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

Visual archive cue: 52

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons and Overpopulated categories

General

Philadelphia and other places by User:Kramden4700

Kramden4700 (talk · contribs) seems to have decided that the longstanding redirect Philadelphia (with over 4000 links to it) should be changed from pointing to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia (disambiguation). Several users (including me) have reverted the edits and attempted to reason with the user. The result has been to expand his/her edits to do the same thing to all the articles that have been used as examples, with no attempt to clean up the thousands of articles that did point (via redirect) to the right article, but would now point to a disambig instead. I have reverted many of these, but seek confirmation if I'm doing the right thing, and what more should be done (by me or others) if it continues. I think the user did not start with intent to vandalise or disrupt, but does not seem to accept reasoned discussion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The user definitely has an axe to grind with the USA for some reason. I have watchlisted all the redirects mentioned and will revert until a consensus against their current redirect is reached. --mboverload@ 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I got involved trying to reason with him before I discovered the extent of the issue. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has also been putting speedy deletion tags on articles to which they obviously don't apply. It's a bit of a grey area, though, because some of them do seem to be used appropriately. Ardric47 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The changing of links is continuing at a rapid-fire pace. Also, his or her talk page has been moved to User talk:Kramden4700/1, and a new one started. Ardric47 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• You may want to enlist the help of the WikiProject_Philadelphia. --evrik 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had learned about this post sooner. At Talk:Philadelphia, I suggested the links that he should look at, to try to get him to look at the consequences of changing those links, and to get him to think that it's a bigger issue than he thought. He saw the consequences with his editing, and thought that others were vandalizing his edits (in my view), so the edit war escalated. Because I saw similar behavior from another user, User:Wrath of Roth, I (wrongfully) opened a sockpuppet case against him (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kramden4700). It apparently scared him enough that he stopped editing for a while. Then I offered an apology, and he accepted. (his response) I think he's acting in good faith now, but only time will tell if I feel that way in the future. I'm not happy with my own behavior in this incident, but I want to put this issue to rest. Tinlinkin 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the user page User:Kramden4700, he or she is not only the same as Wrath of Roth, but also more than 30 others (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spotteddogsdotorg). Ardric47 19:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Open complaint about administrators' rollback tool

I just have an open, informal complaint over the apparent use of the rollback feature. Accoridng to Wikipedia:Administrators, it should only be used in cases of simple vandalism and nothing else. But...however...I've recently begun noticing a misuse of the rollback feature, where the case is not simple vandalism, and which the result leads to more confusion and wasted time.

• On May 29, 2006, an anon added four userboxes to WP:DRV. Three administrators deleted them three different times, each one using the sterile "reverted by...to this version..." Now, two of those admins had deleted the four userboxes in question, so I was actually tempted to revert as there was no clear reason why they were removed. I asked on T1 and T2 debates and I got the answer, but why didn't they just mention it in the edit summary, so it would be absolutely clear?

• I added something that I thought was funny to WP:BJAODN. It was reverted by an admin, once again with the sterile rollback summary. When I asked him on his user page, I was told that doing manual rollback took more time and that, because most people didn't ever question his deletions, that it was a waste of time. Right. It takes like, 15 seconds to write a summary? I think we both wasted more time using the talk page to explain exactly why the edit was removed than if the admin had just taken a few seconds to explain why he didn't think it was funny.

• {{Mario characters}} was the subject of a brief 3RR war between Xeno-Lord (talk · contribs · count) amd A Man In Black (talk · contribs · count). From Xeno-Lord's (and mine, I suppose) point, the template was suddenly and unfairly halved wholesale. Now that I look into it a bit deeper, I see that somebody else deleted it and there was relevent discussion on the CVG talk page, but there was nothing in that talk discussion to indicate that the characters had been dispersed - just deleted. Had AMIB simply pointed to the direct CVG debate in the edit summary, or started a talk page discussion pertaining to why the template was so radically changed, the 3RR would have stopped, or at least AMIB would have been more justified in his use of the rollback tool.

• And finally, the ArbCom decision on Guanco and MarkSweep, a vandalism rollback tool revert war, in which Guanco was desysopped and MarkSweeep "strongly cautioned" to only use the rollback on vandalism.

Hbdragon88 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Only use the default edit summary on vandalism. Anything more and you just need to write a few words saying why. It's simple and very useful for when people look back at the history of an article. Edit summaries are not just some stupid process thing - it actually helps everyone. --mboverload@ 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if there were an intermediate step which asked for an edit summary, with a default. It's not always that easy to define simple in the context of vandalism, a bit more explanation would never go amis. Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to the pop-up tool - which can be set to ask for a editsummary. Maybe make that the default behaviour? Agathoclea 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of an intermediate step. If I'm trying to wipe out a prolific vandal's edits, I already am going to have 30 tabs open with rollbacks in them. We just need to make sure that admins use the tool in the right situations...or leave a note on the rollbackee's page. Unlike some editors, I don't place any negative connotation when seeing the rollback summary. Syrthiss 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've been asked about the lack of summaries more than once; maybe there should be additional text (like "using popups", but "using rollback") which links to a description of the feature and why it leaves no summary? Or maybe not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the rollback summary is just like a blank summmary - it has no information. The rollback signifies that something was so bad or messed up (like vandalism) that the admin can simply hit a button to roll back. By looking at the diff it should be self-explanatory why the rollback was used. The situations I listed were not as simple to deduce. Hbdragon88 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the rollback summary comment. I used to manually type it before I had a rollback button and I still do if I'm reverting further than the rollback button can. If someone took away the button away I would just go back to manually typing it all the time. It's not inflammatory and it's informative: it tells everyone exactly how far back a reversion goes. The same can't always be said for a custom comment. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and FurryiamIAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hardvice accidentally gave away his sock FurryiamIAM, who seems to have been engaged in building up an edit count by null edits (and had been warned about this). I've blocked the sock indefinitely and have blocked Hardvice for forty-eight hours, to be lifted if he discloses other socks and promises not to use socks again. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at User:Hardvice's latest edits now that the Encyclopædia Dramatica article has been deleted, he seems to be following the same "null edit" behavior that his sockpuppet User:FurryiamIAM has been demonstrating. Is 48 hours enough? (→Netscott) 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question should the AfDs that his sockpuppet started be left to continue? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This lends creedence to the notiion that user Rptng03509345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who so heavily spammed Wikipedia admins and editors about User:MONGO and the ED article deletion may indeed be a sockpuppet of Hardvice. (→Netscott) 17:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, but that guy has a truckload of sockpuppets, so it could be, yeah. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mostly topics discussed and writing pattern that indicates the sockpuppetry nature of the relationship between the spammer account and Hardvice. One can see that User:Hardvice decided to submit all of those Wiki's for deletion under a sockpuppet as a result of this WP:ANI thread. (→Netscott) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Hardvice's recent edits, it is clear that he was, as Netscott says, using the same null-edit technique as his sock. I surmise that this was so as to inflate his edit count for unknown reasons--which I think we can safely presume to be nefarious. I suggest that a community ban at this stage would be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, Donteatmycat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) looks fishy, too. --Conti|✉ 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Dramatica troll. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Tony Sidaway's community ban proposal. This user is very clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. (→Netscott) 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardvice appears to support his own banning. (→Netscott) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to block this user indefinitely. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

None. Okay I'm blocking as a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I debated an image he had posted on his userpage earlier, and never agreed with the evidence, though I let it go when Raul stated the image wasn't a copyvio. It seemed implausible that someone who got out of jail would rush home the same day or even the next day to upload their own image (a mugshot) on wikipedia. Don't expect this will be the last you see of him though. Oh, and yeah, I support the block...no surprise.--MONGO 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Support the ban, subject to review if Hardvice ever climbs back off the ceiling over the deletion of ED. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product or service. Accidentally signing his sockpuppet's talk page was hilarious. I loved his edit summary. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh![1]--MONGO 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha!!! That was so funny! -- Samir धर्म 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahrarara = Panairjdde

User:Panairjdde has returned now in the form of User:Ahrarara. He or she is stalking every single article from my contribs list right now and deleting AD anywhere and everywhere. Please stop or warn him or her. Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked again, thanks, but note that he is currently wreaking havoc yet again with an edit warring anon, User:151.44.81.169, on the very same articles stalked from my July contribs, multiple 3RRs here ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Loath I am to do it, I have blocked the entire 151.44. range for an hour -- which affects not only the editor formerly known as Panairjdde (TEFKAP) but some 65,000-odd other people. However, he has been stalking or edit-warring not only with Codex Sinaiticus, but at leat 2 other editors. I'm gambling on the fact that the users of an Italian ISP aren't interested in editting an English Wikipedia, & as long as no one complains, we can repeat this until TEFKAP gives up. (He has also used the 151.47. range -- but let's wait until we see what kind of trouble I've caused before blocking that one also.) I won't protest if another Admin reverts the block. -- llywrch 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Extended block for User:Justforasecond

I have placed an extended (one month) block on Justforasecond (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for his continued disruption on Kwanzaa and other articles. This user's behavior was first reported at the end of last year on AN/I, and he has continued a low-grade campaign of edit warring and disruption since, incurring regular blocks. In this most recent round, I gave him a clear, blunt warning that continued edit warring would result in an extended block. He continued, and I blocked him for a month. I realize this is a very long block, but this user has shown little to no willingness to cease disrupting the encyclopedia. I am hoping a break will convince him that our rules are not optional.

I waffled between giving him a shorter block, such as two weeks, and the monthlong block, but finally decided to try to drive the point home sharply once before taking this to Arbcom. I will not reverse any administrator who changes or shortens the block, but I do urge you to look carefully at this user's edit history before doing so. Nandesuka 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with block. - FrancisTyers · 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Support, this user is highly disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering Justforasecond's repeated harrassment of User:Deeceevoice, one may want to question his agenda. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been unblocked by CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after promising to avoid Kwanzaa, but for the looks of this it doesn't look like the block taught him a damned thing. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. I, for one, am tired of JFAS's antics. IMO, he richly deserved the one-month block. It's amazing that in an exchange w/another admin he portrays himself as the victim of a conspiracy, somehow persecuted by my "supporters" -- when it is quite clear he's the one who stalked me around the website. What's even more amazing is that the admin bought it. deeceevoice 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm sure that you,Nandesuka and the other editors who are supporting JFS block also agree that you "richly deserve" a block for a couple of months for your "disruption", "vandalism" and "slow edit warring" at several articles, among them Thomas Jefferson, Great Sphinx of Giza, Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians and Blackface -- unless of course you agree to stay away from these articles. CoYep 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, none of that played any part in my action. What I 'bought' was that he said he would stay away from the Kwanzaa article. Since the block was ostensibly made to protect that page his agreement not to edit it removed any concern in that regard and ended any 'preventative' basis for the block. That said, I probably would have unblocked anyway as the original claim of the block being for 'vandalism' was clearly false and even the revised claim of 'disruption' on that page seemed to me a considerable stretch... certainly slow motion edit warring is not sufficient 'disruption' to justify a block of an entire month. That said, I thank JFAS for agreeing to stay away from the page as it is clear that tempers have frayed and it is best to let the disagreement go. --CBD 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond contacted me via email and asked that his block be lifted, because it was interfering with all of the other employees at his place of work. He pledged in that email that, if he was unblocked, he would abide by the month's block and not edit during that time. I see that, now that he's unblocked, he's editing again and attacking the admin who blocked him. So much for good faith. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the block or unblock, I just wanted to say, for the umpteenth time: Criticism is not the same as an attack. Treating criticisms like attacks is the cause of much disagreement and undesirable drama. We all need to be very careful to cleanly distinguish these two different concepts in our own minds. Friday (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I asked you to unblock me and you didn't do it. If you had unblocked me I would have gone on a break but, in spite of my truly desperate pleas, you didn't. Thankfully another admin did unblock me, but without those conditions. So no, this is not a violation of good faith, but maybe a lack of assuming it. I am perfectly within my rights here to question what I see as an overly long, illegitimate block and you are welcome to comment on why it was the correct length, called for. I'm not an admin here so I don't have as much experience in these matters, but the cases I have seen, unquestionably nasty users have not received blocks anywhere near that long. I also put a very clear "spoiler" notice on my page saying not to read the request for an advocate it if you were concerned about incivility, etc. Justforasecond 21:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to settle a content dispute with an unjustified block and admins who are doing this are clearly abusing their power. CoYep 15:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Socafan

I have no idea why but Socafan (talk · contribs) is waging a one-man war to spin the doping allegations against Lance Armstrong in the most damaging light possible. He's also intent on stating in David Walsh (sports reporter) that Armstrong lost an appeal to have the Sunday Times publish a rebuttal of the source of an article which the court found to be libellous because it implied that the sources were true. I don't see that appeal as having any relevance unless it would be usual for such a remedy to be granted by the courts; I know of no instance where it has even been asked for but I guess it must be - I know that an apology in the paper is usually as much as you get, as a long-time follower of Private Eye. As stated, it makes it sound as if Armstrong lost the case (and Socafan apparently believes that the case substantially vindicates Walsh, despite his losing the libel suit, see Talk:David Walsh (sports reporter)).

