Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• 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

Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz

These two articles are currently the subject of an edit war largely relating to rsradford (talk · contribs) (who is apparently behind this site:[1] and is currently blocked) and the users Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs). Administrator Dbachmann (talk · contribs) has been here now and then, but I don't believe his involvement has helped the situation at all. I'd like to request another uninvolved administrator with no relationship with any of these editors to come in and take a look at what's going on. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It appears to me that the involvement of rsdadford is very different in the two articles. In the case of Rydberg, he does seem to be removing relevant well-sourced information of the subject's sexuality. In the case of Metz, he is trying to insert appropriate sourced quotations about her biography. There are many specifics I have not fully gone into yet. In terms of manner and argument, his style of discussion is not compatible with proper collaborative editing--but neither is that of some of the people who oppose him. I'm not trying to give a judgment here, just put the matter in perspective from someone looking at it afresh. DGG (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given a final warning to one of the eds. involved about NPA, continuing after this matter has been raised here. DGG (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack

I've written a new essay! Others are asked to improve on it, as I'm not a very good writer myself. I only ask that under the (unfortunately) likely scenario someone proposes it for deletion, they remember the mass of other brilliant masterpieces on Wikiepdia (e.g., WP:AAGF, WP:POT) written in the same spirit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, alright then. What's that got to do with admins? I'll look at the essay anyway, but.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. When User:Radiant wrote an essay, he talked about it here, and no one complained. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wow"? It's not that amazing. This desk is for things that need admin attention, and this doesn't... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take offence. I'm not sure why that other essay was discussed here...This page is for discussing admin actions, or discussing what an admin can do about X because of Y. Maybe the essay needed admin attention? I'm not sure. But bear in mind that the noticeboard is backlogged enough as it is, and we can only discuss the things detailed in the header. Otherwise it'll become manic! :) Hope that clears it up, and congrats on your essay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought it might do well for administrators to quote it to those who might need it in the future. It happens. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for things that may be relevant to admins. Issues that require admin action go on WP:AN/I, not here. It was entirely appropriate for TES to post this here. Neıl 龱 08:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the resolved template as there's nothing to resolve. This is a board for communicating with administrators (and others interested), ANI is a board for administrator attention. Evil Spartan; good essay. giggy _(:O) 08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you both said that (Neil, Giggy). Talk about cold reception... ^{Spot-on essay btw!} Seraphim♥Whipp 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a different essay. Wikipedia:Don't Accuse People. Naerii - Talk 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't need it as we already have a page for it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Better target for that redirect [2]. Otherwise, one would believe that AN is used exclusively to accuse people of stuff, and everybody knows that this is not true, right? right? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Amandapanda1989

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. First edit right out of the chute was a fully formed and wikied article on a completely NN band. Edit summaries were self-congratulatory, as in "hooray, I just edited Wikipedia!" I tagged it as a speedy and sho' nuff, she's found the hangon key and is in a bit of a panic on the article talk page, claiming that she doesn't know what to do to the article to get it to stay. Strange, considering the skill level of wiki editing this individual shows. I'm not trying to bite a new user, but this is just, well, strange and I thought I should alert someone to it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that's a handily done page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it, though? That's why I raised the concern. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, anyone who can code up an article like that in one edit has got to be at least somewhat ok :) I've waived the speedy and put on a prod instead. Let's see if she knows (or reads) she can rm it straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. I'd rather see it stay if the band really is notable. With all the "Myspace bands" we get clobbered with, it's too easy to pick off a possibly notable one. Good call.  :) Gotta call it a night. Thnaks for looking into this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

She rm'd it and added a cite, cheers to that :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

SSP/RFCU merger

Per debate close, the merger proposal of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU passed. The discussion was open from April 13 until June 18. A few details of process are being finalized per Thatcher. The main points are:

1. Rather than having SSP pages and also RFCU pages to search, often duplicating matters, there will simply be one set of request pages, with one page for each alleged puppeteer, and {{RFCU}} used to request checkuser findings (if valid, not fishing, etc).
2. The role of clerks and patrolling admins will become more active.
3. Checkusers should find their work becomes a little more streamlined.
4. Repeat or complex cases should also become easier to look up with luck.
5. Updated help/guideline page, which will also emphasize that these pages are purely for evidence of socking concerns (not other aspects of the dispute).
6. A couple of anti-abuse aspects, to preserve the tight controls over checkuser requests from the RFCU pages.

For now, after last discussions, SSP is going to be slightly updated to get it ready (guidance, page/archive update, help tags, etc). When that's working, then users can be directed to post their RFCU cases there and tag them for checkuser attention, and instructions updated to explain how.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! And apologies for not weighing in on this sooner but, as a busy checkuser, I certainly support this merger. It makes a lot of sense given the crossover between these two areas - Alison ^❤ 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear this as well. I always thought the distinction was a bit unclear; this will simplify the process significantly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the close was premature. There are significant issues with weak or no responses. Furthermore, the call of "consensus" is wishywashy, the consensus, if there was one, is very very weak. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The debate close would be more convincing if anyone had provided a good answer for Thatcher's last comment about the mechanics of how the new system will operate. The documents at User:FT2/CU 2 and User:FT2/CU 2/Guidelines give the desired user interface, not the details of how indexing and archiving will work. Perhaps someone can write the new clerk's manual (if there is such a thing) for the proposed system. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the existing WP:SSP system is more user friendly. Why not just use that format to start a case, and then add a template if Checkuser attention is needed? The template can add the case to a category, perhaps Category:Suspected Sock Puppet Reports Needing Checkuser or something shorter and cleverer. There are many situations where checkuser is not needed or worthwhile, if the sock master has not edited for a long time or if the socking is very obvious. I have very frequently moved SSP cases to RFCU and would welcome a merger. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:AnotherSolipsist

Resolved

 – See User_talk:AnotherSolipsist#.E2.97.95___.E2.97.95

I don't know where to report this or if this is even the right place for it but another user has been aggressively harrassing me to no end despite that we never had any communication directly to each other. The only basis for his action is that I joined a controversial article page and he happened to be on the "other side" as he sees it because I added to the article things that he didn't like which is addressing my interest in child abuse concerns, which is part of my larger interest in social concerns, welfare etc. I didn't know that the page would be such a hornet nest and since I have no interest in making enemies especially with people I don't know.

First he accused me of being someone else and now he is endlessly "stalking" me on whatever page I go and using specious reasons for undoing almost everything I do. For example, there is are pages that list the age of consents for states or countries in a certain part of the world. To help make things clear, I added the range of age of consents (like 16 to 18) based on the ages listed in the article. He keeps deleting this because there is "no source."

