Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Aids POV

In Aids:Stigma the final two lines convey that conservatives are less likely to be informed about HIV transmission information. Citations cited are citations 132, 134, and 135. 132 only gives one isolated example of a conservative and one other of an antigay activist being biased against, not misinformed, about the relations between homosexuals and HIV. 134 does not say anything about conservatives. 135, however, initially states that they expect misconceptions to be held by conservatives. However, later in the document, specifically in the final paragraph of page 16, the study notes: "The fact that self-described liberalism-conservatism was not a significant predictor suggests that these systems are mainly based on moral judgments rather than political beliefs." This means that not only does the citation actually contradict the phrase in the stigma section, but rather, in response to an argument made noting that the phrase said "significant predictor", could even be interpreted as meaning that liberalism is also conducive of being misinformed about Aids. Either way, to say that a political party, whichever it may be, is more likely to be misinformed about Aids is in conflict with the citations. The final four words of the section in question are "or conservative political ideology". This phrase is, as I have presented above, clearly POV. When I tried to remove the phrase, the revert was undone by an editor. When I later presented this rationale, he refused to hear it, and he and another editor (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) reverted all my attempts to remove the blatant POV without providing correct rationale for their reversions. Several times my edits were reverted with them not even making a single comment on the talk page, when the phrase was clearly under discussion and they knew it. Quoting the wikipedia policy for Tendentious Editing: "the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it". No rationale has, of yet, been provided that is valid rationale. Furthermore, Wikipedia:verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." No evidence has been provided, yet these users (OrangeMarlin and Baegis) continue to stop me from removing the POV. Please help, perhaps by weighing in on the discussion (the new discussion, as the old one degenerated into name-calling) at [1]. I'm not defending conservatism, I'm defending NPOV.Merechriolus (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for dispute resolution. AIDS is one of our most heavily-watched articles, so one option is to let things sit for a day or so and you'll likely get input from some of the regulars, many of whom are solid and experienced Wikipedia editors and may be able to help resolve this. Another option is to request outside comment via a formal request for comment on the matter at hand. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will request comment (under science and technology, unless you would like it in Sports, Law, Society, and Sex) if my most recent withdrawal of the POV phrase is reverted again. I waited at least 40 hours after my last edit to be sure not to violate 3RR. If appropriate rationale is not provided, I will also update this section.Merechriolus (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to continue WP:3RR by gaming the system is not appropriate.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your input, marley. If you have something to say, I would be far more interested in your rationale for reverting my removal of the statement in question.Merechriolus (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We group Sports, Law, Society, and Sex into a single heading? That's interesting. I'd put it under Science/Technology, or perhaps Politics. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has reverted my most recent removal of the POV statement without providing rationale in the discussion on the talk page. No clear reason was provided on the reversion description, bit I quote:"Reverted to revision 197113320 by Optigan13; Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.using TW". Obviously, the validity of restoring the statement like OrangeMarlin just did is out of the question, yet he continues to revert my edits. I would like to request that an admin ask him to discontinue his actions, because he has requested that I not violate his talk page and I will comply, and I will request comment.Merechriolus (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin has removed the entire paragraph in which the statement is question was contained. I will wait 24 hours to see if he reinstates the statement in any form; if he does not, I will declare this thread moot. If he reinstates said statements, I will continue to pursue the removal of the POV. If he later restores the phrase in question after 24 hours, I will contact an admin directly rather than go here, because this page has proved to be largely ineffective in my pursuit of the removal of the phrase (other than mastcell's suggestion to ask for comment, thank you.) If, by 10:00 PM of Tuesday, March 11th, the phrase is still not restored, I will withdraw current pursuits and requests relating to the phrase in question. I'd just like to thank Orangemarlin for coming around and making this easier for all of us here at wikipedia. However, if an admin would like to comment, the comment would still be more than welcome.Merechriolus (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a day and pretty much everything is resolved, so I'm declaring this moot now, but will allow the admins to remove it at their own discretion. Thanks.Merechriolus (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

possible vandalbot

Anyone else notice a lot of vandalism along the lines of this: Here. Appears to replace every newline in a section with an instance of _nl_

Seen it quite a bit tonight/this morning. A lot a just random IPs doing. The behavior seems to suggest vandalbot, but I dunno. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP address seems to be doing it too slowly to be a vandalbot, unless you know of others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I've seen other IPs that were reverted by others. Also I had speedied a talk subpage that contained just _nl_. That's what originally led me to thinking possible vandalbot, cause I remember reading somewhere that there's a certain bot that creates tons of subpages. But, yea you're right, it hasn't really happened enough to be a vandalbot. Was expecting to see more if it after I made this report. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way (like with hidden cat's cat) to track pages using the NL magicword? That would show any longterm trends. MBisanz ^talk 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List:

• 139.30.45.41 (talk · contribs)
• 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs)
• 85.214.68.204 (talk · contribs)
• 194.55.112.104 (talk · contribs) (created template talk that was deleted)
• 195.75.146.229 (talk · contribs)
• 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) (This one has some regular vandalism)

Well 2 of them are from Germany (one's a university) and the other is from Australia, so I'm not sure their related, unless its some werid proxy thing. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't now much about IPs, but judging from style of edits I'd say they have to be related. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Try running this by Ryan, he knows a lot more about IPs and proxies and what not that I do. MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Left him a note. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 70.253.45.45 (talk · contribs) found by a quick Google for wikipedia+"_nl_" ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

and 66.135.55.196 (talk · contribs) (created category talk that was deleted). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Def something bizzare going on here 195.75.146.229 belongs to IBM Italy. Makes me think of a case I had earlier this week at [2] with identical vandalism edits from widely dispersed IPs. Just gave up and semi-protected the page. MBisanz ^talk 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here there's no one page to semi-protect - this vandal seems to go for a different page each time, and creates talk pages apparently at random. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

139.30.45.41 and 66.135.55.196 blocked as confirmed open HTTP proxies. Mr.Z-man 09:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing the same thing as Redvers I saw this: [3] made on the 4th, so this has been going on for at least a few days and isn't isolated to this wiki. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And just now 155.187.2.2 (talk · contribs). Blocked for a couple of days by me. Is this some sort of HTTP proxy, like the ones that '/'/are known'/'/ to do '/'/ this type of thing? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to blacklist _nl_ (which is something we'd never need in an article AFAICT) so a page can't be saved with _nl_ present? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just have the Devs disable the magic word for the en-wiki. Maybe Bugzilla? There isn't a reason to use it, but I'm sure its already being used places, and rather than create an unsaveable page (blacklisting), simply turning it off might be better. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think _nl_ is an actual magic word (it doesn't seem to do anything), so there's nothing really to turn off. It could be added to $wgSpamRegex, but I doubt they would use that in this case. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I assumed it was a real magicword being used inappropriately. I have no idea how the blacklists work, but if it would stop this sort of vandalism and probably won't cause collateral damage, I don't see a problem with adding it. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this is probably some new variant of the backslashing proxies (badly-configured proxies that put backslashes before quote marks and other backslashes, and often turn out to be open). So the IPs are quite likely open proxies, and almost certainly proxies of some sort, but badly configured and escaping newlines. The problem with backslashing proxies was ended when the code was changed to request that a backslash be sent back with every edit; however, doing that for a newline might be more problematic. So most likely it's a misconfiguration rather than a deliberate vandalbot, but it's harmful either way. --ais523 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

194.55.112.104 and 85.214.68.204 are also open proxies. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add 116.72.224.30 (talk · contribs) - [4] on 4 March. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And 62.150.76.244 (talk · contribs) [5], 124.146.168.42 (talk · contribs) [6] and 208.116.54.32 (talk · contribs) [7]. All from 4 March, all found with Google. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated list of all of the above at User:Redvers/HTTP proxies. Should we block? And for how long? ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. 198.54.202.102 (talk · contribs) inserted _nl_s in a run of edits, then came back a few hours later and edited normally. So either the IP was reassigned or the software behind this can be switched off/is browser dependent/something. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 10:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to see something so I took a couple of the _nl_ versions, replaced the _nl_ with actual lines and compared them to their respected good version and there was no difference in content. Which I find kind of odd. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Zenasprime (talk · contribs · block log) for 48 hours after reviewing this AIV report. However, there is a diff in the report that has apparently been oversighted, so I have no idea what it contained. In any case, this edit doesn’t give me much confidence that the user will behave after the block expires. Comments? Thanks —Travis^talk 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the initiater of that AIV, I'm hardly neutral but I second your concerns about post-block behavior especially with this ongoing rant. The thing is, I'm not sure when/why he went off the deep end as he and I had been having a what I considered to be normal and productive discussion/debate about Tefosav but then come yesterday he appeared to just lose it and become ridiculously pointy. I'd recommend an eye on the AfD when he's unblocked in the morning. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who would have thought...

that there were so many {{future airline}}s? Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Future airline. Mind suitably boggled. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot. And? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, how embarrassed will they be when instantaneous matter transportation comes online (perhaps somebody should create a Portal?)LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And learn that the cake is a lie? How dare you. I take pleasure in the belief that each day will end with a tender and moist peice of cake. HalfShadow (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MOAR CAKE PLZ. And Portal 2, si vous plait. FCYTravis (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fun thing is how many of them are unsourced crystal-ballism. Time to PROD. FCYTravis (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Planned airlines has nearly as many subcats. Gimmetrow 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some could be magnates' brainchildren that have failed to take off as expected. Got one of those. And this filters out non-articles linking to the template. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... the first one I clicked on. Mr.Z-man 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation

Resolved

 – redirects deleted and users blocked and then unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of users making redirects to the page Hou Yifan. Most of the redirects are unrelated to Hou except in that they are chess-related (and they all appear in a certain ChessBase article) -- many or most of them did not exist before they were created in this way. Most of them are the names of non-notable Turkish chess players and coaches.

I have tried to deal with some of them but I realized how huge the problem was when I tried to redirect one of the pages somewhere, and discovered that the target I tried to set up was already a redirect to Hou Yifan. I suspect there is sock- or meat-puppetry going on (although probably sockpuppetry as the users have very similar edit patterns, including creating a user & user talk page before going on the redirect spree), and I could use some help in dealing with this.

The users involved include:

• Eddy^kid (talk · contribs)
• FaustXmen (talk · contribs)
• Gfeig9940 (talk · contribs)

There may be others, but if so, I haven't found them.