I am now involved in this, having originally come to it purely as a WP:BLP problem, and I might just be taking against Socafan because he is so relentless in pushing his personal views, including guilt-by-association and other innuendo in the article. Socafan clearly believes that there is only one neutral version: his. I don't think it is neutral, and Armstrong has already successfully sued the Sunday Times for implying that Armstrong is guilty, which worries me quite a bit. SOme extra eyes would be appreciated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching the article for quite awhile, you're not alone. --mboverload@ 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to come down on this one and say that the people who first identified this editor as a sock were correct. His endless trolling bears this out and he needs to be terminated. I propose that we block him indefinitely. I don't see useful output that would justify the time we spend on this guy's troublesome behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am greatly relieved to hear it - I was beginning to think it was just me being paranoid. I support whatever action terminates his disruption, but of course by now I am not neutral so I don't think it would be right to block him myself. Perhaps I should have just applied the nuclear option to start with, but I got in enough trouble as it was. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we now have me, Tom Harrison and Phil Sandifer all trying to keep the article neutral, and Socafan continually reverting with summaries suggesting we need to achieve consensus on Talk before moving away from Socafan's preferred version. This is disruptive, and also means that several of us are constantly having to monitor a WP:BLP to guard against potentially libellous material. If anyone feels like blocking Socafan for a short while at least I would be happy to have a break :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have a bad feeling about this. I just blocked Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 24h for 3RR violation on Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi all, CAT:CSD is badly backlogged (200+ items), could a few people take a look? Stifle (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like we don't need more admins... =( --mboverload@ 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright backlogs are awful. CSD is nothing in comparison. We need more admins badly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well admins willing to do the shitwork. My RfA failed so you're screwed =D --mboverload@ 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got a simple way to clear copyright backlogs ... just delete the copyvios on sight. That's what I've started to do. Rather than going through the rigamarole of tagging it and then waiting seven days, I just delete them immediately. --Cyde↔Weys 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

mboverload@ gives Cyde a Hero button

Rather than using the copyvio tag I just put it up for speedy saying it's a copyvio. It works. --mboverload@ 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A8 limtis you to 48 hours for doing that.Geni 01:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in the same situation as Mboverload, I'm willing to do that kind of work but with no adminship (and currently nobody volunteering to renom me) I guess you guys are out of luck. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe =D. I know someone will renominate me, but right now the last thing I want to go through is another RfA slap-a-thon. --mboverload@ 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think a willingness to do CSD type tasks should definitely be considered a plus on an admin candidate but that's just one user's opinion. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Watchlists

Ok, I remember someone saying that there is some way for admins to tell if an article is on no watch lists. However, I've attempted to figure out how to do this, and have to say I've stumped. I've looked over the admin reading and can't find it there either. Is this a case of stupidity or delusion? If stupidity, I would appreciate being told how to do it. If delusion, then, well, feel free to make fun of me. JoshuaZ 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

<points and laughs> Special:Unwatchedpages </pointing and laughing> I don't believe it supports searching, however, and only lists 1000 pages. The devs could probably be encouraged to make it searchable with a sufficient amount of cookies, however. Essjay (Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. JoshuaZ 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cookies, barnstars, and monetary inducement... oh my. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a page that has recent changes on unwatched pages might be useful. There are so many unwatched articles that the list is not very helpful. Also, it has pages that are redirects and articles that have just been created and then listed on AfD. Finally, I cannot get past more than 1,000 pages on the list, so you can only see the articles that start with parentheses, quotes and numbers. Another tool that might be helpful is if there were a list of pages with frequent edits or a large number of edits that are unwatched. I do not know if that is feasible, though. -- Kjkolb 05:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of my User page by WegianWarrior

This user continues to place notices on my user page that I am a suspected impersonator of another user. He also makes derogatory comments in violation of wikipedia guidelines against making personal attacks against other users, in the edit descriptions.

• 1st - Makes comment '(hello sock!)'
• 2nd - Makes comment '(hello again, sock.)'
• 3rd - Makes comment '(socks can run, but not hide)'

User has also been blocked for 3rr and other similar abuse infractions on a number of other occasions.

Request this user be blocked from making any further edits to my user page. Thank-you.Kjlee 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Request that Lightbringer's latest WP:RFCU be expedited so he can start picking his next open proxy username.--SarekOfVulcan 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second SarekOfVulcan's recuest, and would like to add the following:

• Kjlee is a suspected sockpuppet of the banned user Lightbringer - his MO fits the description on Lightbringers subpage on WP:LTA to a tee.
• Kjlee convinienly forgets to mention his 'edit' (near vandalism or vandalism) to my userpage...
• As anyone who can check my block log can see, I've been blocked for a 3RR violation excatly once - and that was for loosing my head in a revert war (I know, me bad) with a previous sockpuppet of Lightbringer on, AFAIR, the Freemasonry article.

But then, bending the truth and straight out lies are things we have come to expect of Lightbringer and his socks... WegianWarrior 18:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You still shouldn't have made those edits IMO. I don't see how they contribute positively in any way. If he's a sock, wait for RFCU to identify it as so or ask an admin to block it... No need to feed the trolls. Sasquatch t|c 19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... then what's the point of having the {{sockpuppet}} template at all, if you're not supposed to use it? It does provide a positive service: it lets other editors know that these contributions might be questionable -- especially since Lightbringer has been banned for a year and shouldn't be editing at all.--SarekOfVulcan 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

CSD I3

Those admins handling speedy deletions these days have probably noticed a lot of pages tagged with {{db-noncom}} and {{Permission from license selector}}. I just wanted to say, in case anyone wasn't checking, these pages should not be deleted too quickly after they're uploaded: new users uploading an image for the first time will probably take a little while to figure out what to replace the bad license tag with and how to do that. Mangojuice^talk 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a note about this to the heading text of CAT:CSD, please check it to make sure it is accurate. —Centrx→talk • 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Monserratt

Could someone tell me how to deal with the anonymous edits on this page Lloyd Monserratt. --evrik 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's been documented. Both of you need to watch 3RR though. Sasquatch t|c 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• SarekofVulcan and I were not in any danger of a 3RR. I was referring to the anonymous edits and the lack of response to my comments on the talk page.

At 10:48 this morning I made the above request. I was really disappointed to see Zoe nominate the article for deletion six minutes later. This really leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and reaffirms my opinion about how poorly things work on wikipedia. I asked for help, and got an afd and a 3rr notice. Wow. --evrik 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't have come to my attention if you hadn't brought it up here, but a non-notable bio is a non-notable bio, no matter where someone might encounter it. Should I have left what is, in my opinion, a speedy deletion candidate just because you talked about it here? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly, I came to the admins board to ask for help against an anonymous vandal, and got the afd. Having lived in Los Angeles during the events in question, I think that this person was notable - despite what the afd comments may say. Before answering your question about whether or not you should have left the article, let me ask you this, in the six minutes it took you to tag the article, what research did you do? --evrik
  • It is the responsibility of the author of the article, or those who are claiming notability, to prove it. Nothing in the article passes our WP:BIO guideline, and therefore I listed it. Technically, I could have speedy deleted it, as it doesn't pass our notability guidelines. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiny Shoe Music

The nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiny Shoe Music has been withdrawn; can someone please close the issue? Thanks! (But please don't delete the VFD page: the discussion is needed.)—msh210℠ 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done by Mangojuice. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks.—msh210℠ 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx

Blocked recently (by me) for disruptive behavior including attempting to rebuild a deleted article on his user page, this editor continues to generate serious reports concerning his bad behavior. I've given him a seven-day holiday. Would a longer block be more appropriate? --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He has a long history of disruption and incivility (at least). I would not object to a longer block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of this complaint I've reduced the block period to 24 hours. I still think this editor may not be good for Wikipedia. All comments welcome. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What deleted article did he try to rebuild? Could we get an example or recent problem edits?--Crossmr 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be this (note the final comment), which I'm basing on this. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed AfD notice

Per CrazyRussian's request, I am posting this here as well as Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. I am proposing that we post a notice directly at the top of the AfD page that informs and educates editors about their other options. The current iteration of the notice is here, and I have opened a discussion about it. The primary reasons are that:

• AfD is getting too many listings that can and should be elsewhere.
• The excess of listings are not being efficiently or thoroughly discussed, resulting in re-listings and other problems.

I believe we can alleviate the situation by educating editors. For consolidation's sake, please comment here if you are so-inlined. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

I think FURSECUTION 4EVA! is a vandalism/abuse only account to attack people associating as "furries". Has blanked Raccoon Fox's userpage once already. Viridae^Talk 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef, thanks Naconkantari 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Viridae^Talk 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Suspected sockpuppet tag" removal - Panairjdde.

User:Codex Sinaiticus removed twice (diff 1, diff 2) the suspected sockpuppet tag from his talk page. After the first time, (s)he was warned.--151.47.119.2 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above post was made by yet another IP sock of User:Panairjdde, who also created the User:CodexVaticanus sock and is skirting a block on edit warring. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to stalking all my recent contribs and edit warring them to totally remove all AD's, Panairjdde, who was blocked and has switched to using 151.47 IP's, has repeatedly placed a spurious notice to his sockpuppet User:CodexVaticanus on my talk page. Please help! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:!

Based on this edit, one of three after a break of almost six months, I have indef-blocked this user as a sockpuppet of Marytrott. See users' contribs and here for evidence, and please feel free to review. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an inappropriate username, anyway. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indirect personal attack?

Hi, I've got an anon user who seems to enjoy making repeated allegations that I've insulted them or others in some fashion (diffs: [2], [3], [4]), despite my never having done anything of the kind (the closest was a comment "what is it with guys and gay jokes?" :). Does this false attribution constitute a personal attack by implication? And given that their address seems to be a roaming IP (dialup?) is there anything to be done about it? Thanks in advance, Ziggurat 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the most recent one for trolling... not much we can do on dynamic IPs though. Sasquatch t|c 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that User talk:88.110.25.215 is the current IP being used. Just to satisfy my curiosity, *is* this a personal attack? Something else? S/he seems to be currently pulling something similar with User:JD_UK. Ziggurat 00:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help

Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.

The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.

Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.

Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.

Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .

When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.

Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.

That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.

My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.

I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.

Here are some links that might help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Watts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Colorblind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threeafterthree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Potters_house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?

The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy

Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238

then

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238

Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edit.

Sorry for spamming you all earlier, I didn't know this page existed! Cheers. Potters house 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.

Your accusations of racism are highly inappropriate, and you would do yourself and your "cause" a big favor by retracting the allegations. Only administrators can delete articles, and administrators get their positions because they have the full trust of the Wikipedia community. The admin who deleted the article is User:Tawker, with whom you may wish to discuss the matter, but in point of fact, the deletion was done because of a virtually unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary, which is the procedure we use to discuss whether or not the community feels an article should be kept. All of this discussion doesn't belong here, and any rate. The place to discuss undeletion of articles is at WP:DRV, but I reiterate that the previous deletion discussion was virtually unanimous. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not the content or even so much the intent of Mr. Clary's additions that drew attention and disapproval, it was his behavior. Because of him, I have Tom Metzger on my watchlist. Having to defend the content of such an article is distasteful to me, but Mr. Clary's vandalism made that necessary. You need not, indeed you should not, look for any deeper reason for Wikipedians objecting to Mr. Clary than checking out his past actions on articles at Wikipedia. Again, not his outspokenness, but his underhandedness. Resorting to the old standby of demonizing those acting against you ignores that most important possibility - you just might be wrong. Shenme 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN

Should we block indefinitely, as username inappropriate? User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like your question has been answered. Yanksox 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, Pilotguy. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Specifically,

• 02:44, July 27, 2006 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs) blocked "DDDDDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)

Haha. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm. is ‎A1% an appropriate username? I thought usernames weren't supposed to contain special characters. Also, it looks like User:ASM123456 is a vandalism account (see A Spy's Mission 4, 3, 2, and 1 or check the deletion log if pages don't exist). User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They're definitely strongly discourged and it might be a good idea if nothing else to nicely ask the person to change their nick but I'm not sure if they're specifically not allowed. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I hate long goodbyes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder, inappropriate username reports are best as WP:AIV --pgk^(talk) 06:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously inappropriate usernames can go to AIV - usernames that won't justify an immediate block (because they're borderline and/or the user has good-faith edits and should be asked nicely first) can be posted at WP:RFC/NAME.</nitpick> --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

<Syntax error: </nitpick> tag without <nitpick>> --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoax material

I have twice reverted/removed material that is quite obviously fake from Mini Mammoth, only to have it replaced within minutes. The material is quite obviously fake and according to WP:VAND insertion of material that belongs in BJAODN is vandalism. I need advice as to wether I will be in violation of 3RR if i keep removing the obviously fake material - and if another user is in violation of 3RR for replacing it. This seems to be a grey area... Viridae^Talk 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism does not count towards 3RR, but the whole article is bollocks, so what does it matter? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there is that. Viridae^Talk 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. Hoax, vandal magnet, snowball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-28 13:31Z

You missed an image. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted from Commons... —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-28 21:26Z

Need some help right now

Editwar on Sanhedrin. See User talk:Daniel575 and User talk:Historian2 also. I request to have it reverted last version and to have User:Historian2 officially warned and if necessary blocked (and it looks like that will be necessary). --Daniel575 09:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Do include my full version, please. If not, please remove the protection. I will have User:Crzrussian, our Jewish administrator, take a look when he gets back. Right now, please restore my last version. --Daniel575 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, and administrators are not supposed to take a side in an editing dispute. You should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and not just revert (many times). In fact, both you and your opponent have broken the three-revert rule. Please stop edit warring. Kusma (討論) 09:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy cannot be discussed with. I have not edited his article at all. You have now removed my entire addition and protected the page according to his version. Please restore my last version, which is accurate and provides more than 5 external links. --Daniel575 09:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort. AmiDaniel protected the article in the version he found when he came across the article, which is the correct behavior in an edit war. Kusma (討論) 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the version by the person who caused this whole war. He wrote a very biased piece. I left his version intact the way it was and added a sub-section titled 'Criticism'. He deleted that sub-section up to 10 times and accused me of vandalism. Now it is protected and the sub-section 'Criticism' which I wrote was deleted. I very strongly object to this. --Daniel575 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking banned for two weeks, restrictions extended

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following new motion in the Everyking case.