Another example of him taking away my contribution with a specious reason is on the child abuse page http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Child_abuse&diff=219981130&oldid=219861014 where he says "poor title". If you look at the section you can easily see the change from "Effects" to "Psychological Damage" that I did was really a *better* title. The whole section talks about anxiety, psychiatric problems, etc. I'm coping the paragraph below so you can see exactly what I mean.

"Children with a history of neglect or physical abuse are at risk of developing psychiatric problems,[14][15] including a disorganized attachment style.[16][17][18] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[19] as well as anxiety, depressive, and acting-out symptoms.[20][21] A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment.[22][23]

The effects of child abuse vary, depending on its type. A 2006 study found that childhood emotional and sexual abuse were strongly related to adult depressive symptoms, while exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence had a moderately strong association, and physical abuse a moderate one. For depression, experiencing more than two kinds of abuse exerted synergetically stronger symptoms. Sexual abuse was particularly deleterious in its intrafamilial form, for symptoms of depression, anxiety, dissociation, and limbic irritability. Childhood verbal abuse had a stronger association with anger-hostility than any other type of abuse studied, and was second only to emotional abuse in its relationship with dissociative symptoms.[24]"

Is there anyway to get him to stop? Otherwise I see no end to this. I cannot imagine anything that could cause such an extreme reaction especially from someone I've never talked to. This is unbelievable. --Burrburr (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the preliminary CU findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox which do have a bearing on this user's credibility. MBisanz ^talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is an abusive sockpuppet who was registered to participate in an edit war on Pederasty. I don't understand why he or she even remains unbanned. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record Burrburr has nothing to do with me though my RCU does indeed contain info after AS wrongly accused this user of being my sockpuppet. I think there are real privacy CU issues here and advise caution. I also think AS should especially be cautious rather than making statements including words like "abusive". Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

AnotherSolpsist is jumping to his own conclusions. If you looks at my first day of editing you will see he is not telling the truth. First, not even Thatcher who did the check has made a decision that I'm a sockpuppet but this is partly because he is out of town and I hope he sees in the end that there are definitely more than just me using this terminal. So AnotherSolipsist is making that decision himself. I still don't understand the extremeness of his actions. The only thing I can see he has against me is I just happened to fall on the "wrong side" of him. Is this the way you treat people who have different opinions than yourself? I also looked up "edit war." It says there that

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area.

If you look on my first day under "my contributions" section, I did not once do this. Just because we have different opinions doesn't make it "edit war" and it doesn't mean you make it personal. All my contributions are uniquely my own. I'm not just undoing what other people did. The closest thing to a "revert" is this http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=219855631&oldid=219855493 but even that is not just undoing what someone else did. My interest in this only is to the amount that it is related to my interest in child abuse, which is part of a bigger interest in child welfare.

I tried to bring something new to it by adding information on age of consent in the section on sexual abuse of minors because I believed it was skewed by not having enough on the overlap between pederasty and child sexual abuse. I didn't think this was acknowledged enough and found in the discussion page that this was controversial and other people believed the same but some didn't want to acknowledge it. Reading the article I can see how it might not have been seen that way in the past especially with Ancient Greeks, but people see it differently now, so I changed the title "Conflation with sexual abuse of a minor" to "Modern interpretations as child sexual abuse" because of this. And I can go on and on. Lots of my stuff on that page were taken away but after seeing how much it was a hornet nest and people like AnotherSoloplist was taking things so personally, I never redid any of my work on that page and decided to avoid it completely. I'm not in the business of making enemies.

If you look at all my contributions and comments and then all Anothersolplist that follow mine or are related to them then I hope you can see my point.--Burrburr (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That excuse ("this terminal is shared!") is made so often that I doubt anyone will believe it without solid proof. Do you have any? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is because there are thousands of schools in the country? Have you thought of that? How about the "war editing" thing? Since you didn't say anything about it you must admit I'm right. And how di you prove the terminal is shared without violating privacy? Honestly, how? And since you are following my every move still you will see I'm off tomorrow so you will have to find someone new to bug. Happy searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrburr (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've talked with AnotherSolopsist and we sorted it all out so everything is now fine between us. I am withdrawing my complaint against him.--Burrburr (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Undelete requested

Resolved

The article on Doualy Xaykaothao was deleted about one month ago at the subjects request. The reason for the delete has expired now so it should be undeleted. - Icewedge (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhh.. it was deleted citing some OTRS ticket. I imagine the folks who handle such stuff would be the ones to know when/if it should be undeleted. I recommend nobody touch this one without further information. Friday (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your best bet is to email the guy who deleted and ask if it's OK. (See [[WP:OTRS for more info.) giggy _(:O) 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I talked with her over e-mail when the article was first deleted. She had the article deleted because she needed to get into Myanmar to do some journalism and prominent web mentions could have jeopardized that. She just sent an e-mail saying that her trip was over. Check the history of the deleted page as well, I believe one edit summary contains a request to have the article deleted for a month; a month has expired. See the original AN thread here. - Icewedge (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored (bar one edit) Happy‑melon 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed a couple more edits, as I figured it would be best not to have the journalist's personal email in the history. - auburnpilot talk 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection Policy clarification

If an admin and another user get in an edit war/dispute, and a non-involved admin (never edited the article) protects it and asks for dispute resolution on the talk page, I assume it is a no-no for the edit warring admin to lift the page protection arbitrarily, without asking the protecting admin and without any consensus to do so on the talk page. Is this correct? pschemp | talk 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. That's wheel-warring. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but other than wheel warring, it violates the protection policy, correct? pschemp | talk 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not really an abuse of the protection policy per se, it's an abuse of the admin protection tool because an involved administrator has undone an uninvolved admin without consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the part that says, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."? pschemp | talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah then, it is against the protection policy - there are more warnings against doing things like that in the admin policy, hence why I said it was more abuse of tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for response. pschemp | talk 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... a one-side discussion, I take it. Thanks for informing me of this. To start, the said discussion above involves urban exploration to which I have edited for several years now. It should be noted that there was no edit war at the article; it involved two reverts by Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who continued to insert a POV tag without discussion, and one by myself due to a lack of discussion regarding the tag. That's not an edit war. If you followed up on the talk page, you would note that there seems to have been consensus towards removing the POV tag on the basis that it was unwarranted. Various citations provided by Papa Lima Whiskey that would have validated the use of the POV tag proved to be worthless; the citations were in no way related to urban exploration and its subtopics in the context of the original discussion.

