adequate resolution can not be created by editors on their own. Is this appropriate content for a userpage, or could it be considered advertising, self-promotion or WP:SOAP, given that the information given is disputable. Maybe a compromise in wording could be decided upon? Nothing can be decided on the talk page as it seems those who ask are being frequently reverted. Sticky Parkin 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wales removed the discussion from his talk page. So the next step would be to initiate some kind of formal process within wikipedia rules. Wannabe is free to try to do so, if this is so important to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Usually if someone thinks the content of a userpage is inappropriate, isn't that dealt with here, on AN/I? I know you think Wannabe should do it if he cares so much about it, but it's not really about Wannabe is it, I don't think he's the only one who's done this or commented about the userpage on the talk page. What I mean is, we could decide upon a solution to this now so we don't have to hear it all over again quite so often in future.:) No-one is going to make an RfC about Wales or anything lol but we could discuss the page content and how to deal with it. Sticky Parkin 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of latitude on user pages. The usual complaint about userpage content is when someone is using it to make personal attacks or otherwise inflammatory comments. In fact, it is the user Wannabe who has made the inflammatory comments, so Wales is within his rights to delete anything Wannabe does on his user page. And the actual article on Wales sets the record straight, and presumably Wales has not tried to to edit war against it. So, I don't see where there's an actionable issue here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that Wannabe started this a couple of days ago, with increasingly flaming comments each time he was reverted by other editors. He also smashed the 3-revert rule in the process. Wales himself didn't do anything except to remove the vulgar comments from his talk page. Wannabe needs to try to get some sort of consensus that Wales' page should be changed. So far, he doesn't have that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but he's not the only one that has an opinion that the userpage isn't ok. That's all I'm saying.:) I honestly don't know how people could think it was ok unless they're like me and think it's a bit out of line but really just aren't that bothered about it.:) On the other hand- no doubt Wannabe will be rightfully blocked if he hasn't cooled it a bit. Sticky Parkin 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, which is why consensus could be built, one way or the other, and then a change could theoretically be imposed. And if Wales himself reverts it, I would leave it be, as it's really not very important. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Jimbo run over to your user-page and mess with your stuff saying it's "misleading"? I think not. Hell, my userpage used to say my name was Captain Jack Harkness.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on that's hardly the same.:) Sticky Parkin 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious case of vandalism, and defionitely not a case of 3RR, all those trolling adding the co- claim should be summarily blocked, that is the obvious and only solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I did; revert vandalism and harassment of Jimbo on his user page. I've done that plenty of times before. The real disruption here is the pushing of a POV that has already been debated countless times. It's not on and it's not "restoring NPOV". It's harassment. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a questionable claim on their user page, someone else could put a "fact" tag on it. If I have verifiable evidence that the user calling himself Captain Jack Harkness is not actually Captain Jack Harkness, then I could post the evidence. Otherwise, it's a fact tag at most. And prior to that, the question of whether it's worth bothering with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Wikipedia due to POV pushing in article space. Of course, harassing another user (even me) is a blockable offense, but whatever, I am a pretty easy going guy, so I would recommend that everyone just relax. :-) The best response to this is to fix the neutrality problem in Wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, my apologies for not letting you know about this thread. It didn't occur to me at all that I should have sent you a note also. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet that when Wannabe started this account, he admitted that his previous one was blocked [97]. I don't know if in light of his current actions that should count against him because it shows he has a history of acting up, or whether we never consider anything but the contribs of his current identity. Sticky Parkin 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That undermines his credibility just a tad. That fact, along with his inflammatory comments, would suggest a grudge. Trouble is, attacking Wales is too visible. He needs to attack something that everyone else does, like the Bill O'Reilly article. Then he'd be almost under the radar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents - When I first saw that message, I thought it was fine per Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name, as his edits weren't too controversial in the beginning. Midorihana みどりはな 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for a leopard to change its stripes. Meanwhile, as you may know, Wales invites making changes to his user page. So, theoretically, he wouldn't have an issue with the "co-" prefix. However, and I may have said this before, edit warring doesn't make sense. Consensus needs to be reached. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the problem. If any information found on Wikipedia is inaccurate purposely or otherwise, isnt it the duty of and Wikipedian to fix that inaccuracy. Yes, i do admit that Wanabe Wiki's talk comments were quite inappropriate, but were missing the point here. The information is both wrong and misleading, and therefore deserves to be changed. I personally believe that, even if the information is on a user page, it should be changed. Also, i think that the title of this section of the article is quite supercilious, as it seems to imply that Jimbo is God. Magically Clever (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The sarcastic nature of the section's title further undermines the standing of those who want to change it from "founder" to "co-founder". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate because it frivilously implies that I was edit warring when all I did was revert harassment and trolling. If doing that is edit warring then I along with the countless number of others who have reverted this POV pushing over the years must be satanic edit warriors out to distort the truth. Oddly enough those who revert this are still here whilst those determined to continue this ridiculous waste of time never last very long. Food for thought isn't it? EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's funny how that works out, isn't it? Since Wales invites people to tinker with his user page (within reason), the issue (such as it is) could have been discussed first. But that's no fun. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

