Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive463

What to do about Jman505 / 72.224.49.240

This user, Jman505, uses his account solely to pump up chart numbers for Peter Gabriel discography and related articles. I believe he is also IP user 72.224.49.240. Other editors have come to me asking help dealing with him, but I'm not sure how best to proceed. He's just surfaced after a month absence, but hasn't committed enough edits get get banned yet. Would a WP:AIV report be jumping the gun? --JaGa (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see good faith attempts to communicate with this user and nothing coming back. I'd recommend a month long block to get his attention.--Crossmr (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

User:83.16.144.67 and User:BWC56 are sparring at each other at the bottom of Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_War. IMO, BWC could use a timeout and an IP check for sockpuppetry, as he's managed to be uncivil to several users. Kingnavland (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I had blocked BWC56 yesterday for pagemove vandalism here, reducing the block to 24 hours on request, since he claimed to be a new user. However, since he just created an obvious sockpuppet to evade his block and taunt another user (as AK-47, when peace is needed, it works (talk · contribs) ), I blocked them both indef. BWC56 is obviously somebody's sockpuppet, since after having his account for a few days he immediately began taunting users subject to ArbCom restrictions (offhand I'd guess he's User:M.V.E.i., but a checkuser would need to see for sure). I'm sure we haven't seen the last Ossetia/Georgia/Russia-related sockpuppet. Antandrus (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Official Notice of Blocking

Resolved

 – User blocked by User:El_C for violation of WP:3RR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I hereby block myself for 12 hours. 2 tag team users have insisted on their way despite positive discussion for my edit in the talk page and complaints about their version in the talk page of an article. My edit was the culmination of 13 days of listing 7 different versions, one of which incorporated a late suggestion of another editor.

I am letting the tag team win. Bully me and complain to multiple boards (called forum shopping by Enigma). You win.

I will cease editing for 12 hours and probably more. If an admin makes my self block formal, please use the reason (special blocking by special request of the user). If this reason is not used verbatim then I protest the block and ask that the admin not do it. Presumptive (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:SELFBLOCK, typically you can't ask for a block yourself. Also, it doesn't sound like you're asking for a block, but rather you're taking a wikibreak and you don't want to be blocked while you're out. Dayewalker (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick look tells me this is a frazzled editor taking a break from a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: User's been blocked in violation of 3RR. Hopefully, he will cool down and come back refreshed and more productive. Think we can call this resolved. -- Veggy (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of editors who seem to mistake WP:CONSENSUS against them with a "tag team". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Libro0

I have had nothing but problems with Libro0. I try to get him and another user to stop their war, and he calls me a sockpuppet of the other user (among several others he suspects, most without cause) and has launched a series of passive aggressive attacks. The latest was a series ultimatums and threats, in his typical passive aggressive style which implies I am a sockpuppet. Take a look here [1] and here [2]. His "evidence" of sockpuppetry is laughable at best, delusional at worst - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy and this [3].

Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings arbitration remedy

Proposal to overturn here. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Race baiting personal attacks

I'm posting this here and not elsewhere because the editor at issue has already been warned by a third party, non-admin editor about personal attacks, but doesn't seem to get it. User:Wjmummert appears to be using race baiting language [4] [5] (compare this to if I told a black person to "go eat some fried chicken and watermelon") based on the ethnicity of my user name (Garcia) in response to my comments on his misguided edits. He was warned by the 3rd party [6], but ignored it and followed up by combining the race baiting with a personal attack in the edit summary [7]. He's also tried to disguise personal attacks, subtly [8] and not so subtly [9] [10] (Go Fuck Yourself H). This editor has been around long enough to know better (he has a service badge on his user page) but I think he needs a response from an authority figure to learn how much is too much.
Thank you for your time. dfg (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a {{uw-npa3}} warning. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. dfg (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request a Protection Review

May not be the place to write this, but I would like a review of the full-protection of September 11, 2001 attacks. User:El C protected it after User:Presumptive went on a spree of five reversions. He was finally blocked for 12 hours to cool off. Then, another user, User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats reverted an old edit by User:Aude and El C protected it, citing 10 reversions (including 3 by me). The issue, though, is these users claimed to be upholding "consensus" single-handedly in cases where they have not made a suitable argument. For example, Presumptive claims I never engaged in discussion and, so, his revisions were consensus by silence. But, I did ask him how his versions could supercede WP:LEAD and he never responded. Fancy Cats never engaged in discussion on the talk page. Instead, he claimed to have 'consensus' somehow. As written in WP:PPOL, Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking (which it has in the case of Presumptive), so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. Please help me with this. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Official_Notice_of_Blocking and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_issue_warnings_for_improper_reverts_to_9.2F11. Thanks-- Veggy (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You should try at WP:RFUP. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Right-o. I've transcribed it there. Thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Pressie did respond on her talk page to your saying her version contravened WP:LEAD. She said it was the other version that did. This edit war is about a couple of words of grammar or something, so seems a bit WP:LAME to me. Seems some people have a case of ownership too. Sticky Parkin 22:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypertension Article

Resolved

 – Content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like some help with what I feel is disruptive editing or vandalism. It occurred in the Hypertension article, subsection Lifestyle Modification.

This is the content I posted 20:01, 2 August 2008 Emily29G

Mindbody Relaxation has been proven to have long-lasting benefits in reducing hypertension. Mindbody relaxation reduces the risk of fatal heart attacks by up to 30%, and also reverses hardening of the arteries or atherosclerosis. In fact mindbody relaxation has been proven to increase life expectancy. Reference: Steven M. Melemis (2008). Make Room for Happiness: 12 Ways to Improve Your Life By Letting Go of Tension. Better Health, Self-Esteem and Relationships. Chapter 14: Improve Your Health. Modern Therapies.

The disruptive editor deleted my entry and labeled it advertising. [No date because this was reversed.]

I asked for comments from the community 02:25, 5 August 2008 Emily29G

An editor reversed the disruptive editing 03:46, 3 August 2008 Ukexpat

The disruptive editor again removed the content 15:15, 4 August 2008 72.70.66.217

I asked the community for more comments 21:57, 7 August 2008 Emily29G

Another editor agreed that the content I posted was acceptable 22:03, 7 August 2008 Antelan

I now ask for your help. Sincerely, Emily29G (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on article's talk page. This is a content dispute, not really something needing an admin's intervention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin needed for blocking of Internet Savior

Resolved

This account appears to only exist in order to stick vandalizing comments into articles and on user talk pages. The user has not made a single constructive edit. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - they've been indefinitely blocked as they're clearly a vandalism only account. For future reference, reports like this are best posted at WP:AIV. _Gb^T/c 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gb. Sorry about not going to WP:AIV - I drifted to this page by habit. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Editing

Resolved

 – Editor was uninformed on policy. Reversions were proper. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am bring this here because this user has consistently deleting my edits to the article (The expansions) as he complains about how it is unnecessary to expand the John Muir College article to help out the freshmen choosing colleges at University of California, San Diego. Please help in resolving the issues in John Muir College as I believe this is disruptive editing. Thank YouLajolla2009 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've (re) reverted your edits which are biased, spammy and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not here to help freshmen choose colleges, and the world does not need to know about the "delicious Mexican entrees" served in the cafeteria. – iridescent 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's mere an expansion of what the cafeteria is about. If this is blatant advertising, wouldn't all University and College pages be "advertising"? There could be improvements in helping to expand the article rather than deleting it as a whole in which now no one knows anything about JMC. Lajolla2009 (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism needing a rangblock

Presently User:Nangparbat and his many ip accounts, see his Sock Puppet Case and his Check User Case, are inserting non-NPOV content into many article. It is very clear looking at his edits that they are all the same. He has stated numerous times that his ip is dynamic and he will never stop if his one ip is banned [25]. As this is ongoing, he is blocked on one ip and within 30 minutes he is again making the same changes on a new ip [26]. As blocking each of the ip's isnt resolving this I am requesting a range block otherwise we'll be reverting these edits forever. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of bringing this here as well. I've probably semi-protected a half-dozen or so if his/her targets. Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi a recent vandal Nangparbat (<-- see case for more detail) is persistently changing his ip to circumvent blocks and doesn't appear to be going away any time soon, I am requesting this range block as it doesn't appear that semi protecting articles is working as he moves onto other articles and returns to old articles once the block has expired, he also changes his ip deliberately after getting blocked to continue his edits. [[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. I'll let everyone know what I come up with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Most effective rangeblock would be 86.158.128.0/17 - that knocks out 10 of the IPs in question, and a total of 32,768 addresses. Other effective blocks would be 81.151.100.0/24 (two IPs, blocks 256 addresses) and 86.162.68.0/22 (3 IPs, 1024 addresses). I'll block these in just a second as soon as I confirm all the IPs are related. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked ranges as stated above, and 86.156.210.105 for two weeks. The block message states that valid users may contact the email list to request an account if they wish to edit. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, however the user continues under yet another ip User:86.156.209.150 and User:86.153.129.192. I would request that the ranges be expanded. Knowledgeum :  Talk  19:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Rather not if we can help it - the one rangeblock is already rather large. If anyone notices further edits from this user, please post the IP addresses to User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat so I can extend the rangeblocks if absolutely necessary. Don't bother to tell me when you've updated it, I'll know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It just got pointed out to me that the network these IP addresses are on is notorious for its random IP switching, and we're probably blocking more innocent users than we think, without doing a whole helluva lot of good against the guy we're aiming for. I'm going to undo these - anything the user comes up on can be blocked whack-a-mole style as we see them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Downright dishonest

I'm bringing this here before someone else does. I've just accused another editor of downright dishonesty at an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sports by popularity by country. In case anyone thinks it was a heat of the moment thing, no, I chose my words carefully. I would like my comments to be reviewed, as they may well cause a bit of a fuss. If I'm out of order, please let me know. Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you were wrong in this instance, AlasdairGreen27. His edit to the article took out references not related to the rest of the article. He took out the national sport section and put it in a new article. The rest of the article (the tables) did not rely on this section for its data or references. Metros (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Though, I do see that the section is kind of related, looking at it again. I do think, however, that the actions were done in good faith and were not any attenpt to be dishonest. Metros (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really, in my view, since if you look individually at all the refs removed rather than just the section header nearly all of them refer specifically to the popularity of the sports. The article as it stood was destroyed in terms of whatever encyclopedic qualities it may have had in one fell swoop by that edit by Gnevin. I have no view either way on the article, but it's a bit much, I hope you'll agree, for Gnevin to take out 70 or so refs on the popularity of sports and then to boldly say at an AfD that the article is pure POV and OR. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll strike, though, if you think my comments were too strong. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they were. Looking at that section, I see a few discrepancies between the "national sport" section and the tables section. Ireland, for example, has hurling as a national sport and is listed as that in the tables section, but the national sport section states that Gaelic football is its popular sport. I believe that the tables need to be cited directly instead of relying on the "national sport" section for its references solely (not saying that the sources can't be used for both, of course). So I think his actions were in good faith, and that the article, if kept, has a bunch of work that is needed, Metros (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Phrase "downright dishonest" struck and replaced as per your sound advice as you've already seen. Perhaps (s)he should've taken a bit of time and gone through the refs and kept the relevant ones (most of them) rather than wholesale deleting everything. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:myheartinchile repeatedly adding Breuner Airfield (rc model club field) to aviation list, category and navbox

Resolved

 – article in AfD Toddst1 (talk)

I can't pursue this any more because the user appears to want an edit war. I'll ask help from admins. User:myheartinchile created an article Breuner Airfield for a remote-control model airplane club's paved runway in Richmond, California. I tried several times to help find a compromise. I added some links and a relevant category (remote control aircraft) to try to set a constructive direction. Over my repeated objections he has re-added the article to Category:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area, List of airports in the San Francisco Bay Area and Template:Airports in the San Francisco Bay Area. I objected that these are transportation categories, and he needs to justify it as a transportation resource (which he can't). He made an irrelevant remark that the military has UAVs that use runways. It is not a general aviation airport, is not registered with the FAA and isn't even open to the public - when I objected that it didn't meet any of the requirements to be listed there, he edited the list, category and navbox template to change the definitions for what he wants. He's ignoring the conflict with the transportation categories they're in. I added a "notability" template to the Breuner Airfield article, which he promptly removed - I'm tempted to nominate it for AfD now. But I'd do better to just turn this over to any admins who are willing to help. Ikluft (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to fail any assertion of WP:Note Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sent to AfD as a courtesy to good faith editor. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Hayes cause of death

Whoever put information about his death also decided to take a swipe at him. It was written that the cause of his death was not known whether it was natural causes, or the wrath of 'Xenu', and obviously swipe at his Scientology religious beliefs. It is also reference but I checked those references that don't mention anything about his/her claim. I just think its very disresepectful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.74.24 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very serious - thank you for letting us know about it. I am going to personally review the article. --mboverload@ 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Sock of TyrusThomas4lyf

As happened yesterday, an obvious IP sock of multiply-blocked used TyrusThomas4lyf is back. He's at User:99.150.99.11, and editing the same old articles again. Admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP has returned, edit warring on multiple pages. Again, admin help is requested. Dayewalker (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC) (he's also tried to remove this notice here [27])

Isaac hayes vandalism

Resolved

 – Revert, Block, Ignore. Paragon¹²³²¹ 05:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to lock the page on Isaac Hayes, as someone seems intent on changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.216.66 (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already semi-protected. Watching and reverting should suffice. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

On my talk page here after a dispute with User:Corfiot relating to a link he inserted in the Corfu article here he threatened me on my talk page in Greek with this comment: "Μετά από αυτό είμαι υποχρεωμένος να ενημερώσω τους καθ' ύλην αρμοδίους τόσο για το σύνολο των στοιχείων που περιέχονται στις υπό την επιτροπεία σας σελίδες, όσο και για τις πράξεις σας, διότι φαίνεται ότι τα πράγματα είναι πολύ πιο σπουδαία από όσα μπορεί να διαχειριστεί ένας φτωχός, απλός webmaster." Translation: "After this I am obliged to inform the people responsible about all the details which are included in the pages under your watch as well as [to inform them about] your actions because it looks as if the matters are much more important from what a poor, simple webmaster can handle." He then goes to add "P.S. Το επώνυμο παραπέμπει σε Κερκυραϊκή καταγωγή. Μήπως είστε Κερκυραίος;" Translation: P.S. Your last name reminds one of Corfiot ancestry. Are you a Corfiot perhaps ?" This goes beyond legal threats into real life threats. Your action would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. (For translation purposes please ask a Greek user to verify my translation). Dr.K. (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Corfiot does seem to have muddled his (asserted) role as a webmaster for a Corfu website with his contributions here. However, Corfiot is writing with a casual Greek idiom that I find very hard to understand, hence while I do think his comments are meant to stifle discussion, I can't tell how truly threatening they are. Meanwhile, I don't understand why the link can't be included in the article's EL section, so this looks like a content dispute, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had blocked, now unblocked User:Corfiot after gwen's clarification. I have invited the editor to participate in this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to Gwen Gale: Someone more versed with the idiom he is using can clearly discern the mention of reporting to the "people responsible" and that the matter is "so great that a simple webmaster cannot handle by himself" as a threat, legal or not legal; it is a direct threat. His subsequent query about my ancestry is also suspect. He should be informed that such tactics are not acceptable in Wikipedia and he should retract his comments. As far as the link I have opened discussion on the talk page of the Corfu article. If other users agree to keep it I wouldn't care either way. As far as being the webmaster of the site he is trying to edit into the article this clearly falls under WP:COI. Thank you for your attention to this so far. Dr.K. (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Toddst1: Thank you for your decisive action on my ANI report. I understand your subsequent retraction, based on a doubt of classifying the block as a WP:TOV violation, but I still stand by my comments on ANI that it was a legal threat. Gwen admits she does not understand the nuances of the idiom. I would suggest asking someone more fluent in Greek to render an opinion. I have a few people in mind including admins but I prefer not to disturb them at this time. Dr.K. (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, if you guys need a Greek-speaking admin, gimme a shout. Not sure if Yannismarou is online now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've left a friendly note asking for more input, along with light warnings about legal threats and PI. If the PS is a TOV it's all in the idiom (spin) and maybe someone fluent in Greek can speak to that. If it was, I would support an indef block straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Gayle Gwen. Thank you for your efforts. I also asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to translate and render an opinion. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you can call me Gwen :) So long as you understand you're being taken seriously, a block for WP:TOV is a very big deal and we need to know what we're doing, rather than guessing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. In this turmoil I chose the wrong name to address you by. My fault, even though both sound great. I thank you for your clarification and I do understand the high threshold for enacting WP:TOV and I feel honoured that Toddst1 chose this as his first reaction based on my evidence, even though I also understand the subsequent retraction. I am not a ban expert but is there a threshold for enacting WP:LEGAL? I would think this would be easier to meet if it existed. Having said that if user:Corfiot retracts his comments and promises not to repeat such action in the future I would not mind if he were not banned, but I leave this to your and the other admins' discretions. It's been a pleasure meeting you. Thank you Gwen. Dr.K. (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for misspelling your name initially. Dr.K. (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that mispelling's much like what happens all the time in Greeklish! Anyway, if there's a clear, straightforward legal threat, it will often be blocked straight off. Same for TOVs. I understood you took "Το επώνυμο παραπέμπει σε Κερκυραϊκή καταγωγή. Μήπως είστε Κερκυραίος;" (which does have a Mediterranean ring, to me) much like an Anglo-Saxon might hear "Did you know you live in a zoo?" (so threatening). With my lame greek, it sounded like it might be a very botched try at friendly chit chat, so I wanted to ask, is all. Thanks for being so patient with me! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. No I wasn't trying to use any Greekglish regarding your name :) It was just your average, everyday, misspelling. As far as your other comments, no, the user did not engage in a friendly chit chat. He first told me, in Greek, that I was under pressure, implying I was not thinking straight after I reverted him. I replied to him that he went over the bounds of civility with the "pressure" comment and he replied that "he is going to report my revert to the proper people who would look over all of my other articles as well." He then went on to ask if "I were a Corfiot" That was not a friendly chit chat as measured by any yardstick. Thanks for your continuing help in this. I am really indebted. Dr.K. (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I did get the hint it might not be the same as asking, "Hey, are you from Sussex then?" Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, especially if in the hypotheticall "Sussex", people are looking for you regarding your edits and your articles. Dr.K. (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The original edit should be reviewed by someone familiar with colloquial Greek, who is neutral. However, on the face of it, with the complainant's translation, it does not appear to be a blockworthy threat, merely -- possibly or probably -- unfriendly. "inform the people responsible" would, fairly clearly, refer to a report to the persons this editor believes are responsible for conduct here, which would translate into AN/I. I.e., what the complainant did. This is far from a legal threat. There is a kind of legal threat which is also not blockable: if an editor believes that another is committing a public offense, i.e., a criminal act, to mention an intention to report the matter to the police or other authority isn't a legal threat in the meaning of WP:NLT though it might still be a blockable offense as incivility, if repeated after warning. "Legal threat" refers to the user threatening to personally initiate legal action as a plaintiff, either against Wikipedia or against an individual editor. I am aware that WP:NLT has been applied outside this, and that has been an error. The block here was improper and was properly lifted by the blocking admin. --Abd (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my reading was that with "the responsible people", in that context, he meant higher authorities on his side, not on ours (he also said: "it's too much for me poor little webmaster to handle", meaning: "... so you'll be hearing from my boss/lawyer instead"). So yes, the most likely reading is that he imagined someone more "powerful" than himself in real life could enact some pressure on Wikipedia in his stead. But maybe the whole reaction on our side was a bit too quick; it wouldn't have hurt to first ask him for clarification before escalating the whole thing through "NLT" or "TOV". No criticism against Tasos implied here. – The second part of what you say, about the possibility of a real offense on somebody's part, that so obviously doesn't apply here that we needn't discuss it. (By the way, just for the record, it's not really colloquial Greek, to the contrary, it's pretty formal, bureaucratic language.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect. This was not colloquial Greek, it was very formal and Katharevoussa. On top of that in a prior sentence the user:Corfiot asked me: "Ελπίζω τα παραπάνω να ωφείλονται μόνο σε λόγους πίεσης λόγω και της αξιόλογης προσφοράς σας στην όλη προσπάθεια. Απαντώ:..." translating as "I hope the above to be due only to reasons of pressure because of your whole worthy contribution to the whole effort. I reply:..." First he addresses me in the plural. That's formal in Greek. Then he goes on to diagnose my revert to "pressure". Is this guy a medical doctor? How can he diagnose anything and why would he want to act this way? I perceive this to be threatening. I find this to be threatening and extremely forward and insulting. Coupled with references to "reporting my actions, articles and edits to responsible people" you have to be pretty thick not to perceive a threat legal or otherwise. Is there no recourse in Wikipedia to relieve editors in good standing from behaviour like that? In his message user:Corfiot goes on to say that he has access to the Prefectural authorities of Corfu and if I wanted he could forward them my objections. He does it here: "Δεν καταλαβαίνω το λόγο για τον οποίο διαγράφεις τον σύνδεσμο της επίσημης σελίδας της Νομαρχιακής Αυτοδιοίκησης της Κέρκυρας από τη σελίδα που αναφέρεται στην Κέρκυρα. Θα σε παρακαλούσα να μου αναφέρεις έαν υπάρχει κάποιος σπουδαίος λόγος προκειμένου να ενημερώσω με τη σειρά μου όποιον και όποιους χρειάζεται ώστε αυτός ο λόγος να αντιμετωπιστεί. Οθων Μιχαλάς" "I don't understand the reason for which you undo the link of the official self government of Corfu from the Corfu article. I would request of you if there is an important reason so that I can inform the person or persons required so this reason is addressed" In my view this is a display of power and connections, because I had already answered to him repeatedly that this was a very commercial link but he would not take no for an answer. It was meant to impress upon me his connections. He also did this, but not nearly to the same extent, to User:El Greco, but guess who does he zero on when his contacts fail to impress El Greco? Plus despite Future's and Gwen's messages on his talkpage he has not replied to clarify who these connections are despite being told that his utterings have been perceived as threatening. And then he asks me if I am from Corfu with all the ramifications this inquiry implies. I repeat yet again: His whole behaviour was threatening. Dr.K. (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also find Toddst1's actions completely justified. Here's why: He believes that an eponymous user is being subjected to a display of power and he acts lightning fast. I am an eponymous user and therefore more vulnerable than an anonymous user in real life. I'm sure this figured in his deliberations. Dr.K. (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Aside from all these policies such as WP:LEGAL, WP:TOV etc. we may wish to institute a new one such as WP:DISPLAY OF POWER AND CONNECTIONS or WP:COERCION especially when it involves eponymous editors. Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be a mis-translation. I read it as, "I'll take a gyro, fries and a Coke, to go." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even pushing WP:AGF to its outer limits I cannot accept this translation. You are either from another dimension or you learned Greek in the twilight zone (following a gyro and coke overdose). Dr.K. (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, you caught me. I am, in fact, from another dimension. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought so. Welcome. Dr.K. (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Indef block for Footballfan190

