Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive20

Apology

I (Willy on Wheels) am here to apologize for my actions in the recent past. I have been vandalizing simply due to the fact that I was a previous user here, and I was quite bitter about the permanent block that caused me to have an early exit. I now realize that my actions have not solved anything, and I hope everyone here can accept my apology. Most important of all, I promise to stop vandalizing the Willypedia.

- DrZoidberg 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually posted by Willy on wheels (here to apologize, please do not block) (talk · contribs). Blocked for impersonating another user. -- Curps 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the WoW vandalism stops, maybe that will be a good sign. To the user who posted the above, if you are Willy on Wheels, and you do wish to make amends, contact me via e-mail, and we can discuss your options. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(Un)deletion of GWB

Can I wonder aloud at the purpose of deleting and restoring the browser-breakingly massive history of this article twice in one hour? All it does is move the Jimbo stuff to the deletion log, where it remains visible by virtue of being in edit summaries. I do not know, but I presume that the 26,000 (yes, really) revisions cause strain on the servers in both the deletion, Special:Undelete view and in the restoration, for little actual purpose. We should leave such massive operations to the devs. (Plus, it might encourage them to nobble the underlying IP if it is not dynamic.) If people are going to do this, might they at least leave a note on a protected version of the page, rather than a rather unfortunate editable redlink? -Splash^talk 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, trying to view the Special:Undelete for that page caused Safari to crap out. Please don't do that.--Sean|Black 03:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, this is presumably true (although I didn't notice it), and would explain the brief database lock earlier on too. It's just vandalism, people. Nothing special. -Splash^talk 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is GWB? Use wikilinks people. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a who. George W. Bush. ;) NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Who the heck is George W. Bush? ;p Coffee 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How I wish that was a reasonable question. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Borderline legal threat...

It's been highlighted to me that this could be a legal threat. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

seems more in the category of "unfortunate edits" to me: we wouldn't, efter all, class it as a death threat... Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

please help, vandalism at wikibooks!!!!!

I don't know where to ask the question but could someone urgently help fighting vandalism on wikibooks by ip-adres 68.215.139.117. Thank you! Donar Reiskoffer 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is the same vandalism, but for some days, there's a link spam vandalism targeted against romanian wikibooks, too! --Vlad 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Belmont

There seems to be two or three people who are persistly adding silly edits to the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont%2C_Mississippi

page. In the notable citizens page, they are adding adding nn people with stupid titles. Can an admin come have a look and do something. novacatz 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the two IPs involved, for 3 hours (uni connection) and 24 hours (professional connection): that should at least give you a rest. Physchim62 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Michelle Smith (author)

Could an admin go into the history of this article and remove the edit which included the author's home address? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

The deletion guide states that version removal is warranted for "personally identifying information that has been deemed inappropriate by consensus. I'm a relatively new admin who hasn't done this procedure before, and I don't want to mess things up. I'll leave it to another brave soul while trying to start a consenus by stating that I do think that it is warranted in this case. — Kbh3rd^talk 20:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, modulo some fumbling. I don't think leaving an exact street address visible to the world while we discuss the matter is quite appropriate. If... somehow... it's later deemed appropriate, the revisions can be restored. —Cryptic (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin who abuses powers because of policy misunderstandings

I recently had a conversation with a fellow admin who seems to have overzealously blocked a new user. In the course of the conversation with him/her, it became clear to me that (s)he did not understand some core policies, like WP:BITE, WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and the definition of vandalism from Wikipedia:Vandalism. The user also seems to misunderstand the role of administrators itself, in particular in regard to making exceptions to such policies because of personal views on how vandalism should be handled. I would like to know what I ought to do about the situation, aside from suggesting those policies be reviewed, which I have already done. Opinions? -- SCZenz 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I know who your talking about, and several people have mentioned it to him, I'd say a WP:RFC/ADMIN is the way to go.--Sean|Black 21:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Since my conversation was starting to be included in a pre-existing RFC, I figured I should just add my account there. To remove the shroud of mystery, the user/RFC in question is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe. -- SCZenz 21:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SCZenz was a dead giveaway anyway. :) -Splash^talk 22:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that it's impossible to hide things from people who want to look, by the very design of Wikipedia; I thought it would still be nice not to name Freestylefrappe explicitly on this page if people thought no further action was necessary. As it is, well, hopefully some good will come of this RfC; I genuinely don't think any action is necessary except for Freestylefrappe to take criticisms to heart, educate himself on policy, and agree to change how he does things in the future. -- SCZenz 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Help!

The backlog at WP:RM is becoming unmanagably horrible. I'm doing what I can to weed out simple requests that don't need admin help, but the earliest requests date back to one month ago... Help? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that that page's mission statement is hopelessly tangled. At the top, it mentions voting (and even gives a suggested percentage needed to close a move!) I think it's fair to say that that is out of line with effective policy; the votes rarely occur, and aside from the occasional local straw poll or when it comes up as an option on AfD I don't think we normally vote on moves anyway. The page doesn't really distinguish whether it's supposed to be a place to discuss potential moves, or a place to request deletion to make way for a move... Probably the original intent was to have it be both, but just as clearly it has failed on both counts. Honestly, is that page even needed any more? I suggest eliminating WP:RM entirely, replacing it with an instruction telling people to (1) get consensus for the move on the page being moved (and the target page if one exists and requires deletion), and then (2) tag the target with an A9 speedy if necessary. There's no need to have another page in the broken AfD style to handle something that can be easily handled on a page-by-page basis under the existing rules; WP:RM is entirely obsolete and should be phased out, starting with a notice at the top telling people not to add requests to it anymore. --Aquillion 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitic troll targeting User:Violenciafriki

• See history of GISM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• See history of User:Violenciafriki (edit | [[Talk:User:Violenciafriki|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ugly language.

Anon IPs seem to be all over the map. Open proxies? Perhaps someone can check the histories systematically and block any open proxies (I no longer do this). -- Curps 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple reverts on Republic of China

User:Jiang has implemented several changes to the ROC article and both User:Jiang and User:Blueshirts appear to be tag-teaming "reverting" to Jiang's so-called consensus, though his position is new to the article. Could someone see if they are really the same person. Many thanks.--140.112.185.129 08:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon/User Page Comments

Hello, on the user page of Moe Epsilon he has left some very unfounded comments that are in poor tastes and is attacking specific users, namely myself. I would like the references to myself removed, as I feel it violates various guidelines on here. It also makes the said user look bad and tarnishes his reputation.

Again, I just want the references to me on the page to be removed, nothing more or less. Mcfly85 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The comments were all true. Your sockpuppetry has been exposed. Complaining on the administrator's noticeboard will not help you. I suggest you strikeout your comment here and place it on Moe's RFA. If any user has made a specific, untrue personal attack towards you then point it out and I will deal with them. freestylefrappe 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool again

Wonderfool (talk · contribs) was blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated insertion of nihilartikels into Wikipedia, until such time as he identifies all those articles. Based on the name and edit history, I believe Onoredwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Wonderfool, and have blocked him indefinitely. In particular, this series of edits to Wonderfool's user page and creating Blood storm citing The Onion as a source are suspicious. I haven't checked the rest of his contributions for problems. --Carnildo 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• *sigh* There are lots of productive edits in there. It's too bad that Wonderfool did some stupid things (the nihilartikels) instead of sticking to those good edits. Oh, well, can't win 'em all, I suppose.--Sean|Black 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wonderfool is banned by the arbitration committee though. Not blocked. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 12:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note also that "Onoredwolf" is an anagram of "Wonderfool". Maybe we need an anagram checker function ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 11:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Feel free to block reincarnations of Wonderfool (talk · contribs) as he is indeed indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. However, absolutely report all such blockings on WP:AN/I. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that on User talk:Onoredwolf, Wonderfool has stated that he has told an editor the name of the final nihilartikel. Xe has also attempted to talk to Jimbo, as apparently desired. Uncle G 16:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be more willing to believe it if he hadn't created an article citing The Onion as a source. --Carnildo 21:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Systematic vandalism on Wikipedia:Fancruft

A number of anonymous vandals are attacking Wikipedia:Fancruft today. I suspect they may be coming from the Penny Arcade forums, since a lot of them have been leaving messages like "Penny Arcade rules!" and the like, and the page has not been a major vandalism target prior to today. I've been leaving the standard one warning, two warning, block messages, but this seems to be orchestrated to some extent. Can vandals be blocked for things like this on the first offense? — BrianSmithson 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's a mildly amusing Penny Arcade comic today about Wikipedia, with the associated news post that complains about some stuff being deleted as fancruft. I doubt it's orchestrated as such, just a reaction from the viewers. --Bob Mellish 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That said, PA has a lot of readers, and this will continue to get hammered until Monday, when a new news post is made. I suggest page protection. (On He-man, proabbly, too.) android79 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it - but not sure if {{protected}} is the right tag to show on the page as it refers to disputes - is there a better one? I don't do much protecting! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 17:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting - external links are, except in extraordinary cases, not reasons we protect pages. Phil Sandifer 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There's good reason to believe this will be an extraordinary case. Hopefully Tycho reads reader email... android79 17:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To date, the only extraordinary case has been CNN. We have routinely not protected from Slashdot, which has many, many more readers than PA. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what watchlists and rollbacks are for...oh, and have the CVU add it to the 'bot watchlist, too. -Splash^talk 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The question remains: Is it okay to block anons who vandalize the page on the first offense, or do we still need to go through the one/two/three strikes you're blocked procedure? — BrianSmithson 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd wait for a second offense. Most of the vandalism is link-through vandalism, which rarely sticks around to see how long their change lasts. Phil Sandifer 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well plenty more "activity" since it was unblocked! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone watchlisting that article might want to watchlist Penny Arcade and related articles, too, which are getting a lot of traffic today, as well as He-man, which was the subject of their most recent update and also seems to be seeing a lot of activity as a result. --Aquillion 03:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• What was the title of Tycho's article that got deleted? — BrianSmithson 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"ROHA" and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

The anonymous IP (ever shifting) that calls himself "ROHA", who had previously unilaterally imposed changes on Adolf Hitler and Bob Dylan, is back and doing the same thing to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Since I am unfamiliar with the subject matter, can someone monitor the situation and take appropriate action? --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

On it. ROHA is not wrong about Hegel, but is also not NPOV, and is making a claim that really deserves its own article on Hegel's influence in German philosophy. Phil Sandifer 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this; I wasn't sure if this was an appopriate place to report it, and I was already on the brink of 3RRing. I think it was obvious from Hans's comments that it was not going to be productive for me to communicate with him any further. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 06:14:52Z

The -Anus personal attack vandal

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this user (most recently noticed at 151.203.204.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but he/she has been in revert wars under other ips (which I cannot find in my watchlist atm). Usually signs their edit summaries and comments with "-Anus" (yes, linking anus). Uses reasonably harsh language there and their talk page comments, what I would classify as personal attacks.