--128.12.103.70 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Most redirects deleted, except one for the Chinese version of his name. The above accounts were also indefblocked, though anyone can remove/reduce the blocks if they feel I'm too harsh - stress from real life might be getting to me. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef block seems mostly justified to me considering that puppetry was probably going on, and in particular due to Gfeig's use of deliberately misleading edit summaries. Thanks much. --128.12.103.70 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at this in detail, but this could be just some editors making innocent mistakes. The redirects weren't vandalism, though they might have been COI for Google ranking (not sure whether redirects affect that). Please, if you suspect sockpuppetry occurred here, don't block on the basis of "probably", but consider filing a request for checkuser instead. I'm also unclear how creating redirects like this is actually disruptive. Can anyone explain? Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now taking more time to look at this. Firstly, Pegasus, Hou Yifan is a girl, not a "he". Secondly, there are currently four redirects to this article (see here), all of which are name variants. Three by other editors and one by one of the editors that was blocked here. The other redirects are, as 128.12.103.70 pointed out, mostly non-notable Turkish chess players or coaches. These deleted redirects were (with their edit summaries):
    • Kubra Ozturk (resolution 432)
    • Kübra Öztürk (resolution 382)
    • Ayca Fatma Durmaz (gfdl public domain variation)
    • Burcu Sasmazel (resolution no. 483)
    • Özgür Solakoglu (opponent redirect)
    • Yesim Patel (←Redirected page to Merged data)
    • Yesim Patel (merged data - mistake)
    • Volkan Sevgi (RfD March 2 2008 decision)
    • Turkish Youth Championship (merged Winner 2006)
    • Burju (redirect "nickname")
    • Turkish Chess Federation (temporary redirect - head coach)
    • Turkish Chess Federation (see previous edit mistake)
    • Özgür Akman (name change redirect)
    • Faruk Sahin (Hou Yifan's press officer)
  • That is a total of 11 redirects. Many are inappropriate, but calling this a "huge problem" seems to be overstating what happened here. Do we really block indefinitely for this sort of behaviour? The Chessbase article in question seems to be this one, about a current chess tournament. Some of the edit summaries are confusing, but not all. I also see from here that one of the editors had apologised before he got blocked. One of the others was warned. One was never warned on the talk page. It is possible these were either inexperienced users, or (and maybe I'm now too tired) they were redirect vandalbots trying to appear to be normal editors by using hit-and-miss edit summaries based on the article they were getting ideas from for the vandalism?? Anyway, could someone else take a look? Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The following from 128.12.103.70 was posted at my talk page, and I'm posting it here on behalf of the IP editor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to respond to your comments on the AN but the page was sprotected, so I'm responding here.

In your list of redirects, you missed a few which I made into pages or redirects to the right targets. These were Chess career, Betul Cemre Yildiz, and Türkiye Is Bankasi. As for the disruptiveness of the actions, I just had a bad feeling about it because these were names of real, independent people (young chess players) being lumped under the name of one single chess player. It seemed like a very demeaning statement to make about those players, many of whom will have careers of their own (and some of whom may eventually deserve Wikipedia articles) -- that they're all just insignificant compared to Hou Yifan.

Finally, as for the issue of sockpuppetry, I'm no expert, but I doubt that RFCU would have accepted the request.

The accounts were created very close together in time and seemed to be SPAs. If I had to guess, I would say that this was probably a group of friends who decided that they would do this for a lark, rather than a single user, but who knows? I did warn two of the users on their talk pages, but when I discovered the that there was actually a third one I gave up ("two times is a coincidence, three times is enemy action"). --128.12.103.70 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look disruptive, I agree. I don't think indefinite blocking was the correct response. I've asked Pegasus to comment here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked all of them. On hindsight this appears to be a one-off incident of edits that amount to borderline vandalism. Nothing more. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If the disruptive behaviour restarts someone can talk to them or even reblock if needed. I'm marking this resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning

Resolved

 – No.

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved from talk - Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

I was advised that this is the place for making a case for unbanning editors.

I would like to request that User:Lir be unbanned (agan).

The user is required for participation in editing/authoring articles as part of Military History project Eastern Front revamp/expansion. While I appreciate the difficulties Lir has with Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia admins have with him, these issues seem to me to be quite separate from his ability to contribute to Wikipedia content.

Lir has expressed to me that he wants to contribute productively to the articles in question, and has demonstrated this ability, albeit his edits were undone by another editor based on the banning, and having foregone any discussion in talk. Given Lir's personality, and history, this seems to have been an expected result. I dare say that behaviour in administrative realm does not equal poor article content assumption.

My proposal (I'm aka mrg3105) is that Lir is unbanned on the basis that he limits his contributions to project articles and lets bygones be bygones. All discussions should be limited to article talk pages.

There is a lot of editing and authoring to do there, and I would ensure Lir has what to worry about as part of the team of editors and proposed project parameters and goals.

It seems to me that people like Lir need a bit of mentoring and understanding, and for lack of it they become perennial banned editors, literally since Lir is clearly not masochistic, but has been banned, and unbanned since 2002, including by Jimbo Wales. People with that much dedication, even if exhibiting a degree of self-destructiveness, should not be excluded from Wikipedia because, although seen in a negative "light", are also the best advocates of Wikipedia, and its best defenders.

I do not think it will be productive to dwell on the past. I propose that Lir be brought back on a 6 months probation to allow him to demonstrate ability for editing without seeking administrative recourse. Is this acceptable?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shattered Wikiglass (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we JUST do this? Or am I confused? I seem to remember that Lir came back to Wikipedia very recently. - Philippe | Talk 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Seems to have gotten reblocked pretty quickly - see the history of User talk:Lir. Sarcasticidealist (talk)

Yep, let's put a quick end to this please. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no reason to unblock (again). Lir simply wasted whatever chance he was given, stirring the pot rather than contributing. - auburnpilot talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't participate in earlier "history", so profess impartiality with a strong bias towards inclusivity of editors capable of contributing to the project. Actually, with all the arguing of his case in admin, Lir also managed to contribute to an article, and, as an editor, I did not find him difficult to deal with. I have seen the history, but the history am interested in is his active contribution to content. It seems to me that had he not been encouraged to participate in administrative cases, eventually his demands for justice in an undemocratic community will have turned to editing articles. It seems to me there are two separate issues for which only one solution was sought. One is claims of administrative "due process", the other, the ability to contribute to content. Has this banning thrown out the proverbial "baby with the bath water"? Are there actual clams of bad article editorship on Lir's part?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point it's a dead issue, but he had fairly baleful effects on DNA, Christopher Columbus, and Saddam Hussain, as well as several articles on imperialism. I don't think the DNA article ever recovered. It's really not worth your time and trouble to investigate, but if you want to, those are the places to start. His editing at Colin Ferguson (as "Vera Cruz") was also fairly typical. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one scratching my head over why would a day-old account ask for unbanning of a user with who he has no past communication? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I couldn't see any recent edits (since last year) in those articles. I'm asking, what has Lir done since his most recent return from a ban to be banned again?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

His contributions since being unblocked include edit warring, repeated incivility and a threat to abuse sockpuppets]. Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So where are you involved in this Euryalus?

In any case:

• re: edit warring - I can actually speak for myself on this. Lir made contributions to the article Battle of Stalingrad, most of which were were valid, if possibly needing some references. These were summarily undone by another editor with no discussion in talk, and based on one source of his own. On my questioning, the editor offered to revert the edits. It seems the "edit waring" was somewhat justified (and mislabled) since no editor likes their edits undone without talking about it first.

• I can safely say that what you may consider incivility is probably part of Lir's personality of "give as good as he gets". Should all societies "screen" for such personalty traits at childhood and eliminate such disagreeable people? In any case, incivility takes at last two "to tango". A fiery personality does not a bad editor make. What it does take is cool heads, and if Lir lacked one, then obviously so did the other party. Where there no other editors that could have intervened and called a "time out"? It seems not.

• Threat of using sockpuppets is not actually banable! One has to be caught being a sockpuppet to be baned for it as far as I'm aware. For example if I threaten you now with being uncivil towards you, I can't be banned since I haven't actually done anything that would warrant such action.

So, why was it that Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed - such intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy, and you've only been around for a few days. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's almost Lirlyrical. (^_-) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter since anyone can have spent years reading Wikipedia, but never contributed. However, this is my other ID of the primary ID User:Mrg3105. I had to create it for technical reasons that are only partially related to Wikipedia (I suspect). In any case I note that both Ed and Nihonjoe were able to contribute biting sarcasm, but not to answer the question. Is it any wonder people with shorter fuses become frustrated?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternate explanation - they have shorter fuses. JuJube (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is absoloutely not. I provided him with a clear and reasonable framework under which he could be unblocked, which basically amounted to stop being disruptive. He did not accept it and wikilayered himself into having his talk page protected. If he wants to be unblocked he has the means to do so. As a side note, the reason your account status is being questioned is because Lir had his 1 year block extended several times for sockpuppetry, so its not surprising that people are questioning who you are and why you are interested. Viridae^Talk 08:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that this for example can be dismissed as Lir harmlessly "giving as good as he gets" but whatever. There seems to be no support for an unblock for the reasons outlined above and also in the earlier thread on this topic. I'm not sure how productive further discussion is going to be on this point. Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have added Shattered Wikiglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lir based on editing pattern; smells more than a little of WP:DUCK to me. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• According to Thatcher, the magic 8 ball says  Unrelated, surprisingly. Got to assume this is actually Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) as they say they are. Though why the new account just to agitate in favour of Lir, I really don't know. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have established that Guy has a bad sense of smell, and REDVEЯS doesn't care to read what others write, can I be removed from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lir? It seems good faith is only a byword for some who claim Wikisainthood.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What amazes me is that most of the people that had appeared here are not in the history of User:Lir. Not only that, but assumption of bad faith is endemic in the comments above. Not one person has pointed me to any sort of arbitration page where the evidence was used to arrive at a ban.

Pointing to Lir's outbursts may need to be contextualsed by the User:Calton's proclamation on his user page ""It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that." The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost."

It looks to me like Calton is "on a mission from God"! Should maybe add all "bad guys"? As I understand it, this all started when Calton decided that Lir's user page had inappropriate content in Calton's opinion? Right?

Now, so that I don't get banned by Calton, can I get an idea how "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" are defined in his moral code? Has this been enshrined in Wikipedia?

In regards to Calton, I seem to have already been labled per this ingenious observation "The rule "birds of a feather flock together" seems to be in force. I've never quite understood why axe-grinders and stalkers think that banding together gives them some kind of credibility, as the more applicable rule is, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." --Calton | Talk 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"

Of course this is no "rule", but an English proverb derived from translation of a Roman zoological observation that "As commonly birds of a feather will flye together." I note that the only commonalty all participants in Wikipedia have is that we are all different! We are also from English speaking cultures, and therefore come from cultural backgrounds markedly different to the one Calton is residing in now. Mores of social behaviour are far more individualistic, and these individualisms are in fact defended by real, rather the proverbial "rules", often known as constitutions.