Which was, urban exploration poses an undue financial burden for the owners of the property. The article did not mention that. Or that urban exploration involved illicit activities, which it does not always. There was much discussion and there seems to be a consensus towards removing the POV tag on the basis that no credible sources were found to validate the above claims. Since you were not actively monitoring the article and clearly did not read any of the involved discussions, and that there were changes needed to be made involving more than the POV tag... The tag was up for a week with faulty reasoning, hence its removal (6 June to 13 June).

If I was in error, then I apologise, but you could have handled this far better than leaving this nonsense and opened up a more reasonable discussion on my talk page (rather than leaving me out of the loop). seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't make a trivial redirect because of title blacklist

I'd like to redirect ␍␊ to Newline (␍ redirects to Carriage Return and both ␊ and Linefeed redirect to Newline). The blacklist won't let me. Those characters are control character placeholders. The name I chose is, according to Newline, a placeholder for the exact chars that Microsoft Windows etc. produces when you hit the enter key. --Thinboy00 @745, i.e. 16:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Not that I'm really sure anyone will search for that anyway, but redirects are cheap... -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How is one even supposed to get that into the search box? This is completely useless. — Edokter • Talk • 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist

Didn't want to announce this before (in case I was reverted), but Brion just sync'd the code live. Just wanted to let other sysops know that the Spam blacklist now applies to edit summaries. Have a good day. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

\o/ Great work. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

request to delete a template

Could someone please delete the template below? Editors are starting to use it again.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26

  • Template:FootnotesSmall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just to check first: Have they all been replaced as per the discussion? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that wasn't set to 100% was swapped with {{reflist}} and everything else was switched to <references/>--Rockfang (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

user page a copy of an article

User:Wu1976 appears to be a copy of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Is there a policy regarding this? Thanks Btyner (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the editor is using his userpage as a sandbox to work on the article? So far as I know, that's fine, as long as there's no fair use media involved. -- Vary | Talk 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As Vary said. There's some relevant bits at Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages if you wanted to see it in black and white. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Username

User talk:Shegay. Im not sure if this username is appropriate. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Borderline. WP:UAA handles stuff like this for future reference, but I don't think this particular username is that bad. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess they're thinking of the town in Afghanistan. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, maybe. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite offensive to call "she" gay. It's lesbian. "Gay" shows a male bias. If "gay" is used in the sexual orientation sense, I suggest "shelesbian" or "shehomosexual" to be less male-biased. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is gender neutral, as a few gay friends of mine (men and women) would likely attest - if they were interested in WP... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Of course, "gay" is a co-opted word.

With usernames in the considerably large gray area, it's often helpful to assume good faith and wait for them to start editing, then judge their likely intent based on those edits. In this particular case, it seems they're worth keeping an eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley

Would someone protect this page please, ive left a message at the protection page but they've all been asleep for hours. Editer is adding multiple different unrationed pictures to article on his account and IP adress, aswell as adding some unsourced crap about her marriage to jackson. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have cooled off .... for now ..... — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ever run into that problem again, you can leave a message on my talk page. I'm the rare admin is up overnight US time. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I thought I was a lonely Ghost at these hours.— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unblock of deleted Bum, Afghanistan

The above page has been previously deleted and then protected from recreation. Sadly, it is in fact the name of several places in Afghanistan. These include a village about 36 miles north of Kandahar with about 40 households, the valley the village lies in, and another village near the first one. Would there be any objections to allowing the page to be recreated? John Carter (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. From that deletion log, I imagine it will need to be re-protected shortly after you create a valid article (or dab page or whatever you're intending). BTW, you might want to try WP:RFPP in the future... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be formatted as a disambiguation page if there are multiple places known as "Bum, Afghanistan" (not to be confused with "Bumfuck, Egypt" mind you). — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Account creator

Where does one go to get the account creator userright? I have just started getting active in WP:ACC and have hit the 6 account limit. - Icewedge (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've granted you the right. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kk, thanks. I'll go put it to good use. - Icewedge (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPBiography

I know the proper place to request that significant edits are made to a protected is WP:RFPP, but for some reason it won't work - something on the template over there is malfunctioning. Anyway, can a edit be made to WPBiography so that C-Class is included in the code. It should be added in between these two lines:

|B|b=[[Category:B-Class biography (core) articles]]

|Start|start=[[Category:Start-Class biography (core) articles]]

The line added should be:

|C|c=[[Category:C-Class biography (core) articles]]

This needs to be all the way down the page for the other sections of the biographical articles. I would do it, but I'm not an admin. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Have the bio project said they want it? If this change is made, it cannot be quickly reversed given the sheer number of articles using it. Has this been asked on the project talkpage? Woody (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've looked at that template before. I'll give it a go. If I run into problems, I'll try the sandbox and testcases pages first. In fact, I'll do that first anyway - that is what they are for! This is a widely used template, so the changes may clog up the job queue for a while. And given Woody's comment above, I'll just prepare a sandbox version for now. Could someone notify the project? Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but C-Class has been recently introduced and needs to be inserted into the template to keep up with things, like with all the other WikiProjects on Wikipedia. It would be a bit stupid to have all the other projects using C-Class and the Biography one not using it. There's no harm in it, is there? D.M.N. (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You somehow managed to make the sandbox changes before I did. have you tested the changes? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there is, this is used on over 500,000 pages; it is the 10th most linked page. When changed, the job queue will be clogged. To do this twice would be very stupid. The "C" class is entirely optional, I know milhist are having a discussion on whether it is worthwhile implementing it. I ask that you do not implement this yet until a discussion has taken place (one just opened on WT:WPBIO). Woody (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo & User:Xasha

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been warned to stop *his* attacks and abuse on other editors. Look on their block log. I propose a ban for both of them (it's only one for sure). 1largeatom (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For vandal Moldopodo

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 20:59, 5 June 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction)
• 10:54, 2 June 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing, persistent incivility. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren)
• 19:13, 15 March 2008 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (disruptive editing at Balti Steppe)
• 05:35, 31 December 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (false reason. For the last 7 days there was no edit conflict)
• 21:29, 30 December 2007 Scientizzle (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 14 days ‎ (Edit warring)
• 13:22, 23 December 2007 FisherQueen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring)
• 21:10, 26 November 2007 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (on the proviso that he not go edit-warring again, espcially on romanian-related articles)
• 21:03, 25 November 2007 AGK (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (disruptive editing: edit warring in order to push a particular opinion, anti-consensus edits despite repeated warnings, failure to heed cautions, et cetera)
• 20:42, 19 November 2007 Nat (Talk | contribs) blocked "Moldopodo (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring)