1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended for one year, until November 2007.
3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one.

Passed 6-0 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - Tony, could you explain this in a bit more detail? The page pointed to seems to be some sort of threaded discussion where the arbitrators are raising several different possibilities. Did they reach a conclusion elsewhere and tell you? Or is this your interpretation of that thread? Haukur 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It says "Passed 6-0", which means that they voted on this. As far as I know, that is sufficient. This link has more detail. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose the key edit is this: [5] Haukur 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked by an arbitrator to make the decision enforceable. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyking. --kingboyk 10:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That link is now stale because I've moved all the material to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 and its talk page so we'll have an easily accessible permanent record. --Tony Sidaway 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I request that this not be implemented until the arbitrators agree to hear my evidence, or at least respond to me in some way. (And yeah, I'm allowed to post here if it's relevant to myself.) Everyking 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Tony has now blocked Everyking for two weeks. Haukur 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, if you look at the threaded discussion, EK has actually been arguing his case since 15th July and responses were indeed forthcoming, so he can hardly pretend that this is a bolt out of the blue. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking has been doing very valuable work in expanding and referencing our articles on African politicians, an important and underrepresented field; here are some of the most recent examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] He's also continued doing solid work on his favourite historical subjects [11] [12] and worked tirelessly on reverting vandalism. All-in-all he's an extremely valuable editor. Whether or not the block ban is justified I think it is a very sad thing. Haukur 11:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the block itself is justified since the ArbCom banned him, and that's how bans are necessarily implemented. -Splash - tk 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The pedant attacks! :) Okay, I'll change my words. Haukur 12:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking may or may not be valuable, but he's not indispensable, irreplaceable, or unique qualified -- he ought not to be getting any special dispensation. --Calton | Talk 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking's message on Tony Sidaway's talk page says, in part, I don't see how that can possibly be the case when the ArbCom hasn't even heard my side of the story yet..., but I count, conservatively, 1200 words of "his side of the story" already posted on the Request for Arbitration page, and if he had anything ELSE to say, any "evidence to add", no one was standing in his way of doing so. It's this sort of thing that makes me wonder how he can possibly believe the things he claims, given how at odds they are with reality and all. --Calton | Talk 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking has been told that he has "exhausted the committee's patience" [13]. They have heard his arguments, his attacks on them, and his self-justifications. And they have decided to ban him briefly. He can appeal to Jimbo Wales who may modify or remove any remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK update

Could someone update Did you know? It hasn't been updated for 21 hours. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 11:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt number 99999 restricted from editing

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CoolKatt_number_99999 pending its resolution.

Enacted at 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree

Does this edit warrant a block of the article just to please user:Ghirlandajo, who has WP:OWN problems (for which he was blocked), when I first corrected false information and inserted a proper caption? Also, is it fair to be called a sock to discredit an anonymous IP's edits? Same thing at Nevsky Prospect, where Ghirla's two uploaded photos are untouchable despite both of them being vintage, for which another user got bullied, and only my intervention brought about a discussion, at the cost of my edit? Any administrators willing to intervene without being afraid of being pounced on and demeaned, as other admins who have stood up to him have?? 83.5.249.155 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, you are blocked for a year and not allowed to edit Wikipedia in this period. The IP range from which you operate points to Warsaw. I see that you recently returned to your old tactics of stalking myself and reverting almost every other edit I make. For a partial list, see here, but also this and this and this... I could go on for ages. Also, contrary to your assertions, I was never blocked for violating WP:OWN. Take care when spreading falsehoods and lies, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Same old rant, "sock", "spreading lies". What got you blocked was your incivility following another editor's harmless edit and you having a hissy-fit (links provided), even demanding a formal apology after it was you who smeared a number of established contributors. Rest of my contributions speak for themselves, and your newspeak wont change that. 83.5.249.155 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check WP:AN/I#Administrator user:Alex Bakharev and his semi-protection spree. I am almost sure that the anon is not Molobo. As a proof you can look into the following edit of our anon. I doubt that Molobo would talk with himself in such a manner. Besides I got an e-mail from the real Molobo that insists that he has no relations to the anon, never stalks or cheats. As the proof Molobo is ready to risk permabanning by posting here, just to show that his E-mail is different. I have all the reasons to believe him. BTW I also believe that our anonym deliberately impersonated Molobo and could indeed put Molobo into serious troubles abakharev 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Reviewing the history of affected articles I think both IP user(s) and Ghirla (and in some instances as on Soviet partisans other reqistered users) are equally guilty of contributing to the revert war. Therefore the articles should not be semi-protected but rather normally protected; semi-protection was designed to prevent vandalism, not exclude one party (unregistered editors) from revert war while allowing the others (registered) free reign (unless I missed some anon edits that indeed classify as vandalism?). That said, semi-protecting 3 or 4 articles is hardly a spree and I would caution anon to be careful with WP:PA and assuming bad-faith in actions of an experienced admin like Alex. I would encourage interested anon(s) to simply create an account. Anonimous users who display advanced knowledge of Wikipedia policies are bound to create some suspicion, which whether justified or not is not creating a friendly enviroment. Finally I would like to add that Wikipedia admins have a long history of catching users trying to circumvene their block and extending their block as additional penalty. While I don't think we have evidence that this is indeed User:Molobo doing (and his contrib pattern is strange, to my knowledge Molobo was not interested in purely Russian articles, only those relevant to Polish-Russian history), I thought I would stress that just in case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, barring edit wars, this user(s) already made some comments bordering on personal attacks here, and got a warning from an admin on one of his talk pages. [14] -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. If there are any further transgressions of WP:CIV/WP:PA, I would recommend a block, especially as warning has been given.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Two lists needing categorisation

The AfD log for 18th July is almost complete save for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop punk bands, which appear to have resulted in a consensus to categorise the lists and delete them. Is this a job for someone with AWB? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups this was closed incorrectly. The "Keeps" made the very valid point that this list is full of red links. Red links are a very long-standing reason to have a list instead of an category. Consensus isn't just counting up "votes", it is making sense of them, and this may be one of those cases where the closer should add their own judgement even if it is contrary to the majority. -- Samuel Wantman 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Very funny

ok, you've had your laughs--AOL account 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, it's not a joke, it just seems like one, my mistake--AOL account 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's ok, we all make them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

it works now

that means you can leave it alone205.188.116.200 16:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Move of Jogaila

Hi. User:Balcer has moved Jogaila to Władysław II Jagiełło, while editing the new redirect page Jogaila to prevent a revert from a non-admin. The move comes after a multi-option poll had found that the name Jogaila was the most popular name and which resulted in the admin User:Kjkolb moving the page to Jogaila. Balcer personally supports Władysław II Jagiełło, and has used his admin powers to reverse the community's decision. He now has opened a two-option poll suggesting moving Władysław II Jagiełło to Jogaila His obvious intention is to use the supermajority move requirement to guarantee his favored option. This action is quite frankly disgraceful. It is even more shocking considering that he completed the move and opened a vote while there was another vote ongoing. I ask an admin to intervene. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We've had scores of votes forced on us by Piotrus, Balcer and Co and the result was always the same. Enough is enough. The morbid polonization of Wikipedia should be stopped, with Balcer cautioned or blocked for having discarded the consensus. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People are trying to pollinate wikipedia? ew, that sounds gross--64.12.116.200 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really so shocked by this. I doubt even Piotrus would endorse this kind of behaviour. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it shows Balcer's utter disregard for other editors' opinion. The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes (as usual). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, are you shocked? After all you were aware that The Poles are pretty tenacious, and doubtless will campaign vigorously or find some device to get it moved to a Polonocentric name, so really, what is suprising in the actions of those fanatics? :(-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Balcer is not an admin (I have no idea how he was able to actually move the page, there should have been a redirect there...). Second, the previous 'multi-poll with secondary votes' was not a proper WP:RM, it has more holes then the Swiss cheese and should never be used as a basis for the move (which has been criticized by many users already); there was clearly no consensus for it. The other votes on the page are getting more and more laugable, with semi-serious discussions now about 'which method of voting will we use to determine the method of voting for the move'. Proper WP:RM is the only solution to deal with this problem. PS. Ghirla's yet another violation of WP:CIV/WP:PA and accusations of me and others forcing some votes and engaging in 'morbid polonization' is highly offensive and I hope neutral admins will warn him about his behaviour. "The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes" is just beyond comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, the vote to Jogaila was fair and it was a result. Whatever you may want to make out about it you cannot say that it is up to Balcer to decide these things. If you had any respect for wiki prodedures you would overtly condemn Balcer's actions, instead of wasting time going after Ghirla again. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Piotrus what about this case?

The move by User:Balcer is unacceptable. Page should be moved back to >> Jogaila and protected form other “good” moves until the editors finds solution. M.K. 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about that case? That move has evidently proven uncontroversial, so in assuming good faith etc. nobody questions it. The W2J->Jogaila move, on the contrary, has alrady generated dozens of posts and many users are questioning it, on basis ranging from 'proper procedures (RM) were not followed' to 'that move was done with 1:2 support'. It was that last move that should have been reported here; the only thing to cricitize is that it was moved by a user involved in a dispute, not by a neutral party - but even so I don't see how that move violates any policies. Again, the last move, which was not following WP:RM, does appear to have violated WP:RM and should have been reverted for it (IMHO).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good will? The good will in Jogaila case could be asking for neutral admin addition support, arranging another poll within Jogaila after appropriate time...

And I will quote and ask with user:Doc15071969 words: - "The result of the debate was rename to Jogaila. -- Kjkolb 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" Which part of that is too dificult to understand or to accept? M.K. 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd only like to point out that, if we treated the previous poll as a proper WP:RM procedure (which it was not), then there was no consensus to move, as the votes were basically split 16:16. //Halibutt 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is this. There had been extensive discussions and polls at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło. An admin who was completely and admirably neutral in the matter came along, reviewed everything, thought about it, and closed the poll with their best good faith determination at what should be done, which was to move the article to Jogaila. Yes, it was controversial, but I think that we should now respect the closing admin's decision, leave the article at Jogaila, and start the debate anew. It was not appropriate for Balcer to simply drag the article back to Władysław II Jagiełło, especially because he was not neutral (he immediately started a new poll, and voted for Władysław II Jagiełło). Me personally, I don't like the name Jogaila either, but we should respect the decision of the closing admin. If they made a bad call, then it can be addressed, but by all indications I've seen, they made an appropriate decision based on the state of the discussion at the time.