I suppose according to Calton I now have the proverbial "fleas" for trying to work out why a contributor to an article I was collaborating with was suddenly baned?

Calton, knock off your "moral crusader, holier then thou, defender of Wikipedia" act, and stop labeling people. If you don't bate the "dogs", they won't bite [www.ddfl.org/behavior/dogbite_guide.pdf]. If you treat them as human beings rather then lables, you may even learn something about them.

For the rest, can someone point me to the place where the decision to ban Lir was made? Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is not an anarchy either. If Lir was guilty of something, it ought to be describable in one sentence as a cause for the ban? Right?

Where is Golding when one needs him?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can read his block log as well as anyone. "Exhausting the community's patience" is the basis of WP:BAN, and it's what appears to have happened here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think all too often people in Wikipedia tend to read edits and "history" rather then the editors. Think about it.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Teh interenets is full of eggshells armed with hammers". Most threats of harm are not credible. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Largely irrelavent, all threats should be taken seriously until proven otherwise. I'm not agreeing to a set-in-stone policy regarding to this, but it's fairly recognized here that acts of violence, suicide or other acts causing harm to someone or themselves should be reported. — Κaiba 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS stands in the way of supporting this. Do we really want to put this idea into people's heads? Durova^Charge! 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Durova. If the community has a "we will deal with threats seriously and by calling the proper authorities" policy, people will exploit that, just to make the community look stupid. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL at the shortcut. Not having to type those extra two spaces is a real timesaver! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

^demon, you honestly think editors of this website want the chance to exploit that the police may or may not show up on their doorstep for making a silly edit to Wikipedia? Again, I feel the only thing we should have is an essay, not a policy, on how to deal with those situations, but there are editors who are not afraid to do so, including me, and I have done so before. — Κaiba 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the fake suicide threats we've dealt with before, yes, I do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is somewhat the point. I think that's more the reason why if there is a essay that says that we will treat them seriously then we will get less of them. Who would make a fake suicide threat when they now know the police will show up? — Κaiba 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to drop an anvil on your head for suggesting this as policy. --Carnildo (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How often do we get threats of violence? How often have these threats manifested in real-life violence? This strikes me as an attempt to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. – ClockworkSoul 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We gets threats of bombs, suicide, etc. every week or so to be quite honest. In fact the last incident was two days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat or vandalism to Plano Senior High School? How many times has that resorted to real-life harm? I'm not sure, but everytime that I've reported it, it turned out to be a joke by someone who didn't think we would report it. — Κaiba 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a response plan for things like this is not in itself bad, especially since Jimbo has said we should operate as if these threats are generally real. However, in fact, these threats are generally not real; most people making them just want attention, so they might make hoax threats, make real threats and back out of them, or make ambiguous threats and claim, loudly, that Wikipedia's reaction is bogus – or, they might make real threats. A pernicious minority will be joe jobs or attempts to injure a third party by forcing attention on them (Police or otherwise). We don't want to encourage any of these, least of all the genuine ones, but I don't see how we can have a prominent policy page like that without it attracting more such threats to the wiki. If anyone wants community policy on this, step one is to figure out how to have that policy without attracting badness. I'm afraid this page doesn't do it. I'm not trying to crap in Bstone's cornflakes, here; our typical reactions to this sort of thing are badly disorganized, even among people who mean well, and attempts to fix this are laudable. The WP:BEANS issue needs to be fixed first, though, or this policy makes more trouble than it can ever prevent. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon Kaiba's probably right that the root of the recent broo ha ha was a misplaced joke - but I think the best way to deal with such things is to be very clear that all wiki folk will do is contact an authority and kick the ball into their court. There's no doubt in my mind that that's the right thing to do - and if the page can communicate that in as simple and mundane a fashion as possible, then it might also help avoid good-faith editors having to cover the same ground repeatedly - a good thing, no? Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion can be moved to the proposal talk page? It's entirely on topic but would be best for there. Thanks. Bstone (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Hornetman16's community ban

I know its unusual to see someone ask for a review of a community ban imposed on a user that has presented cronic sockpuppetry after said ban was issued, but this case is different, every time that one of this user's sockpuppets is blocked the same discussion appears on WP:PW, the arguments in favor of Hornetman are usually "should he be given a second chance? he has tried to be a better editor when given the chance", other users have also noted that he hasn't been given a second chance yet. The arguments for keeping his block are his cronic sockpuppetry as well as often using these socks to repeat past disruptive patterns. Now the idea of finally bringing this to the community has been pitched around several times, the user has been in contact with some of the members of WP:PW and has agreed to comply with the community's decision if he is given a review of his ban before the community. Please note that personally I object this unblock strongly and am only taking this action for the wellbeing of WP:PW, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same: he doesn't deserve more chances. What is this... his 1000 chance already? People fall for Hornetman's lies too much, which leads to problems. People have made deals with him, and even told him how to "lay low with socks" which is simply unacceptable. Hornetman's deserves to stay banned, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He's been socking right up until last weekend and has been disruptive on other wikis. He's even gone to the trouble of bugging me about his block on other non-English speaking wikis (in English!). The mayhem and the Utter. Waste. Of. Everyone's. Time last time round was too much to bear again. I'm pretty AGF-y at the best of times - ask others here - but this guy wore me down. Add the fact that he lies about his socking again and again and again and promises reform then doesn't deliver - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Alison, this is as close to an open-and-shut case of "no, sorry, this isn't being overturned for a long time to come" as any. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, per Alison. I don't think we're missing out on much either, he wasn't very constructive even when he wasn't banned. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Alison. Leopards can't change their spots. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - and he's still causing problems on simple.wiki. It's patently clear that absolutely nothing has been learnt - Alison ^❤ 06:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I've had a chance to sleep on it, I can't possibly support his unblocking. I let my emotions cloud my judgment. He has to stay banned. SexySeaBass 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I support the continued ban. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the community ban. It takes a lot to get banned in the first place...he had multiple chances before his ban. He has also shown that he isn't mature enough to be unbanned. He had a proven sock only a couple of days ago, he's getting into arguments on Simple, he has tons of confirmed/suspected socks, etc. Moreover, in January, one of his confirmed socks vandalized my talk page, as well as others': [8] [9] [10]. Is this somebody people really think deserves a yet another chance? I'm sorry, but I don't think we should humor him by even discussing it. Nikki311 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the unban - absolutely not. Is the lesson here that someone can earn a ban, consistently prove that the ban is warranted through further abuse, and then get unbanned upon request? Avruch ^T 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This was done in order to reafirm the community's desicion so WP:PW can finally continue its work without having to engage in 10, 000 kb conversations everytime one of his socks appears, this way we can source a consensus in order to prevent these from happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note also that Hornetman has now taken to bringing the fight to simplewiki - Alison ^❤ 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Heyyy, the first amendment line, that didn't work before either. :( I really doubt anyone from simple is dumb enough to follow through on that one, but let's keep an eye out nevertheless :/ ~ Riana ⁂ 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On simple english Hornetman16/Christianman16 demands that I give my opinion as a condition for ending a discussion. That sums up his contribution to SEWP. He is combative, uncooperative and, to use a British English phrase, bloody-minded. Almost two-thirds of his contributions to SEWP have been in the user or usertalk space. I did not support his recent attempt to become an admin, one factor being his apparent lack of commitment to the wikipedia community. I would not support a his return to ENWP-- Barliner  talk  18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) SEWP admin.

Wow, inter-wiki canvassing, that is something that I had never seen before, he is actually bribing users into commenting here in order to drop a disruptive pattern, he will end up banned in simple if he continues there as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Nothing has changed has it? Now that his actions in the Simple English WP have been clearly pointed out I have seen enough. I connot support his unbanning.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CheckPage

Just a friendly reminder of the names at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to keep mentioning this, but there are now requests over 24 hours old. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ultraexactzz who took care of it. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dick.ellershaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This person is the intellectual property manager for a UK company making portable buildings, particularly the trademarked Portakabin & Portaloo versions. A quick Google shows that he is enthusiastic in protecting the company's trademark. Over the last week he has been going through our articles editing references to "portakabin" etc to "portable building", and similar. I have left a {{uw-coi}} on his talk page and advised him to contact the Foundation, but as I understand it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) only deals with style of rendering trademarks, not with their use. I would argue that as "Hoover" has become synonymous with "vacuum cleaner", so has "Portakabin" with "portable building". Some input would be useful here. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, him. He gets coverage in The Times for this sort of carry-on. I've seen plenty of edits where he changes a linked Portakabin to a generic "portable building" thereby removing incoming links to his own company's article, plus the even more counter-productive edits like this where he keeps Portakabin yet removes the incoming link. Judging by his letter to "Carve", he's intent on removing any reference to the trademarked names, yet in this edit the source I used to write the article specifically says Portakabin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that he should talk to his company's advertising agency; after all, whether the articles refer to his company's product or not, they are still getting totally free, worldwide publicity. But having read some of the Googled articles, perhaps my "enthusiastic" above was a gross understatement. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to be getting a bit of a reputation, having even made it into The Guardian's manual of style for journalists ([11], page 246 of the PDF), curiously next to the entry for pyrrhic victory. But this seems to be a situation which WP:BFAQ doesn't seem to cover: we're more worried about companies unreasonably adding references to their products, rather than removing them! --RFBailey (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that the Guardian are saying it's a Pyrrhic victory to order magazines and newspapers not to give your company free publicity by mentioning its products? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I've never thought a pyrrhic victory equivalent to "shooting oneself in the foot". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just have a bot go through and change all instances of "portaloo" to "portable toilet"? Unless there's a real reason to use "Portaloo"? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm sure Dick's on the case already...... --RFBailey (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

What can we do to report staff that are harassing us? --Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you post some diffs that show this? Also, you'll get a faster response at the incidents board if this is happening now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that any of the staff are harassing you. There might be individual volunteers who are doing so, but as Rodhullandemu said, you'll need to provide diffs. Corvus cornix_talk 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is through e-mail that was obtained through here. --Xander756 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then there's very little that anyone here can do for you. And again, I doubt if it's staff. Corvus cornix_talk 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfair block (again)- Homeopathy

Administrator Jehochman banned me for one month from Homeopathy because of this edit: [12] [13] I tried to improve the article twice by adding to it a quote in the lead from a reliable source already cited in the article. I invited the editors to discuss it at the talk page but I was reverted without any discussion . I asked Jehochman to intervene so my edit could be discussed at the talk page and he banned me. Please remove the ban –it is quite easy to see what happened we don’t need arbitation for this – I think. Best to all.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the ban precludes doing this, perhaps you'd be better served by simply creating an account. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do. Thanks. But this is not related with the issue.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your one-month ban from Homeopathy topics, if it stands, applies to you, under any account. What is your new account name? Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor is not blocked, they are topic banned. See Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. "Again"? Did you get banned before under a different account? Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not.Again I meant all the editors you block because of their POV. Justify your ban or whatever you call it, please.