For vandal Xasha

Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 20:44, 3 June 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement)
• 17:14, 30 May 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1largeatom (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 Jun 2008

And whose sock are you? --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to use my own account to post the message here. To be fully protected by the wave of personal attacks from that editor.--1largeatom (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The above got you fully indef blocked by me - whatever basis in truth the claims, my understanding of WP:SOCK disallows the use of an alternate account to post such content and allow the main account to escape censure/consequences. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I fully agree with LessHeard VanU (it's understandable that someone would not want to be harassed by another user they may feel is likely to do so for making a reasonable accusation- not saying anything about these users or this accusation) but I trust his assessment of a policy he knows more about than me. However, Moldopodo has just been indefinitely blocked, so it may be worth confirming that Xasha =/= Moldopodo. It is worth noting that Xasha jumped to the defense of Moldopodo when no one else did. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you find any merit in the above accusation, please act accordingly. Otherwise, I think this section should be deleted per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits.Xasha (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dorftrottel (talk - contributions)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If there are issues with a particular user that need to be resolved, WP:RFC/U is the place to do so, not here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm asking that his rights to WP:TW are to be removed and he should be blocked for a period of time. He clearly has no clue on what vandalism is, as he thinks, regarding Euro 2008, updating live scores constitutes vandalism. He's reverted 3 edits, violating WP:3RR, one of which by me labelling them as vandalism: this, this and this (look at the edit history for better understanding). He has used personal attacks on his edit summaries (sorry, there's no button for "You're too stupid and shouldn't edit Wikipedia") and something similar to my talk page. his edits are unacceptable. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For a user to be in violation of the 3RR rule, they need to have reverted more than 3 times. Might be an idea to read through WP:3RR to brush up on your knowledge of policy before you make a complaint. I've left a message on the user's talk page about him being a dick here but other than that, the rest of his recent contribs are legit there's really no cause for concern. He just needs to be a little more civil towards other members. I don't think revoking his rights to Twinkle would be appropriate in this case. ——Ryan | t • c 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) uncyclopedia:Nobody cares? Seriously, there's nothing more pressing that you could take it upon yourself to be concerned with? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed twinkle - Dorftrottel clearly labelled good faith edits as vandalism, used twinkle to make attacks and ended up on the 3RR limit, using Twinkle to help him. It's unacceptable behaviour and should he revert again, he'll be blocked for 3RR. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, he's already broken the 3RR limit [3], [4], [5], [6]. Hopefully the warning will make him stop the reverts. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He's also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the Euro 2008 talk page and my talk page, though I'll admit I've responded in kind. He's repeatedly been informed that he's a dick, and despite his long history of being a disruptive member of this community, he's still allowed to edit, for what reason I can't even guess. Can someone please try to talk some sense into him? Thank you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Grant Alpaugh, keep talking about civility, like you did e.g. here and here. user:Dorftrottel  20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed, "though I'll admit I've responded in kind." The difference, of course, is that you're also engaged in an edit war and the scope of your dickery extends about a mile further than mine. You also have a history of about 3 accounts that are indefblocked, so, honestly, I have no idea what the fuck it is you're still doing here. You abuse twinkle and are just a generally uncivil person. Hopefully you will be given some time to think about how to be a less abrasive member of the community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly not your place to call anyone abrasive. I have never called and would never call anyone 'a cancer to this project'. I am trying to use Twinkle for the best of Wikipedia. I felt like I had to ignore 3RR because I believe (and I still do, in the absence of any valid counterarguments at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008) in the validity of my edits. I know that I can be abrasive, but I'm right, encyclopedically speaking. And you are wrong. user:Dorftrottel  20:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is substantially different from calling people idiots, mouth-breathing idiots, vandals, idiots again, and telling people they should leave the project entirely as you did here and here. As to your being a cancer to the project, I'm not saying anything that disagrees with your own admissions on your user page here: "But, partly owing to the fact that I can be a stubborn and impatient person, I wound up with yet another indef block," here: "After that, I spent a short time as an ordinary IP troll, angrily vandalising talk pages, trying to disrupt the workflow of established users etcpp. I don't remember many details, but the pages I edited were all related to the two prior accounts' actions and blocks," and here: "Obviously, up until that moment, I had no reason to be proud of any accomplishments at Wikipedia. That's why I then decided to create another account, by then knowing that I would effectively be evading an indef block, but I saw it as the only chance of really starting over." From where I sit, you really have no leg to stand on and should either be indefblocked for again becoming the troll you admitted to becoming in the past or you should be blocked for several weeks during which you can contemplate whether you want to be a productive member of this community, or whether you are going to earn an indefblock as soon as you come back. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I request a warning block against Grant.Alpaugh for literally calling me a cancer to this project. user:Dorftrottel  20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Calling someone being a dick and "nothing but a cancer to this project" is plain rude, uncivil, and personal attack. I ask Grant to take back what he said and apologize. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, but seeing who said that, it's actually a compliment. I wouldn't want persons like the one behind the account Grant Alpaugh to like me. user:Dorftrottel  21:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOT#NEWS, I would suggest that Dorftrottel was correct in removing live score updates - there is no encyclopedic value in reporting such information. Final scores may be of peripherial interest as regards the tournament as a whole, and may be recorded once the game is over. Without reviewing the content, if Dorftrottel had noted that placing such updates was against policy (and mentioned which one) then Grant.Alpaugh needed to form a consensus to keep posting the scores - and posting without consensus after being advised is bad faith = vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I considered mentioning NOT#NEWS, but those people would have just gamed it, dismissing its applicability to the situation. user:Dorftrottel  21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Kindly take a few minutes to review the situation before talking out of your ass about it. I never updated scores for Euro 2008, live or not, and my inclusion of the banner at the top of 2008 Major League Soccer season, an article I am heavily involved in, shows that I understand policy just fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please not continue to use phrases like fuck or talking out of your ass, if only to prove that you can do without that sort of talk? Talking about content: I think I have made valid points and useful suggestions throughout. I freely admit that it causes me stress to see how people like Grant Alpaugh dimiss all of it without presenting any valid arguments whatsoever. See e.g. the threads at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 here and here for more examples than just the live score issue. user:Dorftrottel  21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take civility lessons from you when pigs fucking fly. The fact that your arguments are based in sound policy does not excuse the way you deal with your peers. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the above comment crossed with a final warning so blocking for this would be wrong but the next one gets a serious block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's see. I'm right as far as the MOS is concerned (flagicon overkill), I'm right as far as policy is concerned (live scores), I'm right as far as avoidable redundancy in those articles is concerned. But Ryan Postlethwaite has removed my Twinkle, so you are officially right^(TM). Wonderful project, this. user:Dorftrottel  21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought WP was uncensored, but whatever, I get the point. If only people were as concerned with the myriad policy violations committed by the subject of this thread as detailed above and below, my attention to this thread would no longer be required. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility/account problems with dorftrottel

There seems to be a deeper problem with Dorftrottels presence here. He’s used a number of accounts previously – two of which received indefinite blocks – yet he’s still here creating problems both in terms of civility and now edit warring. Here is a list of some problematic accounts.