Resolved

 – User now blocked indefinitely

Footballfan190 (talk · contribs) made this edit to his user talk page. I guess it's a joke, because he didn't even bother to sign out before pretending that I was leaving racist messages on his user talk page. But it hardly matters what his intentions were here, it's highly inappropriate.

I propose an indef block for this user. He is clearly no longer here to improve the encyclopedia. Darkspots (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I agree. It seems like this whole "pretending to leave racist messages on your own page" thing has happened before. Regardless, that's a pretty good example of a user who's here to disrupt, at best. He's been blocked for four days, and is already trying to stir up trouble. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Footballfan190‎, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Footballfan190‎, and this AN/I thread. It's been made clear that the user in question is not here to be constructive. Enigma ^message 04:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the background links, Enigma. I also should have mentioned at the beginning that Footballfan190 is four days into a one-month block for abusive sockpuppetry that I reported, hence his annoyance with me. Darkspots (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem, and thank Gwen Gale for coming through! [28] Enigma ^message 04:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• I must agree here. This user's been trouble since the beginning: socks, 5 RfAs (the last one just last week), and so forth. Underhanded remarks like this are clearly the final straw. GlassCobra 04:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Gwen Gale blocked Footballfan indefinitely. Thanks! Enigma ^message 04:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Proving it was the right move, FF repeated his antics. Enigma ^message 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support: Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This needed to have happened a long time ago. Tiptoety ^talk 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose Community Ban

Whilst the user is indef blocked, and the problem may be regarded as resolved, we do need to take into account that;

1. He has gone through RfA 5 times in quick sucession. He is determined to get adminship.
2. He has a history of using socks to stack votes at RfA.
3. It is clear that not only do we not want him as an admin per WP:NOTNOW, but that we wouldn't want him as an admin per WP:NOTEVER!

As the community has lost patience with him, and as I rather doubt that we will find an admin willing to unblock, I would propose that we formally record this as a community ban. Mayalld (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with this, but I don't think we need to throw away the key on this user right now. It's very unlikely, but maybe FF190 will want to reform at some point in the future and go back to improving articles about interesting large animals and reverting vandalism on Fox News reporters' bios. He'll have plenty of trouble finding an admin to unblock as it is. Darkspots (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban isn't throwing away the key forever. It is merely formalising a record that as things stand, the user is banned. If the user wants to come back and edit productively, and can convince an admin to unblock him, the ban vanishes into thin air. Unless an admin is prepared to unblock, a community ban exists. Mayalld (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, such a ban (formalized on the record) would not vanish into thin air. There are 2 types of community bans. (1) Where no administrator is willing to unblock, there's a presumption that there's a community ban - but a single admin can unblock if a request for unblock is made. (2) Community consensus (& voting) leaves the user banned - it's left on the record, and that means he/she cannot be unblocked based on the opinion of a single admin. Instead, an appeal needs to be made to the community until there's consensus to unblock, or if consensus is difficult to determine, then the appeal needs to be made to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am better informed. We seem to be somewhat lacking in any formal policy here, since the demise of CSN Mayalld (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgent Block Required

Resolved

 – for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/59.93.48.38 is a vandalism-only account, and has stated:

"You fools...I operate 2 admin accounts for more than a year....( I passed the RFAs before I started playing in WP...).
I also operate a bot....
But to be frank I am neither EFalcon nor Mspraveen...hahahahaha....
But I use onion network...CUs can not find my other user names...I promise that I have 18 more user names I operate 2 admin accounts i operate 1 active bot account But it is impossible for you thick heads to find them." [29]

Someone please block it indefinitely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't block dynamic IPs indefinitely. It's been blocked for 3 days, report it to AIV if it persists after the block expires. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay - cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Block on behaviour, but maybe factor out some of the idle boasting first. :) Lar: t/c 13:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like assertions about one's parents' associations with hamsters and elderberries, personally. Orderinchaos 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The same vandal is using 59.93.68.233 now. Any remedies? Ganeshk (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reported to AIV, but I'm not sure what can be done in general. That's a pretty big IP range for a rangeblock to make sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If he's such an accomplished sockpuppeteer, then why does he keep getting caught by checkuser? :) - Alison ^❤ 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW - this is  Confirmed as being RRaunak (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:KhoiKURČINA

Banned User:PaxEquilibrium is writing again and again on user page of his banned puppet User:KhoiKURČINA that I am puppeteer of this account. Now after confermation of checkuser Thatcher that Pax is puppeteer of User:KhoiKURČINA [30] can somebody please put tag sock puppet of PaxEquilibrium and full protection on that user page. Similar to that we need tag sock puppet of PaxEquilibrium on user page of user:Poklop which is confirmed and banned by checkuser Thatcher (see block log)--Rjecina (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now done those templates and actions not already done by others.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of deletion templates

User:Buttons has uploaded two images Image:V. Kostunica and V. Putin.jpg and Image:V. Kostunica and S. Lavrov.jpg without giving a proper source. I put on a no source template but he keeps removing it and he is also removing two perfectly normal images under PD-USGov template that are used in Vojislav Koštunica in order to replace them with those two dubious images. I think that they are agency photos as the Serbian government doesn't put such large images on their website, mostly thumbnails and if they were it would be fairly easy to give us a source. This is more a matter of a nationalist POV where this user is trying to replace a photo of a Kostunica/Bush and Kostunica/Rice meetings with Kostunica/Putin and Kostunica/Lavrov meetings. Anyway I am seeking support from admins as I warned him but he didn't stop. Edit: I also found out where do these images come from and the source is not free nacional.hr - [31] so I will also put on a speedy deletion template. --Avala (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Both copvios of Getty Images as can be seen here and here. RMHED (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I deleted the remaining copyvio photos. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:W99 and Big Brother 2008 (UK) external link.

At the Big Brother 2008 (UK) page one editor, W99, keeps persistently adding in one link to the external link section. And so far has added it 06/06/08 1, 20/06/08 2, 20/06/08 3, 25/06/08 4, 01/07/08 5, 01/07/08 6, 02/07/08 7, 02/07/08 8, 02/07/08 9, 05/07/08 10, 28/07/08 11, 02/08/08 12, 06/08/08 13, 07/08/0814, 08/08/08 15, 11/08/08 16 times. With one 3RR violation on the 2nd July which was missed by editors as the page was experiencing heavy IP editing. His contribs now consist almost entirely of this one single repeated edit. His last revert also change the markup warning to say DO NOT REMOVE ANY MORE EXTERNAL SITES, THEY WILL BE RE-ADDED, suggesting that he/she will keep adding this link back in. At the time of the first edit there were six sites listed including the official site, however several editors have agreed that only the official site should be listed. The editor seems to be keeping themselves to one revert a day but they are not here to edit constructively and have not listened to several warning. I am asking that they are blocked for a short period and warned that if they persist on adding that link then a longer ban may be needed. Your help on this matter is greatly appreciated. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am an editor experienced in the situation, User:W99 keeps adding the site in saying it complies with Wikipedia guidelines but in most of the posts on the site it links to full episodes of the show on YouTube. This is in clear violation of Channel 4's copyright plus it is noted in WP:ELNEVER that sites linking to copyrighted YouTube videos is not acceptable. Also in past entries there is a post that links to another site that hosts download links of past seasons of Big Brother. From my understanding this is again against Wikipedia guidelines. I have pointed out why the site isn't acceptable but the user won't listen instead telling me it is acceptable and to read WP:EL. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Given a final warning, if he does it once more he will be blocked. I'll keep an eye on him. WilliamH (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Simple solution - I've added the site - which Wikipedia should never link to, as it is jam-packed with copyright violations - to the blacklist. Neıl ☄ 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

 – Bigger discussion taking place here. D.M.N. (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has blocked these users just for being friendly.

• User:Unknown the Hedgehog
• User:Sonic&Mario KId
• User:SLJCOAAATR 1
• User:Super Badnik
• User:Talon the cat
• User:Person373

They have been blocked indefinitely without notification. The last two editors are still learning how to use Wikipedia, I've been teaching them. What Gwen has done is ridiculous. If being friendly gets you blocked on Wikipedia then there'd be no editors left to edit. User:Ryulong has also deleted their userpages, a WikiProject to help improve articles, and a couple of Skeletal's userboxes. What that was for I don't know. I request that they be unblocked and their pages undeleted. I also request that someone have a talk with Gwen Gale.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been discussed earlier here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You (FFF) were spared from blocking because you at least made more contributions to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly will have a word or two with Gwen Gale; Well done, Gwen Gale, and keep up the good work. Alright now? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It;s still being discussed over there, if anyone's missed it. I'd suggest we resolve it here, since it was open there first. Dayewalker (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm tagging this as unresolved. I suggest parties that are unhappy with the block indefs join in with the discussion here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's resolved here, technically.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin abusing power

If you look at the way user:Gwen Gale has been treating people lately, especially new members, you will discover that she does not have the best interests of the project at hand. She is mean spirited and never does anything to help a new user. She needs to take some time away from the project and reflect on the goals of the project. The fact that some of her blocks have been overturned proves she is out of touch and is starting to think she owns the project. I am sickened by her mean-spirited behavior. 66.197.38.153 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on – Gwen's one of the most helpful editors we have when it comes to newcomers. AGF and all that, but might you possibly be someone she's recently blocked? – iridescent 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Without any evidence, this is a non-event. Moving along... Tan ǀ 39 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen recently blocked two good users, User:SLJCOAAATR 1 and User:Super Badnik, by saying they were treating Wikipedia like Myspace. They're just being friendly, and sometimes use userspace to teach newcomers. She also blocked four other users, two of them were editors who previously used WP like Myspace because they were new here, and the other two who hadn't learned all of the basics of Wikipedia, and therefore edited userspace more than articles. All of these blocks were indfinite when they should have been an a few hours or so.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean forever though - if they commit to ceasing the behavior that led to them being blocked, they can be unblocked. A shorter block would be pointless in this situation. Kevin (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryu, is refusing to un-delete the userpages for Person, Talon, and SAMF, see this for more information on the matter. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained myself fully there. If you continue to obsess over userpages, then you truly have not learned anything from why you, or any of these other users have been blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not obsessing over them. I think though, that you are stressing false rules. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F notes you shouldn't have non-encyclopedic material on your user pages. Given that userboxes are controversial on Wikipedia and in the user space, are considered mostly non-encyclopedic to begin with, along with your very limited contributions, few editors are going to understand why you need so many user pages or userboxes. You were unblocked but this doesn't mean the worries are gone. Wikipedia accounts are meant to be used for writing articles, but here you are only hours out of your block, making many edits to user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why do userboxes exist in the first place? It seems rather pointless, if these specific ones aren't allowed. And, I've only made some (Userpage post issue.), most on mine to reply to an admin who was there, and to other admins to get pages un-deleted. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)What's pointless is continuing to complain. Userboxes are a very minor part of wikipedia. For reliable editors who contribute to the encyclopedia, userboxes aren't a problem. For people not seeking to help the wiki and using all of their time trying to get their userboxes up, it certainly seems like a MySpace-y problem.

And you're not trying to get pages undeleted. You're trying to get userpages undeleted. That doesn't seem productive to anyone, especially coming off of a block for not taking wikipedia seriously. Dayewalker (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I do take Wikipedia very seriously, which is why I remove vandalism, and unsourced info. If you don't like that, and can't appreciate it, I'll leave, but, heed my words, you're turning decent editors into vandals. Your logics have proven to be rather discrimintory. You're saying users who haven't done as much to Wiki as admins, shouldn't have userboxes, sandboxes, etc. Oy? Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)That seems a vague threat to me, that if these editors don't get their way, they'll refuse to understand wikipedia and turn into vandals. If an editor is a deleted userbox away from vandalism, it's probably best they don't come here in the first place. As for your last statement, I'm saying people who come here and are immediately consumed with their userpages and boxes don't seem to get it. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, as administrators, we should be very cautious in removing material from a user's space that that user hasn't asked us to remove. In general, I believe that such material should be taken through XfD and not deleted unilaterally unless it's really bad (attack pages, blatent copyvio, etc.). Is there some precedent or policy indicating that deleting items from a user's sandbox is OK? Oren0 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Social networking is self-promotion, which is nothing less than advertising, a CSD. For-profit sites like MySpace carry paid advertising to pay for all that and this can be wonderful, much fun. Wikipedia is supported by donations from folks who hope they're giving money to a free why encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Yes, Wikipedia has a community driven side which does stir up participation in highly meaningful ways but the pith is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a social network. As with any human project there are swaths of overlap in common but the targeted tasks and hoped-for outcomes are not at all the same things. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 why(UTC)

Henry Benedict Stuart

Resolved

I would be grateful for your advice please on how to handle an attack which I believe to be personally abusive? I have added contributions to the article on Henry Benedict Stuart about his personal relationships. I took pains to source and reference these correctly. Some contributors disagreed with these, and I tried to take comments on board by refining the text, and balancing the phrasing so as to avoind NPOV issues - I did this in good faith. But despite this and instead of discussing how to improve the text itself I have been subjected to pretty nasty homophobic abuse at a sustained level. I'm happy to argue points academically with other contributors but on this occasion feel that the contributor Sceptik has over-stepped the mark. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone's post to Jeffpw's page