--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All the editors you block because of their POV. It is hard to take an accusation like that seriously when no diffs have been provided. The justification for your ban is visible on your talk page, and in your edit history. You have been disruptively editing the homeopathy article and related pages. Just today you did two POV pushes,[14] and [15], which had to be reverted. This, in spite of many past warnings that you have received.[16] [17] [18] We do not need this sort of editing at Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not receive any justified warnings - Look what the other administrators say below. Dont you agree with them? [19] Again,I added a quote from reliable sources already cited in the article wrote - I invited editors to discuss it - I was reverted without discussion and you banned me.These the facts and the diffs are here. [20] [21] I think arbitation will solve the problem. I thought you made a mistake in the beginning.I m waiting for an administrator to procced. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and related articles are under probation. That means the bar for sanctioning inappropriate behavior is set very low, because there has been so much of it. For probation to be effective, there has to be some discretion afforded to the admins enforcing it. I see no evidence presented that Jehochman is in any way "biased" against specific points of view; I do see evidence presented that your presence on homeopathy-related articles has been counterproductive. Therefore, a topic ban under the terms of the probation is reasonable and justifiable. If every enforcement of this probation turns into a lengthy complaint about systemic injustice, then the probation is actually worse than useless. Let's move on. It may also be worth checking this IP against Davkal (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal, perhaps, but this IP's syntax and complaints bear a strong resemblance to blocked user Sm565 (talk · contribs) (whose user/talk pages are, for whatever reason, deleted, even though he's a confirmed sockpuppeteer[22]). The checkuser may want to look there as well. Skinwalker (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not provide any reasons or diffs MastCell. The fact is that I was banned unfairly when I was inviting the editors to discuss the changes and reverted without discussion. adding a quote from a reliable source. I think arbitation will solve the problem if the ban cannot be removed.I m confident.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the noise that has been made about homeopathy by now, I'm confident that arbitration will solve nothing. JuJube (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MO looks like Davkals. Shot info (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Category for Deletion Archive?

Please tell me how to check if a category has been nominated for deletion in the past and find the previous discussion?

I found that there are monthly logs kept of cfd's, each month separately.

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates

This is huge. Is there a way to search through all the log files in one search? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Google. Example. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd behavior, possibly by school users

I'm not sure what's going on here. The below users have almost no productive edits.

• HollyNoelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Orinatoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nathancampis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alphahunter57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alphahunter58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

There are several deleted pages in which they simply declared their love for one another, or were complete nonsense. The rest of their cumulative edits are to each others' user pages. I'm guessing they are school kids, but I'm not sure. This didn't seem appropriate for a checkuser case, so I'm brining it here. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is a recent similar incident. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have indef'd the lot of them as Disruption/Not contributing to the encyclopedia. I'll drop the relevant template on their talkpages now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alchemic Dream

In response to an OTRS ticket, I have removed this content from the article, and placed it on the article talk page. I have also engaged the editor at the user talk page. I don't know if the editor understands our policy on the verifiable sources, or not. So I have to assume good faith, this is probably an editor new to the project. Protection may be of some use here, I have however met 2RR on this one. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The content needs to be removed. "an interview with some former employees dealing with this company" well, that's not a suitable source. It's not been published anywhere we've been told of, so we can't confirm the contents, it's not exactly a reliable source anyway, and there is all sorts of POV and legal problems with an interview with (a) former employee(s) making the sort allegations in question. When there's a reliable third party source publishing the allegations, then we can look at this again, but at the moment, the content needs to be removed. Nick (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Since one of our most energetic vandals seem to be suffering from diarrhea of the typing fingers, I've temporarily semi-protected the page. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've unprotected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts so that IPs/new users can actually post there now! Something to add to a few watchlists, perhaps? Bencherlite^Talk 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Already on mine. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA participation needed to offset canvassing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27

It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to anonymously contact users encouraging them to oppose Benjah-bmm27's RfA via the Special:Emailuser function. The full extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained for sure, though investigations are ongoing. In order to dilute the effects of this attempt to manipulate consensus, I would ask as many users as possible to look at this RfA and evaluate the candidate. To this end, I have extended the RfA so that it has a full day to run. Please take the time to visit this page and provide a fresh perspective on the candidate. I would like to express my thanks to those users who approached me having received the emails in question. I strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA that give rise to suspicion that this part of an organised campaign of advocacy to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention. WjBscribe 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Post edited in line with discussion below about circumstances where one should contact a bureaucrat. WjBscribe 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

given that the opposes there at present come almost entirely from established editors, giving reasoned arguments, I do not see how canvassing is likely to have had much of an effect. Certainly I participated there, and nobody emailed me about it. I question whether a counter-canvass is a reasonable way to remedy canvassing on an AfD. I'd have worded that first line of the posting above as "... encouraged them to vote in a particular way." DGG (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting people support to balance opposes that may have been canvassed - if I thought that was sensible I would just have closed the RfA making some kind of allowance in evaluating consensus - instead, I'm asking for more people to form an assessment of the candidate. I don't really think there has been "bad faith" as such on the part of the participants, but I do think from the details of the canvassing I have seen that the balance of contributors may have been distorted. That is I think remedied by keeping it open a little longer and asking more uninvolved people to take a look. WjBscribe 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But it may be coming across that you are suggesting people support to balance the opposes [23]. Tiptoety ^talk 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi WjB, I wonder whether this is problematic. You wrote that you "strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki to support or oppose a given RfA to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention." When you say "off-wiki," I'm assuming you mean more than just by e-mail, so this would have to include comments on IRC and on other websites, but as you know, these are common. So where do you draw the line in determining what kind of comments or canvassing might require a bureaucrat's intervention? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't like the idea of someone being encouraged to oppose or support, whatever medium is used and would consider an extension of time in cases where the RfA was coming close to an end. I'm not suggesting everything needs to be reported, a discussion somewhere like IRC may well touch on an RfA and discussion may follow without it being problematic, but actual advocacy of a position is troubling. In my view its particularly where one receives a message that makes it likely that a series of other such messages have been sent that its especially important to say something about it. I trust people's judgment - do people think someone is actively advocating a position in such a way as the result of the onwiki discussion may be distorted? If so, please speak up. Obviously email has the advantage that people can forward the actual email, complete with information about the source, whereas instant messenger conversations may be harder to document. Ultimately though, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and extend the discussion so the effects of campaigning can be diluted, and campaigning can be discouraged. WjBscribe 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking in particular of comments on IRC (I'm paraphrasing) such as "User:X -- YES!!!!" and a link to the RfA, followed by "Those opposing bastards ...," another link. Although no one is actually saying "please go and vote for X," the advocacy is clear. I find this much more troubling than sending out individual e-mails, because dozens or even hundreds of people may be watching the discussion. And yet comments like this are not uncommon on IRC, and bureaucrats have been in the channels and have seen them, but I've never seen an objection. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The behaviour you describe is not acceptable. Its different to email - one can at least judge how many people were in the channel - though not what fraction looked at the screen at a given time, which can be pretty low. One can also quickly correlate how many people who were in the channel then joined the discussion - whereas recipients of an email campaign are totally unknown. I don't think I've observed such clear cut behaviour on IRC - I can assure you that if I did see it I would both comment in the channel and look into appropriate steps to dilute the effect. What steps would probably depend a lot on the effect of the canvassing and the amount of time a nomination still has to run. WjBscribe 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to take issue with e-mails being worse. If prominent IRC users are saying or implying that people should vote for User X, that could prove absolutely decisive, because they exercise a degree of influence over other people in the channel. But a single-issue account set up to inform people about an RfA is unlikely to persuade anyone to vote in a way they wouldn't have voted anyway. What such an e-mail would do is draw attention to the RfA, but without being particularly persuasive, because anonymous.

The other difficulty is that, if a very poor candidate is standing, I want to be told about it, and I would prefer to be told privately so as not to prejudice things for the person by having an inappropriate public discussion. You're basically saying that people are not allowed to do that, and I really don't see that as reasonable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, they should inform you on your talkpage so it is clear what communications gave occurred. This isn't about one person giving another a nudge, this is about systematically emailing a group of users selected by an unknown criteria asking giving them a one sided argument and asking them to act in a particular way. We have a pretty clear behavioural guideline at WP:CANVASS which makes it clear that this sort of "stealth canvassing" is not something the community accepts. I have agreed that the IRC scenario you laid out would be inappropriate, I am saying this is also inappropriate. I would hope that if you wanted to know about poor candidates, you would follow current RfAs attentively - alternatively you could have confidence in other members of the community that is a candidate is indeed "very poor", they will not pass. I do not see a justification for the email canvassing that occurred here. Further, I think that if someone proposed an amendment to WP:CANVASS to allow for contacting users in such a way, it would be roundly rejected. WjBscribe 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that creating an account just to canvass is inappropriate, so I have no quarrel with you on that score. But I still feel your statement that you "strongly encourage anyone who is the recipient of attempts to influence them off-wiki ... to bring this to a bureaucrat's attention" is too sweeping, and if it were taken literally would involve large numbers of RfAs having to be extended -- e.g. whenever they're discussed on another website or a blog, for example.