• Subversive element – blocked in October 2006 for using Wikipedia to fight an ideological war.
• Tit for tat – blocked in 2006 for using Wikipedia to harass.
• 87.158.224 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 87.78.191.156 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 84.44.172.138 8784.44.172.138 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 84.44.175.12 84.44.175.12 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• 87.78.150.42 87.78.150.42 – blocked as a sock of Subversive element.
• AldeBaer – blocked for attempting to out another editor.
• Dorftrottel – blocked for incivility.
• 87.78.154.177 - block evasion from dorftrottel account.
• 87.78.155.210- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
• 87.78.146.190- block evasion from dorftrottel account.
• 87.78.155.245- block evasion from dorftrottel account.

Now, on top of all this – from the latest account we have numerous instances of incivility;

• “And I agree, there's far more interesting stuff, but my girlfriend just went to bed after I fucked her for 2 hours straight, so I'm back to this.”
• “It's the same old LSF cycle: she laughs at me, then I smack her in the mouth, then the fucking. She never complains.”
• “Kurt, why don't you get a wife?”
• “So you're saying that above, Relata described the opposite of the actual situation? Well, it did seem a bit odd. Like when some inclusionists accuse everyone else of being part of a deletionist cabal.”
• “That meme has existed on Wikipedia for quite some time now; and attempts to drive off anti-science kooks is actually the best way it has been put to use so far.”
• “Believe me, I absolutely do take your concerns as serious as the rest of your content-related opinions. You've have proven to be so consistently dead wrong that your opposing is actually a bonus for a candidate.”
• “There's quote a bit of a logical gap right where you assume a link between passionate participation in discussions and likeliness of controversial admin actions. But it's clear from your camp that you must oppose.”
• “Wow, I may have wrongly estimated who I am talking to here. After all, you created great, insightful project space pages like Wikipedia:Requests for nothing|this one. Hilarious. Hilarious. Please explain the world and Wikipedia to me.”
• “so yes, let's enable the idiots some more, in the hope the whole thing will break apart a bit quicker than it will anyway, thanks to those trivia-hugging shitheads.”
• “I think not. But those clowns are committed to turning Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of trivia and are opposed to any kind of intellectual approach anyway, and they're in the majority (or at least make it appear that way), so I guess it doesn't matter.”
• “you inclusionists are the ones who gang up in AfDs (and recently in RfAs of dissenters!) to suppress any reasonable deletion of unsalvageable in-universe crap.”
• “I missed your RfA. For the record, I would've supported to counter some of the more idiotic opposes, not properly identified as such by the closing crat.”
• “Ach! I could've made the daughter adopted, Jewish and comatose.”
• “And, assuming as much good faith as I can, I cannot ignore the fact that you're one of those no-holds-barred inclusionists, opposed to any inclusion threshold.”
• “Per the most idiotic oppose (take your pick).”

I believe this is a problem that’s been occurring over a long period of time – both with problematic accounts (blocked for harassment) and continuous incivility. I think some form of editing restriction should be placed on dorftrottel. A civility parole would go a long way – but would anyone suggest anything else given he’s already got two blocked accounts for harassment and turning Wikipedia into a battleground? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are just pissed off that I voted against you in the Board of Trustees election. user:Dorftrottel  21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I typed all that up in the short time between you posting on my talk and me posting here? Nope - there's serious problems here with your editing and I believe some strong editing restriction is required here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's implausible. So is my editing in question now, or my civility? Please point out very carefully where my editing is problematic. user:Dorftrottel  21:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've told you, and documented above, it's your complete disregard for civility, coupled with the fact you've been shown to harass other users (as shown by indef blocks to other accounts of yours). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Harass other users??? Where did I harass anyone? Also, the indef blocks and subsequent block evasion issues happened one and a half years ago. I wish I had never written that disclosure note. Too many bad-faithed people who don't value honesty (even if it's late honesty) but actually try to turn it against you. user:Dorftrottel  21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The level of incivility is absolutely ridiculous. This is certainly worthy of a lengthy block, especially considering he seems unwilling to acknowledge the wrongdoing. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