My request is that some other neutral admin at this point, reverse Balcer's move, put the Władysław II Jagiełło article back to Jogaila, as was closing admin User:Kjkolb's good faith decision, and then we start discussions fresh as to what do to next. --Elonka 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, let's all keep in mind that I am not an admin, so somewhat different standards apply to me than would to an admin in this case. Obviously, I did not use any admin powers to move the article back (since I have none). Given that, I do not believe my action violated any policy or guideline. In particular, I do not believe that a simple user involved in a dispute is forbidden to move the article involved. Now if I had simply moved the article back without doing anything else, that would indeed have been ill advised. This is why my move was followed immediately by a RM request, in which everyone involved will be able to express their opinion, by a clear answer to a clear question. As the talk page indicated, there was no concensus support for User:Kjkolb's closing of the discussion. I appreciate his attempt to assist in the resolution of the dispute, but in this case it clearly was not satisfactory for many users. This seemed to be reflected in the quick, informal poll started to see what further action should be taken.

I am perfectly ready to accept sanctions for any policies I have violated by my actions. My only interest was to resolve what clearly is a significant controversy through a clear, unambigous RM procedure, in which all interested editors would have a chance to vote on a clear question. Balcer 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert User:Balcer's move, but only because such actions have been determined to be disruptive by the arbitration commitee. If move protection is needed, it should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for review by a neutral admin. Circeus 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the history is due to addition of a {{R from alternate name}}, and making the move irreversible might not have been the intention. Circeus 19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is your prerogative of course. Nevertheless, a formal RM procedure has now started and I hope it will continue, no matter where the article is moved next. If this RM: Władysław II Jagiełło->Jogaila does not pass, I hope you will move the article back. Balcer 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While not doubitng the good faith of Kjkolb, he was not acting as a closing admin, since it was not a proper RM to start with. This is the version of the page before he moved it. I don't see any RM template at the top indicating this is an RM vote. Therefore while Kjkolb acted as a good-faithed neutral editor, he was not a closing admin, just as the vote was not a proper RM vote. Thus, unlike RM vote, when it became clear his move is controversial, it could have and has been reverted without any violation of our policies. Again, let me repeat: the only way to solve this as soon as possible with as little bad blood as possible is to hold a proper RM which will clearly indicate whether there is consensus for a move to Jogaila, and whose decision should not be questioned in the near future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have protected Jogaila from moves until a consensus has been determined. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin help (Mass-to-charge ratio, Dalton (unit))

There has been an ongoing dispute that has already been through arbitration etc. however the behavior of the other party User:Kehrli has become even worse. He has been removing the dispute tags and is now inserting his previous POV text into articles that were previously free of debate such as Mass spectrum and Mass spectrometry. I have asked for sources multiple times and he will only present OR ucombining his own interpretation of multiple sources to come to a (what I think is a quite reasonable although obscure) conclusion. This isn't really a request for resolution of a content dispute but a request for observation and correction of inappropriate behavior that in my mind borders on vandalism. Please note that most of my edits have been as inclusive as is reasonable regarding his desire to change the status quo by mentioning multple time about suggestions in the literature to change things etc. Please someone help me I am getting turned off by wikipedia. I have contributed many quality articles such as FTICR but that will end soon and I will let the unsourced POV pushers take over and turn this into their blog about how they think things should be. There needs to be more strong rapid oversight in cases such as this otherwise the good editors will go away. Thank you for your time.--Nick Y. 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV

I am reporting User:SynergeticMaggot, User:999, and User:Hanuman Das for their use of blitzkrieg tactics to push their viewpoints on the following articles: Thoth, Hermeticism, Hermetism, Cult of Hermes, Mental Gender, and Hermeticism and other thought systems.

The onslaught started about 24 hours ago when I tried to remove "references" that are not actually cited in the Thoth article. After some conflicts with 999, and discussion, I opted to move them into an Additional Reading section which he reverted back to the original version, unwilling to work on it. After we used our 3 reverts, he immediately put a prod on Hermeticism and other thought systems[15] and an AfD out on Mental Gender[16], seemingly in retalliation. SynergeticMaggot, whom I know in RL, and who ironically claims membership in the Welcoming Committee, Association of Members' Advocates, and Concordia, seconded the prod. When it was deleted by uninterested eyes[17], he readded it none the less[18]. 999 put the Cult of Hermes redirect to redirect towards Hermes instead of Hermetism,[19] Then when I didn't agree and pointed out in edit summaries that Cult of Hermes refers to Hermetism, he put it up for deletion[20]. We continued to argue to the point that he and Hanuman decided to make it a disambiguation then pick their own description of Hermetism, unsourced, instead of the cited versions I have pointed out. In reality the disambiguation disambiguates between the same thing...

As if I didn't have enough to try to get fixed yet, Hanuman went to cause problems with Hermetism, [21] by citing it with a fiction tag and there is a debate going on about whether Manly P. Hall is a reputable source. SynergeticMaggot then attempted to raise questions on Hermeticism.

In all of these articles, I would be the primary contributor and these were selected by browsing my contributions. It is to be expected that I would be the one having to defend or work to improve these articles to keep them up or keep content in. I sent each of them a message[22][23][24] which stated:

There are currently challenges made by the same three people, all of whom will recieve this message, on Thoth, Hermeticism, Hermetism, Cult of Hermes, Mental Gender, and Hermeticism and other thought systems all at the same time. Some people actually work for a living and have a life outside of Wikipedia. If you want to make challenges, you are free to do so. But when you know that they are all against the same person, have a little bit of courtesy and challenge them one or two at a time, and allow appropriate time for someone to actually do something about it. I am not a superhuman, and blitzkrieging me with all these challenges at once is unrealistic and shady. Try to have some patience and actually make it possible for me to work with you rather than trying to send me on the defensive and effectively make me leave Wikipedia. If this continues, I will have to make this an issue through RfC, Administrator's noticeboard, or Arbitration Committee. Try to use your time actually find sources to contradict mine if you feel that you have too much free time to wait around for me to be able to act on any given article.

in attempt to make them realize that I cannot defend in 6 places at once, and since these are the same contributors, they should be patient and wait for me to be able to handle each of these situations. I had replies accusing me of WP:OWN because I would assume that articles chosen by seeing where I had made major contributions would have to be defended by me[25] and asking me to not contribute to Wikipedia if I cannot dedicate all my time (though I work 40 hours with 12-15 hours commuting time a week) to defend 6 controversies within 24 hours.

I am not asking for bans to be put into effect, but for articles to be locked and protected until I have the opportunity to work with each one. The blitzkrieg tactics employed here only serve to make me incapable of having a fair shot at working on these articles.

KV(Talk) 19:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I made the mistake of readding the prod tag, and user 999 removed it telling me to look into WP:PROD more closely. I realized I was wrong, so I then said the next part of the process was to take it to AfD. All of the users edit related articles, and I wont speak anymore about them after saying that there is a consensus among us that think that what KV is reverting on three pages makes the articles look better. KV is a good contributor, although he does not understand that alot of the material he was putting in was POV and OR. We also fixed the article per Manual of Style. He feels the need to defend the article and is clearly showing that he wishes to OWN the articles. I will abide by whatever the admins choose here, as I am also being accused of uncivil edit summaries below, based on me using Vandal Proof to revert his edits, and me adding test-3 and test-4 to his talk page. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 01:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My intention is not to claim that I own the articles, but that I have a right to defend them. This action was taken out specifically on articles that they knew that I would be defending, as they have looked for them by checking my contributions. If there is POV or OR in them, that can be worked on, but it should be done one article at a time, so that I have a chance to actually work with them. Not only do they have numbers and time (I can verify that SynergeticMaggot can edit Wikipedia all day, without problem, and I suspect the same of 999), but I am the one that must find sources, despite the fact that I already have sources, and the statements they support are not cited. Due to them making me inable to actually work with them in improving the articles, I have had to resort to reverting, in part to bring attention to this matter. Essentially, this is the use of a comparative mob to push POV with a stated unwillingness to work with me, but rather say that these three that work together represent a clear consensus against my version and for their version. I will add more information on my attempts to work with them and others on the articles on a break.

KV(Talk) 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. KV is adding personal information to this noticeboard about me for no reason other than to explain why he cannot fix minor errors in his and other editors wording. If POV's and OR were not added to these article in the first place, there would have been no problem at all. No one is pushing POV, but there are alot of mistakes this editor makes on numerous articles, someone has to fix it. Also, two of the articles are on AfD now, and have been gaining a consensus to delete. This shows that we are not the only ones feel that he articles were OR. You can find them here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermeticism and other thought systems] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermetism. SynergeticMaggot 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, reworded to make the same point without letting out the offending information.KV(Talk) 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perceptual transparency and Filling-in

These two articles are pasted in from the author's research paper, that s/he submitted to a University. It's not OR, as it is throughly sourced - but I am wondering if we some sort of a policy against such things on WP. Does the University hold copyrights in the submitted materials? Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright violation. Oups, didn't notice this was abot a paper they submitted. And it's still OR if it has any sort of new conclusion,until it has been officially published. Circeus 19:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unpublished material is not necessatily OR. Personal communcations and unpublished works are often used in academic papers and books as references. Joelito (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The original creator of the work owns the copyright unless there is some kind of unusual agreement with the university. A good research paper should have some {{OR}} in it, but if that is pruned out it can be a good article as well. ---J.S (t|c) 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Michaelch7

This user's behavior is really stressing me out. He continue to harass me and accuse me of vandalism and agenda pushing, as noted previously on WP:PAIN [26]. Since that PAIN report, he has removed the npa-2 template I placed on his page and related discussion to it [27], and has again accused me of vandalism and "repressing history" (as well as implicating User:Streltzer as my accomplice in the latter) [28]. He has also previously vandalized my user and talk pages, as confirmed in this CheckUser case. His continued accusations that I am a vandal and that I only edit to "repress history" in his words, would also a constitute a failure to assume good faith. Previous warnings have done nothing to cool down his behavior. Can somebody do something about him? --NeoChaosX 20:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He has accused me of agenda pushing, yet again [29]. --NeoChaosX 20:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

AGF isn't a policy that can be violated.... I'll look into this. Maybe an outside voice can calm things slightly? ---J.S (t|c) 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I have been in an edit war in the past with this user, and recently he has repetitavely placed Template:Sockpuppeteer at the head of my userpage. This is a reference to a recent incident in which I was blocked for a week for creating sockpuppets with inappropriate names and reporting them myself for username policy violation. I'm not completely certain, but I believe that this is inappropriate use of that template. From what I've seen, the template is applied to currently blocked users who are using sockpuppets as means of evading the block, and regardless, his reasons for placing the template on my page are not constructive. Though slighty off topic, I would like to note that this user has been confirmed to have used at least one sockpuppet, Rennix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), himself. I also checked his userpage, and saw that he had copied content from my own userpage as well as an antifeminism template that I created and placed it there, most likely with the intent of causing trouble in some way or another. I would appreciate it if an administrator would intervene.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. The difference being Rennix wasn't proven to be a sockpuppet of mine (because he wasn't, but there's no point arguing that now he's banned). Conrad constantly placed the sockpuppet tag on Rennix's page, yet doesn't seem to like it on his own. Skinmeister 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said. You're not doing this for any constructive purpose; you're just trying to make a statement. Cut it out. And also, stop copying barnstars from my userpage and placing them on your own page.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me the Wikipedia policy that says I can't do that, and I'll stop. Skinmeister 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the template from Conrad's page. There's no need to humiliate. -- Samir धर्म 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back on. I'll stop putting it back when the sockpuppet tags and comments are removed from Rennix's user and talk pages, or it is unprotected so I can do it myself. Otherwise, this is a clear case of double standards. Skinmeister 07:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's been enough said about that particular issue. He's not avoiding any blocks by using sockpuppets, so the template is redundant in its use -- Samir धर्म 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll contine to put it back on. Skinmeister 07:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what consensus is on this one. -- Samir धर्म 07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the template. As long as Conrad is allowed to edit and not actively using abusive sockpuppets, he should be able to remove it if he wishes. Skinmeister has violated 3RR on that page, though as I believe he broke it under the impression that he was reverting vandalism, I don't believe a block is necessary unless he continues to war over the template. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the reasons why I was taking down the template very clear to Skinmeister on this page. I don't believe for a minute that he thought he was reverting vandalism. -- Samir धर्म 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer to this situation (I stumbled onto it last night while reverting User page vandalisms), I agree with Samuel Blanning's views stated above. There is no need to have this template on that user page at this time. It would be best to see Skinmeister and Conrad Devonshire exhibit some self-control and move on in seperate directions, seeing as how the aggression and consternation that both have exhibited with this situation seems to be entirely self-made at this point. If they went on their ways within Wikipedia, I'm sure they'd appreciate their time on the site more. Hope that helps. ju66l3r 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, he's technically not a vandal yet, but I have reasons to believe that he's one of many Dzoni's sockpuppets. He approached me on my talk page today [30] asking me where Serbian Wikimedia meetups are being held. Needless to say, Dzoni was always asking me such things at sr: wiki (where he's blocked indef. along with a dozen or so sockpuppet accounts) all the time and he was doing it in the same manner (calling me "Dungo" at the very first contact he makes with me, signing without "--"). Also, if we look at his contribs, he's using his famous capital letters, and by skimming his talk page, it seems as he's already gotten into some sh*t by being rude and violating policies. After skimming his talk page again, he's certainly been connected to Dzoni by others. Checkuser would be in order to confirm my claims, seeing as I am certain this is indeed Dzoni. Thank you. --Filip (§) 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser requests can be made at WP:RFCU. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was I blocked??