I have a problem with this post, but I'm going to be out all evening and won't be able to followup. To my knowledge, Jeff didn't reveal his full name on Wiki. This is an issue begging for a policy. Is it right for Shankbone to do this after Jeff's death? Must we allow this on Wiki even if Shankbone did that on his blog? What is our policy in this area? I can't follow up on this because I'm going to be out, but ... I'm troubled, and I hope appropriate decisions will be made quickly, including oversight as necessary. I 'spose the answer is going to be that there's nothing we can do about decisions Shankbone made after Jeff's death. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should add that I find it strange for Shankbone to blog about Jeff but put up Isaac's picture (Shankbone doesn't know who's who?). Since Jeff wasn't fond of Shankbone, I have a hard time viewing this development favorably, but that's secondary; the real issue is what our policy is in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit appears to of been oversighted. D.M.N. (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I just did a little admin oversight and deleted them. Tiptoety ^talk 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm grateful for that, but obviously, it's disturbing that someone Jeff had differences with has decided to blog about him post-humously. Based on my correspondence with Jeff, I think this is a despicable act, disguised as a memorial, so it's a good thing I'm off for a pleasant evening of entertainment and can try to forget human nature. I implore admins to keep a tight eye on Jeff's page and on his sister's page, and I'm concerned that we need to approach his sister carefully after she's home, to somehow let her know that ... awful things happen on the internet, in spite or our best intentions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is absolutely ridiculous. Sandy, what I find disturbing is you acting like a complete jackass. Need I remind you that you, yourself, were very disliked by Jeffpw for a long time? My blog posts were meant from the heart. Jeff and I were far better friends, even *with* the falling out last December, than you and he ever were. And your friendship was pretty recent, considering how much he disliked you for most of his editing on here. You're a real piece of work, Sandy Georgia, and I find you disturbing myself. Also, Jeff revealed his name multiple times on wiki -and his sister has a different last name. You're a real jerk, Sandy, for intruding upon my own rememberance with your jack-assry. --David Shankbone 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The appearance of Jeff's sister should be enough to justify the protection of his name, since it could reveal information about her (information which was oversited out for her protection previously). Thats just how I feel on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Jeff already mentioned his full name himself in an earlier edit, I don't see a big problem with this. But if this needs to be oversighted, I guess the other one should too, mail me for diff if needed. Garion96 (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) I believe this diff will need to be deleted too. D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That one has been deleted now too. Tiptoety ^talk 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's still at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and the diff above is still live. I suppose it's moot now anyway; mission accomplished, Shankbone. Congratulations; you're a fine gentleman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

bah, edit conflicts!!!! I deleted the lgbt talkpage (actually, I'm not sure why it let me, it had 6251 edits...but either way, way to many boxes to click sans DS post. Requesting oversight is the way to go (and I don't have email). Posted on Tiptoety's talkpage (thought SandyG was gone). Keeper ǀ 76 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, why don't you put a sock in it? My rememberances of Jeff were from the heart, and you are acting like a complete jackass (big surprise). Jeff revealed his name on-wiki multiple times, and his sister doesnt' have the same last name. And Sandy, need a remind you that you weren't liked by Jeff for a VERY long time? --David Shankbone 18:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Email sent, once oversight has done their thing I will remove this thread. Thanks everyone. Tiptoety ^talk 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I got a message from SandyGeorgia already and have now oversighted both edits. Jeffpw never did release his full name. I notice, too, on the blog in question, that David has Isaac's picture up, instead of Jeff's. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove this thread? First, how about blacklisting Shankbone's blog from Wiki? Anyone who reads that blog post, and knows the relationship between Jeff and Shankbone, can see what Shankbone has done. I will be late for my app't in 20 minutes, and will try to check in before I leave for evening engagement. This is most troubling. Please blacklist Shankbone's blog from Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse, me but if Jeff never relased his named, then what is this? --David Shankbone 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please lock down Jeff's memorial page. He disliked Shankbone, and Shankbone is using his blog to put up intimate details of Jeff's personal life, details most likely revealed in private. Please stop this, and please blacklist Shankbone's blog, for post-humously revealing info his family might not have had to read. Out of time, will check later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Re blacklisting the blog; surely the links to DS's blogs/websites etc on his userpages should be removed as a simple matter per WP:SOAP? Coldmachine^Talk 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread has drawn more attention to the personal lives and identities of the people concerned than have any of the actions it discusses. The revisions are deleted; let's leave the matter here and end the thread. — Dan | talk 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• add this personal attack to the mix: [32] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for the first matter at hand, the blog. I found it and found nothing malicious about it. When I first read SandyGeorgia's post, I thought he maliciously put his name on there. The personal attack is bad considering how much civility this conversation is lacking. But in the long run, if he posted it on before, I don't see any reason to blacklist the blog. But the link Shankbone posted indirectly reveals his name. I'm a little confused and overwhelmed at the moment. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you said this:

Anyone who reads that blog post, and knows the relationship between Jeff and Shankbone, can see what Shankbone has done."

Yet, you're recommending pretty extreme measures. Those making the decision should not be limited to "those who know." If you have such a strong concern, please spell it out. I understand that you were in a rush when you posted this, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of being direct and specific when recommending sanctions. -Pete (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Sandy, you have blown this entire matter out of proportion. Yes, David has had conflict with Jeff in the past, but that was in the past. He forgave and they communicated up until fairly recently on good terms. Jeff's name was made publicly visible, as David indicated, and you are assuming the worst kind of faith by making false alligations of anything less -- that somehow, David was using the Memorial page as something of a shitcan. And when David reacts and comments back in a heated exchange -- justifiably so, given what you have accused him of -- you tort that he is publicly attacking you? Grow some skin and learn that perhaps your comments Sandy were not made with the greatest of intent or faith, and take the heat for escalating this non-issue. seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Dan here. Folks, the diffs are gone & just about everyone here is still hurting over Jeff; Sandy is and yes, David is, too. This is so ugly and unnecessary. Can we please keep some dignity about all this and move on with this thread? - Alison ^❤ 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I wiped this thread? seicer | talk | contribs 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JASpencer

User:JASpencer and I have had run-ins in the past, but his editing pattern has gotten worse and worse - he seems to go out of his way to only find Masonic-related articles that portray negative things only, and I'm sure it is because of his religious views.

Usually it can be sorted out, but he has now undone 5 CSDs I placed (A7) for various Masonic Grand Lodge articles that have sat for over eight months with nothing more than a name, location, and homepage. There's no basic information, much less an assertion of notability.

They are:

• Grand Lodge of Denmark
• The Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm (Belgium) -- (I later redirected this - this is a specific location of a Rite we already have an article on, so there was nothing in it different save a specific webpage link, which we don't do for Rites to comply with NOT DIRECTORY. MSJapan (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
• Grand Orient of the Netherlands Expanded. MSJapan (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Orient de Suisse AfDed when the one source turned out to contain no information whatsoever save a page title, graphic, and email address, which puts paid to any claim of notability, since now its existence is questionable. MSJapan (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Orient du Congo AfDed when no sources could be located for an unsourced article, thus no way to establish notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He claims "intrinsic notability", but that is ridiculous for any topic that has no secondary sources.

He also has undone a merger between Grand Lodge of West Virginia and Frank Joseph Haas, stating that the originator of the discussion cannot close it. I allowed nine days for discussion, and all the comments were in the positive. He objected after the discussion was closed.

I'd like an admin to step in and sort all this out. MSJapan (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be totally out of proportion.

(1) The CSDs were not appropriate and this sadly goes back to Masonic politics (I'm not a Freemason by the way). There are lodges that are in alignment and lodges that are out of alignment with the United Grand Lodge of England, which the UGLE regards as false and perhaps treacherous. Freemasons in alignment with the UGLE are supposed to shun those that are out of alignment. MSJ is in alignment, the lodges he wants to speedily delete are out of alignment. He has been far worse before, trying to delete international organisations that are out of alignment. However CSDs should not be proceeded unless there's widespread consensus. There was never going to be that consensus, and so I removed these within procedure. When I could not remove a CSD, on my own article I did not do so.

(2)The merger of the former Grand Master of West Virginia who was expelled from the West Virginia lodges for asking for blacks and disabled people to be admitted (so there may have been reasons other than notability for the merger proposal. This already went through a prod. I didn't check on whether there had been a vote (I thought this was a substitute for AfD) and that was my mistake for not checking. I hold my hand up to that. I was not notified in all of the nine days about the merger, and one has to ask why. Haas appeared in a number of newspapapers, including the New York Times.

The wider issues is this. Despite MSJ and others' allegations, I am not anti-Masonic, I am merely Catholic. I just don't like the concerted attempts to bully editors out of the Wikipedia project, of which this is the latest example. MSJ has previously boasted about taking 18 months to get rid of an anti-Masonic editor, and he seems to be going through the motions again. I don't think it will work, but I can guess where the support will come from.

JASpencer (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with MSJapan here. JASpencer's does seem to be editing with a bit of POV recently. He seems to be jumping to the conclusion that if a Mason nominates an article dealing with Masonry for deletion, he must be doing so because he has some sort of agenda. But cleaning out poor articles, articles with no citations or claim to notability, is not an agenda. Nor is merging two articles after discussion and consensus to do so. To give another example of his jumping to conclusions... please note JASpencer's reaction to a recent AfD nomination I made. He focused on the topic and not the article... and assumed I had done the same. I don't think this needs much in the way of intervention... Knowing JAS, if an uninvovled admin says that he is indeed letting his POV influence his editing, he will take the admonition to heart and will back off. But I do think he needs the admonition. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"I have to agree". Doesn't sound like you want to follow that obligation.

Come on Blueboar, even you must think that MSJ simply went too far in nominating those articles for speedy deletion. There was simply no way that they met the criteria, as was shown with the debate on the Grand Lodge where I didn't (and couldn't) delete. MSJ has persistently said that non-UGLE groups (including CLIPSAS, for crying out loud) are not notable. In the case of the speedy deletions it was another case of trying to do this while no one was looking. I will come back to the Salza case if you want me to, if you are prepared to add yourself and MSJ to this AN/I. JASpencer (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alignment is not at all the issue - any Mason can converse with any other Mason unofficially, one just can't go to the meetings of or send any official correspondence to a group one is not allowed to do so with per the bylaws of the organization. My real concern with non-UGLE bodies is that they pop up all the time, and many of these bodies simply have no history to speak of, and no secondary sources to support claims made in the articles. There's no value in an article that will always be "X lodge is located in Y place, and here's their homepage link" (and the homepage is half-done). The articles I speedied sat for eight months or more with nothing more than a line, and the one editor who started the articles and was in a position to have the information to edit them did not do so. Thjis is why "intrinsic notability" of GLs is a bad idea - when a state has multiple Grand Lodges, and all but one or two are scams run by unscrupulous people to make money (and there are; I can prove that), to call them notable is misleading. Similarly, when a Grand Lodge only has an Internet presence and no indication of anything going on aside from an officers' line (no events, no lodges, etc.) then they do not assert notability. When non-mainstream grand lodges only govern less than 10 lodges in an entire country (or in the world) and have no membership figures (when UGLE lodges have a minimum 10-20 times that number and documented tens or hundreds of thousands of members), it's ludicrous to say the smaller bodies are notable per guidelines. They simply don't have the minimal coverage required by WP:N, especially whenthey don't even make the news. There's N, RS, V, and probably a few other fundamental policy issues with these articles, and they have not been and cannot be corrected - many of them are European, and therefore use languages other than English. MSJapan (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But CSDA7 is about no assertion of notability. By the very act of calling themselves Grand Lodges they are asserting notability. If you think that it's three men and an apron go for an Articles for Deletion vote. Face it you were wrong and I was right on the speedy deletions. And yes, although the case is not (yet) about the original inapropriate use of speedy deletion I do think that your previously expressed bias against Latin masonry has a large part in this series of misjudged CSD nominations. JASpencer (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion of notability does need to meet the criteria set forth in WP:ORG. Claiming to be a Grand Lodge does not automatically pass that test. If five disgruntled Masons split off and form their own Grand Lodge, they are not notable. The article needs an assertion of notability that is more than just "its a Masonic Grand Lodge". Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But the debate is not whether it would lose an AFD (debatable, but not certain) but whether it meets the CSD criteria A7 which is that a Grand Lodge does not assert its notability. The question answers itself. CSD should be used in cases where there's no real question of the case. This was not the case here. MSJ was out of order and you know it, whatever obligation you feelJASpencer (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... CSD A7 is not talking about whether the subject asserts its own notablility (I would assume that every Grand Lodge would say it is notable)... CSDA7 reads: "Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject." In other words... it applies where there is nothing in the article which indicates the importance of the subject. If you look at the articles that MSJ nominated, this is the case. The articles did not indicate why the subject was important. Thus, the speedy nominations were quite appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't work. If there's a Grand Lodge it is saying it is important by the very act of calling itself a Grand Lodge. The article is saying it's a Grand Lodge. Therefore the article is asserting importance. Your arguments are getting more tortuous just to save MSJ's face. JASpencer (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with saving MSJ's face... it has to do with your skewed interpetation of the notability criteria (including the criteria for an A7 speedy delete). Naming something with a fancy sounding title does not make it important - or notable. I could create a Grand Lodge with a membership of just me and a few friends... is it important? Of course not. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:MSJapan is a real problem here at Wikipedia. His constant attacks against editors here at Wikipedia with differing beliefs is ridiculous and foul. He hounds people like JASpencer and myself, he follows our every edit, he plots with others against us and he abuses the rules of Wikipedia to get what he wants. His complaint here against JASpencer is ridiculous and to attack his religious views is unconscionable. User:Blueboar, his brother in the craft and his proverbial lap-dog, backs up MsJapan’s every actions. Look at their edits and you will see a systematic attack on every article that has even a hint of something other than pro-freemasonry. Their actions in getting the articles on noted Catholic author John Salza and writer Paul A. Fisher deleted by implying that they lacked notability was stupid and lame. But it was because these two individuals, despite all their credentials and accomplishments, wrote negitively regarding freemasonry. MSJapan and Blueboar’s aggressive behavior is simply reprehensible. They do not care about making Wikipedia better instead they only care about protecting their beloved freemasonry and removing anything they believe to be critical of it. It is high time that these two editors realize that they are not in charge here. MsJapan why don’t you stop crying like a little baby and be a man for once? By your vindictive and childish actions you two are making freemasons look bad and possibly giving credence to the suggestion that freemasonry is a indeed a cult. Go ahead, cry, whine and complain about these words. Dwain (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC) formerly User:Pitchka as MsJapan loves to point out.

Paul Fisher went? Good God, I missed that one, it's even more shameless than Salza. Not as bad as losing the Masonic obligations. They are good at gaming the deletion syatem, you've got to admire that. Ah well, at least Jahbulon is up. JASpencer (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction

Deletion log tells all: User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction

What does one do when a userbox gets deleted by an admin, gets overturned by DRV, and then re-deleted by the first deleting admin? -- Ned Scott 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You let it go, and get back to doing something more productive than complaining about the deletion of inflammatory content. That's what. krimpet✽ 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm complaining about your abuse of admin tools. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting inappropriate content is exactly what the "delete" button is designed for. If you have an issue with this, take it up with the community as a whole or with ArbCom, but they will just re-iterate that insulting slurs aren't welcome in userspace, and never have been. krimpet✽ 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The community just told you that you were wrong. Don't act stupid, Krimpet, you're embarrassing yourself. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you're just dragging this down into petty personal attacks, I'm not going to debate this with you any further, Ned Scott. I've repeated my points enough times - that the mass nomination at DRV wrongly lumped this deletion of a particularly nasty userbox referring to hateful epithets into being restored. If you feel the community disagrees with this interpretation, file an RfC or RfAR and see. But I'm done with this conversation. krimpet✽ 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting it again saying "it shouldn't have been lumped in with the others" when you haven't even commented at DRV? That's a bit much. The consensus wasn't even to restore but simply to list at MFD. I'd suggest restoring and allow it to go through MFD. Another one there was already deleted. I hate joint listings for this very reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, joint listings are bad, and I'm highly disappointed that the DRV nominator simply went through my deletion log and batch nominated everything, because this was deleted for a far stronger reason. We don't tolerate racial, sexual, or religious epithets in userspace; this is beyond debate. krimpet✽ 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. I'd say you should have been willing to explain your reasoning at DRV. If you don't comment there, you have no justification to re-doing your actions. Admins should always be willing to explain themselves, even if it there is rationale behind it. If you only concern was the naming, why not change the userbox and move it? It is a wiki after all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know the DRV was going on until it closed. I see the boxes are at MfD, where I already commented - that's the proper place for this discussion. krimpet✽ 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I recreated the userbox in question from looking at it in Google cache, in order to place the MfD tag on it. Krimpet and deleted it again, and now has protected the page. I don't care what the box says, this is serious abuse of admin tools. It doesn't matter how strongly the admin in question believes in one set of ideas or another, this is simply unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This amounts to WP:OWN and the admins position should be examined.--Crossmr (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Ned on this one (though it probably wasn't all that helpful trying to recreate it). It's bad enough that Krimpet took it upon herself to ignore procedure and delete a bunch of userboxes in the first place. But to do it again when deletion was overturned at DRV is really out of order. IDON'TLIKEIT is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. PC78 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets just delete DRV. It was always pointless, afterall, right? Being an admin does not make you more important than other editors. Your bit exists to serve the consensus of the community and not your own. Nevermind - I don't feel like injecting myself into WikiDrama =D --mboverload@ 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have many close friends who are male-to-female transsexual, and it is true that some of them consider the word "shemale" to be an insult when applied to them; however, this userbox does not accuse any particular person of being a "shemale," and may in fact only be referring to the subjects of "shemale" pornography, who are essentially fictional characters. In all, I would argue that it does not clearly meet the (highly subjective) CSD T1, and that deletion review should be respected. If User:krimpet feels that her opinion was not considered in DRV, she has the option to nominate it again for MfD at a later time. Dcoetzee 08:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in that vein, it's alright to use a racial epithet in a userbox, so long as it's not directed at a person, yes? From Wikti, for example, shemale is clearly pejorative - Alison ^❤ 08:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair argument for an MfD, not for a speedy deletion after the first speedy deletion was overturned. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just another example of Krimpet abusing her tools; time to remove them, I say.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I find myself wondering... how exactly does this userbox help the encyclopedia? I can't think of one way that it contributes to building an encyclopedia or even fostering community, but it is certainly causing a lot of drama, divisions, and all around ill-will. What point would there be to keeping it? Consensus and process is not supposed to override common sense- that's IAR, our most cherished of rules. This seems pretty common sense to me: if we keep it, a lot of people are going to get offended, community standards are going to be lowered, and the air will be just a little smoggier. If we delete it, one editor who could have improved an article but instead spent that time making a questionable userbox will get his ego bruised, and the thousands of people here on Wikipedia who are so enthused by their love of "shemales" that they feel the need to scream it from the top of Mt. Sinai will be forced to do it without a userbox. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can;'t defend a userbox such as this, but neither can I justify an admin overriding the result of a DRV. I regret that such an excellent admin as Krimpet has let her understandable indignation defeat her commitment to orderly procedure. That she's right on the underlying issue is irrelevant--the userbox will be deleted rapidly enough with the normal procedure. It is in just such cases like this that there is an advantage in proceeding in the normal way--it's much less fuss than trying to override a community process. DGG (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Sometimes using process saves time (and drama). Oh, and we don't need that userbox. Kusma (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You completely hit the nail on the head : ) - jc37 08:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I'm fine with this userbox being deleted in due process, and would probably vote for its deletion (or rewording); I just don't believe it meets T1. Dcoetzee 10:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted as there no doubt are transexual editors and a box like this would make them less keen to edit alongside someone displaying it, as they might fear the person is a bit sleazy and they might be 'pounced' on. However I don't know how it can be done in process now for a while. Sticky Parkin 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for the MFD to be over with. If the MFD ends as a keep then we'll have this restored and at that point Krimpet should file a new MfD for this specific userbox. If they all end as delete then it won't be relevant. Does that seem reasonable to people? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on the telescope and history of the telescope article

Hello. I am having trouble editing some pags because a user (User:DigitalC) indiscriminately reverts my edits. You can find the "reasoning" behind his/her actions here. There was recently an "unofficial" consensus regard my very edit, so you can find the basis of my concern here. I know I should just wait for the community to take its course, but I feel I can end this here and now. I hope you can help. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome any constructive criticism and feedback regarding this issue, as it has been going on for awhile now. In fact, I was lead to it by a post here at AN/I regarding an edit war that InternetHero was involved in at Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive452#User:InternetHero). I fail to see the consensus alluded to by InternetHero, and additionally feel that a consensus cannot overrule policy such as WP:V. - DigitalC (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A variation of this dispute was brought to WP:3O last week, which I answered. There is argumentation and discussion, but nothing really in the demesne of this noticeboard. WP:RPP might need to come into play or maybe an RfC, but at least DigitalC is not being disruptive on those pages. I am tagging this resolved unless anyone can see a reason to extend the discussion here. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? LOL---You're obviously mistaken, or possibly a meat-puppet.