I think editors have to be allowed to e-mail people and say, for example, "Would you mind taking a look at ...". There is nothing wrong with this within reason, so long as it's not done anonymously and doesn't involve huge numbers of people. I do take part in RfA regularly, but I nevertheless want to be kept informed in case I miss something. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I had not intended my statement to be taken that literally - I was assuming people would exercise some judgment in deciding what should or shouldn't be reported. Perhaps I should add "in such circumstances that you have reason to believe this may form part of a campaign of advocacy aimed at multiple users"? WjBscribe 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. I think it might also be helpful to add something to the new IRC guidelines that RfAs ought not to be discussed on the channels, because of the possibility of comments being interpreted as canvassing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I would presume that whoever sent those emails picked their audience on the basis that they might be inclined to certain points of view, which to me smacks of poisoning the well; raising the matter here where, as you rightly point out, hundreds may be reading, sounds more like creating a level playing field where those who take part in the RfA will assess the candidate on his merits as demonstrated by the material available there. That's how I see it anyhow. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no issues with canvassing, right? RFA's are supposed to be determined by well reasoned consensus, not by numbers... right? <very innocent look/> --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) If not, then canvassing is probably the least of your worries. :-P

I personally suspect User:Nrcprm2026, since Ben has had problems with one of his sockpuppets User:LossIsNotMore on the Uranium trioxide article. Has a checkuser been run to see if the throwaway RfA account is related to any of the IPs recorded for that sockfarm? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

TIm, the IP the account used was an open proxy. I've sent you a copy of the email, though, as you might recognise who it is from the text. I normally try to be careful about privacy and such but when you use socks to try to sink an RfA any expectation of privacy is null and void in my book. Sarah 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Lir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry for boring everyone again with this guy, but I'd like to work with him. I've just been through his contribs and I can see there's some useful stuff there to help the encyclopedia - the problem is his disruption and trolling. I'll be honest from the start - I'm not his biggest fan. I would however like to work with him and act as his mentor, but obviously under strict instructions as follows;

"Lar is placed under community parole. If any of his edits are seen to be trolling, uncivil, assumptions of bad faith or any other form of disruption, he may be blocked for upto one week by any administrator. After 3 such blocks, the maximum block length is extended to one year/indef. He is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite and is expected to abide by his jurisdiction. Further, he is limited to one account and anymore evidence of sockpuppetry will result in an immediate indefinite block."

I realise that he's been an idiot with the socking, but there does seem to be some good in him and hopefully I can knock it out of him. I'm not scared to block him myself, and I would expect him to follow exactly what I say. Anyway, just putting that out there. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I found his lack of restraint in the last attempt to be very frustrating, but I support trying again. If somebody wants to seriously write article content, as Lir does, we should try whatever we can. That being said, if he screws this one up, he should be blocked for at least a year before he gets another try. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this for years, Lir might be the first time I ever heard about ArbCom. You can try, Ryan, and I know that Lir has submitted great content. My philosophy in this case is the motto, "If you go looking for trouble, you will find it." Collaboration and compromise is not censorship and that's something he has to accept. That's really all I have to say about that. Keegan^talk 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Even as I think that we ought to keep an eye on Lar—I've always been a bit leery of adults who like LEGOs—I think the instructions read better were they directed at Lir. Joe 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Keegan^talk 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan notice that I offered to unblock him if he agreed to a similar set of terms and he refused instead telling me i should unblock him and take my case to arbcom to get authorisation. That completely disregarded the fact that I didn't block him in the first place. He has also treats DR like a quasi legal system. However if you can get him to agree to those terms, I don't see why he shouldnt be unblocked - they are very similar to some I provided. However, make sure he really understands the terms, or I will be first to reblock. Viridae^Talk 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Ryan, I think you're being highly optimistic. I have no hope at all that Lir can become a useful editor again. I did have hope when it came to the lifting of the ban recently, but he did nothing to suggest that he has any intention at all of helping the encyclopaedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Is there an section where I can put in my vote on this or whatever? Seriously, why do we want to unblock someone that's caused enough hassle to have been blocked for three years? All that will happen is that a month down the line we'll be back here again discussing whether to ban him again. His ban was so long in the first place because he kept on socking, vandalising, disrupting etc. And he comes back and we want to keep him? Good grief. No. No content is that valuable that we need people poisoning the environment and causing drama as much as that. The harm he's done to the Wikipedia over the years far outweighs any possible good content we might get out of it. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a bad idea. I can't think of a single instance when one of these admin-led quasi-paroles was successful, and I can think of at least one where it was demonstrably unsuccessful, to the point of disruptive. Mere days ago he earnt himself a re-indef-block, mere days after finally expiring a multi-year ban lengthened repeatedly by his own interminable intractability. There is no evidence that an unblock will cause anything other than further heartache, and before long we'll have yet anohter thread here discussing the block, with someone claiming they thing just one more chance is all it takes. The end of the road was back there somewhere. Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not therapy; for anyone. Splash - tk 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The contents of this edit (removed inexplicably by the 'single purpose tagger') are interesting. Splash - tk 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting certainly but why would someone create a sockppuppet account in order to accuse others of being sockpuppets? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure this is a such a great idea. Ryan, I know you've worked miracles before, but Naerii is right. We can do without Lir. Any worthwhile content he might contribute is not worth the price we will have to pay - the disruption he will inevitably cause. Moreschi (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Um, no. When an umpteenth chance lasts less than 48 hours, there is no chance umpteen+1. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please no, I'm getting flashbacks. I don't think this is a good idea at all. And the idea of having to cycle through three one week blocks is rather "sigh-some". I was all for giving Doc's unblock a go but all he did was prove that he hasn't changed one iota since his banning. I would be really surprised if Lir even agreed to this or took it seriously beyond seeing it as an opportunity to resume his trolling and disruption. With utmost respect, Poss - you know I adore you - but this just seems to me like a very bad idea. I think that people who haven't been around all that long and don't realise how much disruption Lir caused back in '04 and '05 should look through the Arbitration pages and his old talk page archives and see that his recent behaviour is pretty much what led to his Arbitration case. It's not like he just came back feeling disenfranchised and pissed off and will get over it with a touch of mentoring. This is what he does and how he behaves. Sure, he makes a few good edits to mainspace articles but he is too disruptive and has made it clear time and time again that he has no intention or desire to do anything but troll us. Sarah 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm the one who reblocked Lir after Doc's attempt at giving him yet another last, last chance. If you do go ahead and unblock, I would recommend that you arrange in advance a complete prohibition to claims of censorship, one of his favorite trolling baits. — Coren ^(talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose Ryan's proposal, if only based on the statement "knock it out of him". I doubt that, given my relatively short familiarity with Lir's personality, any method that includes any suggestion of force will achieve desirable results.

Aside from that, it doesn't seem like Ryan actually has very much in common with Lir. On the other hand I share interest in the discipline, propose collaboration on articles, and integration of Lir into an editorial team, and a Wikipedia Project. Aside from the fact that there is way too much writing to do within the project to worry about all the other issues, there are competent admins in the Project that are able to deal with any situations which may arise, and be able to evaluate Lir's probation over a period of 6 months, which I think is a significantly longer period to evaluate a person's intentions and abilities then a day.

Coren, while I appreciate your statement, I think the approach used in mitigating Lir's behaviour, and in community's ability to emphasize, has been less then ideal. While several editors above have expressed Lir's return from a negative perspective, I think a bit of positive thinking would not go astray, right? Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article! Surely that seem to indicate good intentions? He also starts to express his opinion on Wikipedia on his user page. So what? Do you think New York Times reporters are going to use Lir's user page for an expose on Wikipedia? I looked at it when I first read his declarations on the article talk. So the guy has issues with authority, tell me something new! The page had nothing to with the article, so I wrote to him. Lo and behold, beyond the facade was an editor with actual knowledge of the article subject, good sources, and willing to, even impatient to contribute! For crying out loud, does every 'tree' need to be uprooted to 'plow' a Wikipedia field?! I for one would be shocked if anyone returning from such a long ban had no feelings at all to express on the experience. Bitter and twisted people often suppress feelings and thoughts, and lie low, hatching plots. I don't see Lir doing this at all, so enough with amateur psychoanalysis, characterisations and labels. This isn't some TV drama. --Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we have an editor who returns after a very long ban, and he starts to immediately contribute to an article!

Wrong. His very first edits were as an IP , and they were to build his User Page as a billboard against The Evil That is Wikipedia and How I Have Been Done a Great Wrong. His very first edit was "I am the Lir. What I've realised is that the Wikipedia has been overrun by a bunch of morons. I used to care -- now I don't. The idea of a Wiki is a great idea, but the Wikipedia is überghey...", and his very first article edit doesn't come until after nearly three months of soapboxing. He's not really here for the editing. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter. However, lets try an experiment. Lets ban you for a year for a reason you don't agree with, and see how you feel about it later. I am not supporting Lir's behaviour, but I do understand it as typical of individuals in similar circumstances in the real world. Believe it or not, but Lir's behaviour since his most recent unbanning was normal! You just failed to recognise it as such. Did you expect a placid angelic-like Lir singing praises of those who banned him? If he did, that would have made him a liar, and anyone able to lie to oneself, can lie to others, those being Wikipedia readers. I would rather an editor called me a moron a hundred times then he/she write one lie that will be read by a thousand. Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie. I can live with that. Chill out Calton. Allow me to explain to Lir why calling people names, and living in the past is not healthy. Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned because currently he is still running on fight/flight instinct.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What Lir did as an IP is another matter.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Lir = IP, and its editing is his editing. The rest of your comments make even less sense: he was blocked for a year, yes, and his behavior is what led to the constant reblocking and the additional 19 months of block time.

Seemingly Lir's other "problem" is that he doesn't lie.

I'd say trying to hide your identity through sockpuppets counts as lying, but let's leave that aside. You believe that jackass behavior and trolling is okay if you're sincere, do I have that?

Until this is internalised by Lir, voluntarily, it seems to me he can not be banned

So his not understanding why he's doing something wrong is a reason NOT to ban him, do I have that? You've officially gone through the looking glass. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you constantly hit someone over the head ("constant reblocking") to prevent behaviour, but behaviour change is not internalised as justified, the only thing that will change is the punshment avoidance strategy (not to get hit). You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing.

Using sockpuppets (in this case) is not lying, but rather evading being constantly hit over the head.

Well, I didn't know there was anyone watching me...officially. Is 1984 your favourite book?

Lir understands very well what he did wrong, but seemingly others like to constantly remind him of this and make a point, a very large point, of showing him they don't have any intention of letting him forget. There is all this great talk of "Wikipedia community". Do you know what a community looks like, or do you live in front of a screen? A community is not judged by its firewalls alone. Community also welcomes, appreciates, understands, etc. All I have heard is "defending community". Let me spare you the time; lets have a welcoming interrogation committee so no-one will ever get banned. May I remind Wikipedians that we are a part of the freedom of information community, so lets not become the paranoid brigade.