I got a message saying "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Redvers for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS". The reason given for ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS's block is: "User...". Your IP address is 205.188.116.70. Redvers"

I'm not ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS, and I don't know why I was blocked. It's not fair that I have to be penalized because I have the same IP address as someone else. I wasn't doing anything wrong. --Sakano 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh ... the AOL saga continues. --Ragib 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sakano, this is an extremely common issue with people who use AOL: please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. Generally if you let one of us know, by your talk page or e-mail, we will find the autoblock and clear it for you so you can get back to working. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Try contacting the blocking admin, and using this template: ILOVECATSWITHWHEELS (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), which shows autoblocks, they're usually nice about removing autoblocks. Really I'm not sure why they never came up with a media wiki fix to stop autoblocks all together--64.12.116.200 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I'll try that. --Sakano 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL violation by User:SynergeticMaggot

Calling edits that are not vandalism, vandalism.

[31][32][33]

69.14.79.14 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More evidence here: [34]... This is a problem with the previous point I brought up that has been unanswered as of yet: [35]. Problems with cookies, sorry for IP signing.

KV(Talk) 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I never called an edit of his vandalism. As most admins know, I use Vandal Proof to revert edits. KV is throwing a fit and reverting edits that 3-5 users agree are consistant with Wikipedia policy, on at least 3 pages (Thoth, Hermeticism, and Hermetism). He has exhausted his reverts and now he wishes to complain about it. He's made it clear here and here in his edit summary that he wants to just cause an edit war. We have tried to discuss this matter on the talk pages, it is he that is not working well with other editors. He also brings up his talk page where I placed test3 and test4 templates. He had already reverted so many times that I didnt bother to put tests 1 and 2 first. KV saved me the time, because I'm asking for a block on his account for however long an admin sees fit for reverting twice on the Thoth article, 3 times on the Hermeticism article, and I believe 2-3 times on the Hermetism article. SynergeticMaggot 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I undid the auto. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does that mean? SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for my intentions, the edits on Thoth are not against Wikipedia policy. I am attempting to take references where it cannot be verified that they are used within the article out of the references section. When 999 said that they don't have to be used in the article I worked with him and created an Additional reading section. The trio has worked to make sure that didn't stay. In the other two articles mentioned, large sections are being removed without discussion. I have attempted to work with them, pleading with them to give me the chance to improve the articles by working with them and discussing with them, working on them one at a time so that I can focus my attentions and create good article status. They have a stance that published facts put forth by an acclaimed author and published by a reputable publisher are not "reputable sources" and are attempting to remove that in favor of keeping in statements that are completely unverified, but match their point of view on the matter. They have decided to attack me on 6 fronts, nominating articles for deletion that can be improved, are verified, and in the case of Hermetism existed before I joined Wikipedia. Their actions are that of attempting to wear me too thin to be able to work with them, especially in good faith, in order to push their POV. WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints put forth by renowned proponents be present. Instead of working with me to rephrase things to be less POV and adding sources that disagree with me, they decided to take the easy road and delete my contributions, figuring that they would rather have nothing to the expression of a POV, though well documented by many sources, that they disagree with. Essentially, SynergeticMaggot, 999, and Hanzuman work as meatpuppets, moving from article to article to enforce their POVs. SynergeticMaggot follows my contributions regularly, and 999 follows SynergeticMaggot, and Hanzuman follows 999.

SynergeticMaggot, I know in real life, I convinced him to join Wikipedia originally to help me on these articles, something I am now regretting, and I have applauded him for learning Wikipedia policies and procedures, always freshening up on them. However, I am seeing now that he is doing so and using this knowledge to selectively apply policy and abuse it and procedure to work against the spirit of Wikipedia. He is trying, with the others, to wear me down, get me to overreact, and get banned so they can push their POV while there are few interested eyes in these articles. A vast majority of those dealing with these articles are interested in learning only.

On the subject of 3RR, I am allowed 3 reverts for each article, and I have not gone over that in any of them. Each revert is in restoring a version that I feel is better, is verifiable, and should be discussed to improve, especially since it is long-standing text. Yet, he calls it vandalism, indirectly by the VandalPro edit messages, then calling me a vandal on my talk page. I feel that his actions are effectively vandalism, but in good faith, I have restrained myself from calling it vandalism up to the point of mentioning it here for comparison.

KV(Talk) 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am abusing an policies. If there is an admin who sees this they can kindly let me know on my talk page, as I am no longer watching this notice. Also note that I am being accused in two places, the other is in the section above called "Blitzkrieg Tactics to push POV". KV has not gone over the 3RR, yet he has demonstrated his ability to revert first, and complain on AN later. Multiple reverts, as I was told before is enough to block for a given time, which is all I was asking for. And again, no one I know of has yet to call him a vandal, these were automated reverts, and test templates given out to warn KV. Have a good day! :) SynergeticMaggot 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything, this should go to WP:RFC -- no obvious admin action is needed here. Jkelly 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Need for spelling error correction...

The article on Liquid hydrogen needs a spelling error correction from then to than in the second paragraph, third sentence at "As in any gas, storing it as liquid takes less space them storing it as a gas at normal temperature and pressure."

I would make the correction myself but I have a permablock on both my IP and named accounts. 209.216.92.232 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But somehow you can edit here? --pgk^(talk) 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it. WAS 4.250 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear

Polar Bear needs constant watching. Check out its edits over the last 20 months. WAS 4.250 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We can watch it but 1-2 vandalism edits a day is actually very mild. Looks like most vandalism is rolled back immediately. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is a pretty good article. Jkelly 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Over a period of time I overwatched it and it seemed to me that someone was inserting deliberately false data that was as plausable as possible yet still wrong. Like some sort of test of the wikipedia editing process. WAS 4.250 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's annoying. It may be necessary to adopt the habit of reverting anything that doesn't come already cited. Jkelly 19:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I tried that. In Nov. 2005, when I reverted a good user making many good faith edits all at once [36] (many stylistic like removing blank lines) who complained to high heaven I gave up. Every couple of months since then, I get wistful and return to the article. WAS 4.250 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll watchlist, so at least there will be one more set of eyes on it. Jkelly 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

User GaeusOctavius (talk · contribs) has made some dubious edits lately, along with many good contributions. Could a more experienced Wikipedian investigate, please? He seems hostile to conservatives, including Luboš Motl AKA User:Lumidek. Selected edits in chronological order: re Motl, also re Motl,re IQs of conservatives, I ask what's going on, reply, re a conservative, re Motl, re a moderate. Lots of good edits not listed. Perhaps he only needs a hint about the new WP:BLP policy?

(BTW, is this the right place for queries like this?) Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

A new user moved the Terrorism page to Terrorists and Terrorism without consensus; someone else fixed the redirect so it cannot be moved back. A WP:RM is in progress to revert it back. However, since the move was clearly out of line, naming conventions and whatnot, I'd ask an admin for a speedy move back. Thanks. Duja 10:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I've blocked the user responsible, Space Ghost 900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for a week. He had only just finished a 48 hour block for moves including moving Ed Gein to Gein and Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants to Hallucinogenic Shadow, and today started immediately repeating his behaviour, including the above move as well as moving espionage to Spies and Secret Agents. He has also been making bizarre edits on a similar basis. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that a longer block may be required if he persists with misuse of the privilege to edit. --Bhadani 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog

Hi all, CAT:CSD is badly backlogged (images), could a few people take a look? feydey 10:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Babuba

I feel that this account was created just to harass User:Babub. See this edit made by the user on Babub's user page. I have reverted the vandalism. Is this a case for a permanent block as the username seems to be too similar for a coincidence. See Babuba's contribs here. I have listed the Category:Casteists created by Babuba for speedy deletion too. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indefblocked [37] for personal attacks & being a vandalism-only account. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 14:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I endorse the block. --Bhadani 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ozu ken@yahoo.com (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Hello, Is this username appropriate? Myrtone (☏) 12:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally, such usernames with email IDs are not encouraged. --Bhadani 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see: E-mail addresses. --Bhadani 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Son of a Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I welcomed this user to wikipedia, I warned him about his username, as it may be easily confused with the powerful insult son of a b*tch. Since then, this user has been blocked for trolling, and has since been warned becuase he has continued. Ixfd64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) also has an inquiry about his username, what do you think? Myrtone (☏) 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Username's fine with me. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Username's perfectly fine (and actually quite witty), the trolling is not. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The username is related to a crappy animation showing mario (from nintendo) having sex with princess peach, the filename is usually names son of a peach) -- Drini 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, User:Ixfd64 asked; the response was only a sig. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That realtion itself is exactly what Ixfd64 more or less pointed out and is itself another reason why he should change it here. Myrtone (☏) 00:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Administrative AfD block as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR

There are two AfD requests I would like blocked as per the aforementioned rules. Each of them state the following text: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

I will discuss both of the AfDs separately as they apply to these policies, but these AfDs are specifically overridden by these policies, and I will show how the deletion of these articles violate these core policies and thus they "cannot be superseded by ... editors' consensus" and must be stopped as per Wikipedia core policy.

This is my third notice on this board in the past 48 hours, probably the last 24, which I cannot remember starting a discussion on before. I certainly usually do not use it. But all the claims are interrelated to the same conflict, originally covered in WP:AN#Blitzkrieg_Tactics_to_push_POV and again in WP:AN#WP:CIVIL_violation_by_User:SynergeticMaggot.

• Unless the AfDs are clearly bad-faith and the AfD participants agree that they should be speedy-closed, these AfDs should stay the course. Also, please keep your requests short, per the text at the beginning of this page which states, in bold: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.". Comments this long make my eyes bleed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(long diatribe thankfully removed)

AFD needing action

Wikipedia:articles for deletion/Sonic Fangames HQ has been up five days and has just been closed by me as Delete. I'd like an admin to delete te paeg since I'm not one myself. Thanks, ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you know you arent supposed to do that unless its speedy keep? SynergeticMaggot 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. -reverts close- ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw out some helpful advice for others who may be watching and wanting to learn how to close AfD's, please read this: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Have a good day. SynergeticMaggot 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been not quite (but almost) 5 days since the nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-28 21:07Z

More problems with User:Handface

User:Handface is up to his old tricks and some new ones too. I blocked him for a week after a particularly obscene and unprovoked personal attack on User:Ptkfgs here. Given the nature of the attack and the user's history of personal attacks and blocks for the same, I am happy that the 1 week block was a reasonable response. However, Handface has escalted this by creating two sockpuppets User:Hytorium and User:Hosfant to evade the block. He has also made an unblock request here using one of these sockpuppets, including unfounded accusations against the admin actions I took.

I believe its time this user faced a community ban from Wikipedia as he seems unable to conduct himself in a reasonable manner. I'd like to hear other opinions. Gwernol 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I support the proposal for a community ban. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly enganged in unprovoked personal attacks and nastiness. He can't control himself and does the same thing every time he comes off of a block. I support a community ban. pschemp | talk 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That really is unacceptable. This user clearly is unwilling to follow WP:CIVIL, and I cannot think of any reason to restore their ability to edit here. Jkelly 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Definete ban. --Sasquatch 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Sasquatch, it should be an indefinite ban. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a user we want to have around. I'll back a ban 100%. -- ChrisO 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds unanimous. Any objections? --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Support ban -- Samir धर्म 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm blocking him indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Organised POV-pushing on Israel/Hezbollah articles?

I noticed a story in today's London Times which I thought would be of interest to people here:

Israel’s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.