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here.

The latter is my defence so lets hope you have a good case against me. Happy Drinking! InternetHero (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Zodiac Code?

I was browsing articles when I came across mysterious vandalism in the article for Barbara Gordon. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Here is a screenshot of it: http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p18/zaidynkaen/GlitchintheSystem.jpg

The text is as follows, for easy copy-paste: ЕНКЁШКААНЛЁПЕЦЦААЭАН ДАЛЫЧЫНВКЁШКАШЕАНЦА АМЫНЮЛЛЕЯЬЦЦЫМЬЫНЕ НКЫЫЪЕХЦЫЬЕНДЁЪПХЫ НЦЕХЁККААМПЫАКЮЫНКЁ ЛМЕЦЮХАЦЦАЁЪВАШМЕЯ АШЕЁННЫЫНХАЮШКААШ ЫНЮНПЫЦЬЫШЫЙЪЫЦЦ ЬЬЦЕХДЬШЕНПЙШЬККЫЁ НЦЙПЕЪЫЬШЫКЁЯА! Looks likes some kid playing around with the cipher used by the Zodiac killer. Contact me at this email if you want the original screenshot. I wasn't smart enough to save the page, sorry. 74 68 65 2e 73 6b 69 65 73 2e 61 62 6f 76 65 40 67 6d 61 69 6c 2e 63 6f 6d 75.169.240.246 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was template vandalism, which appears to have been fixed now. – ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've been seeing a lot of that particular vandal. He's been blocked, all his edits have been reverted, I've reported him as a potential open proxy and semi-protected all the templates he hit. Wikipedia still has a huge number of unprotected templates that present targets to vandals like this one. Hut 8.5 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism, but I am going to unprotect the following templates:

• Template:Metal Gear
• Template:Batman
• Template:YouTube channel
• Template:Cold War figures

Protecting pages that get one bad edit is not, and has never been, a necessary response to such an edit. These templates are not high profile, being used on a mere few 10s of pages, and I don't think it accurate to claim that they are. They are also not vandalism prone. I observe that some admins have recently begun to slip into thinking that there is 'an opportunity' to protect things whenever they get one vandal edit. This is a wiki, and protection is a last resort, not an opportunity to be sought out whenever it can be. The principles matter, especially when they can be demonstrated at such low cost as in the case of very many templates. I'm a bit concerned that "ah, it's a high risk template" has become too-easy an excuse for protecting vast continents of the template namespace that do not meet the description at all. Better reasons need to be thought of (but of course this is not an invite to re-protect these with spurious newly-cooked-up excuses). Splash - tk 20:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in a Discussion

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox. Maurice27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on erasing his own comments, after other users have responded to them, and provided the references he requested. --the Dúnadan 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just revert edits like these. If Maurice27 wants to strike out comments he made, he should use the <s></s> tags. Removing usernames with the motivation "Name removed by it's owner" is not acceptable, user names are not 'owned' by anyone. --Soman (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by owner of indefinitely blocked User:Whitenoise123

After months of evasion and finally an outright denial, User:Musiclover565 has specifically admitted to being the sockpuppet master of the indefinitely blocked User:Whitenoise123. Despite the block and admission, Musiclover565 is editing Wikipedia in flagrant violation of the block. In my opinion, the indefinite block of Whitenoise123 should now be extended to Musiclover565. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he should not. His use of the Whitenoise123 account was used to avoid scrutiny, IMO, though he denies that. His alternative account has now been indefblocked, per the blocking admin/clerk at RFCU so he's obliged to use the one account, as is clearly the intent. Furthermore, he approached your talk page with a genuine statement as to his wishes that you all should work together and that he agrees to honour that. You reverted it, as is your right, etc. However, it's starting to look like a content dispute and one in which you want this guy to be removed from. He's willing to work with you ... so why exactly not? - Alison ^❤ 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not been privy to the last 9 months of this user's dishonesty, disruption, and passive aggressive behavior toward myself and numerous other editors. We have attempted numerous times to work with him, only to have our attempts dismissed by him at every stage in favor of his unilateral edits against clear consensus. His offers to cooperate have been proven over-and-over again to be disingenuous. I don't know how to be more clear about this not being a mere content dispute. For some history about this whole problem, see this and this. Also, have a look at this, where Whitenoise123 admitted to being disruptive concerning the Sharapova article. Tennis expert (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have been lurking at the Sharapova article (occasionally making a small edit) for awhile now, and I have to concur with Tennis expert on this one. He's removing huge swaths of material from the article without anything resembling consensus to do so. He is editing disruptively, and as a sockpuppet of an indef-ed account, should not be allowed to do so. ^S._D.Jameson 22:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• His content removal is so massive that Cluebot just reverted this edit as potential vandalism. He made the edit as an IP, so I'm making a small assumption here, but I don't think it's unfounded. ^S._D.Jameson 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not evading any block, I was given instructions to use this account to make edits. I will admit to being aggressive on my original stint at Wiki, but that was a long time ago, and everyone is entitled to a clean start, which was what I wanted with WN123; you have failed to legitimately point me to an edit or conduct policy I have breached since returning. You are yet to point out a legitimate concern about my edits.

As Alison pointed out, you are completely unwilling to engage in any type of attempt to reach consensus; my attempt was just one of many. Please point me to one, just one, example of you trying to work co-operatively with me. You cannot make statements like that w/o evidence to back them up. As for that link you cited supposedly me "admitted to being disruptive"; actually, that was me admitting to trying to get round the system, not disrupting, on just one occasion, in retaliation to you doing likewise. That day, you had tried to game the system; because I had already performed 3 reverts, you then began restoring your preferred version of the article, despite consensus rejecting it. So I (regretfully) rose to your bait and subtly rephrased the wording of mine to get round it. It was then I realised how silly the dispute was, and therefore, made an attempt for consensus, which you, surprise surprise, rebuffed.

SD Jameson - you are entitled to your personal disagreement about the edits, but that does not mean I violate any editing policy. Others have agreed with my edits, and in addition, the "silence implies consent" principle validates them; my edits had largely been in place until mid-June, until Tennis expert yesterday restored the version of the article that had been in place before that, effectively reverting around 300 edits by various editors. In addition, since I began working on the article, it has improved from C-Class to just narrowly missing "Good article" status. Should Tennis expert ever agree, and talks to reach consensus do take place, your input would be much appreciated.

(Oh, and yes, the anon was me. WP keeps logging me out lately. I have reported the revert as a false positive to ClueBot. It did remove a lot of material, but that is only because it reverts what I see as vandalism by TE, given his edit reverted 300.) Musiclover565 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify - he should not, IMO, be blocked on the strength of his serial use of other accounts; that's done and past and he's stopped now. The other accounts are blocked. On his current and past behaviour, however - I've no comment, really, as I'm not that familiar with his history. So yes, let's separate both events and look at his ongoing behaviour - Alison ^❤ 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "ongoing behaviour", Alison, is that, when I initially returned and began working on the article again, I did remove quite a lot of content, because I believed it went into too much depth (it listed pretty much every tournament she has ever played in) and the writing was very stilted in parts. Tennis expert claims it is abusive to do so, but I believe WP:Be bold permits this. He is yet to point to any actual editing policy I have breached since returning to WP. Musiclover565 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:BRD. You've had your "boldness" reverted, by multiple editors. Now discuss it, and don't remove the information again until consensus exists to do so. Right now, your editing pattern on the article verges on tendentious. ^S._D.Jameson 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you and Tennis expert are I believe the only editors to register significant complaints about my edits, so considering they have generally been in place since June, it can be taken that that is not general feeling. If anything, considering it is so long since your/Tennis experts preferred version of the page was in place for a significant period of time, the onus is now on you to justify such a radical edit. What is the point in consensus for consensuss sake? If an edit improves the article, then why is consensus required? If you do not believe my edits improve the article, then please say why specifically?92.1.164.122 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In February 2008, Musiclover565/Masha4ever/Whitenoise123/92.1.182.171 was warned about disruptive behavior, to wit: "It has become clear that your editing habits at the article Maria Sharapova constitute edit warring, a practice which only serves to disrupt the article in question, and Wikipedia in general. It is essential that you discuss controversial changes you intend to make, seek dispute resolution for contested edits to seek a consensus and talk about, rather than blindly re-undo, any reversions of your edits to an article. As a measure to prevent further disruption, I have blocked you from editing, for a period of 12 hours. It is essential that you reform your editing habits, and refrain from pushing through your view of what the correct article revision is by warring. Please take time to think about your contributions to Wikipedia, and the damage your revert warring is having." See also this and this. When this user returned to editing the Maria Sharapova article in June 2008, his behavior had not changed. How many chances should someone be given before the community's patience is exhausted? Tennis expert (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use that to justify it. That warning was when I was literally re-writing the entire Career section, and when I made no attempts to reach consensus. Since I returned, I have removed much less material, and have made numerous attempts to seek consensus with you. The ball is now in your court; if ever you want to start discussions, I am fully willing to do so. 92.1.164.122 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have watched this dispute over a number of months on the Maria Sharapova and would like to offer the following observations;

• 92.1.182.171 has contributed some useful edits to the article and some of his/her concerns about it are perfectly valid.

However;

• Whitenoise123's approach to gaining consensus was often back to front. Instead of justifying his/her edits, other editors were to justify the status quo. And if they failed to do this promptly then Whitenoise123 would charge ahead.
• His/Her approach in changing identities has been very disruptive to the article over a some time and has done nothing to assist his/her claimed intention of attempting to reach consensus.
• It is impossible for other editors to reach consensus over edits when there is a continual question over who they are debating with and how many opinions they have. 92.1.182.171 claims never to have edited the article simultaneously using multiple identities. How was anyone else to know this at the time? How do we know it now? 92.1.182.171 actions have promoted an atmosphere of distrust, not just about contributions from his/her multiple identities, but in all other IP and new editor contributions.
• His/Her undeniable lies about his/her identity and attempts to censure other editors (via complaints on this noticeboard) who questioned it are simply not acceptable. How are we to believe anything he/she says? What else is he/she still lying about?
• Yes, editors have a right to a clean break, but not if they are to return to the same edit wars against the same editors on the same articles using the same tactics.
• After a break of barely 14 hours, Musiclover565 has returned to revert radical edits on the article, claiming a lack of response from other editors in that time is all that's needed to justify them.

I wouldn't like to see an editor who could usefully contribute banned, but this is a ridiculous state of affairs. If 92.1.182.171/Musiclover565 is to continue to edit it must be as a single user and he/she should be instructed to leave the Maria Sharapova alone and prove himself/herself not to be tenacious and disruptive on other articles.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Musiclover565 edit to which Escape Orbit referred (two paragraphs above) uses this typically disruptive edit summary: "It has been many hours now and SD Jameson and Tennis expert have ignored attempts to reach consensus. Therefore, I can only assume they do not have legitimate concerns." This "because you did not respond to me in the way I wanted by the secret deadline I imposed, I can only assume that you agree with me" is one of many tactics that Musiclover565 and his countless sockpuppets have employed against many editors (including myself) since the beginning of this year. This latest edit negates whatever miniscule possibility there was that Musiclover565 intended to contribute constructively to this project. Why should we tolerate this kind of behavior? Tennis expert (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tennis expert, that is incorrect. Yesterday, at 22:49, I clearly implied that if you or SD Jameson had concerns about the content of the article, you should say so. Since then, and before I edited the article today (which, by the way, I had an automatic right to anyway, considering I was reverting what is technically vandalism by you in reverting 300 edits in one go), both of you contributed to this discussion again, and therefore had presumably read my request, and yet, did not answer it. Therefore I assumed you did not have specific concerns. But, yet again, here is your opportunity: what exactly about my edits do you find so disagreeable? What editing policies do you believe me to have breached, and/or why do you personally disagree with them, bearing in mind “consensus” should not be accepted as a suitable response (WP:BRD). If you kick up such a huge fuss about edits, and then refuse to answer numerous requests to say specifically why, how on earth do you expect to be taken seriously?

Escape Orbit – your post left me a little confused. I am not sure if this anon IP is me or not (my ISP for some reason constantly assigns me new IPs – that annoys me more than anyone, though, since returning, I have always made clear that, when I occasionally use an anon – before I registered WN123 and since, when I have inadvertently been logged out – that it is me). In any case, I would prefer you separated my actions from earlier this year – I have fully apologized for those, admitted they were disruptive. However, everyone is entitled to a clean start, as long as they keep within in the rules, which I have done since returning. Regarding your distrust issue – I believe I was within my rights to deny my identity, as this was a separate edit dispute (my desired edits now are completely different to those back then, I recognize they were unacceptably radical). I will acknowledge it would have simplified matters if I had confessed, but, given my edits were within rules, my identity was irrelevant, so I was within policy. Also, for the record, my complaint on the Noticeboard in July was regarding Tennis experts unexplained reverting of my edits, not his accusing me of being ML565.

I would certainly like to take issue with your accusation of me doing edits “back-to-front”. My interpretation of Wiki edit policy is that the onus is not on the editor to provide a full, detailed justification of an edit that is within Wiki policy, as it is implied they believe it to improve the article. If someone disagrees with the edit, the onus is on them to sufficiently challenge the article, pointing out an editing policy they have breached or providing balanced viewpoints on why they believe the article to not be improved. Tennis expert has failed to do this – he has never pointed out a policy I have breached, and has, quite frankly, always given off the air of a person insulted to have had their work (he had written most of the article in its previous form) edited quite significantly, which comes with the territory on Wiki. If he disagrees with this conclusion I have drawn, I will be only too happy to be corrected.

Regarding the consensus issue, one last time, I would be only too happy if myself and Tennis expert (and anyone else) could reach a consensus to allow the article to fulfil its potential and allow us to move on. But I have made genuine attempts: at least four or five times now, I have approached TE on his talkpage requesting to reach a “ceasefire”, and each time, he has rebuffed it, usually by removing my comments completely, most recently yesterday. If the other party is unwilling to get talks going, what else am I supposed to do? The crux is that I do not see how it would be acceptable for Tennis expert to allow his full preferred version to take hold, and then refuse to take part in consensus-building attempts, as he appears to be implying should be the case. To my mind, he has two clear choices: either he should engage in discussions, which I am genuinely willing to do, and have been since mid-June, as soon as he says the word (though I feel the dispute is now so intense, some form of official meditaion is required); or he does not have the right to complain about the article. I think that is a very fair, reasonable choice.

In any case, most of what has been discussed here is irrelevant, as nothing I have contributed to this edit dispute since returning in mid-June constitutes abuse. 92.1.164.122 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee

Resolved

Persistent addition of (critical) anonymous blog to article is against WP policy. Philip Cross (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, but what, precisely, are you requesting in terms of administrative intervention? Shereth 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems (different) IP's are persistently adding a blog reference into the article Polly Toynbee,[33] [34] [35] recommend semi-protection. - Icewedge (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 7 days. -- The Anome (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Waring/ Article Ownership with User:Wehrmacht007

User:Wehrmacht007 has repeatedly reverted my edits, along with the edits of several other users on the List of characters in the Resident Evil series article. I attempted to talk out the issue/problems with the article, but the user has ignored me, as well a 3RR warning from another user. I added a user ownership warning to the user's talk page after he began reverting the changes of other editors for no apparent reason [36]. Any input on how to resolve this problem? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has been inactive for over two hours... just a note. -- RyRy (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has edited the same page a few hours ago, but till seemingly ignored the comments I left. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  09:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing edit notes...