??? I hereby acknowledge that I am too often too uncivil. Better? However, I still stand by the reasoning behind each and every single one of the diffs quoted above. user:Dorftrottel  22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto above comment. The comment on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page just demonstrates what a spiteful guy he is and it makes me wonder why he still has editing privileges ——Ryan | t • c 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to intervene after Dorftrottel was harassing User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and engage in discussion about some actual constructive editing, but the conversation went downhill. I think it may be RFC time first. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LGRdC was harassing my intellect. user:Dorftrottel  22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful response, that sums up the problem entirely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer this is totally and utterly not what is expected from an editor. Ad hominum comments do not help your cause Dorftrottel - I'm suprised you can't see how a comment like that, made in the middle fo this exchange, will do nothing but create even more concern about your net value to the project. Disapointing. I thought a lot higher of you until that. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right... So you are posting links back to 2006, and the most recent being early November 2007, showing evidence of incivility and... er... coarseness and block evasion, yet are failing to recognise that 3RR does not count when combating vandalism - and repeated inserts contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS is exactly that (and, of course, what Twinkle is supposed to be used for and which you have removed) - which was the basis for the original complaint, and you think that this constitutes reason to have Dorftrottel sanctioned? I don't think you are being consistent in regard to the application of policy in the matter of this editor, and may consider withdrawing from the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at an original complaint and then decided to look a bit futher into the complaint of incivility. Those edits were not vandalism - not in the slightest. The results were always going to be put on here, it was a question on whether or not they should be put in as they happen (should results be updated mid-match). I'm not sure exactly why you feel there's a need for me to withdraw from the discussion - I've done things correctly so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The uncivil edits have been since November 2007 - most very recent indeed showing continued problems with the conduct of Dorftrottel, despite two accounts being blocked, block evasion and provious incivility/harassment. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to edit in violation of policy? Perhaps once might not be vandalism, but repeatedly? My concern is that you appear as being somewhat selective in the upholding of policy, as regards this editor; you are linking to block evasion from last year, for which Dorftrottel has been sanctioned and permitted to return to the community, but removed Twinkle for reverting "non policy content" from the article. There is an appearance of inbalance in the manner in which you have personally interacted with the editor, and the violations you are bringing to the communities notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've highlight the previous misconduct from this user as others may not be aware, followed by highlighting issues since he was last blocked - I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm highlighting problems solely from years ago - I've given plenty of recent diffs. The edits were not vandalism - it was an edit was, simple as that. He broke the 3RR using twinkle, and got the tool removed, and a warning against reverting the page again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is not vandalism to edit in violation of policy?" Not necessarily, no. See Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If there's good faith involved, it's not vandalism, and we therefore should be very careful to label any good faith edits as such. --Conti|✉ 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed in the past weeks (or months?) that I have become less and less careful in distinguishing intentional, real vandalism from simply uniformed or sometimes aggressive edits and reverts. I don't know. Maybe it takes me ages to get my reasoning across in English -- and it's kinda frustrating to see how sound reasoning is frequently just dismissed, not listened or responded to. But I know very well that the people who inserted the live scores were not intentionally harming the article and therefore not vandalising. I was just angry, and the red (revert (vandalism)) button in Twinkle became too seductive. I suppose edits like those which I reverted need a new term. I hereby propose inadvandalism, for inadvertent vandalism. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with any kind of editing restriction. Dorftrottel may be pointedly incivil, but at least he's usually on point. We typically humor far worse on this site from people far more clueless, and with admin tools. Amerique^dialectics 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To your second point Amerique. Whilst agreeing that Dorftrottel may well make useful input, the fact that others are incivil does not mean we accept incivility. This is false logic. As the argument goes; that others people beat their wives does not mean it becomes acceptable to beat your wife. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Dorftrottel has evaded an indefblock for rampant incivility and has resumed being remarkably uncivil, which means the indefblock should be resumed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that as Dorftrottel assumes he has done nothing wrong and this is already a repeated pattern of behaviour, then there will be another dispute, probably in a matter of weeks. If this doesn't result in an indefblock then there should be an RfC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the earlier events. He came to me seeking advocacy regarding them a few years ago:User_talk:Amerique/Archive_4#Subversive_element As far as I can tell, the original conflicts he was involved in have long since died off... and these current conflicts are with a different set of people who have not exactly been models of civility in these circumstances either. I'm not say D is not occasionally incivil, but that we have typically tolerated worse than this from some admins. Amerique^dialectics 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes others are incivil, but I guess it is the proportion of valuable edits to 'noise' and events leading to yet more disruption, and also the level of responsibility taken in behaviour, responses to others and escalation that is the problem. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone evades an indefblock, but seems to have actually turned over a new leaf we tolerate them until they renew the behaviour that got them indefblocked in the first place. This is exactly what has happened here. How you can argue against an indefblock for an abusive, uncivil user that has already been indefblocked before is beyond me. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that most of the comments that Ryan has cited that go back months & years are particularly incivil. The more recent comments from dorf are concerning though. I don't think it's necessary to be rude or aggressive to get your point across, and I really wish we'd stop humouring people who do. Comments like this show a disturbing lack of immaturity, especially as it follows this (berating another editor for using profanity). We don't need surly, grumpy editors - it's not that difficult to be nice, or at the least indifferent. I agree with Casliber & think that an RFC might be the way to go. Naerii (complain) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the rather marked double stantdards can be (I suppose) seen as a profound lack of empathy or gaming the system. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think "sorry, there's no button for 'You're too stupid and shouldn't edit Wikipedia'." goes way too far though. Naerii (complain) 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, you say D's breach of 3RR was valid because he was reverting vandalism? Well browsing through the 4 diffs (1, 2, 3, 4), I can't for the life of me locate the "blatant vandalism" which would excuse the user of 3RR. Secondly, you seem quick to jump to the users' defence but how can one justify these kinds of comments and the incivility used in the edit summary of the 4 above diffs? ——Ryan | t • c 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:Vandalism: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Mr.Z-man 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Amerique, LessHeard VanU, thank you guys. But the mob is right. Everything I ever did on Wikipedia is nothing but shit. Everything. Because Grant Alpaugh calls me a cancer of this project, and if he says so, it is so. My attempts to introduce sanity in the Euro 2008 article was also just malicious shit, typical for me. Also, I'm sockpuppet of SlimVirgin. And of Piperdown (but not WordBomb!). The saddest part is that I'm not even drunk because of the antibiotics against my otitis (which, as I recognise now, God himself must have sent to rightfully punish me). Dorftrottel (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to get off the computer and take a break. Naerii (complain) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Could you, by chance, actually respond to the concerns of these many users, rather than throwing a temper tantrum when questioned about your civility problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah dude. Don't take it too seriously. Go watch a football game, or something. Amerique^dialectics 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Don't listen to Amerique, he's just my other sockpuppet.) Luna Santin: Like I said above: I hereby acknowledge that I am too often too uncivil. What else would you like me to say? Should I do the monkey dance? Or what? What everybody appears to dismiss (intentionally or otherwise) is that the reasoning behind practically everything I write is sound, and written with WP's best interests in heart and mind. If you (or anyone) are not capable, or worse, not willing to see that, there is nothing more I can do about it. I will stop being uncivil when people start to actually grasp what consensus is all about and that having the less valid arguments is a distinct possibility in any discussion. I am uncivil to people when I recognise that they are harming Wikipedia. I just have my own idea of what harming Wikipedia can mean. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We'd like you to say, "I will stop being uncivil". If you are not capable (or willing) to see that you can state your concerns about any issue we have here on Wikipedia in a civil and reasonable manner then I fear this is not the project for you. Driving people away because of your rudeness and creating an unpleasant environment to work in falls under the umbrella of "harming Wikipedia". You seem to understand that your definition of harming Wikipedia differs from others, so I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable to call people 'stupid' and so on for disagreeing with you. Maybe if you grasped what consensus is all about you'd be able to see that people should be allowed to express opinions you disagree with without being attacked? Just a thought. Please take a break. Naerii (complain) 23:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Driving people away because of your rudeness and creating an unpleasant environment to work in falls under the umbrella of "harming Wikipedia". — That clearly depends on who it is you drive away. I do not 'think it is ok to call people stupid' — I just do, because it is the clearest thought in some situations. The elephant in the room. Should I type slower for those people? Or should I ignore the fact that I recognise their actions as harmful? I've seen people dismiss any argument and try to counter it with their opinion. Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. It's true what many, far better, Wikipedians have said before. There is a saying in German for which I don't know the English variant: Der Klügere gibt nach. (='The wiser [person] backs down.') — There is also the corollary Der Klügere gibt solange nach, bis er der Dumme ist. (='The wiser [person] backs down until he becomes the stupid one.') Dorftrottel (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're failing to see that just because you see someone as harmful or stupid does not make them such. And as for people countering your arguments with their opinion, your argument is your opinion. Naerii (complain) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Naerii above, and try and understand, per "I just have my own idea of what harming Wikipedia can mean" that there is, in fact, the posibility you're wrong in your idea of what harms Wikipedia and others are actually right. You're not unwanted here, but your attitude needs to be left off of the keyboard. Pedro :  Chat  23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where my reasoning was wrong with regard to the article which brought me here. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are gaming the system. Fact is, there are some folks who are obviously interested in and keen to edit the information on the current football competition. Rather than let 90 minutes go by, you had to push policy and generate bad feeling all round. Great. congrtulations. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue being discussed here is your overall track record with civility. And with that, I'm withdrawing from this conversation. If a discussion on editing restrictions does come up it has my support. Naerii (complain) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In anticipation of/response to Dorftrottel's seemingly imminent reembrace of civility, I would like to take the opportunity to apologize for my rash, unkind, and indefensible remarks over the last few days directed at Dorftrottel and others and would hope he would do the same. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks that preventing live score update edits on wikipedia is even possible, let alone desirable, clearly is in need of a big giant clue. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. More than enough valid evidence and arguments have been presented. I think it's time to indef block and community ban User:Dorftrottel. Others have been banned for a lot less. Dorftrottel (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dorftrottel has some civility troubles, but what's with the sudden attacking on both sides? WP:TEA badly needs to be followed right now. Wizardman 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You may want to look at the diffs WM. Both sides of the current dust up have amde up. Question is about consensus on more longitudinal behaviour -thus this thread should be closed now, and an RfC on user conduct can be opened if the longer-term behaviour needs examination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a reply set up (ec'd by the archive) which basically said what you did just now. Wizardman 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Balkania and copyrighted images