At the moment this particular user is sitting out a 24h block, but I wanted to see if anyone else has encountered the other socks of this user and has an opinion about a longer ban for disruption. --Syrthiss 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í thingy

User:Jeff3000 contacted me on my talk page. He's having a revert war with another user on Bahá'í persecution and has asked me for an impartial opinion. Unfortunately, I don't know squat about Bahá'í, in fact Wikipedia was the first place I heard about it, and I'm unused to reading and reviewing such controversial articles. Could someone more familiar with Bahá'í, without prior involvement histroy with either party in the revert war, have a look? — JIP | Talk 20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In the talk page I have documented the differences between the reverts. I would welcome anyone to please review and give their comments so this reverting can stop since I doubt discussion between the two parties will work. -- Jeff3000 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin is vandalising (Not really says someone)

Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Changed comments of mine on a user talk page (User_talk:207.255.133.142), deleted content on my user page, and deleted the warning on his talk page within five minutes of warning. Daviddec 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I posted this at the vandal location as well but since he's an admin I figured to do it here as well. Are user pages allowed to have any content on them? I thought so but Jeff must not think so. Daviddec 00:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user page consisted of "vandalism" repeated about 6 million times. Get over it and do something constructive. Jgritz 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any basis to the charge that Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs) changed any comments at User_talk:207.255.133.142. User:Daviddec is a page full of the word "VANDALISM", which has been recreated after being deleted. Jkelly 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently all started with a deletion of a vanity article. See also User talk:Steven Rollins, unsure if they're the same person (CheckUser anyone?) NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that Jeffrey O. Gustafson has done absolutely nothing wrong here. Whereas Daviddec is skirting very close to a block for disruptive editing. David | Talk 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Steven Rollins and Daviddec are not the same person. Davidec has been repeatedly adding a vanity article on his nn band, which I had deleted, repeatedly. Steven Rollins is an unrelated case of someone making legal threats and personal attacks, who I banned. Deviddec is a continuing problem, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The censoring has seemed to stop. Good job guys. You ROCK! I Love you all. Keep up the good work. Do you need more vaseline? I'm not even going to ask you any more questions because they won't even be answered. It's only fair that admins can disruptively edit but low peons like myself can't. I love you. Daviddec 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daviddec has recreated his "vandalised" user page - which I have re-deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 08:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Posted to my (Brookie's) Talk Page:

The BIG V - So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Nobody said anything concrete or refered me to policy that made sense as to why my user page should be vandalised. Help me out here. Why can't I put what I please on my user page? The original content is still missing. Daviddec 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So Brookie has decided to ignore me. Great. Who can help me figure this out? When admins go and vandalise my user page (something nobody is supposed to do) and I ask why, they end up ignoring me. I don't mean to generalize all admins and I apoligize for doing so (I'll try not to do so in the future), but it's happened twice now. Shouldn't admins be leaders and show us how to properly act on wiki? The guidelines say you should warn people of deletion of content, this has not happened on my user page. All these questions go unanswered, that's why I wrote what I did further up, and certain people ignore me. I've included the rest of the conversation between him and I since brookie has deleted it from his talk page.

The BIG V

So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) +User page

You are well aware of the discussion of this on the Administrators' user page and I would direct you back to that. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said anything concrete or refered me to policy that made sense as to why my user page should be vandalised. Help me out here. Why can't I put what I please on my user page? The original content is still missing. Daviddec 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do admins ignore simple questions? Delete and run is the only thing I've seen them do. Maybe they're talking amongst eachother to figure out the best plan of attack. Or maybe they're re-writing policy as we act. I know they have a tough job of weeding out unnecessary content, but I have had much more productive talks with users regarding wiki policy than the admins, the people chosen to do the job, have. Please return my original content from my user page as you so gratefully offer on your user page. Thanks Daviddec 10:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It also says, "Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalized before. But that's your problem." - as it has been speedied twice already it's best it stays that way. Why not put something less controversial there instead? Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) + Your new user page looks a lot better - well done! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I read that. That still does not matter because there is no reason why (esp. since I haven't even recieved the content back and you don't know what I intend to do with it [I assume you are assuming what I'll do with it]) it should be deleted from my user page. Why haven't you posted this on the admins talk page like the other conversations? Daviddec 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) +

I'm bored with this nonsense - which is now at an end. Any more postings from you will be ignored and deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daviddec 11:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Daviddec, this blatant trolling has got to stop - make a reasonable userpage and we can all move on. If you keep on nagging here, you are simply trolling and wasting everyone's time. Izehar (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate place to talk about admins who ignore genuine debate, or make personal attacks, or who delete content from my user page? This wiki thing is relatively new to me and I think it's unfair to label me a troll when you can see I am genuinely interested in getting straight answers or understandable actions. Please help me out with some facts as to why my chosen user page was deleted, why people choose to ignore me, and why I have to hear personal attacks from an admin. Daviddec 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jgritz is not an admin. My apologies as he was the one to personally attack me. Daviddec 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush edit history

Vandalism-related (red), Non-vandalism-related (green), perecent vandalism-related (black)

Looking at the full history of the article, which I wouldn't recommend anyone else do (my browser was taking up 480MB of memory after the page loaded), I counted various vandalism reversion terms, and came out to just over 6,000. Assuming that each vandalism consisted of only one edit, that comes out to be (after some tedious calculation) over 12,000 edits related only to vandalism. This article has nearly 26,000 edits to date.

Additionally, over 10,600 edits were by anonymous users, leaving 15400 for registered users.

More fun facts: 249 edits were made in 2002, 555 in 2003, and 5533 in 2004. In 2005, we're up to 19,630. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:44

Hell freezes over, or Linuxbeak and Daniel Brandt resume diplomacy

Yes, you read it right. Don't faint, and don't adjust your TV/monitor.

I just got off the phone with Daniel Brandt. After thinking about this, this entire thing with his article and with his Hivemind thing has become nothing more than a slugfest that neither Wikipedia nor Mr. Brandt should be proud of. I personally said some things to Brandt on his user page that were not becoming of an administrator or of my own personal character. I apologized for some nasty things that I said to him in retaliation.

Mr. Brandt and I had a conversation for about an hour (or so). On the phone, Mr. Brandt was, to my amazement, very reasonable and civil. He presented his side to me in a very clear, concise and polite matter. The fact that he and I talked on the phone as fellow human beings and not as robots made things oh so much better.

Brandt and I have worked out what I think is a very reasonable compromise. Let's face it: Daniel Brandt really is not that notable. Yes, he should be mentioned for what has happened with the entire Seigenthaler controversy, and he should be mentioned with NameBase and/or Google Watch. People know of Google Watch but not of Daniel Brandt. Instead of deleting the article Daniel Brandt, we can instead redirect it to either NameBase, Google Watch or whatever, and have a relevant bio on Brandt there. In return/for the sake of repairing relations, Brandt is willing to take down the "Hivemind" page that he has put up. He said in effect that if that has been the wedge that prevents people from being reasonable, then he can take it down. He expressed his concerns about the probability of my success of being able to make this happen, but personally, I think we can make this come true.

Please, Wikipedia. This can be big for us. Let's be willing to make a compromise and put an end to a rather hostile and controversial feud. If I, an administrator who has been put on Brandt's page, am willing to talk to Brandt over the phone, have an hour-long conversation, and end hostilities towards each other (not to mention I have declared myself in the past to be a sworn enemy), then so can we all.

We brought JarlaxleArtemis back and we brought MARMOT back. Let's assume good faith again and bring Brandt back. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm slightly weary of redirecting and merging the article without consensus, but it seems like a good solution.--Sean|Black 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do it. Not worth the fuss to keep the article. --mav 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, i'm gonna give Willy on Wheels a call ;-) Good job with the peace treaty, Alex. karmafist 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Daniel Brandt will be unblocked now? Izehar (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So we get to keep the bio and simply merge it into another article (and then redirect)? I don't see any downside to this. Carbonite | Talk 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge/redirect is an editorial decision, unrelated to deletion policy, so the previous AfD can be overriden. Go for it. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and since Brandt has agreed to this solution, it works out for everyone involved. Carbonite | Talk 00:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly endorse this solution--FRS 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• W00t. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. Praise be unto Allah. GC 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I unblocked User:Daniel Brandt as a show of good will and so he may comment here, if he wants to. Broken S 01:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse. Linuxbeak, you really are amazing. Ambi 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• As I already told you, and demonstrated by editing Daniel Brandt: fully support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:07
• Wow. I knew this would create a noise, but I didn't realize how resounding this would be. Is it fair to say that we have a... consensus? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We had a consensus as soon as you got off the phone with Brandt. Show me the Britannica article on Wikipedia and all of its faults. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:18
    • I'd wait for a couple more hours, some people are still sleeping right now (But feel free to be bold and do whatever you want). Personally, I don't feel entirely comfortable "trading" our article for his. We should do what's right whether or not he removes his page. I mean, let's say he betrays us [hypothetically] would we unredirect in retribution? That would be improper in my opinion. I am for it as long as it's clear this is not a trade, but a group decision. Broken S 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that whichever you redirect it to will end up contianting an incomplete bio since it would make little seince to mention the google watch stuff on the namebase article and the reverse on the google watch article. People who don't know about the agreement are liekly to take it as another chance to knock wikipedia because without that information it doesn't look good.Geni 01:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been done. Daniel Brandt redirects to Public Information Research, and I will work on expanding that article. Brandt has sent me a nice amount of information regarding PIR and I will be using that to expand that article. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And the chart is gone!!! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we delete the content of the original page then? It seems to be the appropriate thing to do if the content is not relvant anymore. If this is done, I suggest we do this without placing it through AFD - this is a very special situation which I think warrants special treatment. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely strong support of HappyCamper's suggestion. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the spirit of it, but does the GFDL let us do it? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely strong object. We should not be deleting histories because of back-room deals like this. We should not also be protecting his article as a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not approve of allowing ourselves to be held to ransom. We don't care about the hivemind stuff, but we do care about the encyclopedia. My finger is hovering on my rollback button, and I will undelete the article if it turns red. -Splash^talk 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Since when do we negotiate about the quality of the encyclopedia? He's notable, and a public figure; too bad for him if he doesn't like it. — Dan | talk 02:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such a cop-out. Any external bullying for the removal of an article is not a valid reason to remove information. There is no such policy which says we should remove a person's article simply because they would like that.