What has Lir done wrong? He decided to create a user page that may be seen as undesirable? You Calton live in a country notorious for public scandals over deeds by public officials. You come from a country where morals of presidents have been found wanting. On a scale of Wikipedia "sins" within the thousands of user pages, does Lir rate public enemy #1? You (plural) have treated him as one, and he obliges every time. What a surprise. You'd rater have editors writing articles who will cower every time they are challenged...not. (Japan excepted; a different culture there)

Have you banned Lir because he consistently shows POV, uses OR, never cites sources? This is what I am saying, did you ban an editor, or his personality? If it the later, its only because you failed to 'connect', and seemingly never tried. You are the community "shoot first, ask questions later" cop. I had to connect, because I have the intention to collaborate with him. It all comes down to purpose and motivation. It seems too me Lir's most recent banning was snowballed, so please lets take a pause now that Lir has, and consider all sides of the argument for and against unbanning Lir. All he tells me he wants to do is edit articles. If he is lying to me, then I will be the first to support his indefinite banning and you will never hear from me here again. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are talking such rubbish because you don't know Lir and we do. He tells he only wants to edit articles, he is lying and you are naive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You only joined Lir's vicious cycle, solving nothing. - Actually, banning him outright seems to have solved everything neatly, without Wikipedia having to act as his therapist. As for the rest of your strange and tangential moralizing -- well, it was hard to read, what with my eyes constantly rolling. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No unblock. I had my doubts about letting him come back after reading his history, and after this past weekend, it's obvious he's too unstable for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actions of Lykantrop

Over the past week or so there has been a large discussion over the type of album that Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is, primarily between I and Lykantrop. You can see the discussion at Talk: Slipknot (band). We have been at a stalemate for a while now so I requested comment a while back but that didn't receive any replies and I then asked for mediation at the mediation cabal. It was decided by Kagetsu Tohya (who is an outside mediator) that it should be declared a demo album after reading our discussion on the Slipknot talk page. I made edits to coincide with this decision to Slipknot Discography which were later removed by Lykantrop stating that they were vandalism on the grounds of WP:V and WP:POV. However all other parties in the matter agree that it is a demo album and we have reliable sources which claim to be. He has since stated thast he rules out the mediators decision and has reverted my edits to Slipknot discography twice now. I am reporting him for his behaviour because it is very uncivil and it appears he is the only user who disagrees with the decision and yet his arguments against aren't sustainable. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I must comment this: I explained the problem at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability question - a band and they told me that the former attitude of the band and proffesional's view have more weight than band's later attitude after the band stopped to support the album per WP:SELFPUB and I think also WP:NPOV. I was only presenting a fact with multiple reliable sources both from professionals and from the band (Which you can see directly next to the Mate.Feed.Kill.Repat. in the Slipknot Discography). If somebody deleted the sources or the album, please watch the last version of the article by me. Retzer (and no one of the few users) did not show me any reliable sources that would refutate my statements. The edit is according to every of Wikipedia's rules including assumed good faith. Thanks for reading my comment. Lykantrop ^(Talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and there is little that admins can do if there is no breach of policy. You (both) need to (a) sort it out yourselves, (b) seek a third opinion, or (c) try dispute resolution, preferably (a). In any event, how much does it really matter? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issues that I have with your claims are;

• That you interpret the use of the term "album" by the books and Shawn Crahan as "studio album" were prior to this they clearly call it a "demo album" then later refer to it as an "album", as a shorter term.
• The main reason for the band creating it was to demonstrate to record labels their music and get a record deal, they were never going to release this through a record label as their debut album.
• 5 out of the 8 tracks have later appeard on Slipknot and Iowa.

I also disagree with the way you have worded it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability question - a band. You are saying that all these sources proclain it to be Slipknot's debut album, which none of them do. The only sources you provided were lists of discographys which included it, they never said "MFKR is their DEBUT ALBUM", I have 3 books which state it is a demo album and that it was only to help them get a record deal. Again I am sorry for posting this here because again this is turning into a content dispute but I constantly have to battle against the way he interprets sources. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place AGAIN!! I really don'tt know ere to get this whoel thign sorted out. We had a mediator invovled and Lykantrop ignored him whole heartedly. I then tried to seek the Arbitration and they sent me here. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• This really should not be necessary. Admins do not rule on content disputes, which this is. You've had a third opinion, Arbitration is inappropriate and I suggest you now open an request for comment on the article, but it really looks like a minor point of detail and doing that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone

Take a look at this link to imeem and tell me if it's allowed [24]? I don't think it is, and I keep reverting them, but now I'm on the edge of 3RR and I don't fancy getting blocked over a stupid imeem link. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're doing the right thing. Any more and report it to AIV. Rudget. 11:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV appears to be backlogged atm. I reported two people a half hour ago and they're still not blocked - and are still continuing to vandalise. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear now. There is often something of a backlog on AIV around this time; the majority of our admins are from the US or Europe, so when the US is asleep and European admins are at work or college, this can happen. Black Kite 12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § BBC news article

Apparently people are now reporting Jeff Merkey's rather idiosyncratic interpretation of his dealings with Jimmy, and people are adding that to the Wales article. Needless to say, Merkey is rather a long way off base - no undertaking was ever offered in return for donations, and I (among others) made it perfectly plain to him at the time that no such undertaking could or would be given. But then, Merkey is a real oddball, as we all know. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that smearing Merkey is going to make us look any better in the press. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go as far as saying that it's the other way around - Merkey is smearing us. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he's smearing Wales. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smear? I don't think so. Jeff Merkey is pretty self-aware, and would be among the first to admit that he opinionated, and downright odd sometimes. I Like Merkey, he struck me as a decent man, but his interpretation of events is definitely idiosyncratic to say the least. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your comment specifically Guy, it was more of a thought-out-loud - it'd be better for us not to dismiss Merkey as being a bit of a loon/oddball/kook/whatever and just report on the allegations factually as stated in the sources and not dignify them with much of our time. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention is needed howso? Viridae^Talk 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, yet. But this is the administrators' noticeboard. It can be used for giving notices of interest to admins. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Its pure content - the claims are being repeated by the BBC so its not as if there isnt RS to back it up. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I reserve the right to draw the attention of administrators to any hotly disputed article or topic on Wikipedia, for reasons which should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone disputing the inclusion of the allegations in Wales' article yet. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not belong here. We don't use this place to work out truth or significance, or who is smearing whom in the press. Use the talk page to work out content applying BLP, NPOV and WP:V as usual. Anything else is for chatrooms and mailing lists not for wikipedia, unless you want to take out an RfC on either Wales' or Merkey's ON-WIKI activities.--Doc^g 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My point, exactly. Viridae^Talk 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But Guy is not the only one to want to give a head's-up notice to the community of Wikipedia admins. With breaking news stories like this, it is good to get people clued in fast. My (more neutral) post on this was at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BBC news article. There should be some way of posting news like this without being told to go away. Didn't there use to be a news section on the Village Pump? Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Carcharoth on this one. This is not an incident requiring admin intervention, that's why it wasn't posted on ANI. This is a noticeboard to make admins aware of developing stories and ongoing events, so I think AN is the perfect venue for such a notification. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is ironic, because I posted at ANI! :-) You are right, I should have posted here at AN. I just wish my post had arrived here before Guy's post that (however truthful or clueful it might be) will be interpreted as an 'attack is the best form of defense' response. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the likely knock-on effects on Jeff Merkey, Jimmy Wales, and other concerned articles as the various trolls come out of the woodwork, giving a heads-up about this newest bit of trollfood seems perfectly reasonable.

But that's the trouble. When you have reliable sources like the BBC reporting both sides of the story, you can't call it trollfood any more, or those who point to the BBC article as trolls. You have to swallow hard and be polite and stick to policy and sources (as we should always do anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they reported both sides here, only Jeff's side. And Jeff is wrong. I told him so on the phone, and I was of the opinion that he had accepted that (part of the reason I unblocked him, in fact). Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To steal from American economist Paul Krugman, "One of my lines in a column -- in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally -- was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' Then they'd quote some Democrats saying that it was round." So, yeah, the BBC is reporting a "Shape of Earth--Views Differ" story. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but how do we say that, as Wikipedia editors of the article, without some source to back that up? Do you know how bad it looks when those editing the article say they "know" this is all wrong? Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton, yes, precisely. And Carcharoth's point is also valid. We have this situation with agenda-driven reporting by people like Cade Metz, who report only those whose views serve their agenda. It's a problem. I have no solution, other than for the Foundation to mobilise its communications committee and actually respond to some of these stories with "official" accounts of what went on. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, are you talking about your unblock of him from May 2007? The block log is here. And the BBC article says things like In response, Mr Wales has called the allegations "nonsense"." and "Jay Walsh, a spokesman for Wikipedia, told the Daily Telegraph that the allegation was "absolutely false" ." In fact, most of the article is given over to the rebuttals and denials by Jimmy and the WMF. It is mostly the lead-in to the article that has Merkey's claims. Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The problem with the piece is the tone; it builds Merkey up as some industry Titan before reporting that others dispute it. Calton's "Shape of Earth" comment sums it up perfectly. Although I think Jeff Merkey is a lot smarter and cooler than Shrub (I know which I'd rather have a beer with, anyway). Guy (Help!) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I hope you recorded your phone conversations with Merkey. Given his history, it would have been extremely foolish to discuss anything with him without being able to produce verbatim copies of those discussions to refute the misinterpretations and misrepresentations which could obviously be expected from him. --MediaMangler (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, cynic tho I be, I did not record it. I don't think Jeff is evil, I think he's a great guy, but weird. Hell, even he thinks he's weird! Guy (Help!) 16:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Guy. Let's leave the RS issues at the article's talk page, with any questions about Guy's prior conversation with Merkey left at his talk page. For the rest of us, let's just add the article to our watchlists. Trolling or incidents like this, may require admin intervention. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I had forgotten to watchlist Merkey's article (d'oh!). I am trying to contact him to work out a framework by which he can comment without violating the ban, since it would be very harsh indeed to extend or reset the ban simply because of his commenting on an issue in whihc he's directly involved. I'll talk to the arbs as well. As I think I made clear, I like Jeff and would like to see him back. He was trolled off the 'pedia quite deliberately. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The fallout of the last two weeks is entirely due to wrong-headed efforts to spin the truth resulting in people who are not credible having wikipedia articles white-washed so they look credible and then when they attack us publicly people take them seriously. Stop white-washing articles of living people. Not everyone is credible. Articles on people who are not credible should not give the impression that they are credible. I note someone's edit above indicates the BBC article is a 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' type article. Well, read our article on Jeff and see if you can see that the white-wash has created the same thing in that article. Jeff's opinions about anything do not have credibility. So said a US judge who ruled that he lies and creates his own universe. We do ourselves and our readers a disservice when we misrepresent published reliable sources that indicate that the subject of an article is notorious for being a liar. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since JVM has evaded his ArbCom ban with this edit [[25]], I am asking that his one year ban be reset. SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please don't do that. Like I said, I'm trying to get him to engage nicely, especially since the article is about him. It's scarcely fair to hammer the guy for commenting on his own article, especially since we have no proof that's him and not one of the SCOX trolls making trouble (yet again, as they have a very long history of making trouble). Guy (Help!) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, the address traceroutes through his private space. "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com", That IS proof. If he has concerns about his article, he can deal with OTRS. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff needs to be indef banned for his continuous manipulation of Wikipedia and its admins though offers of gifts (on a wiki mail list he offered a free computer to a top admin - makes me wonder what other gifts he has given, prehaps to admins that think he's a great guy?) and attacks of wikipedia to the press and legal threats and conflict of interest editing of articles. He is Trouble with a capital "T". WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be in any hurry to get Jeff back here editing, and it's probably inaccurate to say he was simply trolled out of here since he brought a significant portion of his troubles on himself. My only experience with him, which as far as I know played no major role in his block though it certainly could have, was at Reformed Egyptian. There he combined personal attacks - particularly against Mormons, which basically meant everyone who disagreed with him including me even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist - with what was probably the most tendentious pattern of editing I have ever seen (it got so bad I actually e-mailed JzG, who was sort of mentoring him at the time, about the situation which admittedly did seem to help). I think Merkey probably really likes this project, but most of the time he is quite impossible to communicate with on-Wiki and sort of makes up his own rules as he goes along. Nice guy, smart guy, liked by Guy - no matter. He's really not worth our trouble and it's probably better if he stays blocked. I agree with Guy though that it would behoove us to let that last edit slide rather than simply resetting the ban.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