User:Balkania uploaded many images today and added them to the Canada article. After some quick searches I noticed that three of his images were copyright violations (1, 2, 3). (Probably the remaining images are also copyrighted based on their small size, and the wide range of activities the images portray.) However, after tagging the images, and notifying him, he blanked his talk page [7], and then removed the copyright violation tags on the three images with the edit summary of "clarified" ([8], [9] and [10]). Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sory for the inconvenience. I am still not clear on Wikipedia rules, but I can tell you that I have emailed the owners of those three images for permission to use them, and I am waiting for their response. The historical photos are obviously not mine. But the rest of the photos are from my own portfolio. regards, Balkania (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Balkania states that the rest of his images (other than the three mentioned above) are his, but after some more searching I found another one is also a copyright violation Image:Ottawaparliamentcanal.jpg‎. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And Image:Canada court.jpg too, thanks Jeff for finding these. So Balkania has been lying to us, even after seemingly admitting his mistakes. No way this could be a good-faith mistake, clearly fraudulent intent. Indef blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin request for picture (prevented from vandalism) for page

Resolved.

Labium (genitalia) could really use the picture from Vulva (which says only an admin may, which I discovered when it didn't show up): File:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg Thanks! ---RJFerret: talk, 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban on Bart Versieck

Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of editing others' talk page comments, despite being warned several times not to do so. See his talk page and the talk page archive--it's littered with warnings about this behavior. It's been the subject of at least two admin discussions ((here and here) He's been blocked at least eight times for this since 2007, each time promising to stop. He's also engaged in similar behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia. Most recently, he was blocked for three months--but this was reduced to three weeks, with a stern warning that the next block would be much, much longer and possibly indef.