In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate. [38]

I've no idea if this effort has had any impact on Wikipedia yet, but I would think it would be pretty easy to spot - i.e. a sudden influx of new/anonymous editors pushing one side's line on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. We should certainly expect to be targeted given Wikipedia's high profile these days. At any rate, it might be worth putting 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and related articles (Hezbollah, Lebanon, Roles of non-combatant State and non-State actors in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Timeline of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Military operations of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and others?) on our watchlists for the next few weeks. -- ChrisO 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea if it's intentional. but the article's opener is already hopelessly unbalanced, referring to "attacks on civilian population centers and infrastructure by both sides in this conflict" without referring to the massive population movements in Lebanon and the extremely high collateral damage sustained by the Lebanese civilians under Israeli bombardment. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Bias alert: No mention by Tony of massive population movements in Israel and the extremely high collateral damage sustained by the israeli civilians under Hezbula bombardment" Zeq 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If we have a reliable source for "massive population movements" within Israel as a result of the Hezbollah missile bombardment, then we should write about them. If we have a reliable source for "extremely high collateral damage" sustained by the Israeli population, we should write about it. I certainly don't want to start debating that here; just giving my impression of the article's principal fault: that in equivocating the effects of the conflict on the populations, it unduly distorts the relative scale of the conflict. --Tony Sidaway

• We're not here to put our own views into articles, but to report what reliable sources are reporting. The death ratios as neither here nor there: if Israel were suddenly today to have more killed, would it score extra points on some equality scale? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not that this is the place to argue this, but a roughly 10-to-1 ratio of Lebanese to Israeli civilians -- as well as the similiar ratio for civilians displaced -- should strike an objective observer as being wildly unbalanced enough to not require the automatic utterances of exact equivalency when bringing up the events to avoid actual claims of bias. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Although reporting that Hezbollah's missiles are full of metal pellets designed to do maximum damage to human bodies would apparently be POV? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Who suggested it would be? POV can be where emphasis is laid (and not laid). Perhaps if the design of these missiles is described along side the capabilities of some of Israel's weaponry, it would be perfectly NPOV... --Oldak Quill 02:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be biased to say this if it were to imply that Israeli armaments (and indeed the armaments of most nations) are not also designed to distribute shrapnel. --Tony Sidaway 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

..sudden influx of new/anonymous editors pushing one side's line on articles related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. We should certainly expect to be targeted... As Zeq's bit of screaming axe-grinding above ought to remind anyone, there's no need to watch for a "sudden influx", since Zeq and his cohorts are already here and have been for a long time. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very unfair to the majority of editors who, while sympathetic to Israeli interests, nevertheless edit in good faith. Zeq is not typical. On another point, I have seen no influx of POV editors with a pro-Israeli viewpoint. I simply see editors who are concerned that Israel not be trashed. Fred Bauder 11:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to go off-topic, but what makes you think the majority of editors are "sympathetic to Israeli interests"? Or are you saying that the majority of editors who are "sympathetic to the Israeli interests", edit in good faith? Just want some clarification. --Oldak Quill 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As the above conversation suggests, we're quite capable as Wikipedia editors of holding quite broad views on this conflict. Some of us view Hezbollah as intrinsically terrorist, others as a primarily defensive force. Some of us are sympathetic to Israel, others are not. As long as we recognise our biases and work to minimise them, working with Verifiability and Reliable sources should see us through. Interlopers should be easy enough to recognise and deal with. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Israel-related articles are under constant attack from anti-Israel POV pushers and usually poor editors. If the Israeli Foreign Ministry has indeed helped to organize "networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists" they have overlooked Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A few days ago, I created an article about the Megaphone desktop tool mentioned in the article. You can see what blogs and polls are being targeted; there's a web page for that.. Also an RSS feed. Today's target blogs include the Drudge Report and Salon. Wikipedia isn't listed. So we can relax for now. --John Nagle 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Esaborio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the 3RR

I've just blocked him (24h) for violating the rule at Template:War on Terrorism. user:Rangeley brought t my attention the fact that it is Esaborio's third 3RR violation in 2 days,incuding one acknowledged use of an IP to circumvent the rule. Considering this, should a longer block be applied? Circeus 00:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit removal from history needed

Someone that knows how to do it needs to remove a series of page-stretching edit summaries left by a vandal in the history of Battle of Smolensk (1943). Circeus 01:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll take a couple of minutes. Stand by. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Shit, that was on the Main Page. Well, I did it, but... SHIT, that was on the MAIN PAGE. Thanks for the heads up, you know. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how often something that is on the main page gets protected or temp deleted or otherwise has something-done-to-it-that-it-shouldn't-because-it's-on-the-main-page because it's not clear what is or isn't on the main page unless you check it before doing *anything at all*. Would it be so god-awful terrible to have a "This page is currently linked from the main page" box for the top of such pages? Essjay (Talk) 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

yes.Geni 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, sounds like a good idea to me. Its only a short time that it on the front page. Viridae^Talk 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

front page is meant to introduce people to wikipedia. Notices everywhere don't look good. We had redlinked stuff on the front page pretty recently.Geni 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, I only deleted it for about 10 seconds (prolly less). On the other hand, that is 10 seconds of dead link on the English Language version of the 17th busiest website on the internet (damnit). On the one hand, a notice on the article would be meta-garish muy malo. And, there is no other hand... although the chances (if random) were 1 in 1.2 Million that the article I was deleting was the TFA, I should have just checked. No notice, please. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... we could ask devs to have a notice at the top of the article saying "linked from main page" that would be wrapped in a #mainpagelinked div, not visible to ordinary users. Or we could ask if they want to change the code and display the same CSS for users with the delete permission assigned and hide it server-side to everyone else (not as likely to get implemented, though). Titoxd^(?!?) 07:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:TFD

Someone needsd to close and archive a lot of TfD entries. Most of the ones from July 12 are still active! I've closed the TfD on one userbox which had already been WP:GUS'ed, but I can't help on the others, since I don't have admin rights. If there is a clear consensus for keep I will close the TfD, but I doubt I'll find many of those. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow later today (Stupid UTC!) RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Both July 19 and 20 are now fully closed, but I have to go to work soon. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

TfDs are now closed back to July 15. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Phone number in article history

A phone number was inserted into the article Ari. (Diff) Not 100% sure what can be done about that - I am assuming that certain revisions can be deleted. Viridae^Talk 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and then restored it without said personal information. Yanksox 06:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. I can verify that is a real number - wether it is connected to anything I'm not sure. Thanks for the follow up. Viridae^Talk 06:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Yanksox, using the mop quickly. Perhaps someone with oversight privileges could strike the phone number out entirely? -- Samir धर्म 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox has been an absolute machine tonight, dealing with CSD backlogs and general annoyances. Not bad start! Tony Fox (arf!) 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, deleting an article's history is a bit out of accord with GFDL licensing. (→Netscott) 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Happily mistaken. Only the one edit was removed. If that vandalism were part of the article's current version, we would indeed be in violation for not properly attributing the author; thankfully, that's not a problem. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's only if you are removing actual contributions that are actually being used in the article. This was something that was pure vandalism and meant to attack an individual. I restored the rest of the history so that the GFDL could be satisfied...and so that there was an article. Yanksox 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no worries... I hadn't checked the article's history prior to making my comment... so all appears well. Good work.  :-) (→Netscott) 07:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

POV, OR and disruptive edits

Could someone take a look at the contributions and user page of User:Nourhaghighi, please? The user has been posting some rather rantalicious OR commentary both on the pages of various Canadian police services, has created a number of attack pages, and has quite the screed on his/her user page. Obviously this editor has some issues with police forces and others, and is pushing it hard in various places. Numerous warnings have been left, a report filed on WP:AIV, I tried leaving a nice note saying 'please read about every policy we've got', and the behaviour has continued. Some admins could probably do with taking a look. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, he stopped after receiving the final warning and some explanations of the policies. I have deleted a few attack pages consisted only on violations of WP:BLP abakharev 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move requested

I'm posting this here because a conventional move request was closed with "no consensus". Would an admin please move The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage to The Only Difference between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage? It has been moved a million times, the last one of which created many double redirects and I would love to clean them up, but I think it only makes sense if the article's finally named properly (according to WP:NC for song titles, the preposition "between" should not be capitalised). --HarryCane 12:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll Close?

I'm posting to bring attention to this poll, Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs#Poll:_article_names_of_Polish_monarchs.2C_diacritics_accepted_or_not, opened on the 13th of June. That's obviously a long time, I'm not sure if it's listed on any of the poll pages, so I don't know if any of the relevant admins are aware of it. Hence why I bring it to attention here. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Easily detecting copyvios

I thought it might be of interest to some people who frequent this board that Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations is now being updated with an automated bot that attempts to identify copyright violations from newly created articles.

(Note: if this is not the appropriate place to announce this, feel free to remove this message). -- Where 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is very interesting. Please do keep us up-to-date on how this works out. Jkelly 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I've only ever found a few copyvios, and I suspect we have many more that haven't been caught. A copyvio bot would be really cool. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am creating a doppleganger account

Shortly, I am creating User:WikiTeke, which will redirect to User:Teke. WikiTeke is my IRC handle, so it's to make lookups a bit easier. Just a friendly heads up that both accounts are mine. Teke 01:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More for future reference than this specific case, you can make this notification by putting {{doppleganger|YourUsername}} on the userpage before or shortly after creating the account. Make sure you do it from your main account so it doesn't look like an imposter trying not to get blocked. Essjay (Talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Every Attorney Should be Incensed

Re: Jim Shapiro

It appears that admins construe the WIki speedy delete rules differently than the plain meaning of the rules would require. That said, I think every attorney on Wikipedia should be incensed at the way this is being handled by admins. I do not know the subject of this article (Jim Shapiro). However, one would have to be blind to see this as anything but gratuitous and unsourced lawyer bashing. There is one sentence in the entire article that is not disparaging. Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.jawesq 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what Wiki rule says:

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. That appears not to be enforced. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the rule.jawesq 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really understand the meaning of CSD A6. It's not here to rid Wikipedia of every article with a POV. It's here to take out articles that at best could only be vandalism. We can't cite any examples because...well...they're all deleted. An article that could be deleted by A6 would be something like "Joe is a moron because he is stupid and fat." Even with a stub, there would be no good way to save that article, and it would be deleted. You have to understand that speedy delete is a pretty drastic move. Nobody likes to have their work suddenly removed. Just let the WP:AFD run its course. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can read. It is very clear what the rule says. If you would please address each point below, as I have done, it would be helpful - rather than simply saying I do not understand the rule.jawesq 05:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page was indefensible and had to be deleted. I've deleted it as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The only 'sources' added after the many complaints were a court case, a local newspaper and "Overlawyered". A court case would be reliable, if the subject were at all notable. However, here, the sole purpose of the article was to disparge someone who was not infamous (and maybe not even in his own community). I hope it stays 'deleted' since Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for anti-lawyer articles - it is not "OVerlawyered", and I hope never will be.jawesq 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

The article that was proposed as a CSD attack page read in total:

Jim Shapiro is a personal injury lawyer in Rochester, New York.

I don't see that as an attack.

Of course it isn't. This is the only sentence that wasn't.jawesq 05:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't have been tagged as CSD attack page. Tyrenius 07:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you go back to look at the timing, and when the tags were added, you will see that adding the tag most certainly was appropriate. But we can argue this until dawn, and it won't make any difference. You have made your position abundantly clear, and anyone who reads the history can see for themselves where you stand and what was going on. We will obviously wait for the Rfd to expire, and see what happens, since the tags placed by 4 different users were deleted . jawesq 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

However, going back into the history, this is presumably the version you object to. The things in this article are stated as factual events and indicative of the career and activities of this individual. If that is so, then it is an accurate article. If these things are made up, then obviously that is a serious matter. If these things are distorted, or exaggerated in the career of an otherwise reputable lawyer, then that also needs to be addressed. It may be a question of putting them into proper perspective. However, you seem outraged simply because anything negative is associated with a lawyer. Wikipedia is here to present the truth, not to do a whitewash. You do not at any time say that these things are untrue, or unrepresentative of this individual. What you do say, quite correctly, is that they are not referenced, and you have removed them, as you are entitled to do. However, if they are properly referenced, then there is no reason why they cannot be reinstated, unless you provide a good reason otherwise. An attack page is when unfair or untrue negative statements are made against an individual. It is not an attack page to show that an individual has done unsavoury things, if that is what an individual has done. I am not making a pronouncement on this particular individual, because I have no knowledge of him. I am just drawing the distinction in principle.
Tyrenius 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll step in to give admins a background on this dispute. In 2004, Jim Shapiro was created. It was recently brought up for AFD. Several lawyers (I know because of their usernames and userboxes) stepped in and decided it could be deleted as CSD A6. Yanksox stepped in and declined the CSD, saying it should remain in AfD. The db-attack tag was restored by Jgwlaw, reportedly "asking for another opinion." I removed the tag, saying that it had already been removed by an admin, and he should use AfD instead.

He immediately restored the tag, writing and signing a sentence against the decision within the article.

We got a lot of talk page comments and a post of village pump (this, it's been moved here). Tyrenius then removed the tag and migrated the village pump discussion here. ...And that's where we are now. alphaChimp ^laudare 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. My spouse, also an attorney, restored the tag.jawesq 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I changed the page backGfwesq 06:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No administrator can yet tell me how the rule does not apply here. I can read. The meaning of the rule is very clear.jawesq 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement of decline. Yanksox 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A flavour of Jim Shapiro

This website has links to Shapiro's TV ads. Here is Mr Shapiro's message:

I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you. I cannot hand you their severed heads, but I can hunt them down and settle the score. I'll squeeze them for every dime I can, every single dime. I'm Jim "the hammer" Shapiro."