True dat. I've asked him to email me to fix any issues, and have alerted the arbitrators. I see no pressing problem with him commenting if the debate at his article gets out of hand (as it has multiple times in the past), but it would be better if he left it to others to do the spadework. Quite a lot of us seem to be watching the article at present, which is good. I think the article tells us all we need to know about Merkey: he is something of a hothead, with a very strong (and sometimes misplaced) sense of right and wrong. As long as we're fair to him I don't think we'll see any problems here. As an aside, "go to OTRS" is not a great solution right now as OTRS has long backlogs and can take quite some time to fix even BLP problems. Anyone interested in fixing that can start by talking informally to Cary Bass. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal from voluntary 1RR

I am hereby withdrawing the 1RR which I had voluntarily decided to stick to for 2 months. However, I shall of course not indulge in reverts tell some admin here clarifies if there is any other procedure to withdraw a voluntary decision. Thanks. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This restriction was by community consensus. You have not shown community consensus indicating that you should no longer be bound by 1RR and thus, it still applies to you. See WP:RESTRICT and WP:ARBCOM if you wish to have this restriction lifted. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here is the archived WP:AN discussion thread. Ronnotel (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Yamla, it wasn't "voluntary", it was a community sanction. If you think you've turned over a new leaf and want to have it reviewed with a view to removing it then you need to appeal to the community but given the editing restriction has only been in place for about eight days, it is highly unlikely anyone will want to champion your cause. I'm not really sure why you think that this was a "voluntary decision" but it was clearly imposed as the result of a community discussion on ANI. Sarah 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[[26]] This is the link - where is the explicit community decision???? DemolitionMan (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• PUt it this way: if you start making more than 1RR, you'll rapidly find yourself blocked for disruption. Dress it up how you will, OK? Guy (Help!) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Demolitionman, that thread was clearly a proposal and discussion of a community sanction and was closed as one - look at the final comment by Jehochman. Also see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community which notes that you were placed on editing restrictions by the community. I'm not sure how clearer you need it to be... Sarah 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I had clearly and lucidly stated that I would accept the 1RR voluntarily only for this article - much to my surprise - it has been arbitrarily been decided my one individual to restrict me to 1 RR on all desi-related articles without any community decision. In light of this breach of faith, I have withdrawn the self-imposed 1RR. So, I would like to know where is this decision? I just want a link - that's it. I am obviously not going to break any rule, so I would appreciate it Guy if you spoke more politely. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the mis-understanding is in how community decisions are measured. In general, WP:CONSENSUS is the standard that's used - which basically means everyone may not agree with a decision, but everyone does agree to abide by it. In this case, the community consists of administrators (those capable of enforcing the proposed restriction). The fact that the proposed restriction was presented on this page and received some support, and, importantly, no dissent, was the basis that I used to determine that the restriction had been agreed to by the community. As an aside, I think you might have an easier time in editing if you learned more about how WP:CONSENSUS works, because the same principle is in use at Indian Rebellion of 1857. Ronnotel (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of disparaging redirects

After seeing that EncMstr deleted the redirect page Client 9 and protected it against recreation, and discovering some similar ones, I deleted them (all 7) and protected them. Ordinarily, I prefer to confirm that deletions should be done before I do them, but in this case, due to BLP issues, I figured that I should first delete them and then ask. Was I correct in the deletions and protections? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but they look fine to me (all variants of "Client 9", and I assume all pointing to the obvious place). Anyone who knows to search for "Client 9" (etc.) knows where to look in the first place, and the target is potentially an explosive BLP problem due to the nature of the material. These can always be recreated later if there's no longer a BLP problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At some point in time, someone is going to refer to "Client 9" as an offhand reference and someone will look it up to figure out what was meant. We should have that redirect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And when there is a reliable source that shows that the individual is actually Client 9, beyond doubt, then I would agree. We're still in the allegation stage, at this point, with no conviction or incontrovertable proof as yet - so, unfortunately, this would amount to a tacit confirmation that the individual is indeed client 9. While that's extremely likely, given the situation, it's not confirmed as yet, unless I really, really haven't been paying attention. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that while some of these may be things that a person may put in the search box, others (such as Client-9) aren't. I saw what was seemed to be an attempt to try and outsmart the admins by using variations which (they hoped) we wouldn't find all of. And the edit summaries on some of the redirect creations were along the lines of "Hahaha". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular redirect strikes me as useful to readers, but I agree it's a BLP concern and should be discussed -- the key question is whether we have sourcing for it. I've quickly found both CNN and the New York Times making clear reference identifying the article subject as Client 9. At any rate, Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal is either an alternative redirect target or a serious BLP problem (if so, feel free to remove the link). – Luna Santin (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

It would be appreciated if an administrator could delete this redirect. Per an arbcom ruling, I am fairly sure that trivial changes to a redirect are allowed to be ignored when moving a page back. This page was moved for the umpteenth billion time to a (naturally) more POV-pushy title away from a consensus version. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris

I propose a community ban of

• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

The Mantanmoreland ArbCom case is apparently about to close, with 4 net votes to close in place. Therefore, I propose that the community act to tie up the loose ends here, by enacting a community ban of Samiharris as a disruptive sock and POV pusher, and Mantanmoreland as a disruptive sockmaster and POV pusher. I am willing to enact the ban myself after discussion. (but not until the case actually formally closes) As a reminder, despite ArbCom findings not specifically acknowledging it, the community has already found the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling, as documented in the RfC. I was debating where to propose this but this seems the best place. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody ought to leave the occasional comment, lest this notice get archived. R. Baley (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Interview and notices

66.30.77.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been placing notices for an interview between User:ScienceApologist and User:Martinphi on a variety of article talk pages and user talk pages. I haven't been reverting these, as they are marginally relevant, but I'm concerned that this might not be appropriate. As far as I can tell, this IP hasn't been used for any purpose other than discussing this interview and telling people about it, which raises a bit of a red flag in my mind (which I'll admit might be a bit too much on edge from combating linkspam). What's the general view on this sort of activity? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to get more diverse participation, as per Zvika's request [27]. Figured an anon IP might be a bit less polarizing. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so I take it you're a registered user editing anonymously for this purpose? Kind of what I was suspecting. Eh, it might be technically a violation of WP:SOCK, but I'm not that sure it's really a problem. Personally, I think there's zero problem with mentioning this on user talk pages, but I think it might be stretching the rules a bit to place these notices on the article talk pages, as it technically doesn't have anything to do with that particular article. --Infophile ^{(Talk)(Contribs)} 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any form of healthy interaction between the two experienced and knowledgeable if strong-minded users, as opposed to a continuation of the never-ending requests to get one or the other of them blocked on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, would be quite welcome to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with the existence of the interview (perhaps a bad choice of titling on my part). It's just the leaving notices on article talk pages I was concerned about. But since no one's stepped forward to say there's a problem with that (or are they all distracted by the Mantanmoreland case above?), I'll leave it be... --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Copyright isn't my strong point, so I could use a second opinion. Image:Johnmunch.jpg (a copyrighted screenshot of a television program) is being used in the article for the fictional character John Munch as well as in the article for the actor who portrays him, Richard Belzer. While there is a fair-use rationale for both, I don't believe that such an image can be used in the Richard Belzer article. Is this the case? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct- in the article on the actor, its use in the infobox meant it was being used to identify the actor, not the character. A free image of the actor could be located or created, and so I have removed the invalid rationale, and removed the image from the actor's article. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) faithless (^speak) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite block on Ehud Lesar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby reversed as it has not been demonstrated that he is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Necessary actions will be performed by an arbitrator. The sockpuppetry accusations are found to have been made in good faith. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note

Resolved

 – Move along, people, nothing to see here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Threats reported to the appropriate local authorities. Bstone (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

diff. So who wants to call the cops? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, WP:RBI I think. Black Kite 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The note mentions me; it is possibly related to threats that myself and other users (Jack Merridew, Gavin.collins) have been recieving from members of another website regarding our work to clear out a lot of crufty D&D articles. There is at least one archived thread in WP:ANI regarding this matter. I am taking no stance about what is to be done about this particular threat. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SUICIDE CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked. We'll let the usual people know, just in case it wasn't a sick hoax though. Nick (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I semi'd Wikipedia:AN as well. Black Kite 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