Well, earlier, Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) discovered he'd done it again. To my mind, this is the last straw, and I propose a community ban. Blueboy96 01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban It's not just the talk pages either, it's main article editing. There were lots of problems with his behavior on Ruby Muhammad, for example, and I think that at least one of his blocks (possibly one of mine) related to his distortion and refusal to abide by talk page consensus on this page. Cheers, CP 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I'm no fan of Bart's edits to other users' comments, how is this edit the last straw? It wasn't exactly an on-topic comment that he removed, and I probably would have removed it too. Looking at his contributions since the last block, this appears to be the only time he continued the same behavior. This is not ban worthy, and the indefinite block should be reversed. - auburnpilot talk 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - diff shown isn't ban worthy. PhilKnight (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban - CP sums it up. Soxred 93 03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He may be trouble at times, but if that edit's the last straw, then we'd have to ban an awful lot of people. His block log says quite a bit about him doing this in the past, though how many of his edits have been modifying comments and how many have been removing edits like the one above are two very different causes for alarm. Wizardman 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. The stated diff is admittedly trivial, but this is just the last in a LONG stream of behaviour which snubs the TPG guideline. He refactors other's comments often, including removing edits, despite promises not to do so any more. Dutch Wikipedia block log shows this is not just a problem here. Please also read this which shows how exasperating the user is. Moondyne 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I'm aware of the user's past issues, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that diff. He removed some nonsense comments from a talk page after adding a template to it. I probably would have done the same thing, and have done so. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Z-man. Indef should be overturned if he notes what he's done wrong and agrees to do something constructive about it (read: ask for second opinions even in cases like this.) giggy _(:O) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have some sympathy with anyone who fixes other people's posts. I've done it myself in the past, but I hope I know where the line should be drawn. I try to limit myself to fixing things like incorrect formatting (eg. closing a bold or italics bit), fixing a header if the number of "===" are wrong, fixing a link if it wasn't closed properly, fixing incorrect wikimarkup taggs (eg. a <small> or <nowiki> tag not closed), and even egregious spelling mistakes if I can resist (I know I should resist!). I also try and only do it while adding a comment myself anyway. The difference, I suppose, is that I haven't been asked to stop as many times as Bart has, though someone did ask me not to the other day. I then promptly apologised. Let's see if I can find some diffs. OK, here is an example from yesterday: [11]. I had clicked on the link WT:BIO, knowing what discussion Woody was referring to, and end up at the talk page for the notability guideline, not the biography wikiproject talk page. A fairly common mistake, so I fixed the shortcut to be WT:WPBIO. Other times, I do cross the line, particularly with regards to indentation. Normally, when I see an indentation I don't understand, I ask the person concerned. However, the other day I "fixed" an indentation: [12]. The editor in question asked me not to do this: [13]. I then apologised: [14]. I also found another example of fixing. See here: [15]. So what is needed here, I think, is recognition that some fixing is possible, but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and if you cross it you should just apologise and adjust your behaviour. The question is whether Bart is crossing this line (we need specific and recent diffs) and whether he is adjusting his behaviour (Bart needs to speak up and say something). From reviewing this, I think he is crossing the line (he actually alters what other people have said). Whether he is continuing to do that (the diff provided here was merely removing a comment that was off-topic) is debatable. Providing old diffs may not be enough to prove that he is slipping back to his old behaviour. I recognise that he has done this in the past, but I don't think an indefinite block is needed for this (it is not dangerous disruption, just highly annoying and misleading). I would also note that there is history between Bart and Canadian Paul on the "oldest people" articles. Unblock Bart and let him respond here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support block True, the diff provided indicates a very minor incident - but one that is part of a long standing problem with this editor. We have been here many times, and often BV has promised to reform and not edit other peoples contributions and the community has given them another chance. Once again, it has been found that BV is incapable of keeping to that undertaking. Rather than commenting on the admittedly minor nature of most of these edits, can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP? If that is not possible, then can anyone indicate why they think that this "last chance" will alter BV's attitude toward editing other peoples contributions?
  It is fairly obvious that a ban is not possible - there are too many good opposes to it - so I am content to support the indef block. The block can be lifted when there is community support for allowing BV to edit again, under such restrictions, mentoring, edit paroles, as is considered sufficient to resolve the matter, or not lifted as is deemed necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That would make sense. Someone should tell him about this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I will make a note on the user talkpage. If there is sufficient reasoning in any unblock request I recommend unblocking to allow BV to participate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "can anyone give a reason - by indication of the valuable and necessary other editing the account contributes - why BV is needed to remain on WP?" Well, LessHeard vanU, I'd say Bart Versieck's contributions speak for themselves in that respect. Since his last block, Bart has made 195 edits. Only one indicates a continued behavior, when he changed the word merger to merge (simply removing an "R"). The majority of his edits remain unaltered (not reverted/still the top edit), and that would suggest they are valuable and beneficial to the project. - auburnpilot talk 14:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is good, but are they edits that are of particular value that could not be made by anybody else? Is the community risking a noticable dip in the quality of editing by blocking this account, or will others likely take up the slack? I am trying to determine whether there is a case for the community allowing yet another last chance, or to provide assistance to stop this behaviour, rather than allowing the indef to stand. It seems to me that if this behaviour is to be "tolerated" rather than sanctioned there should really be some gain to the encyclopedia for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • LessHeard vanU, to play the devil's advocate here, what edits have any of us made (and you in particular) that could not have been made by anyone else? That is a very dangerous line of reasoning you are following. Thank you for posting the note to Bart's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly my point. I would (like to think I would) not expect dispensation for a repeated problem of mine based on my contributions. I don't see why the far greater majority of good edits should allow a pattern of disruptive edits be ignored or passed over. This is not an isolated incident, but an apparent inability to not slide back into bad habits, and to remain true to an undertaking. It needs to be resolved and not allowed to continue on the basis of "it was only a little one, and the rest of the time they have been okay." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)That's simply not how we determine whether or not somebody should be indefinitely blocked. We don't say "Yeah, your edits are good, but they're not good enough". Of course somebody would pick up the slack, just as somebody would pick up the slack if I disappeared after making this edit. Yet, nobody is proposing I be indef blocked because somebody else could do what I do. One questionable edit out of 195 since his last block does not warrant a ban or indef block. Bottom line. - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • • But it isn't just one in the last 195, but the last in a long line of disruptive edits over a very long period. The other points I have covered in my response to Carcharoth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely uninvolved editor checking in here, but isn't this editor already blocked indefinitely? I would suggest that this is the case, see: Block log. I still didn't see the reason clearly enunciated for the block, certainly the dif provided seemed quite insignificant and could have been attributed to a vandal's adding onto a page. FWiW, I have tried to shift through the very extensive edit history of the aforementioned editor, and what some would characterize as "disruptive," others may see as examples of content disputes. I would caution restraint and suggest a mentorship based on the "critical friend" model that allows the editor to initially seek a counsel before entering into contentious situations. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Page Move Revert Bot

For those of you who are intested, I'm currently trialing a mass move revert bot. In the event of page move vandalisim add the users name here followed by a semicolon(;) eg:

Chris G;

The bot will then revert all the pagemoves made in the last 6 hours by that user. It will then list the pages that need to be deleted here --Chris 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this will come in useful. Thanks Chris! PeterSymonds (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox website

Could some admin (or non-admit) respond to my post at Template talk:Infobox Website? -- Taku (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors marked as historical

As a result of the recent MFD the LOCE has been marked as historical. Now, the LOCErequest template can be seen at quite a few talkpages. Should it be removed to avoid potentional confusion? D.M.N. (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, someone might come and work on them some day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's rather unlikely, considering that the project just got closed due to inactivity. The template should be removed, IMHO. If anyone wants to do some copyediting, take your pick, there's more than enough to do. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added a {{selfref}} to the top of the WP:LOCE page to redirect those that stumble there to WP:PRV. Any other thoughts/better place to send those looking for CE volunteers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 13:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, they were always way way behind. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised either. Even though most of my project edits are copy editing, I never joined the LOCE and went straight to WP:PRV. More than once I have spent more time copy editing an article than the primary author spent writing it in the first place. Anyone who wants to just do a bit of wikignoming or sending the AWB vacuum through a few of those articles could make a big difference, and also make it easier for the next person down the line. There's what, 4000+ articles waiting for a copy edit? Risker (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

plz delete this

Resolved

 – Speedy kept. AN is not the place for this. seicer | talk | contribs 15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

plz delete Marina Orlova i tried to but they are saying if you make teenage boys do bad things they are notable. thanks--WillyJulia (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already an AfD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Orlova; if they decide to delete it, it will be deleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

some admin already kept it, i think you guys should look at this!--WillyJulia (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That "some admin" speedy-closed it because it meets all our policies. There's no need for deletion, and to do so would be improper. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

it does not meet all the policies!--WillyJulia (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it meets WP:BIO because 1) it asserts notability and 2) because that notability is backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. It's written with a neutral point of view and contains no original research. What are your concerns? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

birth date is original research and there is not enough reliable sources.--WillyJulia (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)