Brandt's chart was obviously a scare tactic to encourage the deletion. I'd like to see him sue for such petty things. "These meanies called me names on the internets and made me real sad :(("

Linuxbeak, doesn't that violate WP:NOR? EndAnonDiscrimination 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• No. Daniel Brandt is supplying him with the information for the article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:18

  Yes, but will it be cite-able? EndAnonDiscrimination 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  Yes. It's official history from the source. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am disgusted that someone protected that redirect. We are not for sale. I have lifted the protection. -Splash^talk 02:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody called up Daniel Brandt, hat in hand, begging him to let Wikipedia out of the doghouse. Linuxbeak called up Daniel Brandt because he thought he personally had been an asshole to Brandt unnecessarily, and wanted to mend fences and build bridges. The article compromise was simply an outgrowth of the conversation that followed. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 02:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good job. Well done Linuxbeak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Visual aid for perspective: Daniel Brandt: . Rest of world: O.

Compare these relative sizes to the relative amount of time everyone, and in particular YOU (the reader), are spending on Daniel Brandt. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:21

This argument is specious. Saying "it doesn't matter" doesn't help anyone toward a solution. — Dan | talk 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it does help. It tells you that nobody should even notice what happens to the Daniel Brandt article, in the same way nobody notices what happens to Edward Ord. Instead, everyone notices it, everyone makes a big deal out of it. Get some perspective. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:34

Did NO ONE read what I wrote here? Does ANYONE know what actually happened, or did everyone who said that I was "ransoming" Wikipedia just kneejerk? >:-( Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You said "Let's be willing to make a compromise". And then you made your personal apology to Brandt by taking specific action on Wiki. -Splash^talk 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never heard of negotiating a compromise, however well-intentioned (or, as ExtremeUnction has it, unintentioned) with someone about what appears in "their" article. There's a good argument that neither PIR or Brandt are that notable, or at least, that all the picayune detail that appeared in his article is. However, I don't like the idea that if someone causes us enough heartburn, they get their way: in particular, I think it's reasonable to have a biographical article on Brandt, with some of the information that's been erased. However, as we discuss this here (and I'm sure there will be more to come) let's not play silly buggers with the article. Demi ^T/_C 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...it looks like this conversation degenerated right after my post. That really wasn't my intention. If that isn't they way to go, then it isn't the way to go. Simple as that. I really don't want to see tensions built up over this here, I'm sorry. --HappyCamper 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A solution to what exactly?

I'm about a nanometer from saying:

"If this happens, I'd quit." (explitives pre-removed)

Blackmail is a bitch, ain't it. Hey, Linuxbeak... you may have been a jerk, and you felt a need to soothe your WikiSoul; I applaud that and way to go for being the better man. If there is something specific and actionable we can do to remove personal info from said article, we can and should be accomodating.

But Daniel Brandt needs a wake up call, and Wikipedia is as good a place as any for him to get it. Privacy, ain't what it use to be, Daniel. Hey, that's my name... nifty. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that people can say he needs a wake up call makes me support this even more. This isn't a crusade. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Get off it, Brandt is on a crusade... we wrote an article detailing His crusade. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree not only with the various methods being used to enforce this, but also with the idea of merging a person "notable" for multiple things into one of those things. --SPUI (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well put. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the article due to a private agreement with Brandt would compromise our editorial integrity. I am strongly in favor of restoring the article. Rhobite 02:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, this really makes my day. No one said ANYTHING about deleting info... I was in the middle of merging Brandt's bio into the new location... I wasn't holding Wikipedia hostage... I happen to apologize to Brandt for being a dick to him and we happen to work something out... something that would STILL contain a bio of Brandt's, just under a different effing article, and what happens? I get called a villian. A rogue admin. An abusive, power hungry puppet of Daniel Brandt. Well, excuse me for trying to make a compromise that would still have everyone happy. Everyone would still have Mr. Brandt's bio under a different name. No, I guess that wasn't good enough. We're out for blood, aren't we? Daniel Brandt IS notable enough to have an article just because Wikipedia says so, apparently. For as much time and dedication I have given to the project, this has been one of the bold moves I have made, and people think that what I was doing was criminal. Well, I'm sorry, Wikipedia. I'm sorry for trying to come up with something that any sane person would realize would not affect them at all. Everyone thinks that Daniel Brandt is the Darth Vader of Wikipedia or something. The sheer amount of controversy that this has caused proves that people spend way too much time on old grudges instead of working on the actual ARTICLES at hand.

If any noticed, Brandt had put ME on his little hivemind thing. Brandt himself offered to take it down, but I said that that was up to him. This isn't about the f***ing hivemind page. This is about merging material into an article and making everyone's life better.

I'm SORRY for being bold. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaining about people discussing it when you are the one who kicked it off is jsut unreasonable. Also, WP:BOLD is not an infinite defence. Somewhere, there's a little note that urges editors to drop a note on a talk page if they are thinking about a controversial edit. -Splash^talk 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to upset you more, but I've always thought someone's biography was quite suitably placed in an article about them, and not their company. --Nymph 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You are forgiven, at least by me, Daniel. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've protected Daniel Brandt because of the reverting. Please discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit warring over it. I'm also asking other admins not to unlock the page, because there's been too much volatility around this article recently and a period of calm would benefit everyone involved. Give Linuxbeak a chance to see what he comes up with on Public Information Research, then compare the two pages and decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing how disagreeable such a reasonable course of action can be at times. The correct course of action is for Linuxbeak to undo what he did. I have a record breaking AfD to back that up. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly disagree with the way this was conducted, without any attempt to judge consensus beyond a couple people on the administrator's noticeboard. I applaud Linuxbeak's attempts at diplomacy but "diplomacy" does not allow a valid WP:AFD decision to be essentially overturned with no debate. I am concerned that the merged article will be a whitewash. FCYTravis 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the substantive issue, I have reprotected the page. Splash has so far undone protection twice, despite declaring himself "disgusted" by the redirect, which means he shouldn't become involved in unprotecting. I'm asking again for a period of maturity and quiet reflection to be allowed to prevail here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to merge the damn article now. It's not going to be a whitewash, so don't go nuts. Please, I'm begging people to throw down their torches and pitchforks and for one measly hour trust me. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Trust isn't the issue, logic is. Notable bio's stay in their own namespace. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should not be relegated to fine print elsewhere. So long as it is verifiable, then it appears to be of minor notablity to keep as is.--MONGO 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought about it. I did not expect this type of response. I'm sorry people. It's up to the Wikipedia community, not me, to decide what to do here. I thought I was doing something good.

I'm going to go now. Talk to you tomorrow. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've got your back, LB! El_C 03:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to rush to do it within the next hour, LB. Take your time. The page can stay protected for a day or two and the issue can be thoroughly discussed in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

An informative content page > useless broken redirect, in terms of helping our visitors. Linuxbeak hasn't merged or done anything yet, and until then, at least, the article should stay the way it was. Once Linuxbeak is ready we can start talking, but rate now it's just redirecting to a stub. --Nymph 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If the problem is that this was not decided "by the community", then re-AfD the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The question is not one of deletion. I think you're after an RfC, which is more or less what this is anyway. -Splash^talk 03:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology to Wikipedia

Alright, it's not "tomorrow", but I've stepped away from the situation.

I had no right to just *do* that. It was a bold move, and perhaps way too bold. I thought I was doing something that was for the greater good of Wikipedia... but I did not expect to be met with such hostility.

What I did had no personal "what's in it for me" attributes. I thought what I was doing would be for the greater good of the community. It had nothing to do with Brandt's hivemind page. Brandt himself offered to remove the page... I didn't request it.

I hope this didn't shake people's faith in me too much. This project means so much to me, and to see people come to my support means a lot to me. It also means a lot to me to gain the trust and support of the rest of the community...

What I did with apologizing to Brandt was the right thing to do. What I did with his article was not. It needs to be community-run, not administrator run. I apologize.