Resolved

 – Oversight requested Alex Muller 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor on the The Chaser article has added a phone number in their edit notes and is encouraging people to call it. I doubt whether anyone one will, or if it is the number it claims be or not but I don't think it should stay there. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested oversight - they'll disappear completely shortly. Cheers for this, Alex Muller 10:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Deleted the revisions for now, requested oversight and blocked the user responsible. Note there was a bad edit on Andrew Hansen too. the wub "?!" 10:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The person appears to be back with a new account Itsmagic (talk · contribs). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess yoy can say at least they're honest about it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Political promotion via commons and EL

I'd like to have a third opinion on the following: Mazdoormukti (talk · contribs) (also functioning through asisdas (talk · contribs), 59.93.202.211 (talk · contribs) and 59.93.194.19 (talk · contribs)) is involved in a rather odd case of political self-promotion. Texts of Mazdoor Mukti, a small communist grouping in West Bengal, India, releases pdf pamphlets at wikimedia commons and then links them across various wikipedia articles. Whilst releasing own works to PD should be encouraged and this is still just related to a few article, I still feels that this is a case of WP:SOAP and WP:COI. I left a message at the Mazdoormukti talk page regarding COI back in July, but without response. --Soman (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the PDFs for deletion on Commons. MER-C 08:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

BOT violating WP:N

{{resolved|The bot is not violating [[WP:N]] nor [[WP:BOT]]. The notability of geographic places is highly disputed, this is not a clear cut case of policy. A block isn't needed at this time, I will leave the operator a note requesting they not run the bot while discussion is ongoingBJ^Talk 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)}}
Kotbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating an enormous pile of stubs by copying stubs from Polish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia based on a census database. It is doing so without any regard to WP:N, and is making absolutely no effort to comply with WP:N. Wikipedia:Bot policy requires all bots to " carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines", which this one blatantly is not. The owner has refused to shut it down. Will someone please block this thing until it is either fixed or there is a consensus that letting it run rampant over the notability guidelines is acceptable? There is a discussion over at the village pump, but it seems full of people willing to debate policy and none willing to put the brakes on until this is decided. The closest recent parallel was Geobot, and that one was specifically required to adhere to notability guidelines before it was permitted to run.
Kww (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How was this thing ever approved? I doubt the BAG would allow a bot such as this to run the way it is now. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been several hours since the bot started any new stubs. The worries here, I think, would be WP:RS along with WP:N. However, since I tend to think all automated article creation is (as yet) deeply flawed by technical limitations and my first thought was to block straight off, I'm afraid this means I've too many eggs in this basket to block the bot myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy enough for the moment if someone could get the guy running the bot to simply agree not to run it anymore until the dust settles and there's a consensus about what to do. Eventually, I'd like to roll back all the changes the bot has made, but I can't force that decision.
Kww (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear this task was approved by BAG in 2007 at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 3. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources need to exist, but there's no requirement that they actually be cited when the article is created. I agree it works much better if they are, though. --Rividian (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One immediate problem I can see is that there is a references section being added which cites the polish wikipedia. That is a clear violation of WP:V and I would recommend stopping the bot until concerns regarding polices and guidelines can be addressed.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't resolved until the operator agrees to cease operating the bot, not when he's asked to. If the notability of these places is controversial, then a bot that assumes notability cannot be said to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines, which means it violates WP:BOT.
Kww (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As many other people at the village pump I continue to feel that officially designated Polish villages are intrinsically notable and that what this bot is accomplishing is good for Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to stand in the way of expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Poland to match the coverage of the United States, where a bot long ago created articles for all census designated places. This a reasonable task, and as far as I am concerned your demands to predocument everything by locating individual secondary sources is unreasonable. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there any way they can be prevailed on to at least have the bot cite the sources they are using? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Rambot stubs had no sources when they started. They were added later on. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I just think it would be nice. Is it difficult to do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I am currently looking for secondary sources the bot can use. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
          • The latest creations did have a (non wikipedia) source when created as stated on the village pump discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
            • It is the earlier creations that are source free. Also, the little note about the info being on the Polish Wikipedia is pointless, since the info is the same, and there is the pl interwiki link. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
              • • Can we have the bot add the sources to the earlier creations? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is very little chance of articles of this type being deleted, the only question is whether the uploads are being done by hand or by a bot. Personally I don't see a reason why anyone should be asked to do it manually when it could be done automatically, as this would seem fairly regressive (we were doing this by bot three years ago), but presumably the project can continue under either method. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that an editor doing this by hand can't do as much damage as quickly as this bot does. Since it is creating articles that shouldn't be created but are very difficult to delete, it's a very bad thing to have them created so quickly ... it's a fait accompli, which is always very hard to undo.
Kww (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouay, les jeux sont faits. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure everyone understands the factual basis of the Kotbot's work:

I am one of the maintainers of Kotbot (the owner is on vacation this week).

1. The villages being created are Sołectwo - an OFFICIAL designation for administrative purposes in Poland. They have a elected head, called the sołtys. They are valid census units. Sołectwo are subdivisions of Gmina which are subdivisions of Powiat that are subdivisions of Voivodeship.
2. Data is being pulled from a number of sources from the Polish & US Government (including GUS and NGA's GEOnet) and verified against additional sources, PPWK S.A.'s POLSKA Atlas Samochodowy, ISBN 83-7329-526-7 and the [http//www.targeo.pl Targeo.pl] online atlas (which WP itself uses). All sources are commonly available. So we have FOUR, which more than satisfies WP:V and WP:N. Governmental database are secondary sources, they have interpreted primary sources (photos, radar data, etc.). Atlases could be considered Tertiary sources since they use Secondary source data as input.
3. Kotbot is not an unattended Bot. It is manually watched as it executes by one of two operators (Kotniski and myself - we happen to be on opposite sides of the planet, so we can have a larger operational window). Kotbot only processes what we tell it to process. We have control files that tell the Bot EXACTLY what to process.
4. Kotbot operations are multi-pass. When Kotbot sees an error in any data it recovers it logs it to a file and does not include the erroneous data (it logs it to a file where one of the operators MANUALLY processes it). Kotbot is being prepped for an additional future passes through the village files to do some format updates and increase historical (notations on prior political structures, etc.) and geographic features (mezoregions, rivers/major lakes, etc.) content. All in the name of increasing accurate data.

Ajh1492 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not a single one of your sources provides a detailed and direct examination of the topic in question, so they do not establish notability for the topic in question. All of them have the goal of being an exhaustive listing, that includes the notable and non-notable alike. Your information is indeed verifiable, but you are making no analysis at all of the notability of your topics. This was a major concern during Geobot's approval, and it was not permitted to run until it inserted a manual step:Individual articles cannot be created without some evidence of notability, so this is where the most evidence gathering will take place by volunteers through searches of the internet, paper sources, etc. Discussion should take place on whether sources are suitable, and also how to integrate the data. This can either be by editing the lists created in Phase 2 so that the bot creates the articles, or a commitment to add the information manually, in which case a simple mark can be made within the lists so that the bot knows that the article can be created in isolation. You have no such step, so you are operating in violation of WP:N. You need to stop operating this bot until you have a step which guarantees notability of the articles that you create. Your bot should not have been approved in the first place, since your stated methodology violates WP:N, and BAG is not permitted to grant an exception to this guideline.
Kww (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES clearly shows that real places are inherently notable, therefore your claim that the bot is violating WP:N by creating articles about real places doesn't fly. Now, if it's creating stubs without any sources, that's a different matter. Corvus cornix_talk 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES is neither policy nor guideline.
Kww (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is current WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. Corvus cornix_talk 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the approval [37] of bot, it was stated "Function Details: Based on a database, compiled from Polish Wikipedia articles and official population data, the bot creates short articles on municipalities and villages which are so far not present in English Wikipedia. Articles contain standard information such as coordinates, population, area, alternative names, higher-level entities, seat, constituent villages, neighbouring municipalities, categories, stub template, and interwiki links." The specified population data and area data are absent from the village articles. Until the bot can comply with its authorization, it should stop creating unreferenced articles which wind up saying basically "there is a dot called so and so on the map at these grid coordinates, and it is in such and such administrative district." Edison (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It also needs to stop self-referencing. This is a clear violation of WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Editors are proclaiming that this is a crisis. I strongly suggest that those Editors step away from their computers and take a break. Nothing on WP is ever a crisis. The Earth will not stop spinning on it's axis, flooding will not occur, dogs & cats will not start living together just because some new content is being added to WP. Some people really need to regain their sense of perspective. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The only crisis is that you pay no attention to people asking you to stop. If you would agree to do that, all sense of urgency would go away.
Kww (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I still see no reason why Ajh1492 should stop. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple, and I don't see why you can't see it: so long as the bot isn't following the words written in WP:N, the bot cannot be said to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines. Even if you are right, and the consensus is that every inhabited place in the world is notable, the bot is in violation of WP:BOT by not carefully adhering to guidelines and policies. Stopping the bot, trying to get consensus to modify WP:N to allow it, and then restarting the bot is an option, but just letting it run really isn't one.
Kww (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

also read what edison wrote above, the bot does not appear to be following its mandate. As long as it is not following its mandate it should not be running.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be in the minority but I have to agree with Kww here more or less. If it's true that there is consensus that all villages are inherently noteable I'm not seeing it. There are various places where this has been suggested, but none of them appear to be policy and I'm not seeing strong evidence such a consensus exists indeed there are several cases where the outcome seemed to disagree that villages are inherently noteable. From my personal view, there are many villages in Malaysia where I lived for a big chunk of my life so far, which I wouldn't consider noteable for a wikipedia article. However if consensus is in the opposite direction, I'm willing to accept that but I'd like to see much better evidence then I've seen so far. I agree with Kww, the bot should be stopped for now (I don't think the existing articles should be deleted yet) and discussion iniatiated to reach consensus on whether villages are inherently noteable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot owner believes that no rules apply to his bot, and standard policies don't apply to him. Will someone please block this bot? How big a violation of WP:BOT does it take to get someone to block a bot?
Kww (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the bot owner believes that no rules apply to his bot, and standard policies don't apply to him." Calm down, assume good faith, and argue policy, not people. --Raijinili (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. When asked how he can use Polish Wikipedia as a source when that violates WP:RS, his answer was Fortunately our rules are quite flexible, and building the encyclopedia takes precedence over their letter.. Combined with his refusal to comply with WP:N, I would say it is fairly clear the bot's operator does not believe that Wikipedia rules apply to his bot.
Kww (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Following all the arguments here and on the pump, I must say that Kww's characterisation seems correct. This bot was meant to help editors by creating short stubs on geographic locations with at least primary sources. Sure, its not exactly WP:N at that stage, but because the additions would be checked manually by the bot operators, there would (one would assume) be ample time to peruse the bot-suggested articles and find at least one secondary source mentioning the place before committing it to the 'pedia. The fact that it has gone one step further in the wrong direction (adding articles with incorrect or without any sources in some cases) is of even bigger concern. It's surprising to me to see that only Kww is arguing from the point of view of policy/guideline, while everyone else seems to be turning a blind eye to this. The bot should be stopped while discussion is ongoing. Then if/when some consensus emerges the bot can be allowed to operate again, presumably with some restrictions as to the articles it creates. Zunaid©® 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the bot should be stopped pending discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be off Wikipedia much of today (going to a neighboring island, where they actually have things like movie theaters and traffic lights, instead of spending my day in the non-notable hamlet I live in). Sure would be nice if I found that some admin had blocked this bot while I was away.
Kww (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution?

Given the similarity of the work, use the consensus of the GEOBOT discussion as the existing consensus for article places, and send these uys over to WP:GEOBOT to lend a hand uploading data in the formats we've been discussing over there? Just a thought to stop us having a lovely, lengthy discussion again! Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me ... I've been pointing at GEOBOT's step of doing a manual notability analysis throughout this discussion. Whether it's a parallel bot or whether it just feeds data to the GEOBOT project doesn't matter much to me, so long as a search for reliable secondary sources with a detailed examination of the city/village/hamlet is done before article creation.
Kww (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mspraveen

Resolved

 – CheckUser made a mistake, account unblocked, all is well in the world. Tiptoety ^talk 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser issues

This is in reference to the RRaunak checkuser case. Multiple accounts have been blocked based on it. One of the users blocked is User:Mspraveen who is an established user who has produced multiple GA and DYK contributions. My interactions with him have always been good. I am curious to know how conclusive is a check user evidence. What if all the users were from using the a shared external IP (proxy) in a university? Do we still block all the accounts? The user has not made his statement yet. The blocking admin has asked the user whether he would stop using socks. I wanted to bring this to the community's attention. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as the CheckUser marked the accounts {{confirmed}} that pretty much means all the accounts were/are editing from the same IP and as such that is as conclusive as it gets. As you stated above (and seeing as I am the blocking admin) I have noticed that the user in question has made some rather impressive contributions to the project and as such am willing to unblock the account if I feel that they will no longer sock. Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not block some IPs since they are shared across the university (see SharedIPEDU). I am curious to know why there is a double standard when it comes to individual accounts. I feel checking IP addresses alone does not prove some is a sock, editing patterns and conversations must be matched before a checkuser becomes conclusive. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GaneshK, this block doesn't seem right. Mspraveen has a very different style, personality, and contribution history compared to the others. I appreciate, as I think everyone else does, the blocking of the other users, but Mspraveen? ~ priyanath ^talk 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Needed

Resolved

 – Unblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge an immediate unblock on behalf of WikiProject India. This user has an impeccable record and I'm sure that he has certainly not engaged in the disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has posted unblock request. I urge admins with checkuser privilege to look into this urgently and get this user unblocked ASAP. We need this user's continued contributions here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a conditional unblock pending further checking? This really does seem to be a big mistake. Let's show some good faith toward a long-time contributor. (and also good faith that the RCU and block were done in good faith, just a mistake). ~ priyanath ^talk 04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I (like Priyanath) thought something might be fishy about the CU results myself and that’s why I originally offered to unblock the account after a discussion with the user, but to be sure I would like to hear a CU comment here. Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's no response in the next hour or 2 by some CU, the user should be unblocked as a measure of good faith. If, by then, you're still hesitating to unblock without the confirmation, I will ask another admin to unblock. Mistakes happen, and we make allowances for them, but there's 0 reason to prolong the unnecessary, that too, at the expense of putting off an extremely valuable contributor (who has had impeccable conduct at all times). The block log can be annotated even with something as simple as 'appears to be a mistake'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen checkuser editors mark a case "confirmed" but later retract that conclusion, so even confirmed cases aren't necessarily completely conclusive. I came across the user's unblock request and after looking into it a bit, I support unblocking and agree with priyanath and Ganeshk above. The checkuser (Sam Korn) has been contacted, so this can wait a short time until he makes a comment here. If he feels the evidence is unquestionable (which I seriously doubt), I'd support Tiptoey's slap on the wrist unblock along with a promise of no further sockpuppeting. Otherwise, I'd lean toward giving this valuable editor the benefit of the doubt. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over some of the contributions and patterns, and I find it very unlikely that User:Mspraveen is part of that particular sock flock, regardless of IP evidence. So I'm going to unblock. If Sam has strong evidence to the contrary, we can always reblock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I did the CU again and I don't think it's him. Mspraveen is on a very noisy range and it the data appears to show that his exact IP number changes every day when he starts another editing session and the ISP always gave him a new number on a different day. There was a direct hit on an exact IP number between RRaunak's socks and Mspraveen but these were two months apart. RRaunak's socks all came within one day, which suggest the socks logged in and out in one internet session, but the fact that a new IP address is assigned every day seems to imply to me that it is a complete fluke. Also the edits aren't related anyway. The range is also very noisy - almost all the Wikipedians I know from a certain geographical region of over 100 million people (West Bengal) seem to be on this /16. At least four different guys each with FAs use this range and they total 15 FA/GAs and 150 DYKs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this Blnguyen, glad it turned out for the best. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I trust Blnguyen's analysis, though I am slightly surprised. Frankly, though, it really, really annoys me that people bring this straight to ANI. I am a reasonable person, and I respond to these requests the moment I see them. It really isn't necessary to make an ANI song-and-dance about it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It wasn't brought here because people thought you were unreasonable because of a mistake. It was brought here because it needed to be resolved as quickly as possible, and getting more eyes on it (so the block could be lifted asap) was considered a matter of urgency - although you might disagree with that assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, it patently was not an emergency because the user had not logged on and requested unblocking. It is common courtesy, practice and good sense to talk to the person who took the action in the first place. You didn't even have the simple courtesy to inform me (thanks, Tiptoey) and I feel pretty hacked off about that. That is not reasonable behaviour. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It took you 40 hours to comment on this (since Tiptoey's talk page request for your comments). The reason it is brought here is so that other admins can act on issues of urgency (this is a volunteer organization...noone is expected to turn up every single day to contribute). I was waiting to hear how you came up with your CU results. Instead you come here and hurl accusations on people who were trying to help. It is disappointing. Respectfully, Ganeshk (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed with all this. I know it was a mistake. It was a reasonable mistake to make (more than one shared IP, other similar information), but I will readily agree I should not have made it. I am hugely disappointed, however, that this was handled in this way. Hurling accusations is hardly what I was doing, and if you think it was I suggest you read again. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn,

1. you were informed by Tiptoey, 7 minutes after this thread was opened - I was going to notify you myself, but Tiptoey's notification eliminated the need for further notifications (and it is unreasonable to expect any more notifications after you were already notified - such an expectation, as you should know by now, will almost never be fulfilled by anyone).
2. for your convenience alone, I went to your talk page twice and modified the link in the notification so you could get here on 1 click (as the title of this thread changed a couple of times) - no one was obligated to do that, but I did it out of courtesy.
3. you took (as Ganeshk points out) a heck of a long time before you came back to look at your mistake and discuss it, let alone fix it. All of us have tried to be as understanding and reasonable as humanely possible, but if you honestly think responding to concerns after 40 hours is doing so in a timely manner, perhaps affirmation from a venue outside of ANI is needed.
4. you've come here hurling accusations and suggesting incidents like this should fester for as long as possible unless the unblock template is used - even though the block was based on very limited (and poor) analysis to begin with. A mistake like this can be very costly in driving away valuable contributors. But, due to how quickly and effectively it was resolved, it didn't come to that in this case - frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed by your failure to even recognize that fact. With the utmost respect, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The first port of call should be the talk page. First. Not afterthought-if-I'm-feeling-generous. That's common sense. 2. Well, thank you. Generous. 3. Yes, I know it was not prompt. You will, of course, find that I made no edits at all in that time, and did not even log on to Wikipedia. I agree that you needed to take it somewhere else after that time period. Coming straight here was unnecessary. You know it ends up with overly strong words, such as, well, yours. "Reasonable as humanely possible"? You make me sound like an animal waiting to be put down! 4. I suggest you read again. Mistake, certainly. Extremely bad mistake, possibly. Hurling accusations, where? There are more peaceable ways to deal with this than yours, and I take issue with it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy), who is reminded of the Yes, Minister meaning of "with respect" 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes it should be - it need not be, nor has to be. This is particularly so when your response was predictably untimely, given your editing pattern of late (as specified in your reply to 3) - the issue of substance (quick review & unblock) far outweighed any such formality in this case - even if you're predictably the only user here to disagree with this assessment.
2. Your accusation that "You didn't even have the simple courtesy to inform me" is only in your head, for the reasons I stated in my previous reply. That, and the uncalled for bit about 'behavior not being reasonable', is where you're hurling accusations.
3. But for your unreasonable replies (the causal factor), no overly strong words have been, or would have been used in this discussion. See also my next point.
4. To date, except yourself, no user had expressed any concern with how this incident was handled (or that it was unpeaceful). What I suggest is that instead of championing and tendentiously arguing formality over substance, you need to focus on reviewing your own approach to avoid potentially tragic mistakes in the future (like your one that led to this thread) and how to handle yourself afterwards once you make a mistake. I thought it was a good faith mistake. Heck, if you actually assumed good faith and politely asked why it was brought here instead of assuming the worst, there would've been no overly strong words at all. So, I take issue with the mistake you made and the way you handled yourself after the mistake. Finally, note, I'm not the only one disappointed by your recent edits in relation to this incident. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I need to say something here. When I realized from Tiptoety that Sam Korn was primarily responsible for this action, I was totally put off. One can try putting themselves in my shoes and think of how a well-established user could be deemed to sock due to an analysis similar to Sam Korn's. That was my feeling at that time. I knew it was a huge mistake and I wondered why should I promise not to sock, when I never did! It was at this juncture, Ncmvocalist, Ganeshk and Priyanath came into the picture and voiced their concern here. Whether it should have been on Sam Korn's talk page or at ANI, I feel it is inconsequential now.