reply to Midorihana- yes it was 100% decent for you to give Wannabe another chance. But do you think it is relevant given his current actions that he was blocked in the past? He seems quite a young spirit to me, I don't know how old he is. Baseball bug- the thing is I think in the past people sought to discuss it on the talk page but weren't allowed to. Sticky Parkin 11:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be elementary - middle school age by the discussions on his talk page. He has a history of trolling (see the following block logs of his socks - [98], [99]). His recent behavior follows this pattern.

In any case, there's a discussion for the status of 'co-founder' here. Midorihana みどりはな 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Wannabe (The troll), you keep on saying I have made vulgar personal attacks against Jimmy Wales but I don't think I have, the method I used may not have been the most responsible way to create change but it was by far the most effective, I would be happy to get consensus to change Jimmy's user page or change it through a fromal process compatible with Wikipedia rules as suggested by Baseball Bugs, lol it has been suggested that I have a personal grudge against Jimmy that is not true this is not personal at all, I admit that I was once a long time ago a vandal and sock puppet but I have changed, to answer Sticky Parkin (thanks for being nice and unbiased throughout the discusion) I am only 14 years old but as Jimmy Wales himself says "And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters." Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Wannabe Wiki decided to start edit warring on this again, so I blocked him for a week. Neıl 龱 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise - "sole co-founder" - anyone think that works? --Random832 (contribs) 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we could decide that the "community" gets to decide what goes on everyone's user page but until that point it is not for us to discuss what goers on Jimbo's user page either, it is for him to decide, and he has clearly decided. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

G Thats a great idea Squeakbox. A vote should be estasblished that is open to the general public (of Wikipedia) to decide on the matter at hand. Should the information on Jimbo's page be changed to create a more accurate page, or should a user have the right to say whatever they want on their page. Personally, I believe that the information should be changed on his page, as the statement leads readers to believe that Jimbo is the sole founder of Wikipedia, and that Larry had no part. This information is viewed frequently by people researching the so called founder of Wikipedia, and therefore is creating many inaccuracies. There is a userbox that says dont forget Larry. I also believe that the week ban placed on Wannabe's account is completely unfair as the edits made were in no way offensive, and it was his intention to make Wikipedia a more accurate place. Magically Clever (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. Your contributions show that you are nothing more than a single purpose account working together with a now indef blocked sockpuppet to disrupt and troll Wikipedia. Does anyone believe that this guy is here for the encyclopedia and why would a new user care so much about this dispute? It's not like this is an obvious place to start your career as Wikipedian. I'll ignore your harassment on my talk page. The evidence is sufficient as it is. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Magically Clever = Wannabe Wiki, confirmed through checkuser.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)