Please don't hate me for what I've done. I just hope that you can continue to trust me. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So, can you retract your changes to the article? It's quite hard to do that, rate now, as SlimVirgin has taken to.. um.. protecting us from revert wars. --Nymph 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. For now, I will retract everything. I want to see if we can still do *something*... but with more community involvement. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Linuxbeak, but you can't protect or unprotect a page you're currently editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is the one who imposed protection in the first place, and she has been involved in the Daniel Brandt dispute since the very beginning as the original creator of the Brandt article itself. If Linuxbeak cannot unprotect a page due to his involvement, then SlimVirgin should not be protecting it in the first place due to involvement of her own. Rangerdude 09:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have anything to apologize for, you made a good faith effort to solve this problem. Sorry it didn't work out. Gamaliel 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you all should know that the Black List is back on. It is at the time I made this post. Izehar (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Obviously it wasn't a gesture of good faith that he removed it, then. (Not that I was assuming it was -- we're talking about Brandt, here, after all..) And he claims he's going to use it for legal reasons? Is he going to sue RoyBoy for saying "privacy ain't what it used to be?" Free speech ain't what it used to be, apparently. :( Any litigation based on this nonsense won't go anywhere. --Nymph 16:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak has been removed, however. Odd. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Blown Off as Content Dispute

• Missionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I just listed this guy that has committed the trifecta of user page vandalism, link vandalism, and abuse of tags in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, only to have it all dismissed as just being a content dispute. See the history in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for more details. Maybe someone here will care, maybe not, who knows.Tommstein 10:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I noticed you've vandalised Missionary's user page. I've just rolled that back, don't do it again. Secondly, if you're going to make claims of vandalism, please provide diffs (and provide them on the pages for reporting vandalism, not here). All I can find on the information given is what looks exactly like a content dispute. --ajn (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But, but, Sean Black declared that user page vandalism is just a content dispute. While I didn't provide diffs, I provided enough information for any non-lazy administrator to be able to easily find what I was talking about. Regarding the link vandalism, I mentioned that it was right before I gave him the test2 (which he removed), and I put the warning in the edit summary for a reason. Regarding the abuse of tags, I gave the exact page it happened on. Regarding the user page vandalism, I again gave the exact page it happened on. If administrators are too lazy to spend more than three seconds investigating vandals, they should say so. I would put the diffs up there now (although I've never seen anyone have to do that, including me when reporting other vandals), but what's the use, they'll probably say they're too old now (now that half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness) and there was already enough information there anyway if anyone cared about the vandalism. Apparently, all you have to do to get away with vandalism is also make non-vandalism edits, and/or just get into an argument with someone. Thank you for the information.Tommstein 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OK then, let's look at this a little more closely (as I did, before writing my previous comment, but obviously you need things spelling out). You claimed putting an AfD template on Category:Criticism on Jehovah's Witnesses was "vandalism" - I'd assume it was a mistake in good faith. In any case, it should be "Criticism of". You claimed that the message on User:66.158.232.37 was "vandalism" - it was certainly a personal attack, but you had already replaced it with a message accusing Missionary of vandalism. He blanked the page, you reverted it to the accusatory message. I've just blanked it again, can we just leave it blank, please? The third thing you claim is that just prior to your inserting a test2a message on his talk page, he had been engaging in "link vandalism" on some unspecified page. Well, he had certainly been removing links from Jehovah's Witnesses, but he had been providing justification and I think in at least a couple of those cases they were valid removals. That isn't vandalism, that's a content dispute. You removed a lot of links from the page at around the same time. Go and read Wikipedia:Vandalism and see what is actually considered vandalism here. In particular, look at what "link vandalism" actually means. --ajn (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Regarding your making excuses for vandals and calling their actions 'mistakes,' such excuses can be made for anyone. Note, however, that this particular user was throwing tags all over the place and even put his name down as a member of the Association of Members' Advocates almost from the moment they registered (the reason for knowing all about all this stuff the moment he registered turned out to be that he was a sockpuppet, apparently with little intent other than to vandalize and piss people off and get whatever he wanted), so he should have known better. I fail to see how trying to get the entire category criticizing your religion, and only said category, deleted is a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia," but apparently you do. You're right that the correct title of the category should have "Criticism of," not "Criticism on," but I didn't name it. In fact, I think that at one point I tried to fix it on some page, but a Jehovah's Witness changed it back. Talk to him. Maybe he's trying to make critics look illiterate or something. Regarding his user page vandalism, well, you never actually said why it wasn't vandalism, so there's not much to defend. Regarding the link vandalism, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse&diff=31448271&oldid=31446688, which is a diff from his vandalized version to the fixed version. In particular, look at the references beginning "Tubbs, Sharon" and "U.S. Department of Justice" in the correct version, and then look at what he was doing. Apparently, your in-depth, close look completely missed this. The first time, I agree(d) that it could have been a mistake, and didn't give a warning or anything. It was the second time that got him a warning. Upon further consideration, I'm not sure that it's not "Sneaky vandalism" instead, but it is something (I started calling it link vandalism before I even knew that that was an actual recognized name for a type of vandalism). Do I have to spell things out for you again more slowly now?Tommstein 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A case

I'm wondering what should be done about this case. Please take a look at this diff. As you will notice, Borgy (talk · contribs), wanting to write an article about a CD named "Trapped", found an article about a 2002 movie at the location (then, now it's a disambig page). He then proceded to blank the article about the movie to write in the CD information. You might think: newbie mistake, but by his list of contributions, you see that he wasn't really all that green when he did it. And then, the final coup: he proceeded to the image page of the DVD cover for said movie and uploaded, over it, the image of the CD cover. I can't wrap around my brain an explanation of "distraction", or "newbie mistake", this just strikes me as utmost selfishness, with complete disregard for the content and, why not, other people's work. In the case of the image, specifically, it's unbelievable that he couldn't just have uploaded it with a slightly different title, as everybody does, all the time around here. It strikes me as: he just wanted the image to be at "Trapped.jpg", just like he wanted the article about the CD to be precisely at "Trapped", and didn't hesitate to obliterate content in order to get his way. Problem is, I had just returned from a Wikibreak when he pulled that stuff, and only now did I catch up with it. It happened on October 30, which makes it somewhat "old". Still, it seems to be clear vandalism to me and I do belive this guy should be blocked for it, even now. But I thought I'd get some insight on this, especially given the passage of time. And plus, if he is to be blocked, I'd request that someone else does it, since I'm the author of the article he blanked and the uploader of the image he wrote over.
Incidentally, I've fixed everything, restoring the content for the movie at the new location and restoring the image for the DVD cover (without writing over the CD image, btw). Thanks, Redux 14:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Has behavior of this sort persisted since then? We shouldn't block anyone for something that happened a month and a half ago unless they have kept doing it. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. See how he responds to your comments on his talk page before doing anything else, I would say. android79 15:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, I would not have blocked him myself for this particular one, because I'm directly involved with the article/image he vandalised — and the thing about too much time having passed, does make it inappropriate to block him for it now. Still, something like this... a user who shows a disposition for this kind of action... it just gets me on yellow alert, you know? Jimbo has said it himself: we tend to put up with far more than we're supposed to. As I said, this was no honest mistake, at least I don't think so. Redux 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends. Our policies aren't exactly clear...if the user was new, perhaps he wasn't sure how to upload a new pic, clicked the existing one, and it said "upload a new version", so he figured that was how... Ral315 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, the upload log shows that "Trapped" was the 13th image he uploaded to the website. After uploading 12 images, I find it hard to believe that someone doesn't understand how the system works. Regards, Redux 12:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. Okay, then. Ral315 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian and his sockpuppets

Gibraltarian has been terrorizing the Disputed status of Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar articles. He has a Arbcom case against him. Well the personal attacks have increased (basically any edit he doesn't like is labeled as "vandalism" and he likes to call his opponents "trolls" and be completely uncivil). I finally blocked him 6 days ago. Blocked him for 48 hours. Well now he's using socks. He's used various IPs in the 212.120.*.* range, including 212.120.228.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.120.229.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.120.229.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.120.228.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and many others. They are all tied to an ISP in Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a very small place, so it could be someone else but I doubt it. He's violating the 3RR literally every day. We've now had to protect both articles just to stop him. Could I get some advice? I'd like to block him indefinitely and then treat the socks as socks and ban them for an hour or so apiece as he uses them. If anyone else has any better ideas, let me know. Obviously, we don't want these 2 articles protected forever, so something has to be done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd include some of his edits to show that this is the same dude. This and this are Gibraltarian removing the disputed tag. Here and here are him doing it as the anons. You can look at his edits to see the other matching patterns. Again, any advice would be helpful. If I don't hear anything by the end of the day, I'm going block Gibraltarian permanently and start blocking his socks for an hour at a time (or maybe half that) since it's a dynamic IP. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, I'd suggest a range block. --Nlu (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. That's an idea. I will go ahead and block Gibraltarian indefinitely and then watch the sockpuppet activity. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify on Nlu's idea: If Gibraltarian's IPs are to be blocked completely, then it should cover all IPs between 212.120.226.0 and 212.120.231.255, since all IPs he has used so far belong to this range. If he starts using IPs in the 212.120.224.* and/or the 212.120.225.* ranges (based on the IP range of his ISP), then these may be blocked as well. --TML1988 14:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This hasn't gotten any better than before [1]. I guess we should block all addresses between 212.120.224.0 and 212.120.231.155 for a time, since this most recent edit comes from 212.120.225.85, and pretty soon a 212.120.224.* address may pop up. --TML1988 21:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected the 2 Gibraltar articles that G has been hitting the most. Need to keep a close watch on both. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr, sockpuppets

Hi. I'd like to request a CheckUser to determine if User:Pitchka and User:Chooserr are editing from the same IP addresses. Both have recently been going around changing date formats, and I have noticed disturbing similarities between their grammar, particularly in their edit summaries. Maybe they just think alike, and I'm being too suspicious. But it can't hurt to check. Thanks. Nandesuka 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