All I can say is that though I held grudge against Sam Korn for his wrong actions a few days ago, as much as I appreciated Ncmvocalist, GaneshK and Priyanath for their support, I have forgotten this as a case of a good faith mistake. Now when I thought this was all said and done, I really feel sorry to see what this issue has brought in here. I sincerely request all parties not to raise this into anything uglier. After all, aren't we trying to make this a better place? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing my mistake as what it was, an honest mistake. Your good grace is something to admire. Once again, I apologise to you personally. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove is disabled project-wide

• https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15107

What is going on? -- Cat ^chi? 00:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So what was the problem? I cannot immediately see it. -- Cat ^chi? 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a regex on the titleblacklist. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you translate the regex for me? -- Cat ^chi? 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They all look like different Unicode E characters (i.e. é, Ē, Ê, etc.), as far as I can read, but, no pun intended and no offense meant, it's a bit too Greek for my understanding. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Antonio "Tony" Montana "Scarface" and The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

Resolved

 – Puppets and master all blocked.

After myself and Asenine confronted The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (talk · contribs) about a number of suspect images he uploaded, he at first just kept lying, claiming he was the author, or uploading other stolen images in their place and claiming he was the author of them. (Example.) As soon as it seemed that he was going to start co-operating, Antonio "Tony" Montana "Scarface" (talk · contribs) came out of nowhere (having not edited in a little while) and starting mindlessly supporting 20K in all of the deletion discussions, but denies being a sock. Both of these users have a history of ignoring copyright and not taking it well when their image uploading/use is challenged,[38] as well as both sharing the 'Internet tough guy' persona. They also cross over a lot, both fussing over the images that form part of 20K's persona and the same articles. I'm unfamiliar with these sort of procedures- what should be done now? J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have strong feelings that Scarface is a sock - but the 'best friend' thing is believeable(ish). I think what is really needed now is a consensus for checkuser, but naturally there will probably need to be more evidence before such a thing can occur.  Asenine  21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, it's as plain as the nose on the face of Cyrano's near-sighted, cross-eyed cousin. Checkuser  Confirmed, also YourGr8M8 (talk · contribs) and Prem01 (talk · contribs). There's more monkeyshines in the contribs of these two accounts so examine them before deciding on an appropriate remedy for 20K. Thatcher 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks have been blocked. —Travis^talk 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is undeniably the single best heading I've ever seen on this page. I don't even care what you guys are talking about. --Masamage ♫ 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a film waiting to be made out there..... --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone block User:BombBot Commons (an account created today) as another sock and a user name improperly containing "Bot"? Deor (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Also blocked. I’m blocking the main account as well. —Travis^talk 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. Want me to slap a resolved on, or does someone else want to do that?  Asenine  08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Wasn't sure how best to handle it, I'm really not a blocking admin... J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image from Karren Brady article

Resolved

 – image has been deleted

--Crossmr (talk)

Someone may want to look at this diff and its edit summary, where an IP registered to Birmingham City F.C. removed an image from their managing director Karren Brady's article, claiming it to be a doctored image, and mentioning "further action". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment (from a non-admin): I wonder if this is more a case of DOLT than NLT? The picture removed certainly appears heavily edited, when compared to other images of Karren Brady.

Not defending the anon's actions in any way, just musing.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It was partially discussed here: Talk:Karren_Brady#Photo. Cell phone pictures are often not clear, or perfect, and can sometimes look strange. I don't see any evidence that it has been doctored. Regardless, it sounds like if the image is restored (which I'm going to do as the reason given seems false) they're threatening legal action.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is now a moot discussion as an admin has up and deleted the image without any discussion, citing its clarity.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn! I just reverted the anon. Oh well, time to self-revert.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the image in a google cache, [39], and compared to some other images [40], [41] it may be off. I don't think its been doctored, I think the aspect ratio may just be off on the photo. as her whole face looks stretched.--Crossmr (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm guys, this is how you deal with such cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hope they do come through with a decent pic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP left his email address in one of the edit summaries; might it be worth contacting him? Neıl ☄ 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wants to renew a polite request for a replacement image with them, sure, they might. Other than that, I personally consider the matter closed. The image was clearly unsuitable; and, just as clearly, we can't demand they collaborate with us and give us a better one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP is the same address as Bcfcmarketing (talk · contribs) who I am in contact with. They have been blocked as a corporate account and another admin might want to look at their unblock request. I have directed them towards Wikipedia:Contact us. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tq6993

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have been very patient with this user, and tried assuming good faith. However, no matter how many editors warn him, or politely ask him to stop he continues to delete sourced content, based on his personal opinion. Here He even says every time he logs on to Wikipedia he is going to delete the sourced content he doesn't agree with. Here is some examples [42] [43] [44] [45] and many more. He has received several warnings including two level 4's. I don't know what else to do so I'm bringing it here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook

About 15 minutes ago I replaced a DYK hook because it was a bit of a BLP nightmare. The hook was as follows;

• ... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?

I actually presumed Joe Dudley must have died long ago for this hook to get through, but he's still alive. I'm not sure it's a good idea we stress that notable people were labelled mentally retarded as youngsters on the main page. I replaced the hook with;

• ... that entrepreneur Joe Dudley′s multi-million dollar hair and skin care business began with a mere US$10 investment in a sales kit in 1957?

Agne27 has disagreed with this, so I'd appreciate a review after recent problems we've had with admins changing current hooks on DYK. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to endorse Ryan's move, the fact he didn't even have a disability, makes the original hook seem rather poor indeed. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement. RxS (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Agnes27 has got a point. Why not just add "incorrectly" before the word "assessed" in the original hook? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I noted on Talk:Main Page, while I'm sure the intentions are sincere and good, they are none the less misplaced and shortsighted in the message they are conveying. My niece is currently dealing with very similar circumstances and while my sister and I are not completely convinced that she does have a mental disability, she is still being treated that way by the school system. I can tell you that this is a very emotional and draining issue when it affects your family. When I saw the Joe Dudley hook, it hit home and after reading the article I emailed my sister about it because it was such a wonderful and moving real life example that my niece can also overcome her obstacles. It's a testament to the human spirit. But the actions being taken to censor this "blight" send a very wrong-headed message that people like Joe Dudley and my niece should be ashamed and should be hidden away. I can't emphasize enough how hurtful that message is. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The time to discuss DYK hooks is before they are placed on the front page, not afterward. Now, from the gangrape that occurred two weeks ago, we've learned that WP is censored. Still, I must side with Agne due to it being inspirational, and because the time to choose its appropriateness was on the Template Talk page.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"gangrape"? "King Bedford I"? I'm not sure that you're going to find your words hold much credence when modulated on that frequency... Lar: t/c 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern was brought up before it made the main page, and was quite ably answered by the nominator. [46] -- Vary | Talk 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If editors want to become involved in DYK, they should be there commenting before the hooks are put up and following typical DYK procedure. Not waiting until afterwards to make adjustments. DYKs are not put up to begin with if there is no agreement that they are suitable among the DYK regulars. It is improper to remove to or change them afterwards without consulting the DYK regulars. User:Charles Edward 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They can be discussed anytime really. To Agne27, Wikipedia isn't here for social transformation and because it is such a emotional issue, care should be taken in it's use. I don't see it as central to the article....Ryan's is a good replacement. RxS (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So why are we taking actions to send the "social" message that being diagnosed as mentally retarded is shameful and a BLP issue? Why are we being ashamed of this aspect in Joe Dudley's biography when even Dudley is not? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Agne, you're looking at it the wrong way. Being mentally retarded is not shameful, but being incorrectly diagnosed (with any condition) is a travesty that we should not help perpetuate. — CharlotteWebb 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte - we shouldn't impose our ethical standards on him. If he talks about it, and talks about it, and talks about it, he seems to feel its okay to talk about. Why can't we just respect his values? WilyD 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's awkward to speak of doctors and ethics in the same breath ("do no harm"—I made a funny!), but the only "standard" I would impose is that if incorrect diagnoses are to be mentioned at all, they should at least be explicitly noted as "incorrect". This should apply universally, whether the subject is alive or dead, a human being or somebody's pet poodle. — CharlotteWebb 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agne, I don't see this as imposing our ethical standards. It's more a case of being factually wrong. The fact presented was that Dudley was correctly diagnosed as mentally retarded. That's incorrect. Dudley talks about being misdiagnosed. There's no shame in being mentaly retarded, always assuming one actually is. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The Wikipedia article cites a light-as-a-feather (even fulsome) feature story in Nation's Business magazine. Here's what that story said:

One of 11 children, Joe Dudley was mistakenly labeled mentally retarded in the first grade because of a speech impediment. Growing up in North Carolina, he says, he struggled through school and had been held back twice by the time he reached the 11th grade. But with the support of his mother, who told him that 'When slow people get it, they've got it," Dudley made it through high school and, later, college. In the process he discovered the value of self-motivated learning.

The magazine story doesn't directly say where the author got the information from, but it seems clear that the author didn't go beyond Joe Dudley and his wife, Eunice (the only sources cited in the article). When people become big successes, they like telling others what obstacles they overcame, and it looks like the writer was working that angle to create a more interesting puff piece. I think Ryan Postlethwaite's good-faith move to protect Joe Dudley was a bit overprotective, but I can't find any fault with RP for making the change -- DYK features only last for hours and we always have the opportunity to add it back later. It seems to me that the deleted one should be added back, especially if any other articles on Dudley have that anecdote (it would indicate he likes telling it). Well, lo and behold -- look at what a simple Google search brings up. Ryan, would you please do this really quick research before you remove a DYK item? My research took minutes. Previously, I've criticized you for not asking enough questions before templating my talk page with an unnecessary BLP warning. Noroton (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's the clincher. -- Noroton (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of stuff wouldn't keep popping up if we had more people checking the DYK hooks beforehand. Right now it's just Daniel Case and maybe 2 others. I can understand the change on this one, though as a DYK person I'm never a fan of changes after the fact. Wizardman 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the facts presented it is hard to describe this as a "BLP nightmare"; I think before removing it would have been worthwhile to respond to the points that were raised when this was discussed before the hook went up. Though it's easy to see why this is a sensitive issue, that just means it is all the more important not to act rashly. Still given the prominence of the page the action was understandable. I would not be opposed to changing it back. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the action was understandable too. It's better to err on the side of caution with something like this. If a concern like this comes up it's okay to remove or change the hook and discuss. Sometimes the concerns will be reasonable, and in this case we will have removed a bad hook from the main page. Sometimes the concerns will end up unfounded. In this case, we can simply restore the hook after a brief period of discussion and again no harm will be done. What would be harmful would be to leave a bad hook up on the Main Page. Very much okay for RP to have erred on the side of caution. In general, if someone raises a concern about a hook, I don't see why we can't remove it, discuss it, and if everything is okay, simply add it to the next update. There really shouldn't be any stigma whatsoever attached to that sort of action. --JayHenry (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point but I wonder if the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach still encourages more drama than necessary. Hooks do go through a community process and vetting at Template talk:Did you know and are ultimately "approved" by an admin adding it to the template. A lot of major BLP and policy issues are caught on the suggestion page. While I certainly would encourage more admins and editors to take an active interest in the DYK process with vetting hooks, I can't help put wonder if the rash actions of another admin swooping in and changing the template without discussing it with the original admin is actually wheel-warlike? I think it would be more beneficial to encourage discussion with the promoting admin or at least open up a thread with concerns on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, WP:ERRORS or here to get more consensus. It seems like the root of any "DYK-related" drama the past few weeks have been due to rash and arbitrary actions (heat) versus communication (light). Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. There is a certain level of consensus among DYK regulars before an article is ever put on the front page. A single editor, or a group of editors, removing a hook without first consulting that community seems to be bad faith. Charles Edward 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, right or wrong it's not bad faith. RxS (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agne, I respectfully disagree and here's why: it's not shoot first and ask questions later. The whole point of that expression is that you can't undo shooting someone. With DYK, it's easy to add the hook to a Next Update. We all know DYK is understaffed and sometimes we miss stuff. Thus, if an admin has a good faith concern about a hook, especially for something like BLP, I think they should not be discouraged from removing the hook and initiating a discussion at WT:DYK (though initiating the discussion ought to be standard and done immediately). This should be no big deal at all. Editors will discuss the hook, and if there are no concerns, we can add it back to a future update. If we agree there are some concerns, we can use a different hook. In one case a main page appearance is slightly postponed to allow for discussion, in the other case we stopped a bad hook. If we, the DYK regulars, simply agree not to get up in arms when this happens, there needn't be any drama at all. Just as in this situation: one editor explained the concern, other editors politely explained the circumstances, and we'll be able to re-add the hook, and no harm will have occurred. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually removed the hook because I felt there was quite a serious problem with it. I did look at some quotes from dudley before removing it, but I still thought it was bad to push this. I felt that the hook I replaced it with was just as interesting, and less problematic than the original, but still allowing a Dudley hook to stay on the main page. If there are concerns about a hook after they have been put onto T:DYK, but there is an interesting hook from the same article available, I don't think it's a big deal to replace it. At the end of the day, it still advertises the article to a wider audience (a major goal of DYK) and it's still most likely that improvements will be made to the page. If I'd have replaced the hook with a hook from a different article, I could understand the concern - I just don't see it in this case when the same article stayed up there. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JayHenry. There's really no harm in removing a hook, discussing it, and putting it up again a few hours 'late' for the next batch. Wheel-warring is a subclass of edit-warring, whereas removing a concerning hook to discuss it is part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is definitely not edit-warring. What do we lose by playing it safe?

I also want to take issue with Wizardman's statement above that "right now it's just Daniel Case and maybe 2 others [checking DYK hooks]". A quick check down the current batch of suggestions shows more than twenty people commenting on hooks: if something like this gets as far as the main page you can guarantee that a lot of people have seen it and had chance to comment. That's why this kind of thing happens so rarely compared to the 25-30 hooks a day that we process. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess things have improved in the past couple weeks then, since i have seen it in that state before. Wizardman 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Was the DYK of the article removed or was the language that teased the new article merely replaced? Did the article stay on the main page, or was it removed? I think this would be the key importance to focus on. If the person who made the DYK gets credit, and the page is displayed, was there lasting harm? And yes, I merely want to know the answer, and I don't intend to participate after. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The same article was kept on DYK, the wording was just changed so it stayed on the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, so, for future clarification - the only times the DYK message appears are on the main page and then in the archive, with the talk page and user talk page templates merely saying the exact date it was on the main page and not listing the hook? So, is the concern is limited to the fact that the DYK on the main page was different and that an alternate was put in its place? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, basically yes. But some users felt there was no need to replace the orignal wording. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Ryan, you seem to be saying that it's still your position that there is something wrong with the original hook. Why? After this has been pointed out, why would anybody have a problem with restoring the original hook later? I think Agnes has a good point that it's helpful to families in that situation. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I still don't believe that a living person being labelled mentally retarded is a good hook for the main page, and the newer hook does the same job, without any possible problems. Any other admin is free to readd it, I'm not at all comfortable with it myself, but I'm certainly not going to revert any readditon. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks. It sounds like this is resolved. Noroton (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that DYK, especially the nominations page, needs a lot more oversight than it has right now. This is the second incident in as many weeks where... rather inappropriate and possibly negative hooks have slipped through the net and appeared on DYK. We really need to stop this at the root of the problem, instead of complaining the apples are sour again and again. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you've read the conversation spectre and are jumping in rather quickly. The hook was fine. The problem isn't DYK, it's those unfamiliar with it who want to jump in and change things, disregarding any attempt to get consensus. Charles Edward 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the hook wasn't fine. Calling someone "retarded", even when technically correct (in Dudley's case), is not really wise. See WP:WTA, a subguideline of NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of WTA do you think is relevant here? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied point of view". The word "retarded" is normally used derisively to mock people. I know in the 1940s, some terms were used medically that are unspeakable even in normal conversation today, and were subsequently replaced with lighter terms (and as RxS has said, "retarded" is one of them). There are alternative terms that are medically accurate and reduce the stigma of the term. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, The World Health Organization, Joe Dudley and a large number of the 2.1 million ghits for definition "mentally retarded" disagree with you. Any term commonly used for people with low IQ levels is going to be used as a term of abuse in school playgrounds and some other places. I think "mentally retarded" is actually a replacement for other words that were commonly (or at least neutrally) used and are now considered derogatory, such as "moron". One day that may happen to "mentally retarded". Hasn't yet. Noroton (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