More leads here.
Tyrenius 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? That this attorney is indeed unethical? I don't doubt this attorney is sleazy. And that appears to be the whole point of the article. Again, if you read the rule, below, it is very clear. Your discussion of the 'flavour' of Jim Shapiro is irrelevant.jawesq 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And which of the unsourced alleged facts does that website prove? I'll help you out. Zilch. Go back, read the version with the unsourced facts. Where does that website you point to show he lives in Florida, not NY? Where does that website show he was punished by the NY Supreme Court as the bio stated (which seems unlikely since wierdly enough the supreme court of NY is not the highest court in that state) and on and on and on. Bottom line. The article is negative in tone and unsourced. There is a wiki rule. Apply the rule to the facts, reach the proper result - speedy deletion Gfwesq 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify both my status and my role here. I am not an attorney because I am not admitted to any state bar at the moment. I do have a JD. I added the speedy delete template because I thought A6 applied and know that editors are encouraged to be bold. When the template was removed by the first admin, I understood the opinion offered and was more than happy to have AfD run its course. I have not been involved in any subsequent activities involving this page on Wikipedia. Erechtheus 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I surely understand that, Erechtheus. I was so appalled at the response, that I pursued it, as have two other editors. The tags placed by four different editors have been deleted. Your initial assessment was, in my opinion (and others who later added the tag), accurate. However, at this point, we will wait for the end of the Rfd, and see what happens.jawesq 08:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Facts -- Please show how this is not true

First, I have left the article with the tag removed.

Second. I will repeat the rule.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion.

1. This is an (alleged) biography

2. All the statements are unsourced.

3. All the unsourced statements but one (the single sentence stated above) are "negative in tone."

4. There is no way to make this NPOV. IF there is, please show me one.

4. Given (1), (2) , (3) and (4), administrators should delete the article.

Based on this direct application of the 'rule', how exactly can you say that this is merely my desire to 'whitewash' the article? IF the rule is not what is stated, then it should be changed. It appears that admins are reading into what the plain meaning is, to find a way to keep an article, then accusing me of wanting to 'whitewash' the article, and claiming that I want nothing negative said about attorneys.

That is not only untrue, but it is outrageous.

What I do see in Wikipedia is a lot of gratuitous lawyer bashing that seems to be condoned.jawesq 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Wikipedia policy is not law. Don't treat them the same way. Policy is just a set of guidelines that have been worked out over the last five years, because they seem to make Wikipedia work better. If they stop working, or if they don't work in a particular case, we change them or ignore them.

In this particular case, it's appropriate for the article go through AfD. Speedy deletion is designed for cases that are clear-cut and need no discussion. If you're having to argue that something should be a CSD candidate, your position is lost by definition. Isomorphic 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. So it's okay for admins to ignore the guidelines, and make up their own. Amazing. Now it really does look like lawyer bashing. Glad you straightened that out for me. Now I know the guidelines don't apply when it comes to article on lawyers. jawesq 06:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not lawyer bashing. Even still, you really out to read this. The legalistic approach is probably not the best way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia. alphaChimp ^laudare 06:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"The legalistic approach is probably not the best way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia."

Clearly it isn't. And clearly the guidelines don't mean much, when it comes to articles like this. And yes, it most certainly is lawyer bashing. I daresay nothing like this would stand with any other professional.jawesq 06:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus here indicates that it was better to leave the AfD to run its course properly. One reason for this is that after an AfD it cannot be recreated with the same or similar text, and, if it is, it can then immediately be deleted as a CSD. It is not "lawyer bashing" because it is not talking about, or making any implication about, lawyers in general, in the same way that Harold Shipman is not "doctor bashing" - it is an article about one particular individual. The very reason for him standing out is that he is not typical of all doctors. Without that premise the article would lose its validity. (I should stress I am not saying Shapiro is like Shipman, merely using this to illustrate a principle.) Tyrenius 07:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an enormous difference between Shipman and this article. Enormous. If you don't see that, then I give up trying. Besides, you are deleting every 'speedy delete' that anyone adds, so it isn't worth it to argue. jawesq 08:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as consensus, 4 different editors placed a 'speedy delete' tag. But it is true that the admins have the power to decide whether it will be deleted, regardless of whether or not it meets the guidelines.jawesq 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick note

I only did a quick glance over, but sometimes things can be muddled:

• If it's a crappy unsourced biography delete it
• It it's a biography of a person that's not notable, delete it
• If it's a biography that's full of unsourced attacks, delete it or the edits that added those unsourced attacks

Any one of those and you can delete the article. --mboverload@ 07:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree with you here. If an article can be reverted to a state that doesn't meet the WP:CSD criteria then it should be reverted, and then dealt with from there. Otherwise I could remove the assertion of notability from any bio, and tag it CSD A7 to get rid of it. In this case such a reversion also leads to an unsatisfactory article that deserves deletion, but also deserves discussion to achieve consensus. Kevin 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then add the content back in with sources? --mboverload@ 08:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a case where the rules don't always work. If a page has an assertion of notability but no sources, or some other problem, then it's a case for AFD if someone wants it deleted. Removing the assertion of notability and tagging CSD A7 doesn;t seem like a good idea. But then neither does replacing an assertion of notability that is unsourced. Kevin 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally added the AfD, not knowing there was a criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion would have been the preferred route, and the more accurate one. The rules would have (and should have) worked very well on this. Not only is the subject not notable, but the article is a pure attack page. And, it met all the guidelines for speedy deletion. And, four different editors thought so, as well. I will note now that ALL the votes are 'delete', with the last one calling it an attack page (which is correctly how it would be defined) and requesting WP:SALT. Presumably then, there are actually 5 editors who deem it an attack page. That seems like a consensus to me. jawesq 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is no longer unsourced. Can we please stop arguing about speedily deleting it now? Powers 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only sources are local newspapers and "Overlawyered" which is notorious for searching out lawyers to bash. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for bashing lawyers, which is exactly what this article is. Wikipedia is not "OVerlawyered" and I hope will never be.jawesq 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another quick note on this general issue

First, I want to apologize if I came off strong here. The reason I have is because I see a disturbing pattern in Wikipedia. I don't appreciate seeing Wikipedia turn into a venue for politics and attack - "Overlawyered", for example, is a partisan organization whose sole purpose it is to disparage the legal profession. But Wikipedia is quickly turning into the same thing. If Wikipedia condones attack articles on attorneys only known to their local community (not even nationally, let alone internationally), then I don't believe I want to be a part of it. These kind of articles are not encyclopedic, but are intended only to ridicule or disparage. I have seen this frequently on Wikipedia and find it highly objectionable - especially since Wikipedia is portrayed as an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag. jawesq 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also been accused of being a WP:SOCK with Gfwesq. I would like to point out that Gfwesq and I are husband and wife. The last time I checked, husband and wife are not the same person. It has been suggested to me that we should not be allowed to cast independent votes, or be included in a consensus as 2 people. With this line of reasoning, one could exclude sisters and brothers, mother and daughter, and on down the line. In this particular article, there were a total of 13 'deletes' including Gfwesq and me. If you remove both of us, there are still 11. And there were 2 independent tags for 'speedy delete' - not including Gfwesq or me. I don't really know what to do about this. jawesq 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by mboverload

The article as it stands now is ready for speedy. There is no content and no claim to be notable.

I'm NOT making a comment on this particular person (every claim is unsourced), but there are tens of millions of sleazy people and we don't have an article on every one of them. There is a lot of disdain for lawyers, but taking it out on this guy is no reason to keep an article about him. I would defend lawyers, but we're not here to discuss lawyer ethics. Delete it. Get it over with. --mboverload@ 07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius deleted your tag, calling it inflammatory. So I guess we will just wait for more 'deletes' (since so far they all are delete), and see if admins actually delete the article, or keep it. jawesq 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just let the AFD finish on this? It is so far 100% delete so all you gotta do is give it a little time. Argueing about this here is a waste of brain matter. :) ---J.S (t|c) 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple keeps, but 13 'deletes'. It was an attack page. The sole purpose of the article was to disparage this attorney, who is not known outside his community. If this is the standard for WIkipedia, then what I have feared is true - it is 'anything goes'.jawesq 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article -- Category: Sleazy Attorneys

Since the 'flavour' of Jim Shapiro has been noted by an insightful Admin, why don't we just create a category of sleazy attorneys? Then you can add every attorney you think is sleazy, cite his/her webpage and make unsourced disparaging remarks about them. That is no different than what the admin here proposes. He found a website that is not even cited in the article, as 'proof' that this attorney is sleazy - the "flavour of Jim Shapiro". The only reason to have an article on this individual is to show he is sleazy, and that is my point.

Shoot, we could have an article on every doctor who was sued for malpractice.

Every admin that abused their powers. Is this really any different? jawesq 05:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your initial objection on my talk page was "Does Wikipedia Condone Gratuitous Lawyer Bashing?" You are now calling him a "sleazy attorney" and are yourself making an attack (in a way which the original article did not and which definitely would not be allowed to stand). You obviously accept that the article was not "gratuitous" after all. You say that I am proposing "a category of sleazy attorneys", which I have not done. I am merely pointing out material to address your original allegation. Now you have shifted your ground to address the notability or otherwise of the individual, which is an entirely different matter. One of the reasons for allowing articles to run their course in AfD is that often more material arises, which was not previously present, as has happened in this case. Admins have to make the best decision they can in the circumstances and should be given some leeway. Yanksox saw that an AfD was in progress and decided not to usurp it. I don't see this as anything to create such a storm about. Tyrenius 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This IS gratuitous lawyer bashing. This is totally DIFFERENT than whether or not Shapiro himself is sleazy. (And I am not making these allegations, and certainly not in the article which is very different than the talk page). You still don't understand the point, evidently. The point is that the entire article was written to point out how this is an unethical/sleazy/bad attorney. That is gratuitous - irrespective of whether it is true or not. And according to WIkipedia guidelines - which you choose to ignore -- this article should be speedy deleted. What upsets me, and Gfwesq (from what he has told me and has written) is that this entire process was handled badly. Instead of addressing the guidelines, which I repeatedly asked you and others to do, you went on to try to 'prove' how this attorney is indeed 'unsavoury', even adding links that the article didn't include, and adding it to the main article. Of course, the source you cited would never meet Wiki's "RR" on reliable reference. Furthermore, whether or not it is true that the attorney is sleazy is totally irrelevant as to whether or not the Wiki guidelines were followed. IN fact, they were not. SOmeone else said that they can be ignored. Fine. Then don't bother even trying to justify your actions. It's just an admin's perogative - and evidently, when it comes to attorneys, anything goes. jawesq 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The State of Affairs on this whole issue

It is abundantly clear that the article Jim Shapiro meets Wikipedia guidelines for speedy deletion. It is equally clear that some admins chose to ignore those guidelines, to the point of emphasizing with an unreliable source that the attorney is 'unsavoury' as charged. Therefore, it is pointless to continue this 'discussion', since lawyer bashing (including an article on an attorney for the sole pupose of disparaging him/her) is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. No, it is more than acceptable - it is defended with great rigor. This is not what an encyclopedia should do, and is not even appropriate, based on Wikipedia's own guidelines. But it is what it is, and so now I know. Thank you all for sharing and enlightening me on the attitude of admins here.jawesq 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has happened Jgwlaw, I have no idea why we are fighting over this. As a 2 year vetran of the site I have added the speedy tag. Lets get rid of this stupid article and debate. --mboverload@ 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I don't know why, either. It's a shame, and doesn't speak well for Wikipedia, imo . Let's just hope that eventually the article will be deleted, by a fair admin.jawesq 08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy or slow, this article will be gone in 5 days at the most. The argument about the speedy tag is so irrelevant and this entire debate is so full of strawman arguments i'm thinking about becoming a cow. ---J.S (t|c) 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I fear that an admin may overrule the consensus and keep it anyway. I hope nobody would do that, but I really don't know. jawesq 09:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with user talk erasure and incivility

(Moved from the help desk.)