But of course I must be a sockpuppet mustn't I. How could there be two people who actually want to preserve the most common and traditional type of dating system? Why that is quite disturbing isn't?! Oh, and since Chooserr is on hold for the time being, well I must be orbiting my edits around the moon into a different country!!! It's actually pretty funny that you are disturbed by our similarities!!! :) Dwain 04:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you must be a sockpuppet. I said (or, rather, implied) that I think you might be, specifically because you both use very similar edit summaries (in particular, "fixing links" when you change BCE->BC). Also, because you both have a habit of writing the same sort of odd, poorly punctuated run-on sentences. In any event, if I'm wrong, we'll soon know. Nandesuka 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And, as long as I'm asking, User:Puca, too, which account has been inactive until just yesterday. To keep things even, I have no objection if someone wants to request a CheckUser to see if I'm the same as some other user, too (oh my god -- maybe I'm Hermione1980!) :-) Nandesuka 02:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• and yet when I called him a troll and a sockpuppet....--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 02:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For clarity's sake, when I use the term sockpuppet, I'm refering of course to all the anon IPs he uses every time he's blocked, and these are just the ones he uses to evade blocks, doesn't even list the ones he uses for regular edit warring--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 18:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Speaking of which, could somebody extend his block or something? an extra hour for every anon-sock?--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dacodava

Dacodava (talk · contribs) had previously been blocked for one week for various racist remarks and threats (see [2], for example) and, from his talk page, has had a number of issues with civility in his couple of months on Wikipedia. He just left a rather disgustingly anti-Semitic rant on my Talk page[3]. I provisionally blocked him for a month, but wanted to run it by other admins to make sure there were no objections. I would also suggest a permablock, but since I was an attacked party, I would hope another uninvolved admin would do it. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll on George W Bush

A straw poll has been started at Talk:George W Bush on whether _NOEDITSECTION_ should be used. Please read the relevant discussion at the talk page, including the dispute about whether the addition has increased or decreased vandalism. Your input and comments are appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Preempting the DNA vandal

A while back, some dude decided he was going to vandalize DNA and a couple of related pages. He did so by creating a LEGION of users in the pattern of User:My U.S. Senator's DNA (That's not one of them, for the full list: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Archive 1#DNA Vandal). I intend to create an account for every U.S. Senator and Representative he missed so if he does come back he'll have some trouble. I'll wait to hear what ppl here say over this before doing anything incase this'll cause huge troubles and etc, etc... 68.39.174.238 05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem particularly useful - if he does, by some chance, return, he'll notice what you've done and will choose a new pattern. That said, it's not harmful either; it just doesn't seem like a productive way to spend your time. — Dan | talk 05:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have worse ways to spend my time. And several other people have done it for accounts like User:Willy on Wheels. 68.39.174.238 06:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hanging

For the past day or so, an couple of anon users have ignored comments on the talkpage, as well as comments directly in the article source saying that entries about the recent hanging in Singapore is not to be added, as this is covered in a seperate article dealing with Capital Punishment in Singapore, as well as later in the same article. User:203.218.46.98 has already been blocked for continously reinserting the same paragraph, and I'd like to have User:203.218.81.92 blocked as well if this is agreeable. I have already reverted the page three times, so I won't touch it again for today. Thanks in advance Bjelleklang - talk 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The same user has now reverted yet again, the fifth time in just over two hours. I notified him not to include information on the Singapore story, and also a little bit later informed him about WP:3RR. If okay, I'd like to have either the user blocked, or the article temporary protected, preferably the former as this would hurt the least people. Bjelleklang - talk 10:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Koool

User:Koool has been pushing a fanatical fundamentalist Christian POV lately, and attacking advocates of religious tolerance in talk pages. *Dan T.* 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll give him the welcome message and warn him on NPA. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fundraiser notice

Perhaps a sense of aesthetics be a criterion for adminship :) Can we get rid of the black box that cropped up just then? (Is this the appropriate place to discuss this?) Enochlau 14:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90

After agreeing that this individual will quit vandalizing articles as well as my user and talk page, he seems to be fascinated with trash talking me on his talk pages (at User talk:Braaad and User talk:68.112.201.90). I'm trying to turn the other cheek, but this seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, among many others. McNeight 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the personal attacks from User talk:Braaad. You might try ignoring him -- adding the tool probably just fueled the fire. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There's still User talk:68.112.201.90, and I'm working on an RfC right now. Thanks. McNeight 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curioisity, is anyone planning to deal with the continued harassment from User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90? It seems that he is now starting to lash out at anyone who modified "his" user page (reference User talk:Royboycrashfan#68.112.201.90). See the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Braaad|RfC] about Braaad and 68.112.201.90] for more information on his past behavior. How many more editors does he have to harass before something is done? McNeight 09:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. Someone must watch him. --150.164.52.1 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Node holds some odd views, often makes edits I radically disagree with, and can be very uncooperative about "playing well with others" in controversial articles, but I have never seen him be a vandal in the narrow sense. If there is a specific issue here, please indicate it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_dialects&diff=31591845&oldid=31570335

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_language&diff=31591971&oldid=31590919

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raionul_Cimi%C5%9Flia&diff=31543916&oldid=30199603

I can't judge the first one; I've asked someone who was an active contributor to that article to take a look. The second looks to me to be correct, but, again, I'm no expert. The third I'd describe as silly, like writing "42nd Street, also known as 42nd St.…". I see it has been reverted, as well it should have been. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan raion

Hi Mark. I have a question about this edit you made. In addition to the name of that raion, "Raionul Cimişlia", you added its name in the Moldovan language, you wrote "(Moldovan: R-ul. Cimişlia)". I belive it does not make any sense, as "R-ul. Cimişlia" is just an abbreviation of "Raionul Cimişlia", and not its name in some other language. If you are trying to make a point that Moldovan language is different than Romanian language, that kind of edits, if anything, work against you.

I don't plan to argue with you or with anybody else the issue of Moldovan language, but I belive your edit was not productive. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while, so you can reply here if you would like to comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone watch Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--194.83.70.20 09:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

CFD vote stuffing

Anyone have any idea how to handle an apparent case of vote stuffing going on at CFD? Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15 (pro-choice/pro-life celebs discussion). I suppose we could solicit considerably more voters in some forum (here, or VPP perhaps), but I'd really like to come up with a general solution for this kind of problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There's another thread at WP:ANI ("Meatpuppetry?") about this.--Sean|Black 06:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the editors who raised the issue, meatpuppetry doesn't seem to be the right term. The participants are all regular members of the Wikipedia community. It's more of a push voting drive by a couple of editors with a political agenda who canvass talk pages of people likely to share their opinions. On the CfD page it appears the people who responded to the canvass acted in good faith. The AfD incident is somewhat more serious: probable bad faith nomination, several users making false claims about the article's content. I realize these are discussions and not votes. I also realize legitimate users have a right to be heard. Those who canvass this way are gaming the system to create a false impression of consensus. Durova 07:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, with a caveat: It's perfectly acceptable to contact editors with regards to a discussion, it's not acceptable to spam every user in a category to influence consensus your way.--Sean|Black 08:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sooner or later we're going to have to stamp on this hard, so that nobody will be in any doubt as to the unacceptability of sabotaging consensus, and maybe now is the time to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, what separates the legitimate act of notifying editors that we know would feel strongly affected by a decision, so that the decision isn't made without them, and illegitimate "push voting"? I'm not saying there isn't a distinction; I'm saying that if this is going to be the setting of a precedent, it has to be a precedent based on a principle. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, if the debated entity is associated with a topic pertaining to two or more directly opposing viewpoints, it's inappropriate to only notify users with one of those viewpoints (assuming that the others can be recognized via similar means).

Secondly, if the nominated entity is or has been the subject of another discussion, it's okay to notify the editors involved, but only if doing so indiscriminately; it's inappropriate to select the users based upon the specific nature of their previous comments. For example, when there were polls to determine the style and wording of the merger templates, I notified everyone who had previously expressed any opinion on the subject (including those with whom I personally disagreed). —Lifeisunfair 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The unbiased way to make sure editors interested in X are aware of a discussion is to put a notice on X's talk page, which presumably editors on both sides of the issue are watching. ---- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is a slippery slope - contacting a few users is okay but contacting a lot is ballot stuffing. There appears to be no feasible way to deal with this, unfortunately. Nor is it new, I've seen it happen at least half a year ago. Radiant_>|< 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've listed category:wikipedians by politics and its subcats for deletion at WP:CFD. Please vote on this (regardless of which way you think it should go), so this CFD ends up with an honest consensus. Please also vote on the pro-life/pro-choice celebrities item (from Dec 15). Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

I have blocked User:DreamGuy for 24 hours for violating 3RR on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Specifiically, for consistently removing the {{proposed}} tag from the article. Full disclosure: I put the tag there, and am involved on the discussion on the talk page. This seemed clear-cut enough to me that I just went ahead and did it. If anyone thinks my enforcing 3RR in this case was inappropriate, please let me know and I'll undo the block (and ask an uninvolved admin to reapply it). Nandesuka 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

probably not a great idea.Geni 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Geni. It's not like this was an emergency. Being an admin doesn't mean you should act as plaintiff, judge, and jailer at the same time. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion: if you find you need to protect a page/block a user you're in a dispute with, find another Admin to do the deed for you. This not only prevents a conflict of interest, but helps to convince the other side that the act is aganist Wikipedia, not just with you. -- llywrch 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Vilerage

Am I allowed to post here? Anyway, this seemed as good a place as any.

User:Vilerage has admitted to launching a Denial of Service attack against http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ using the page http//www.brandt-watch.org/ and his home page http://www.geocities.com/visualrage/. This has been detailed on http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html . I have sent to him a message on his talk page asking him to prove that it was not him, and he has failed to respond, and wiped my message unread, which I believe is sufficient to constitute an admission of guilt.

Vilerage has done this in the name of Wikipedia, and has given Wikipedia a bad name in doing this. What he has done amounts to the crime of computer hacking. As such, I request that his admin powers be revoked as soon as possible and he be banned from Wikipedia. I feel that if this is not done, then it could expose Wikipedia not only to bad public press, but also to criminal charges in relation to his admitted illegal activities. I am not sure of what the processes are to go about this, but I thought that this was the correct forum to mention this. Do you have to go through ArbCom first?