From AAIDD: Intellectual disability is the currently preferred term for the disability historically referred to as mental retardation. [47], also see the Alternative terms section in Mental retardation for more information about usage. Search results are pretty irrelevant for this purpose. RxS (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Search results are pretty relevant for this purpose because that's one gauge of acceptance in broader society. The "Alternative terms" section in that article says that among some young people the term can be pejorative. In the U.S., at least, it isn't pejorative in society at large. Just because people involved with mentally retarded people are pushing a new term doesn't mean that the current, still-most-used term is suddenly offensive. The euphemism treadmill doesn't work that fast, and AAIDD didn't change its name until 2006. "Mental Retardation" is still the name of our article and for some reason AAIDD hasn't burned all of its copies of its 2002 edition of ""Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports". The next edition isn't due out till 2010 or 2011 [48]. So if they aren't getting upset that the phrase is still around, maybe we can tolerate it, too. And by the way, prepare for "intellectual disability" to become a schoolyard taunt. I remember when I was in school we used to enjoy using the most compassionate-sounding or euphemistic phrases possible for emotional and intellectual disabilities -- as insults. Even glancing references like "short school bus" -- oh look, the insult is encyclopedic. It may be that words like "cretin" and "moron" only became pejorative after they were dropped by professionals. We'll see, but "mentally retarded" is still not considered pejorative by society at large (at least in the U.S.). Noroton (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If all that happened was the hook was tweaked, I don't really see a problem with the change. I would've liked to see it discussed, but in all reality is it as worthy of our time as it appears to be right now? I don't know the answer to that. Wizardman 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's general agreement that it was fine, at the very least use a term more in line with current thinking, even professionals in the field are moving away from that usage. RxS (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with both incidents was that there were nothing wrongs about the hooks, but instead some admins have different sensibilities and believe theirs should be above all others, regardless of consensus, and woe to anyone who dares disagree with them.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, Bedford, stop it with the holier-than-thou attitude. I don't know of any saints who called their opponents very disparaging terms. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's statement is legitimate. What gives you any other editor the right override the consenus of the DYK community without first addressing them and attempting to change the standing consensus? No one has yet to address this issue, which was left hanging from the last incident - thank you ArbCom. Charles Edward 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Things that go onto the main page need to be very, very, adherent to our policies and guidelines and even common sense. If something on the main page is potentially embarrasing to us, like this hook, we change it, regardless of the agreement of two or three people. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you and the other that are having problems not joining DYK to ensure this? Instead of allowing it slip by? You are perfectly welcome there. And as noted above, there are more like 20 DYK regulars, not two or three. Charles Edward 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Only two or three people, at the most, will look at a hook before adding it. Most people simply copy hooks that have a nice green tick to the next update page, and admins will copy the next update page without thinking either. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As Jimbo has pointed out on the Village Pump discussion about BLP (and verified by community consensus at a very high number) our concerns with BLP are legal and ethical, so the "consensus" of a few editors (which did not exist, as DYK are normally chosen by Admin and aren't based on the community agreeing on the DYK) can not override BLP ethical concerns. And Charles, I am a regular DYK editor, so I don't think you can criticize me in the way that you have Spectre. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Struck per user understanding where I am coming from or where others like myself may be coming from and this is no longer necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the last time this happened, BPL was not the issue. I would just be happier if the editors who want to be involved and have final say over DYK material, would actually join DYK as a regular reviewer or contributor. That all i have to say. I'm off for now. Later Charles Edward 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So are we now saying that those people who frequent the DYK board have ownwership rights over what goes on the front page in the DYK section, and no other editor has the right to object to the wording? Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all. But is it fair that an individual administrator should be able to trump the consensus of a group of editors? Charles Edward 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense trumps a consensus any day. If you tried hard enough, you could get a grassroots campaign to get Abraham Lincoln deleted, but even if the AFD has 900 deletes and one keep, it'd be speedy kept per "are you having a laugh?". Especially in cases like this, where it's only two or three people who agree to something (which a consensus does not make). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing a hook or rewording it after it gets to the main page does go against the consensus of the group of editors that work the DYK pages. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong. If there is a compelling reason to do so, a single editor should be able to make the edit, and make the case. If the change sticks, then the group of editors overlooked something. That's not a slur against them, the DYK gang works hard and has a lot of articles to look over. No one is perfect and some things slip through. I think Ryan did the right thing. And yet I also think that discussing it afterwards, as has happened, to see if his edit was goodness was right too. Lar: t/c 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am the user who promoted the hook more or less as it was originally proposed. Had I not gone offline shortly afterwards, I would have strongly objected to Ryan's replacement of the hook, which I think was totally wrongheaded. There are kids everywhere who are suffering torment because of speech defects and similar types of problems, the original hook could only have served as an inspiration to any such child or any young person who feels that he is different or not accepted for his differences. Score one for political correctness, and zero for compassion and common sense. I also think that, given it is Dudley himself who has widely touted this story, it is totally ridiculous to cite BLP as an argument against running this hook. So I think there is something very skewed about some people's notions in this thread. I would have commented earlier but I only just noticed from looking at the archive that the hook was changed after I posted it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're not understanding what Wikipedia is not. It's not a tool for inspiring retarded people. It's not a tool for furthering Dudley's mission. It IS an encyclopedia, and it IS required, per internal policies and external legal considerations, to give a great deal of deference in BLP issues against things that could be negatively construed as defamation, especially when dealing with accusations of mental illness which can be defamatory per se. This was the right move to pull the hook, and the people who are hellbent on including that he was misdiagnosed as retarded ought to question their reasoning WHY they are so hellbent on inclusion -- all of the reasons for inclusion in the hook are based on things that Wikipedia is NOT.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean FFS, the segment about his accusation of mental illness takes up ONE SENTENCE in the article. Why on earth do people think that this MUST be in the hook? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"one sentence" -- so what. I bet that's not uncommon, and an interesting fact is an interesting fact, no matter how small (didn't a Dr. Seuss character say that?). "accusations of mental illness" -- a diagnosis or misdiagnosis is not an accusation (I think you meant "allegation", and it isn't that, either). "hellbent on inclusion"? The BLP reason for removing (the only reason possibly justifiable) turns out not to be a concern that the subject himself has. Restoring the hook is justified primarily for the original intent: It's an interesting fact. It seems to me it would be a good for Wikipedia not to treat mental retardation with so much sensitivity that we can't mention a childhood misdiagnosis from half a century ago. Since we know the problem isn't that Dudley will feel hurt (quite the opposite), what's the point of keeping it off the main page? It seems like an over-elaborate concern about mental retardation, which gives the impression that condition is so awful that to mention it would shock the senses of our readers. No editor should get that impression. Nothing about the hook is offensive, and the idea that mental retardation may itself be offensive is the implicit message. And that kind of thing is harmful to people with mental retardation and even harmful to their close family members. I guess I need to state this: Mental retardation is a condition, worse than some conditions, not as bad as some others; people who have family members, friends, classmates, coworkers who are mentally retarded aren't faced with someone with a curse for everyone to be depressed about but with a condition which everyone can deal with. Restoring the hook sends a message to anyone reading this (or aware of what happened here) that it's perfectly OK to mention it, talk about it, deal with it -- because the alternative is to ignore it (which was one of the objections to removing "mental retardation" from the name of the department in the state of Connecticut -- the fear was that if you remove mention of it, you tend to ignore it). One of the things Wikipedia is not is a tool for averting our eyes from mentally retarded people. Therefore, once the BLP concern is resolved, we put things back where we found them because there really are no other concerns, and we should make that clear. We don't do that to inspire anybody but to avoid the opposite. Noroton (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. WP:NOTCENSORED. Charles Edward 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a soapbox either. This is not the place to fight a battle over rights for retarded people. Fact is, it is completely irrelevant whether the guy is proud of his history or not. You have no idea if he'll change his mind tomorrow. It is a BLP article, and there is a serious legal concern over this, and it's just not an important fact to include on the front page when compared to everything else in this guys life. You all really need to get over this "Fighting the battle for awareness that retarded people are just like everyone else" thing (I mean, Noroton, look at your post, that's your entire justification for inclusion). This is Wikipedia, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. That's a major principle of our project. Sounds like you ought to start a Wikia on retardation if it's such a big deal, but it is inappropriate here per our own policies. Fighting that for the purposes of your own advocacy is just disruptive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Swat, your comments are directed more at criticizing other editors than criticizing the points made. You might want to think about your approach. This is not the place to fight a battle over the rights for retarded people. Whatever decision is made: whether to put the hook up or take it down, you send a message about what's appropriate. My comments were consistent with Wikipedia's best interests, which don't conflict with putting the DYK hook back up but may conflict with keeping it off the main page. This is Wikipedia, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. You assume that people who disagree with you are the only ones with a POV on this question. Look to your own. it is completely irrelevant whether the guy is proud of his history or not. You have no idea if he'll change his mind tomorrow. He puts it on his company's website, mentions it -- repeatedly -- to reporters writing about him and his company, seems to pass it on to people publicizing his upcoming speeches, and we just have no idea whether he'll change his mind tomorrow? Your scenario sounds just a tad unlikely. This is Wikipedia, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. That's a major principle of our project. What part of "Restoring the hook is justified primarily for the original intent: It's an interesting fact", do you find difficult to understand? In fact, what is it about WP:AGF that makes it so difficult for you to understand? Sounds like you ought to start a Wikia on retardation if it's such a big deal, but it is inappropriate here per our own policies. Fighting that for the purposes of your own advocacy is just disruptive. I think personal attacks are more disruptive. Noroton (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar has summed it up well here. It's wise for editors to get more involved in DYK, just as with other parts of wikipedia. An editor's lack of involvement means that the editor generally has little right to complain about the fact a decision was reached. But the lack of involvement does not mean an editor has no right to try and change a decision that was reached. Normally this would involve an editor iniating a discussion and seeking wider input. For items on the main page, these often only appear for a short time, especially for DYK. If there is a substanial/significant concern this has to be fixed fast. If this concern is expressed by several editors then it is is even more imperative. Particularly the case when there is no real harm done by erring on the side of caution, then it is indeed wise to err on the side of caution. This generally shouldn't be taken as a negative on the people who made the earlier decision but simply reflective of the fact that wikipedia is a work in progress. As for how to handle such problems, it's probably generally best to just remove the hook completely. That way the matter can be discussed without any party feeling aggrieved (and the hook either added in the future or re-worded or simply never added as a result of the discussion). However while I understand why some editors feel annoyed when their proposed wording of a hook is not used, even if the hook is simply re-worded (which means the earlier proposed wording is not likely to ever make it back to the main page) editors need to remember that they don't WP:own anything on wikipedia. Editors should still feel free to participate in a discussion of the hook wording even if the issue seems 'dead'. BTW, as others have pointed out, wikipedia is not about inspiring people or about showing people it's okay to discuss something so that point is moot and is implicitly NOT a demonstration of harm by the re-wording of the hook. (This doesn't mean we should ignore mental retardation or refuse to discuss it in articles.) [In any case, I don't really see this story as an inspiration to people who are mentally retarded. There is no real evidence Joe Dudley was ever mentally retarded, it may have simply be a mistaken diagnosis as quite a number of people have raised here. If anyone believes they or someone they know have been mistakenly diagnosed, I suggest they seek an second opinion rather then trying to get inspired by stories of other people mistakenly diagnosed. If the diagnosis is not a mistake then it is wise the person accepts the diagnosis but realises it doesn't have to rule there life, there are surely a lot of better inspirational stories coming from people who are really mentally retarded.] Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is very reasonable. I believe DYK could benefit from some sort a "formal" method for removing hooks after they have been promoted, by designating a fairly general definition of what is appropriate, and in what situations hooks can be removed prior to discussion, and in what situations hooks should be left until after discussion, and the forum in which the discussion should take place. Charles Edward 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope not to come across as dismissive here, but isn't this whole sordid affair something of a tempest in a teacup? It's more of a content dispute than anything else - why is this taking up so much discussion at AN/I? Shereth 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott's solution is a great one; I can only hopp that's what was put into place. On my first reading of this section, and that line, i read it as him being retarded, not erroneously diagnosed. Of course, I immediately knew what was coming next, but the writing did give the impression that he overcame a huge hurdle to succeed, not that he was misdiagnosed. Poor writing in cases where BLP applies should be fixed, regardless of whether they're up or not. This is the sort of unfortunate result of low DYK participation, and the wider community, esp. admins, shouldn't be punished for stepping in to make BLP compliant clarifications, or, really, ANY needed clarifications, though in any non-BLP, conversation/notification should go to the DYK project first. ThuranX (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the hook on the next batch

Joe Dudley mentions himself the mental retardation diagnosis on an interview with CNN [49] and with INCTV, on the Black Issues Forum [50] and in his bio corporate page, where it says that this event caused him to be a role model [51]. So, as it was already cleared for inclusion, and as it seems that the BLP concerns for the removal, altought well-intentioned, where not really serious after all, we should just place it on the next batch, if only to set a precedent that DYK hooks should be put back if they are removed from the main page for reasons that are later found not to be all that important. Otherwise, we risk DYKs being censored every time they pick on something controversial, causing a chilling effect similar to censorship.

(oh, and all the sources says "labelled", so please use that word instead of "assesed") --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article got to spend its 6 hours on the main page, even if not all of it was with the exact preferred hook. Right now we've got a bit of a backlog at DYK, and I'd much rather give the spot to an article that hasn't yet gotten it's moment in the sun. The original preferred hook doesn't get featured for plenty of articles and while I don't think what happened was ideal, refeaturing the hook seems worse to me. Vickser (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose You think the solution to a DYK with strong BLP issues is to put it up TWICE? That's ridiculous, and I'll tell you right now, I'll take it down if that happens. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how an anecdote can have "strong BLP issues" when the LP himself is the originator and prime disseminator of said anecdote. Care to explain? Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The issues persist regardless of how he feels at this time. Were he to change his mind, or have a pissy day, or his family got upset about it, we'd be in a tough situation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that a pretty unpersuasive rationale, but thanks for the response. Gatoclass (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - There doesn't seem to be a need for this. It's had its newborn "Moment in the Sun", pushing it across the Mainpage is likely to dredge dramas and not right some imagin'd wrong. WilyD 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, readding the hook is a violation of DYK rules, the article must be expanded five fold to be eligible to be placed back on the main page - it has already had a hook for it's previous eligible expansionCharles Edward 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, most of the original parties are moving on and there is no need to have something on the DYK mainpage space twice. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article got its time in the sun, even if there were a few clouds. While I disagree with the BLP argument at this point as the subject clearly uses it as a badge of honor, DYK rules are rules. However, I do support the original hook wording and do not consider it a WP:SOAP issue as it was; if the teaser said "wrongly labeled" or "falsely labeled", that'd be a different story. Besides, I think this nice long thread on AN/I plus the multiple mentions to come when it's referenced in future DYK discussions will give this article lots of notice. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Vickser pretty much nailed the reason and there is no need for it to be featured twice. Hopefully some good will come out the discussion in that editors may be more aware of the negative implications that well intentioned actions can have. While I share some "head scratching" with Gato since the "BLP nightmare" has been shown to be none existent, I nonetheless think it's best for everyone to move on. We've got an encyclopedia to write. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Lots of great DYKs that haven't seen the light of the MP. MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support Concern about fairness between articles here is inconsistent. If this were put back up, one article would have to wait six more hours before it gets its DYK put on the main page. The unfairness of that should be accompanied by violin music from the world's smallest violin. Editors have pointed out that removing the hook prematurely was no big deal (and I agree with that), but the same logic applies to adding it back (and so what if some other hook for the same article took its place -- get out that violin again). Despite Swatjester's loud objections, whatever we do can easily send a message. Someone will say or think: You know, an admin removed that kind of thing as a DYK hook on the main page and AN/I (a) backed him up / (b) didn't back him up. I'd better (a) not mention / (b) not be concerned about mentioning mental retardation where I have the option. I don't think it's a loud message either way, so no great harm done. It's still wrong to not put it back up, though. And you may also encourage more admins to pull DYK hooks in the future. I notice in the comments above more concern about WP process than the people that our actions inevitably affect. That priority seems to be skewed -- does it have anything to do with editors implicitly agreeing that we should avoid mentions of mental retardation whenever we have the option? I'm not making an accusation, just asking a question worth thinking about. I'll post my own defense of my way of thinking about this above one or two of Swatjester's comments above. Noroton (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) -- (((crossed out comments that, while not meant as any kind of attack, probably aren't helpful -- Noroton (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC))))

Oppose. It should've read 'incorrectly' to begin with, to comply with BLP, but ran anyway. Giving it double exposure because people had well intentioned, serious and legitimate concerns with it is as stupid a reason as it gets. ThuranX (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for DYK

After listening to a lot of concerns, the major issue is how to deal with BLP issues especially when they make it onto the main page. I believe (and I vouche for myself only) that when a line is on the main page, it can cause more damage than if it was among others. This is about WP:Weight, as we are trying to lure people to a page with that interesting fact. I'm sure there can be equal problems with weight resulting from a new page on any controversial subject. Now, when there is a complaint, the main page would require immediate clean up to keep it from spiraling out of control. We must all recognize this, and even in a mistake that is determined later, sometimes caution before is necessary. This is not to say one way is right or wrong, but to say that we shouldn't pass judgment since it is there to protect the encyclopedia.

Now, after I prefaced the situation with the above, here is just my thought: the concern seems to be that there are potential BLP issues that could result, and previous concerns addressed sexism or copyright violations. Now, the DYK page is long and a lot of people spend a lot of hours devoting to checking the various hooks. However, things are occasionally missed. Now, a DYK may be selected roughly 6-8 hours before it will be displayed, but that would include 1/3 of the day that I (and probably others) will not be able to see an upcoming hook. Perhaps we have our current "next update" section, but include a secondary section for review (possibly on the talk page of "next update". The process would be changed slightly to have admin moving hooks to the review page (6-8 of course) for the 6-8 hour period before it moves to the next update section. Each hook will be listed with the credits given. There will be a small section to respond only to issues of BLP, copyright, verfiability, civility, and other major Wikipedia concerns. This will not be used to discuss if you like the hook or not. This will not be used to to voice if you like the DYK or not. It will merely be there to address major concerns and give people additional time.