agian :/ CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that this is almost certainly a troll, we have one edit from an IP which is dynamic ComCast, and no identifying information. Black Kite 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen more than one person threaten suicide and then continue coming back to pick fights--both on and off wiki--but I left the editor some information on crisis hotlines anyway. If they're serious, that's certainly a better resource than we are. --Masamage ♫ 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that :). CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This method of posting the same message in the same place from unrelated IPs which are not open proxies is consistent with the way 4channers have vandalised talk pages and articles I have worked on before. I'm not going to say how its done for deny purposes, but I can confirm that this matches their style. Whether the threat should be considered serious is a different matter. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV I am taking this seriously. As a licensed EMT, I opine we get this fellow help to wherever he is ASAP. Let's start tracking him down so we can contact his local ambulance service and police. According to NetSol, he's located in Houston and on a Comcast network[28]. Bstone (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you find them, please tell them to stop trolling. (Seriously though, the second "suicide threat" came from Special:Contributions/70.169.18.67 which previously issued a threat against J Milburn). I think we can safely call this resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RBI, oversight the edits (they have been using permalinks to old revisions to harass Milburn and two other users on their talk pages). Nothing more needs to be done here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Comcast. It was not possible to determine the physical jurisdiction of this subscriber or to reach a Comcast representative by telephone. Durova^Charge! 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems 85.226.112.161 just reposted the threat here[29] tho it was quickly reverted. One might be curious to know that this is the same city and country as our Plano HS threat. Bstone (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the nature of the threat here makes this one in particular not credible, the fact that multiple IPs across a wide area are posting the same content makes it clear that it's trolling not a legit threat. However, if it's near the Plano HS harrassment/threat site, then it might be tied in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd still WHOIS them and call the cops in their respective areas; these IPs have been harassing Milburn and two other users for the past month. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not our business to estimate which suicide threats are real and which are hoaxes. Every suicide response protocol I know is to treat all threats as serious until trained personnel determine otherwise. And if this were a hoax, a knock on the door by some personnel in uniform might not be such a bad thing anyway. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you also contact the ISPs behind the IP replacement edits here? Maybe cops at where those IPs are will get them to stop thinking this is a joke and that they can lose their liberty because of it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We're in no position here to interview the person who made the threat. Given it's odd to see it coming from such wide geographical areas, but there could have been an original legit threat which is now being copycatted by the stalker. Bstone (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the only info we have is from whois saying it's Comcast and Durova has dispatched an email to Comcast informing them they may have an issue, the only next thing to do is call the local police and inform them of the IP making the threat and that it belongs to Comcast. I shall volunteer to do this is no one else does. Bstone (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's coming from a wide array of geographical areas is that this is all coming in from an external forum (I'm not going to say which one per WP:DENY). It's the same for all the death threats on J Milburn's talk page. Revert, Block, Ignore, Contact Cops (for harassment, as that's what this really is), and Oversight the edits. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Jeske. The IP that re-posted the suicide threat on this page resolves to Leeds (UK), whilst the two that are re-trolling J Milburn's user page with the same threat as the one from the "suicidal" editor above resolve to California and Sweden. This is standard off-wiki trolling, folks - I know the procedures for suicide threats, but seriously, don't waste your time on this one (although a knock on the door from the local law enforcement might be useful for some of these people). Black Kite 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So are these all unique threats or from a proxy server? Bstone (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Different people, co-ordinated off-wiki. As above, no further details on here though. Black Kite 01:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, per WP:TOV I am taking them seriously. I cannot risk not doing so. Bstone (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this I have informed the Houston, TX ambulance folks of the IP and it belonging to Comcast with a threat of suicide. They have said they will take it from there. Bstone (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This has also been reported to the Atlanta, GA police. I gave them the IP and the number for Cox Communications. Bstone (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proxy?

Resolved

A recent edit by 64.210.144.214 replaced his userpage with [30]. Suggesting that this may be an open proxy. Could someone investigate this. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been blocked, suggesting that the blocking administrator tested it before blocking it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy I went to the URL, and the IP that the proxy gives is the IP above. It's blocked, so this is resolved... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries Redux

original note on this here...

The article has become a battle ground between church supporters and detractors with allegations and denials of direct church involvement, general incivility, misleading edit summaries (with a valid point raised), allegations of vandalism and edit warring. At this point it's no longer about the Afd, which was apparently vandalism but the establishment of anything resembling a stable argument. I have no vested interest in which "version" of the article exists but I'd prefer it to be something stable. It appears that the at least several of the editors have some connection to the church, including the IP, although some are handling it far better than others. I think the edit warring and article in general needs an eye by someone not headed to bed this minute. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do it myself because I've voiced my own opinion at the AfD, but is there any precedence to protecting/semi-protecting the AfD itself? I've never seen that done, but then again, I've never seen a lot of things, a million dollars being one of them. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been some recent AfDs protected due to socks and other shenanigans, unfortunately I don't remember the article names. Something about Maoism in India and SriLanka, that might jog someone's memory. I'm so sick of this recent trend of nearly all out wars on AfD. I think there's a lot of good faith here but if the church is involved and/or vested detractors, this is never going to be a calm article. Has it just been deleted once (the speedy) or does it go back even further? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained rename of "Lists of companies" pages

About a day ago User:Russavia renamed just about all the article (around 100) in Category:Lists of companies by country from names like List of Australian companies to List of companies of Australia . I posted to the user's talk page asking why this was done or where it was discussed but they have not answered and I couldn't find any discuss looking around. I feel that the new naming is sounds a lot worse than the previous wording and should be reversed. IF there was in fact little or no consultation about this could someone with better tools than me please reverse it? I was starting to reverse a few manually but though posting here might be a better idea. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no rush in setting things straight -- massively reverting is probably just as bad as massively changing, unless there's some reason doing so is urgent and obviously correct. I can't speak for another user, but I believe the "Foo of Bar" construction is more widely used, at least in this area (see Category:Companies by country, Category:Companies by country and industry. It's a bit wordier, but may make things easier for some purposes -- many people know Australia->Australian, but fewer might know Yemen->Yemeni (for example), and using only one form may make searching easier. Obviously this convention is not universally used or preferred, if we look at examples like Category:People by nationality, but it does seem to be common in the particular area we're looking at. Feel free to discuss, of course, and we should await Russavia's response. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a response on SimonLyall's talk page, and will post here verbatim.

You may or may not have noticed that List of companies in the United Arab Emirates is up for Afd. Just one of many of these lists which have been put up for Afd. I made the changes firstly by following WP:BOLD, because of the following reasons:

• The country specific category which these lists belong to is Category:Companies of country, not Category:Countryian companies (e.g. Category:New Zealand companies or Category:Barbudian companies)
• Using titles such as Barbudian companies and the like present problems, as if someone is searching for the list of companies from Barbados, they are more likely to search for the country name rather than the descriptive. It also presents the problem of companies from Dominica and the Dominican Republic, both could be titled List of Dominican' companies. If people are not familiar with the descriptor for a country, it is going to make it harder to find and to categorise (wasting time looking), whereas what I have changed it to makes it so much easier.
• Using the word "of" denotes that these lists are for companies OF the country concerned. --Russavia (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, of sounds really bad. Shouldn't that be from? — Edokter • Talk • 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB favor

Resolved

Could a nice admin go and clear me for AWB at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rudget. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content, gettin' paid to spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Associated_Content_links.2C_get_paid_to_spam

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep#http:.2F.2Fwww.associatedcontent.com

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#Associated_Content:_another.2C_bigger_Suite101.com.3F

See also - Associated Content, Performance Bonus Program and Payment

Past actions and for comparison, here are two links to the many Suite101.com removal discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Suite101 dot com
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#suite101.com

Associated Content links

• Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
• Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
• Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

Major concerns. Associated Content articles are no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. Articles are not professionally written, don't have sources, and are not suitable as reliable sources. We have been spammed with over 730 of these low-quality links. I'm not convinced how these could ever be used as as a citation or source, (in any appropriate context). This type of material is not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. This 'is another, bigger Suite101.com and should be delt with in the same manner. --Hu12 (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should blacklist them. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps someone should take a sharp pencil to Associated Content as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

These are just downright unencyclopedic and we're an encyclopedia.

These links have been cleaned out before only to come back in even greater volume. I strongly recommend blacklisting. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the decision to blacklist. Maybe this should be commented on more officially, so that external links which have no value can be blacklisted a bit quicker, to prevent some people having to perform a lot of work, and to prevent damage to articles (specific urls on such servers can be whitelisted when necessery). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting seems appropriate here. The site is not a reliable source and probably won't become one, unless they severely alter their publication/editorial standards. If that ever happens they can be whitelisted. I can't personally figure out how the blacklist works, but if there's an admin around who can, I'd suggest they just go ahead and do so. Natalie (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can get it added to the blacklist by an admin who knows what they're doing by putting a notice up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight on time at the moment and won't have time to put up a proper notice there, though I will when I'm free if no one else has by then. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've put up a request at the meta blacklist. This still leaves us the problem of how to deal with the current links. We could set XLinkBot on the task, though that has the potential to cause some chaos. Whatever we do for a project this large, it would be best if we have a clear resolution here we can point to to say this isn't just a bunch of users on a personal crusade. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing blacklisted links certainly cannot someone's personal crusade. I've already filed a BRFA to receive a permission for my bot to remove such links. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot only reverts, and associatedcontent is already on the revertlist (it only reverts unexperienced editors and IPs). XLinkBot does not have a function to clean back in time, a bot that could do that would be an asset! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving RoboMaxCyberSem a barnstar!--Hu12 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll still need to handle to handle the links outside enWiki, but those seem to be much less in number (I found 13 on fr and 7 on de when I checked a bit ago), so it should be possible for a human to handle it. I'll likely get at it myself, assuming this link does get blacklisted. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to wander over multiple projects (my matrix). I'll get those--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Meta request was deferred pending further investigation. I've put up a request at the local blacklist for the time being. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting paid to spam - other sites

Some other sites that have a similar (or the same) setup. these also lack oversight, pay for your publications, fail the core content policies, and tend to be spammed quite often, and in those cases also often with a conflict of interest. There is a lot of work involved for several wikipedia editors in cleaning after the people who add these links (though the bots tend to help a bit). A list (feel free to expand):

• lulu.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • [31] & [32] ("Lulu gives you all sorts of ways to sell your fabulous new creation to the whole wide world – you set your own price, we print and dispatch each item as it’s ordered, and you collect 80% of the creator revenue on every sale.")
  • Example: The top 4 edits caught by COIBot are from user:gianna_61, who added www.lulu.com/giannivenice 4 times to Premature ejaculation
  • Reverted by XLinkBot.
• ehow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • [33] ("First things first, in case you didn’t already know, all eHow registered users can write and publish articles on their topic of choice and, through our new Writer’s Compensation Program (WCP), automatically earn extra cash through PayPal.")
  • Reverted by XLinkBot.

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB consensus poll - reminder

The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar will end March 15. If you haven't already, please consider participating. Kingturtle (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

I'm not sure where to put it, so I'm putting it here. I recently tried to fix an article on New York to fix the name of the governor. I tried to fix it by reverting, which also put some comment about 9/11 into it. It had already been there and I was unaware of it. I was notified that I was going to be blocked for vandalism. I had found this statement afterwards and was trying to fix the problem (it was an honest mistake, I didn't know it was there). When this came up, I told the notifier what was goning on, and was immediately posted by another individual I was going to be blocked for vandalism User:Invisidble Diplomat. I tried to tell HIM what was going on, his reply can be found on his talk page (a picture of a gun) [34]. Just now, I was told (by him) to go to an administrator. Here I am.65.65.230.53 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)