I don't really want to get too involved in this personally, so will leave it up to other administrators to deal with this properly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about his admin powers, but we should definitely not block/ban for off-wiki activities. --SPUI (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we might want to de-OP though (anyone want to ask the ARBCOM?) See also: my post to Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Brandt.27s_views_re_Wikipedia_articles_on_living_persons. Broken S 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's totally irrelevant to his admin. privileges and to Wikipedia in general. As long as the Wikimedia Foundation did not encourage it, it has nothing to do with it. What about his (hypothetical) Yahoo! e-mail account? Are they going to cancel it because of independent activity? It's none of our business what Vilerage does in private. As long as he hasn't abused his admin. privileges or violated any policies (which he hasn't), IMO this discussion has no place here and is not our concern. Izehar (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out right quick, that I'm not an admin. [4]. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think he has committed a crime you should deal with that. I agree with SPUI, what people do off wikipedia should not be a cause for banning or blocking. Are you sure he is an admin? He's only been here 2 months so it is unlikely, SqueakBox 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

He is not an admin, SqueakBox 20:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand how Wikipedia itself would be under any risk of criminal, or civil, charges as a result of something somebody, who happens to edit here, did using his own personal Web hosting account, not directly involving Wikipedia at all. *Dan T.* 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I wiped your message because it was, in my opinion, harassing. [5] That, and I don't respond to threats. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I didn't launch jack, much less a denial of service attack. This is, in my opinion, just more harassment, from a buddy of w-w. This is probably the last I'll say here. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If he says he didn't do it, I believe him. What evidence do you have? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

...and at least here in the US we have the presumption of innocence. It isnt up to Vilerage to prove that he didn't do it, it is up to whoever to show that he did...not that I feel it should effect his status here. --Syrthiss 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

...and on Wikipedia we have the much neglected WP:AGF. Izehar (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on what any of this has to do with my contributions here. But, what do I know? It's my opinion that my contribs speak for themselves. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The only immediate problem I see with Vilerage's contributions is his 477 characters long sig which makes it really hard to read the comments in between all the links and HTML. He says he did not launch a DOS attack on Brandt and I have no reason not to believe him.

However, if it is proven that Vilerage (or another user) has taken a petty interpersonal dispute off-site and then implicated or associated Wikipedia with criminal activities, I will personally block their account indefinitely. Zocky 07:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider this very serious indeed. Vilerage has made some positive contributions to the encyclopedia, but if he has indeed done this, then in so doing he has defamed the entire Wikipedia community. I have no love for Mr. Brandt, but we cannot tolerate this at all, any more than we would if someone had popped Brandt's car tires or some other criminal, puerile prank. If this is proven (and it seems to be so, though I am no technical expert), an indefinite block is required.--Pharos 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am opposed to an indef block, or even a block for that matter, for something no done on WP. Unless you can find proof that he acted in the name of Wikipedia, your suggestion is close to absurd. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To assume good faith of people in an online community is in itself an act of extreme foolishness. Experience shows time and again that the average person is much less saintly than idealists would have you believe. I have no belief in the statements made by either party over this alleged attack. If Mr Brandt can produce evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of any individual person, he should take the matter up with that person's ISP. --Agamemnon2 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe people need a reminder of what Wikipedia is and is not? Actions like this add nothing to the writing of the encyclopedia, on the contrary, they are damaging to the public perception of the project, to the community and ultimately to the encyclopedia. Zocky 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to any form of block on User:Vilerage, accusations are flying: the recent note left on Jimbo's talk page by Zordrac is (imho) plainly wrong, no proof that "Users" are "engaged in criminal activity in the name of Wikipedia" is given and a further groundless assumption and accusation is made about perpetrating a hoax. Enough now. Alf ^melmac 12:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of not making Zordrac unfairly appear as a ranting looney, it should be noted that there was a hoax perpetrated on Brandt by somebody with a Wikipedia account (User:Callum Derbyshire), discussed at Talk:Daniel Brandt, and now archived at Talk:Public Information Research/Archive 2#Daniel Brandt hoaxed. The whole thing was considered funny by some editors. When Zordrac informed Jimbo about it, Jimbo clearly stated on that talk page that such behaviour is unacceptable. Yet, people continued to bait Brandt, and then Vilerage came up with a brilliant idea of setting up brandt-watch.org, which seems to have featured a "tricky" script as the site said earlier today. The site has now been taken down and I don't know how I could confirm how it looked before and how Wikipedia was mentioned on the page with the "tricky script". If there was conclusive proof that he did in fact implicate Wikipedia in his actions, I would have had blocked him immediately.

The whole Brandt affair is getting out of hand. There is a group of editors who have shown extreme lack of judgment in dealing with the article and the man and who seem to think that defending Wikipedia from criticism requires and allows them to engage in crusades, bullying and other childish behaviour. While that is their prerogative, they should not be allowed to do that on Wikipedia. Zocky 12:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zocky is 100% correct in all this. We are Wikipedians. To me that means something. We should conduct ourselves with the highest degree of honor and maturity at all points. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privelege bestowed by the community of good people who care about writing a high quality encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what happened: Vilerage, on http://brandt-watch.org, had a link labeled 'Brandt image gallery', or something of the sort. When launching this page, it used JavaScript to load images hosted on Brandt's image server at a high rate of speed. I talked to Vilerage on IRC, and he agreed to remove the page. That's good enough for me. But it's also another important note: As Jimbo said above, Wikipedians should hold themselves to a high standard always. Ral315 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope and trust that hold themselves to a high standard always refers to activities relating to wikipedia, whether online or offline, as other behaviour outside wikipedia is really not wikipedia's concern. Some argue that if you work for wages it is reasonable for the company to expect certain offsite standards, eg no taking drugs, etc, but wikipedia should not go down that line, IMO, SqueakBox 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about checking people for drugs. We are talking about Wikipedians who engage in real-life attacks on critics of Wikipedia, and in some cases, like the hoax mentioned above, directly involve Wikipedia, and even get support from other Wikipedians (see User talk:Callum Derbyshire), including old hands from whom I would have expected more.

Wikipedia does not and can not engage in campaigns to silence or bully its critics. Again, I haven't seen proof that Vilerage directly implicated Wikipedia in his actions, and he has so far not been blocked, at least by me. His actions were in any case highly irresponsable, as the obvious connection between brandt-watch.org and Vilerage's work on Wikipedia implicates Wikipedia anyway. Zocky 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GreekWarrior

• GreekWarrior (talk · contribs)

With some regret, I have blocked GreekWarrior (talk · contribs) for twelve hours and protected his user talk page from edits for the duration of the block. The issue concerns that editor's repeated replacing of a xenophobic rant on his talk page, despite clear warnings [6] [7]. The same editor had previously made an edit on Talk:Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus titled "Why I enjoy Murdering Turks" [8]. However he is otherwise a good editor. I hope he will recognise that, of all his statements on Wikipedia, those alone are unsuitable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. He constantly writes the official names of cities from Moldova (e.g.Tighina) with the wrong Cyrillic script. He was told at least 100 times to stop this (the official script is Latin since many years now) but still he continues like this. Should be blocked for this. Bonaparte talk 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

See section below and feel free to ignore the above as I am - David Gerard 13:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:If

In accordance with WP:AUM, and due to the complete obstinance of the template's supporters in the face of the developers saying "Please do not use these templates," I have blanked this template and replaced it with a note indicating that it has been deprecated.

This template was in use on thousands of pages, so please keep an eye out for it so it can be cleaned up. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

IANAD, but I thought the act of editing these templates was the root of the problem by virtue of the server load required to update them. This I haven't understood, since whatlinkshere doens't update until an article is touched. -Splash^talk 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked with the devs in #wikimedia-tech before shooting. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. -Splash^talk 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange Edits

There's been some strange newbie edits at Cracked: Putting Broken Lives Back Together by Robert323 (talk · contribs). I'm heading back to his talk page to ask what's going on, but I figured I'd let you all know. karmafist 21:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom election

There was some discussion on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005 regarding the upcoming election. Those involved in the discussion agreed on some (rather commonsensical) suggestions, I thought I'd list them here for additional feedback. Of course the above are only suggestions, and if there are other suggestions please mention them.

• Voting should be done on subpages like on RFA, a useful format would be "statement - votes - questions" like on RFA. It would be easiest on the Candidate Question subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/172) - just paste in the candidate's nomination statement and add a voting section.
• To avoid a Disendorsement Disaster, people should be discouraged to add any comments whatsoever to their votes. Of course, they are free to ask the candidates questions, but not in the voting section.
• The election should be in January to avoid interference with Christmas. Suggested timeframe is Jan 9th - Jan 22nd (which is two weeks, same as last year).
• Suffrage: only those accounts can vote that have been registered at least three months before the election starts (same as last year).