I feel that such a thing as the above should go onto Village Pump for decision. However, I hope it can satisfy everyone's concerns so that we can deal with these matters in an easy manner before they happen and can temporary pull out DYKs until the community can have true consensus behind them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have occassionally noticed problems with hooks that have made it to the "next update" section but unless I see blatant errors there, I raise no issues as the time for discussion has by then passed. A forum for last minute concerns might be useful as long as it doesn't bog down the process. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I could support this if the community would vest a certain level of final authority in the decision made at that step. There will still be some editors who find a hook from time to time to be offensive, inappropriate, or a violation of their interpretation of policy or guideline. If that is not done, there will be nothing to prevent situations like this from continuing - there will just be a six hour delay before they happen, and they would probably be reduced in number and frequency. If something is a blatant breech of policy, it should be removed - otherwise discussion should be made before action it undertaken, IMHO. Charles Edward 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone wants to put this up at Village Pump, feel free. Its just that there is a lot of talk about problems without any real fundamental solutions. I wanted to see if a giving a few more hours could satisfy the parties involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've been thinking roughly along the same lines as Ottava Rima and Charles Edward. I was thinking that at a stage between the overall approval and appearance on the main page, the hooks could be reviewed by admins and should have, say, three admins willing to sign their tildes to a statement like We have reviewed this hook for possible BLP, copyright and other potential violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and we approve it. When at least three admins sign (and none oppose), that constitutes a consensus that anyone would be in violation of if they removed the hook after it is posted to the main page. A 0RR rule should be in place for these hooks once up on the Main page (or maybe people who want to take them down should come to AN/I and ask for consensus support before removing them at that stage). If anyone objects to the hook before it goes on the main page, that would call for further review and an attempt at consensus-building. There should always be more DYK hooks on the final review page than are needed, and editors or admins should all be invited to look over the final review page. This way we don't have episodes like this coming back up at ANI with offense taken on many sides. I didn't suggest this before, though, because I'm not yet sure it's worth the extra bureaucracy -- as far as I know, admins taking DYK hooks off the main page has only happened twice. Maybe we should wait to do anything until we know we have a problem. Or from this incident and the last one, do we know we have a problem? I'm skeptical. Set this up and you may have future bottlenecks form at the final review page. Noroton (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: if we have admins signing, should we have the ability for admins to oppose? Now, what about the reverse - if two or more admins oppose, remove the tag, have a wider discussion, then place it back to be up for appearance if it passes? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that you should have a clear consensus with at least three admins signing off in approval. If just one admin or editor also opposes, I think we'd normally still consider that a consensus, but a delay for more discussion might be considered and if the opposing editor feels strongly enough, that editor might want to make a request for comment from others. I think if two or more editors or admins oppose, you'd have to get more support for a consensus. Maybe you send it back to the first discussion forum. I think the result would be that controversial DYK ideas would tend not to get on the main page, which would be a good thing, overall. Noroton (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I add the above as a secondary/sub proposal to the first? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Noroton (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, but these ideas are just not practical. The fundamental problem at DYK is lack of manpower/interest, and creating an extra page for an additional review step will do nothing to remedy that problem, while asking "three admins" to sign off on each and every hook will make for a very unwieldy system. I'm sure Ottava means well, but I feel this is a solution in search of a problem, since in the eight months I have been associated with DYK, we have had IIRC exactly two hooks which some people objected to, both of which just happened to occur in the last couple of weeks, and both of which were removed within a short time of being posted. Gatoclass (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - if there will not be any problems, why not have a secondary section so we know what articles will go up into the next update without some at the last moment? And also, you left out the copyright problem and the current discussion about John Edwards. By the way, this isn't a proposal. This is a proposal for a proposal, or just finding out if a proposal could work as a solution to satisfy the major AN/I concerns. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this above, but why can't we just institute "Poor writing in cases where BLP applies should be fixed, regardless of whether they're up or not. This is the sort of unfortunate result of low DYK participation, and the wider community, esp. admins, shouldn't be punished for stepping in to make BLP compliant clarifications, or, really, ANY needed clarifications, though in any non-BLP, conversation/notification should go to the DYK project first." as a standard part of the DYK procedures and rules, so that we don't have to go througgh this stuff over and over? Changes could be discussed there instead of clogging up AN/I, because then they'd be DYK issues, not incidents. (I'm not implying that this or the previous issue clogged up AN/I, just that with policy change, there'd be a proper venue for such things) Having a place there to handle this would also mean regulars get better at writing and reviewing hooks. ThuranX (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but who exactly has been "punished" for "mak[ing] BLP compliant clarifications"? Neither I nor any of the other DYK admins have the authority to "punish" someone for disagreeing with us, least of all a senior admin like Ryan R.

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a common or garden content dispute, which occur all the time in every part of the project. The fact that such content disputes might crop up occasionally at DYK is therefore not at all suprising, but I feel that the fact they have occurred so rarely at DYK ought to indicate that the regulars there are actually doing a pretty darned good job. I might also point out that even in this particular case, there is no consensus that the hook was inappropriate, just that some people didn't like it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot

dlabtot (talk · contribs) is following ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) around, reverting him, and issuing attacks on him on the talk pages, which ignore completely the content of any changes made.

ScienceApologist is a controversial editor, and I don't want to deny that. But something like this [52] is highly disruptive, and ignores completely the content of SA's edit, in favour of launching another attack in the MartinPhi-ScienceApologist war, with Dlabtot (who had been one of MartinPhi's supporters for some time) taking on the MartinPhi role. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a 'supporter' of no one, certainly not Martinphi. I stand by my edits; examine the diffs and judge for yourself. I'd be happy to discuss any specific edit with any administrator reviewing this thread. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Dlabtot to back away from conflict with SA.[53][54] Concurrently I am arranging a mentor for SA. Hopefully that will improve the situation. Thank you all for your patience. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I actually do something wrong that I should be 'warned' against doing? Jehochman, are you saying I'm not allowed to interact with SA? Why not? Because he doesn't want me to? Here is what happened: ScienceApologist made an edit to Wikipedia's civility policy. An edit that to my mind, looks to vitiate the policy itself. That's just my opinion, but since this is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that there should at least be some talk page discussion of the issue. So I reverted[55] and asked for talk page discussion. Looking at my edit summary, I could have had a more neutral tone, I admit. In response, SA simply reverted me[56], with the edit summary revert wikistalking edit. I'll admit I was tempted to edit war. I admit that I find the accusation of wikistalking (defined as following an editor to another article to continue disruption ), to be highly inflammatory because it is without merit. There's nothing disruptive about asking that changes to core wikipedia policies be discussed. WP:CIVIL is on my watchlist right now because I participated in an RfC there that is still open. I refrained from reverting, instead asking on the talk page if there was consensus for the change[57]. Shoemaker's Holiday calls my post a personal attack. Well, I do think SA's continued problems with our civility policy are relevant in the context of judging his edits to that policy. If the consensus is that I'm wrong, I'd like to hear it. I certainly object to a sanction being imposed against me that I'm not allowed to interact with SA - which would essentially give him the power to topic ban me from any article, policy page or talk page simply by participating there. If such a sanction were to be imposed, I'd hope it would be the result of a more formal process in which I'd have the opportunity to respond, rather than simply a warning from one administrator. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some other editors to review this situation, please, and leave comments? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't delved into any past history between Mr. Glabot and Mr. SA, but regarding the situation which the former has outlined above, it seems that Mr. Dlabot is out to lunch on this one. I see an edit by Mr. SA that can basically be summarized as "use common sense", followed by a couple reverts, followed by pretty solid well-poisoning on the talk page by Mr. Dlabot, making conspicuously sure to call attention to Mr. SA's on-going AN/I threads and SA's previous comments (seven months old) about his then-ignorance of the WP:CIVIL policy. Seems odd that Mr. Dlabot, in his rush to defend the sancticity of WP:CIVIL, would so completely forget the spirit of WP:AGF - but maybe I'm just being snarky there. Anyway, that's my inflation-adjusted $0.02. Badger Drink (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I'll have to state a mea culpa that my comment was over-the-top - if the consensus is that persistent violators of a policy are good candidates for writing that policy then I am clearly in the wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, SA did simply revert me with a rude edit summary instead of going to the talk page to discuss the issue[58]. When a talk page discussion about the edit did take place, SA chose not to participate. BoldRevertDiscuss is a good mechanism for building consensus. BoldRevertRevert is not. Dlabtot (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Libro0

I have had nothing but problems with Libro0. I try to get him and another user to stop their war, and he calls me a sockpuppet of the other user (among several others he suspects, most without cause) and has launched a series of passive aggressive attacks. The latest was a series ultimatums and threats, in his typical passive aggressive style which implies I am a sockpuppet. Take a look here [59] and here [60]. His "evidence" of sockpuppetry is laughable at best, delusional at worst - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy and this [61]. Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and inappropriate tool use by User:JzG

Resolved

 – Discussion continues at Talk:ABN AMRO. –xeno (talk)

I just noticed this debate going on Talk: ABN_AMRO. Apparently there was move proposal which was determined successful, and "ABN AMRO" was moved to "ABN Amro". One of the participants, User:JzG then moved the article back, saying "Silly move. This company is a customer of mine, AMRO is how they style themselves, it's not for us to "correct" them."[62] Then there was some edit warring by two of the participants in the move proposal, which led to another page move by JzG [63], who wrote, "Fuck the MOS, this is what the ocmpany is LEGALLY called." Then to enforce his move, he move-protected it [64]. This seems a blatant misuse of the admin tools. JzG's talk page says he is "retired", but he doesn't seem to be. I request that some uninvolved admins take a look here, and keep an eye out for any further abusing of the tools by this editor. --C S (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more recent Talk:ABN_AMRO#Straw_poll indicates that there was no consensus for the move from ABN AMRO to ABN Amro. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was canvassing this second time around, if you investigate the recent contributions of User:Steelbeard1, the most vocal opponent to the move. --C S (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with the thought "Fuck the MOS": I experience it at least once a day. That matter aside, I might point out that the capitalization of Amro/AMRO has recently been and still is under discussion (on occasion improbably heated) at MoS too. As I'm an opinionated (but I hope polite) participant there, I shan't say more here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I notified him but I'm concerned about the move protection to prevent others from changing it. While it obviously stops regular users, admins aren't going to want to wheel-war over something that disputed. I would hope for a removal of the protection and leaving it to be discussed yet again. -- 05:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment except to say that the media, including the financial media, is roughly split between "ABN AMRO" and "ABN Amro". --NE2 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Should JzG have protected the page himself? Probably not. But does the page need to be protected? Absolutely. There is clearly no consensus. In order to alleviate the concerns above, in my own small and humorous way, I have reversed JzG's action, and then re-protected the page myself. A few people, plus a manual of style policy, plus "prior consensus" used as a bludgeon, does not override current consensus, or lack thereof. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you sure you have properly observed the timeline of events? Note that the initial move and determination of consensus, rightly or wrongly, was done by someone uninvolved in the discussion. Indeed, JzG is the one that started the move war. It seems to me you are saying that JzG's protecting the page after moving the page himself to "his" version is justified because you agree with him. --C S (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with him that the concept of "consensus" has been misused; it was determined with very few people, and then when more people arrived, they were told to stop objecting because the decision had already been made. (Although I don't fault the original decision; at the time this issue was probably thought to be uncontroversial.) So I protected the page in its current version, which also happens to be the original version. Regarding the capitalization issue, I couldn't care less. But both sides have used tactics I consider heavy handed, and I want you all to go back to talking and stop moving the page back and forth. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: there's clearly no consensus for the initial move which is why it's been reversed. Remember, the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - someone boldly moved it, but it's been reverted to the initial version while discussion is under way. Meanwhile, the page is protected in a way that prevents users from continuing to edit-war or move the page during this time. To resolve the content dispute, both sides should consider pursuing dispute resolution; particularly Article RFC or mediation, as the current approach in resolving it is clearly not working, or helpful to the pedia. (NB: I myself have no view on the merits of this content dispute, momentarily.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, precisely that. And please not that if the MoS fans had not immediately reverted my move back to the original title, I would obviously not have move protected it. Just one more minor fact they forgot to mention. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If Guy knows something about the company through personal experience, then he is in a good position to contribute helpfully to the discussion and potentially sway the discussion in his favor. That's what he should be doing, anyway—ignoring or defying other contributors and imposing his own preference through admin tools isn't acceptable. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So am I as I am a former ABN AMRO customer until it sold the bank I do business with (LaSalle Bank Midwest) to Bank of America. When the articles for Bank of America and the former ABN AMRO American unit LaSalle Bank were changed to say "ABN Amro", that's when I become involved in the dispute. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, could you clarify the retired template on your talk page? It is a constant source of confusion to editors. A revert-protect sequence would be a poor example for other administrators, but it seems that the underlying dispute is quite trivial, and that instead of edit warring or protection, other measures could be more effective. In any case, I urge the disputants to drop this immediately. Name the article the same way the company styles itself on its own website. That can be determined without any sort of debate. (I've done business with them before, and yes, it is ABN AMRO, and that's what appears on their website.) Jehochman ^Talk 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows something about something... it still needs to be backed by reliable sourcing, and agreed through consensus however. Minkythecat (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

regardless of the merits, if the matter is a genuine dispute rather than vandalism, I can not see how it is even remotely acceptable for any administrator engaged in the dispute, to ever protect a page in his favored version, no matter how right he may be on the underlying issue. That the matter was trivial hardly makes it any the better. DGG (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved, I was attracted to the dispute by a AN thread, I have zero prior edits to the article and only one content edit which was to change the lead back to reflect the original title. If I didn't know for a fact that the company uniformly self-describes in all-caps I would not have bothered. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was I who reported the renaming without consensus to the AN. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever so slight over-reaction here, the page is not and never was edit protected, only move protected, and another admin has reinstated the move protection under their name not mine so the protection doesn't even have my name against it. I strongly dispute the "involved" claim, I have absolutely no edits whatsoever to the article before this dispute blew up, I went there to fix a problem where a "consensus" of two consenting and one dissenting was used to move an article into a title which, it is alleged, complies with MOS, but which I know, because ABN AMRO is a customer of my company, is wrong per the company's self-identification. The claim of edit warring is simply false - I have exactly one content edit to that article. One.

The "move proposal which was determined successful" was on the basis of MoS, two people agreed and one dissented. That's a grand total of three people, hardly consensus in any meaningful definition of the term. And right now the "consensus" is 7:0 for all-caps ABN AMRO, how does that affect the debate I wonder? Why did C S not mention this in the complaint? Why did C S not mention that I had zero edits to the article before it was brought to the noticeboards as a problem? Why did C S call me on edit warring when I have exactly one content edit to the article? Why did C S not mention that I only protected it after they reverted my move back to the original title in line with WP:BRD? Why did C S not reference the fact that I have already discussed this at length on the article's talk page? Why did C S not mention that this has already been discussed on the noticeboards? All questions which I think might usefully be considered here.

When it comes to how a company styles itself, the company itself is the most reliable source. Here we have a group of people looking for support for a move that was originally predicated on MOS grounds, but which conflicts with the company's self-identification. Check the website, see if you can find a single instance of the mixed capitalisation there. Same in email footer, contracts and other communications. Finally, this is blatant forum shopping. Not only has it been previously discussed, the discussion on Talk is now 7:0 in favour of ABN AMRO on precisely the grounds I note, that this is how the company self-identifies. Wikipedia is not here to tell companies that they should conform to our manual of style in describing themselves, that is hubris of the highest order. In as much as ABN AMRO exists any more (it's being split between the buyout partners Fortis, RBS and Santander), it identifies itself as ABN AMRO and our MoS is of no real importance by comparison. End of. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• On reflection I replace the above comment with this: Evil Dutch Bankers in conspiracy to destroy WP:MOS, entire Wikipedia threatened! Admin with tengential connection to Evil Dutch Bankers involved! Pictures at eleven! I think that more accurately reflects the reality and invdeed the seriousness of this complaint. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that an admin should not use protection to enforce a personal opinion. It can be used to enforce consensus (if necessitated by edit or move warring), but at the time of protecting the article, as you explain, the (non-consensus) was 2-1 in favor of the move. You should have added to the discussion as an editor, not trumped it as an admin. It doesn't matter if you were "right" about the issue. It doesn't matter if there is now an emerging consensus in line with your views. An admin's responsibility, fundamentally, is to uphold consensus, whatever that may happen to be -- not to control the encyclopedia according to his sensibilities. Nothing justifies that behavior.--Father Goose (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, that isn't really what happened. A discussion with virtually no participants moved the article to a title whihc is simply wrong, according to the company's own self-identification. Per WP:BRD I moved it back. The MoS-warriors then reverted that move - they started the war. I am not vested in either side, I have no prior edits ot the article and no prior involvement in MoS disputes that I can recall either. This is a skirmish in MoS v. Real World, and it's not a very significant one either. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per BRD you were damn well entitled to move it back. But once they re-reverted you, you were involved. You had a view, they defied your view, and you enforced your view using the tools. You may even be right about the MoS being wrong, but you have to establish a consensus for that view before enforcing it, because you do not have the right of diktat. That is not the role of an admin. That is not a privilege of adminship. It does not matter one bit if your views about the MoS issue were sound; you do not have the right to enforce that view. You only have the right to enforce consensus, which at the time, did not exist.--Father Goose (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that ABN AMRO is the legal name of a corporation where trademark claims clearly do not apply. Look at the Hoover's directory listing at [65] where it clearly shows that the company name is "ABN AMRO Holding N.V." The ABN AMRO name is both an abbreviation and an acronym standing for Algemene Bank Nederland-Amsterdam Rotterdam Bank. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not Father Goose's point and not the subject of this discussion. user:Everyme 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, please do not use this page to discuss the merits of the capitalization issue. Do that on Talk:ABN AMRO. Thanks! -- SCZenz (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The original move from AMRO to Amro was improper, as there was no consensus among the few that even knew about the discussion, so moving it back to AMRO was appropriate until or if this incredibly tedious issue can be resolved. Meanwhile, it's spreading across multiple pages. This is just one of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, you used your admin tools during a content dispute which you are intimately involved in. That is absolutely wrong and you know it. Further, you are using vulgarity as part of your reasoning. Lastly, you are referring to those of the other spelling opinion as "MoS-Warriors". That's absolutely unnecessary. You are wrong, JzG, and you owe Wikipedia an apology for the yet again misuse of your admin tools. It just so happens that I used to work for ABN-AMRO and I agree with the all capitalized spelling, but I won't be getting involved in this content dispute while you continue with your admin abuse. Bstone (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the anal retentive MOS warriors who consider MOS a Holy Bible not to be questioned who owe Wikipedia an apology. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an update on the Talk:ABN AMRO straw poll which, as I type this, show the ABN AMRO group having a more than 3 to 1 margin over the anal retentive MOS warriors who back "ABN Amro". Because of this margin, as it currently shows, in an edit war the MOS warriors would certainly lose because of the iron clad 3RR rule because they would face at least a temporary block. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Intimately involved? Not even slightly accurate. I had zero edits to the article beforehand and only stepped in because I happen to know that the capitalised usage is always used by the company in communications. I have no prior involvement in MoS wars, this article or related articles. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard, that is called gaming the system. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. But it was not my intention to game the system. It's not gaming the system when an overwhelming majority of those voting (such as myself) opposed the move to "ABN Amro" by a 10 to 3 margin. The administrator who closed the poll had ruled "no consensus" I believe just to be kind and polite to the losing side. I will leave it with that statement. Wikipedia is not the place to either celebrate the thrill of victory or sulk in the agony of defeat. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse page move by JzG. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For our next policy-guideline-wonkery battle, I suggest we try "MoS v MOS". Any takers? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, calling one editor anal-retentive would be a clear violation of WP:NPA. You are calling a whole group of editors anal-retentive. Logic dictates that you have just violated WP:NPA several times. What say you? Bstone (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I had wikied anal retentive to show that it perfectly describes the behaviour of the MOS warriors insisting on "ABN Amro" and it not intended to be an insult but to perfectly describe their behaviour. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anal retentive" is not a personal attack; it is an accurate behavioral description. I also support the page move. seicer | talk | contribs 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While "anal retentive" may not be derogatory when used in a clinical setting by practitioners of certain disciplines, it is, in my experience, never used in anything other than a derogatory sense in any other setting. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be rude but not really worth getting worked up over. Shereth 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Uncivil conduct degrades the encyclopedia and its community, and is not acceptable behavior here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Saying that it's no big deal is neither accurate nor true under our standing policy. To those who have done so recently in this topic - cease and desist. Warnings are being issued on talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages to those criticizing my choice of words. They are so noted and I'll try to watch what I write. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The poll at Talk:ABN AMRO is now closed with the result of "no consensus" so the ABN AMRO article name stands. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)