I'm having some issues with users who are removing messages and warnings from their talk pages, and either deleting them altogether, or putting them into an archive immediately. In both cases, the user has also been uncivil in his or her response, and both have engaged in personal attacks. Because Wikipedia:Removing warnings is only proposed policy, I'm afraid to push too hard in telling the users that they shouldn't be removing legitimate warnings from their talk pages, and I'm also having difficulties finding the best way to deal with their other misbehavior, much of which seems to be trolling. A request for comment might seem applicable in both cases, but I know I'm supposed to try to find a better solution first, and would like to. Neither user seems cooperative, however, so I'm somewhat at a loss in terms of how to proceed. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contribs in user talk space, it's not obvious to me which user you are referring to. Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mama's Family

• Not sure if this should be here, or WP:3RR or WP:AIV, but it's a start. At a minimum it's an edit war between User:65.31.100.211 and User:DtownG as seen on on the article, article history, talk and talk history. Admin User:Yanksox had warned User talk:65.31.100.211, but that was a bit ago and the fireworks are still blazing over Raytown. :)  — MrDolomite | Talk 07:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be still going. WP:3RR would have been appropriate. Left {{3RR}} warnings on both their pages. Viridae^Talk 09:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Pegasus1138

Should we indefblock this user? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a good idea. User:Fredil Yupigo/signature 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean block the account Pegasus1138 in case it is cracked and abused in the future (also Pegasusbot should be blocked becuase it has a bot flag)? Or to block the person behind the account because they are setting up a new account to possibly circumvent Requests for adminship? --Commander Keane 21:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There is no problem whatsoever in a user deciding to leave and start a new account. If they get adminship on the new account, more power to them. JoshuaZ 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking me or my bot is probably not really needed, I'm not an admin or bureaucrat or developer so it would be easier for someone to create a new account than try to crack mine (and more effective) I have requested on IRC and if a bureaucrat sees this here please also remove the bot status on User:Pegasusbot and/or indef. block it (without autoblocker preferably). Also I am not creating a sockpuppet in violation of policy and I don't think it's possible to "circumvent RFA" so that as well would be unecessary and against blocking policy. Pegasus1138 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is no reason for a block here. We don't block admins who leave, and there would be more risk there. Nor is there any abusive sockpuppetry here. And you never know, just this morening a user who had not posted in 8 months suddenly returned. NoSeptember 22:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing Peg is doing is closing those accounts, which have no discipline problems or anything, and moving to a new account which he would like to keep private. --mboverload@ 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim "The Hammer" Shapiro

Jim Shapiro was deleted while I was rewriting it. See User:WAS 4.250/1. WAS 4.250 18:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the notability of "The Hammer" [39] is very debatable, simply writing it off as an attack article suitable for speedy deletion seems to be excessive. Can you place your rewrite in your namespace? I'd be curious to see it. I'm an idiot that needs to pay attention more. --Bletch 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh... scroll up, folks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted for what it was -- an attack page. Whether it be AfD or speedy delete - it should be deleted. The lawyer in question was not notable (positively or negatively) outside his local community. It was picked up by "Overlawyered" which is an organization that is notorious for leaving out important information and not having a neutral point of view. If you all want Wikipedia to become another "Overlawyered", then I sure don't want any part of it. Most attorneys I know would not have anything to do with it.jawesq 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The only sources that were finally added after all of this discussion were (1) a disciplinary case; (2) local newspaper and (3) Overlawyered. Before that, there were no sources.jawesq 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

These kind of ' articles' are not encyclopedic, but are intended only to ridicule or disparage. I have seen this frequently on Wikipedia and find it highly objectionable - especially since Wikipedia is portrayed as an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag. jawesq 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sources used were questionable, notably Overlawyered.com. A quick example. Overlawyered promotes a study design to show that the tort system is bad for the economy, the infamous Tillinghast Towers Perrin study. They don't tell you TTP is a conglomerate which business is insurance in one form (reinsurance) or another (consulting to insurance companies). It is an interested party. The last time I checked, Overlawyerd.com left this little detail out. Another fact left out, is TTP will not disclose its sources and methods behind the study's conclusion making it impossible to verify. Not exactly reputable science. Again: the propieter is from the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank (nothing wrong with that) that accepts money from large corporations and coincidentally publishes viewpoint articles consistent with the agenda of those corporations. Their practice is legal, but is it ethical and does it make the reader more or less likely to believe it is neutral? Most people, if they answer that honestly would say no. Overlawyered is not an NPOV site nor is it without an agenda (meant in every pejorative sense). As for the video's no-one can say they were not altered or tampered with by the site that puported to archive them as that site is apparantly a Canadian site run by a British company and there is no other info. Even if the recordings were accurate untampered reproductions, I have seen too many similar in different markets by other attorneys to say these were notable.Gfwesq 19:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Biographies on Living Persons-- Jim Shapiro

This should settle the controversy on this already deleted article.

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

I would like to stress these points:

1. For the last two years, the deleted article had provided NO sources

2. This article was solely disparaging - there was no other reason to write it. This lawyer is not known outside his local community.

3. The only sources that were finally dredged up were local newspapers, and a political website 'Overlawyered'.

What I cannot believe is the fury with which some (including at least one or two admins) defended this hit piece. It is mind-boggling. One quoted all the lines from the lawyer's TV ad to show unsavoury the lawyer is. I simply don't understand this. Either Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, or it is not. If it is a gossip rag, then I really don't want to be a part of it, and most people I know wouldn't either.jawesq 20:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro and admins and the community

I am not aware of any admins who have displayed "fury" over this matter, and it's certainly not something I feel. The only fury I have seen is your own statement "Every Attorney Should be Incensed". Nor, for that matter, am I aware of any admins who have "defended" it (though it is perfectly permissable for anyone to do so if they wish); I have made my own position clear on the AfD that I was not taking sides. However, you have made an obvious reference to me and stated that I "quoted all the lines from the lawyer's TV ad to show (how) unsavoury the lawyer is". I did quote the lines under the heading "A flavour of Jim Shapiro", but it is up to you if you wish to find the flavour "unsavoury", as it's not a word I used. As this individual was the centre of the debate, it did not seem unwarranted to let him speak for himself. I'm not going to let my actions be caricatured, nor those of other admins and editors. I have seen nothing but good intent and civility from them. I recommend that you assume good faith, not only towards specific individuals, but to the ability of the community as a whole to reach an outcome. Tyrenius 20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You most certainly did, Tyrenius. I do believe every lawyer should be incensed that this kind of article would even be defended by any admin. I am sorry you didn't care for it. But when attack pages are allowed to stay, which clearly violate WP:BIO, it does seem to be understandable that others might be incensed. As to your own fury...you went on and on about this, even including a 'source' to prove that indeed Shapiro was an unsavoury lawyer. The source you provided was unbelievably tabloid and unreliable - so much so that another editor even mentioned it and expressed surprise that an admin and experienced Wikipedian would do that. Oh, and I might add that of course it is permissible to defend an article in Wikipedia. I was shocked that an admin would defend this type of an article though - this article was a totally unsourced hit piece, that clearly met 'speedy delete' criteria. That is why I pursued it. I also pursued it because I have seen a pattern of lawyer-bashing on WIkipedia that is disconcerting, to say the least. It was my understanding that Wikipiedia is portrayed as an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag. Am I mistaken in this? Also, and finally, I also have the right to object to what seems unfair and incorrect actions. That seems to be one thing this board is intended to address. jawesq 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To add one more comment. When individual lawyers who are not known outside their own community are highlighted in a purely derogatory way, it is an insult to all lawyers. Would we negatively highlight a local doctor who was sanctioned in his own community, but had no other fame or infamy outside his community? Of course not; it would be ludicrous and speedily deleted. Why is it that lawyers are somehow different? jawesq 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand you - you seem to have a big persecution complex about Jim Shapiro being a lawyer. If you were not paying attention, the reason that the article was created was due to his over the top promotional antics. Whether you believe it or not, he would have gotten the same treatment had he been a doctor, exterminator or hot dog vendor that promoted himself similarly. Of course, I can only speak for myself. But then again, I was the one that originally created the article. Just out of curiousity, have you even watched the commercials? --Bletch 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not have a 'big persecution complex' for heaven's sake. I understand the reason you created it, but that is not worthy of an encyclopedia - that is my point. And, it read like an attack. I would object if this were done to anyone in any profession. Yes, I did watch the commercials from the link and they were pretty bad. However, as someone else pointed out, similar commercials are done by similar lawyers in almost any major metro areas. Hopefully state bars continue to deal with those. That doesn't make him noteworthy, and it doesn't warrant unsourced or poorly sourced statements that are purely disparaging. jawesq 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict} I'd be grateful if you could read my preceding post. I've stated my position and I'm happy to let the record speak for itself, as well as where the fury lies. As far as the "unbelievably tabloid and unreliable source", which caused such an unfavourable reaction from another editor, the text is as follows:

I see that Tyrenius has now added a link to a Harvard blog titled "f/k/a [formerly known as]". (That's the one that just labelled "here" above, a suprisingly opaque link label coming from an experienced Wikipedian.) In it, there is a glimmer of a proper source, namely "(AP/New York Lawyer, Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended, 05-03-04)". (That link requires registration at NYLawyer.com, so I'll leave it to those who actually want this article to do the homework of providing proper citation and quotes, instead of getting them third-hand from a blog.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article can't be "totally unsourced" as you state above, since you are talking about the "state Supreme Court" as one below. I don't work on legal articles, so I can't comment on "lawyer-bashing", but if you feel there is a systemic bias, this is not the right place to address it. If you want to talk about actions, there is a debate on AN/I. I think I've said quite enough, and I'm sure everyone understands your grievances also. Tyrenius 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And I am happy to let the record speak for me, as well. Thanks. If anyone checks the source you cited above, you can see how tabloid it is. And, it turns out that the 'glimmer of a source' turns out not to be a reliable source, as Jeff stated in the WIkiquote Rfd on Jim Shapiro, when he recommended "Speedy Delete".

Yes, I have run into about a dozen articles in Wikipedia that were overt lawyer-bashing, though none as ripe for speedy deletion as this one. This one took my breath away.jawesq 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Disparaging and Misleading

Here is another example of a misleading statement that was on the 'article': "A state Supreme Court jury nailed [Shapiro] with a $1.9 million judgment Tuesday in a legal-malpractice case [due to mishandling] the case of client Christopher Wagner, who was critically injured in a two-car crash in Livingston County. They also found that Shapiro's advertising, which led Wagner to him, was false and misleading."

The 'source' finally provided was "Overlawyered". Overlawyered does not even say what "state Supreme Court" sanctioned him. In fact, it would not suprise me if the state supreme court is the the lowest court or the first appellate court - In New York, for examle, the state supreme court is the lowest court. It is predictably misleading that Overlawyering does not mention this, but rather insinuates that it is the highest court in the state.jawesq 20:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But, lets say for argument purposes that it is the highest state supreme court. What is the point of this statement? jawesq 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's deleted now and will never be created again. Can we just leave it alone? --mboverload@ 21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I surely hope so, MBoverload! Sadly, the debate continues, despite the fact that it was deleted, for good reason. jawesq 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just coming in here as an outside observer, you say that "Sadly, the debate continues, despite the fact that it was deleted." You seem to be the one provoking and continuing this debate. I don't see why this debate needs to continue, it was deleted, everyone has accepted that. If there was any question of its deletion, we'd see it on deletion review right now. I think it's time to stop beating a dead horse. Metros232 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay! I did not know there was a WP:DRV. The only site I saw on the site was "Administrators may view the page history and content at Special:Undelete/Jim_Shapiro", and I perhaps wrongly assumed it was continuing. Thank you for the input.jawesq 00:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The special:undelete part allows administrators to view (and restore if needed) content of articles that have been deleted. Deletion review, on the other hand, is a discussion to review the process in which an article was deleted if someone feels it was deleted out of process. This does not restore the article, it is discussed and then a consensus is reached as to whether to bring the article back or keep it deleted. Metros232 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see - thank you for explaining that to me. I am sorry I belabored this, then!~ jawesq 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Power has challenged the deletion and is solicited the deleting administrtaor to change his 'vote'.jawesq 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

Could an admin please update Did you know, its not been updated in 22 hours. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated -- Samir धर्म 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Can someone protect Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and inform User:PaulWicks how to deal sock puppets? -Ravedave 23:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done the semiprotection part. Socks are already blocked abakharev 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Beacause the IP range is blocked I have unprotected the article back abakharev 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo

Due to long term vandalism, sockpuppetry, threats, stalking, and release of personal information I have blocked the IP Range of Tiscali UK Limited for one week for IP editing. Details on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo and Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiscali are a pretty mayjor ISP. A weel block is likely to have some serious colateral.Geni 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:OWN problem

User:KMEG has proclaimed themselves "The OFFICIAL editor of KMEG", along with it being a WP:OWN problem, it could lead to NPOV disputes. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandal only account

BobbyBoulders Rules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as seen by the proclamations on User talk:BobbyBoulders Rules. Might bear watching. Viridae^Talk 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help

Could an administrator please complete the merge requested by the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. CrazyRussian was the closing admin but he refuses to implement the consensus reached. Thanks. --Hetar 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

look here [40]

User:Reinyday thinks that since I signed my comment using Qhos tag. It means that I am him. Any way I am Close friends with User:Qho.Ask him and find out your-self. Any way User:Reinyday keeps re-adding that dumb comment on the talk page. Yes I did put down Something Stupid as a Practical joke. but i did that under the IP name. Not Qhos.

L O L

--70.233.181.36 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)