Some people have suggested that one person be formally in charge of the process. E Pluribus Anthony suggested Anthere and/or Angela; Kelly Martin suggested Mark Ryan. Other people such as myself believe this isn't necessary. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a few bureaucrats who aren't running? We ought to have someone- Bureaucrats close RFAs for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that they have access to Special:Makesysop. But also, they do so because they're trusted to make decisions on whether a voter is a sockpuppet, etc. It might not be a bad idea to have somebody "watching" the elections. Ral315 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't Special:ArbcomVote (or something) used last year, and wasn't that a secret ballot? If we do it openly, there'll only be bad blood for months to come. -Splash^talk 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. However that appears to be par for the course so far so far. If you get someone trying to do something they don't really have time for a sub optimum result is to be expected. It should be interesting to see how it plays out. Will wikipedia's more caperble wikipoliticians decide to vote only for safe candidates or not to vote at all. The first as the risk of highlighting potential conflicts with those who may end up in a position of power. The second looks too calculateing. Then you have the fun of when they vote. Go in early and try and appear as king maker, try and tip the balance at the end or try and stay out of the issue by hideing in the middle. Interesting all round. Interesting and very disstructive.Geni 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have to favor the idea of a secret ballot. With Admins and even Bureaucrats, individual interpersonal feelings, bad blood and the like don't matter so much; there are 700-some-odd admins, all free to challenge each other's decisions, and other than closing (rarely-controversal) RfA votes Bureaucrats tend to stay out of things. With ArbCom members, though, you have most or all of them regularly forced to pass judgement on individuals and their entire history with Wikipedia, ending in binding decisions with few places left to appeal. I don't think any of the likely candidates are people who would seriously say "YOU VOTE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I DESTROY YOU!!!1" or anything like that, but it seems fair to me for people to be reluctant to elect a group that is essentially judge, jury, and executioner in an open vote... nobody, for instance, should ever have to be in the uncomfortable position of knowing that everyone on one side of a controversal RfAr voted for the current ArbCom slate, and everyone on the other side didn't. --Aquillion 00:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[mode=cynic]If people will vote for the wrong people.[/mode]Geni 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that a secret ballot (Special:Vote stuff) would be preferable. However, Jimbo specifically requested that we use a system similar to WP:RFA. Radiant_>|< 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Did he back that request up with a board vote?Geni 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to ask - did you mean "using stuff like Special:Vote", or "using Special:Vote stuffing"? The latter would be so much fun to code... Shimgray | talk | 13:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the discouraging comments bit, the comments on RFA, especially the opposes, are often very helpful making up one's mind about a candidate. One of RFA's virtues is that you get to see what other people think of the person. Dragons flight 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much opposed to holding a public election, to the extent that I might withdraw my candidacy rather than deal with the ugliness that will develop. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Kelly, I'm not opposed to having a secret ballot, but if we are going to have a public ballot, as Jimbo apparently wants, then I would generally prefer to know why people voted the way they did, even though having comments will inevitably carry some ugliness with it. Dragons flight 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While I don't mind a public election (as opposed to secret ballot), I'd like to see an election without comments. As long as we're just selecting a group for Jimbo to select from, I think we'd be better served with just a straight up and down vote. Once people start making commets in association with their votes, others will feel the need to refute them and then it's off to the races. This is becoming a little unwieldy...WEMs and WEO's, let's just select a group via simple majority, uninvolved bureaucrats can watch over the process and Jimbo can select from the group. With the sufferage requirements involved here I think we can avoid some of the ugliness by editors looking at the record before making their votes. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The chances of people making zero comments are...well...zero. And if they make them, will you remove them? That way lies edit warring. -Splash^talk 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I wrote above that uninvolved bureaucrats can be watching the process. So no, I won't be removing comments. If the ground rules are set up to allow votes without comments then they can police that. Rx StrangeLove 06:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would indeed be in favor of removing any and all vote comments. People can ask questions in the questions section. That way lies no edit warring if we are clear about it from the start. Radiant_>|< 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Validating an ELECTION requires VALIDATING voters. Everyone who wants to give their social security number (or the equivalent) raise your hand. As long as this is a site with unverified contributors, pretenses at true democracy will remain just that. I vote for more honesty and less pretense. I think Wikipedia is moving in the right direction, I just think a little more honesty would help. WAS 4.250 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• And by suggesting more honesty you specifically mean what exactly? Radiant_>|< 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternative to secret ballot

If a secret ballot is not possible - or is not preferable - why not just have only support votes. And require a minimum number of support votes (like 75, 100, 150 or something), as well as endorsement by Jimbo. Same for Jimbo proposed candidates - require a min. number of support votes. That way abstentions or opposes don't have to identify themselves, and hopefully the system wouldn't get as ugly as some of the RfA votes. I see Kelly's point - good people will withdraw rather than have to bear the indignity. Voting isn't a very good way to choose arbitrators, but I don't see a better way yet. Trödel|talk 03:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could get even worse, since abstaining could be viewed as opposing. Ral315 (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In what way is this issue specially related to admins? Shouldn't the Village pump be used for discussions like this? Zocky 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how we would determine a 50% support threshold from this scheme. Based on lsat years elections, we'd elect a single Arbitrator if the 50% were measured across all votes. We just need a nice, simple, Support or Oppose in a secret ballot. -Splash^talk 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A nice simple Support or Oppose secret ballot would be fine also, I'd just like to avoid editors refighting old battles.... Rx StrangeLove 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I would prefer a secret ballot, I don't believe that an open ballot (as Jimbo suggested) would be anywhere nearly as ugly as some people here suggest. If you look at WP:RFA, you'll see that nearly all RFAs are neat and civil. Practically all ArbCom candidates are known and trusted members of the community. There may be a bit of nastiness from a personal enemy or two, but they should be mature enough to deal with that (if not, they shouldn't become Arbs in the first place). If a candidate would really give raise to significant violent opposition, then I would suggest that he is too controversial to become an Arb, and that the voting results would reflect that no matter how we vote on it. Radiant_>|< 10:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page

Do we really need to mention the fundraiser twice on the Main Page? It's on MediaWiki:Sitenotice, so why do we need another template on the already over templated, over tabled mainpage? Does it add anything? -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 00:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice ("Bigger fundraising notice"). Basically, Jimbo and Mav wanted a bigger notice on the front page.--Sean|Black 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don't know if they should both be there, but I agree it should be bigger on the front page, and I guess it's a further discussion of whether or not the Main Page should be "Special" (which might not be a bad idea...) -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 00:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad block?

ElAmericano reports that he's been, presumably accidentally, blocked. He tells me that this is because IP address 63.19.162.156 has been blocked, but I see no evidence of that IP address being blocked. I don't deal with blocking a lot, so I don't know what to tell him.

If someone works out and/or resolves what is going on, please follow up with a note here so that others won't redundantly try to pursue this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's odd: it's a non-portable IP. His IP address may have gotten autoblocked when another user on that IP was blocked, in which case, there's no way to know to unblock it without knowing which user it was (unless somebody with user IP lookup access can check it). I'm not sure, but I think that he still should be able to edit from an account if that account hadn't been specifically blocked. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to note that, in my experience, my account is blocked from making any kind of edit (except edits to my talk page) when I try to edit from school, as apparently the school's IP number is blocekd permanently. So as far as I know, Clockwork, your comment in that final sentence isn't current practice (though I wish it were!). Jwrosenzweig 08:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

63.19.128.0/17 is the range used by the "North Carolina vandal" (aka Regara, Jake Remington/Rattlesnakes, Luxembourg, per-capita, etc etc etc). It's occasionally range-blocked to deal with him. I've removed that range block now. -- Curps 07:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

To preemptively answer the question, "Was that range block necessary?" – The North Carolina Vandal is one of our more prolific vandals, creating numerous sockpuppets that begin by making legitimate edits, but then return to the same edit wars on the same articles, Elitism, for example. He sometimes even argues with himself through sockpuppets that take opposing views. It's all very odd, and since he has access to so many IPs, the range block is really the best way to deal with him, as long as it doesn't cause collateral damage, as it did in this case. android79 14:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Accident

Been told that a replica of MY User page,User Talk page was accidentally created. How can I have this replica removed ? Just found out literally minutes ago. Do'nt want to be declared a sockpuppet over this either !!Martial Law 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IF there's no replica, means the newbie got nervous. Am investigating.Martial Law 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Appears the guy was nervous. Explained the situation to him. Hope this did not cause any inconviences. If so, I do apologise for this.Martial Law 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord

See Special:Contributions/Beckjord. Nothing overtly vandalistic, but continues disruptive, disingenous, and attention-seeking messages on various talk pages. Would a long block be justified? --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Has also been e-mailing me (outside the Wikipedia e-mailing system; I'm going to guess he spoofed another user in e-mailing me initially) with messages in the same tenor. I've intentionally ignored his e-mails. --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/205.208.227.49. Has, by his own claim, at least two other sock-puppeting IPs (although he vehemently denied this behavior to be sock-puppeting), although I don't know what those IPs are. --Nlu (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

After his latest call to User:Martial Law to "sneak[ily]" edit a number of paranormal-related articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beckjord&curid=3342813&diff=31156974&oldid=31156497), I've blocked him for 48 hours. Please, someone more experienced, review the situation and see if this is appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This subject: User:Beckjord has indicated that he no longer uses sockpuppets,since I pointed out to him that someone else could use them against him in some personal attack, and that sockpuppets would make a attacker next to impossible to find and deal with according to Wikipedia policies. Martial Law 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also reminded this subject that "sneakiness" is considered vandalisim. He stated that Wikipedia was hard for him, and has made a effort at redemption of himself. Told him that if he had questions about Wikipedia, we'll answer them, even reminded him of this by using the example provided by a old TV commercial about Radio Shack: "You got Questions,WE got Answers". Hope this has'nt caused any inconviences, and do apologise if it has.Martial Law 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How do I deal with harrassment of a user?

As a newer admin, I have a question: How do I deal with possible harrassment of a user? User:justforasecond is a new user (joined on Oct. 30, 2005) who appears to have a vendetta against deeceevoice. I say this because nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia are against deeceevoice, either on talk pages, in an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice, or in a new Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice_Civility the user just created. The RfC was stopped early because of personal attacks and b/c it was not achieving consensus or compromise. I'm also bothered by the fact that justforasecond is bringing this new RfA even though this justforasecond has had no new conflict with Deeceevoice. I'm aware that Deeceevoice can cause personal conflict with some of her comments to other users but I feel she is a good editor with a track record of quality edits to articles. Is there anything I can do as an admin to stop this harrassment (aside from pointing out that the new RfA is not valid because the RfC failed to achieve consensus and was ended early due to personal attacks?--Alabamaboy 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is some legitimate complaint against Deeceevoice (who is, as I need to point out, otherwise a good, valuable and competent editor, who has to put up with a lot of nasty racist nonsense from trolls and vandals). I do not know what User:justforasecond's motives are, and whether an RfAr is the best way forward is debatable, but the fact that Deeceevoice refuses to take any part in dispute resolution reduces the available options. You ask what you can do as an admin to stop harrassment. I would suggest you encourage Deeceevoice to discuss the issue with others, and to otherwise abide by the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies. If she did, I suspect you'd find that a lot of the complaints against Deeceevoice would die down. — Matt Crypto 16:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree that filing an RfAr was necessary, I would like to point out that an RfC is not a prerequisite for filing a case. There's no requirement for consensus to be achieved in an RfC, nor can an RfC directly result in punitive measures (for any of the involved parties). An RfC is basically a more formal forum for discussion. In this instance, I believe that the RfC was well-intentioned and could have proven to be very helpful. For several reasons (including the fact that Deeceevoice declined to participate) the RfC was closed once it was clear that it could no longer be productive. As for justforasecond's behavior, a good next step would be to provide some diffs of harassing edits for review by other admins (WP:ANI might be the best place). Carbonite | Talk 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the RfA states "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried." While the RfC was started, it failed due to personal attacks and such. In my opinion, if the personal attacks had been left out the RfC could have been useful (as you say) even without Deeceevoice taking part. However, since it failed that is an issue. What really troubles me is that justforasecond is pushing this RfA b/c his edit history is showing a serious pattern of going after Deeceevoice, a pattern that appears to violate Wikipedia:Harassment policy, especially the no Wikistalking section. justforasecond's lack of edits outside of Deeceevoice have me wondering if this is another user's sockpuppet. Is there a way to check this? Bringing in other admins on this issue (as you suggest) would also be welcomed. --Alabamaboy 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:CheckUser. — Matt Crypto 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 17:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone seen User:Deeceevoice 's User page. This was referred to me by another User, stating that User Deeceevoice is offensive. The user who discussed this was User:justforasecond. Hope this has caused no inconviences, and apologise if it has.Martial Law 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90... Again

Out of curioisity, is anyone planning to deal with the continued harassment from User:Braaad and User:68.112.201.90? It seems that he is now starting to lash out at anyone who modified "his" user page (reference User talk:Royboycrashfan#68.112.201.90 and User talk:Sputnikcccp#Vandalization). See the RfC about Braaad and 68.112.201.90 for more information on his past behavior. How many more editors does he have to harass before something is done? McNeight 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Playstation 4

I found this strange article (containing no less than four colored boxes plus a stub tag), which was created by Maoririder (talk · contribs) already with the vfd tag in place. The vfd linked to an already closed deletion debate ("WP:NOT a crystal ball").

I deleted it as a recreation of deleted material; however, it had been edited by another editor besides Maoririder, and while I felt the content was similar enough, I have been out of the speedy deletion loop for a while, and I believe the tolerance to the stretching of that clause has lessened a bit.

I would like for someone who is more active on the deletion front to review my deletion of that article.

--cesarb 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you haven't already, see this.--Sean|Black 03:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Maoririder's mentorship? His name calling got out of hand and he was permablocked yesterday. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Still got a bug

Still have a annoying bug that can not only affect me, it could also affect others. I log on AS Martial Law , only something like this appears:123.578.612.45 instead. Enabled Cookies, cleared out my caches as well. This bug can actually have people falsely implicated as sockpuppeteers. Told it was some kind of Tech bug by a admin.Martial Law 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the protocol to follow should I be declared to be a sockpuppeteer ?Martial Law 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're just editing articles, I don't think anyone's going to pounce on you. However, if you try and engage in some kind of a heated debate then others may think that you are trying to impersonate two users. But I'm sure with explanation, that should not be a problem. enochlau (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started leaving notes on the user pages of IPs from which I edit through a connection that I regularly use (like my home ISP account) when I'm inadvertently logged out or when I forget to login. The key is to edit the user page when you're logged in as you to state something like "this IP address is known to be used by __USER__" (substituting the appropriate username and link to your real user page for __USER__). I haven't seen others do this yet, but after thinking about {{doppelganger}} and collateral damage from IP blocks, it makes sense to me (perhaps we should make up a template to say something like "The following established editors are known to edit from this IP address..."). Slambo (Speak) 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. NOw he started to follow everything that I edit and comes to that page to revert my work. I think he is obssesed with my edits. We did have some problems with his trolling on the Moldovan language page, but since then he trasfered all his hatred also to other pages that I have created e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Romania_to_the_European_Union) Accession of Romania to the European Union. Except for the fact that this demonstrates very clear that all his edits and purpose is just trolling he also demonstrates a bad behaviour. The majority of users there agree with the fact that he is just annoying everybody there with his trolling. He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "koncenii," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. I ask for help to deal with this vandal. Bonaparte talk 08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is fallout from the flame wars over the Moldovan wikipedia. See wikipedia-l. I plan to actively take no action whatsoever over this message from Bonaparte, and suggest others do likewise - David Gerard 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Great attitude: "look, it's the people from Moldova, let's all ignore them". Nice way to go, Mr. Gerard. Why still nothing has been done even though everyone seems to have agreed that mo.wiki should be moved to mo-cyr, why you don't care ? Is that an attitude for an administrator: to not care ? Heh... 212.0.211.204 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You should first acknowledge that there ALWAYS was a consensus on the page and ALWAYS Node was against any kind of solution. Instead he just like to make edit war there. Even now, he still continues to make controversial edits. This was not his last page. He made similar with ZLATIBORIAN language of course. So on that page Node has no credibility and you all are pleased to go there and see. Bonaparte talk 14:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

David's point is that both sides are guilty of transgressions on this article. Plus, as I've pointed out to you guys numerous times, you have to do dispute resolution here. I don't see any. I see no requests for comment whatsoever. Blocking users is not going to end this debate. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, David's remark was about Moldovan wikipedia, and not about the moldovan language article specifically (when it was asked here what to do about it, what was the answer, go to wikipedia-l, now the whole issue was taken there, and what's the attitude of admins: IGNORE). And I sure like your definition of "both sides", Node against everyone else. 212.0.211.204 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is guilty that he comes to follow my edits and revert my work on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Romania_to_the_European_Union) Accession of Romania to the European Union? Obviously he is. If he has some issue on Moldovan language why can he refrain himself not to do that again also on other pages? Bonaparte talk 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why that person is still let free to vandalize the page that I created? He is obsessed with my edits and he comes everyday now to revert my work on Accession of Romania to the European Union. He made something similar also on Moldovan language. Now he uses more IP adresses. Bonaparte talk 15:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:deeceevoice user page

Upfront: I filed an RfAr against deeceevoice a week ago, so am not an unbiased party, but could someone please take a look at her user page -- it is the most offensive page I've seen on wikipedia. There are sexually explicit images, racist images, profanity, a call for editors to abandon wikipedia, etc. I'll skip the details, just go take a look please. I'm not sure what (or if *any*) policies are in question here, but it seems well beyond the norms of a user page. -Justforasecond 23:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

She has posted this stuff in response to your RfAr, and you know that. It's her user page, and if she wants to use it to make a statement about censorship and racism on Wikipedia, that's her prerogative. — BrianSmithson 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is way across the line. I suggest immediately blanking this user page, and blocking Deeceevoice for at least a day for blatant personal attacks, incivility and spreaking nazi signs. Radiant_>|< 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you bother to read the page? She is not promoting "Nazi signs", nor is she attacking anyone. And as this is her user page, I'm not sure at whom she is supposedly being incivil. — BrianSmithson 00:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I am now officially on holiday break. I tried to enter my user page to post a notice to this effect, but -- once again -- I've been blocked. Collateral damage as a result of Radiant's block of someone calling themselves Poporopo (or something). I'm not terribly familiar -- not at all, really -- with wiki procedures and timeframes and such, but, presumably, whatever action, if any, with regard to my user page will wait until I return. It is, after all, hardly an urgent matter. Peace. And happy holidays to all (except, of course, my stalkers) :p deeceevoice 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for jumping the line, so to speak, but I've only just seen this action a few minutes ago. (They never stop, do they? :p) When collateral-damage blocks have expired long enough to me to make edits on this website (there have been at least four or five I've encountered over the last two days on various pages -- and that's a conservative estimate; and even more if I count the last four days), I've been making changes here and there to those pages -- my user page among them and not -- I repeat NOT -- in response to whatever various complains may be here. (Yes, I was blocked from editing my own user page. I had to store the text in my computer so as not to lose it.) I haven't read everything, and I don't intend to. I'm preparing to leave town for the holidays and don't have the time or the patience. Since when did Wikipedia begin censoring valid commentary on user pages? When did it become a police state? Such images are appropriate for article use -- but suddenly inappropriate and unpardonably offensive when used elsewhere to illustrate a point? Comes off like hypocrisy to me! deeceevoice 15:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it curious/somewhat amusing that the poster Radiant (and others, as well) objects to the swastikas, but says absolutely nothing about the lynching photo. So, a symbol is more offensive than the photo of a murdered human being? One is somehow more offensive than the next? I guess it depends on who's looking at it -- right? :p Clearly, my point is not to endorse either image -- or the image of the pierced sexual organ, or the naked, seemingly frightened woman in bondage. It is about what I perceive as the incongruity/ridiculousness of certain aspects of wiki etiquette, and the pervasive racism and systemic bias on this website. deeceevoice 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • There's a very simple reason for that. I have images disabled in my browser (for the reason that I have a slow connection). The content of the swastika image is obvious from its title, this is less so for the lynching photo. Radiant_>|< 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with BrianSmithson. I know very little about deeceevoice, but it's her user page, and the images and words are put there as protest about how the user feels they have been treated. This is a very different senerio from the racist who had anti-muslim images and statements on his user page the other day, and who was quite rightly blanked and blocked. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Of course I read the page. Regardless of whether it's aimed at anybody in particular, it is blatantly offensive on purpose, incorporates swastikas, and violates WP:POINT, WP:CIV for foul language, WP:NOT a soapbox, and WP:UP. Radiant_>|< 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. I've placed the images there because they are illustrative and instructive in their offensiveness. They serve a purpose. Further, let me point out again that these images are available elsewhere on this website. (How else could I have incorporated them on my user page?) So, you're saying only some people can use certain images to illustrate a point and others can't? No offense intended, but that sounds rather a bit like fascist control to me. They are, after all, presented in context. deeceevoice 15:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • She wrotes that those were left by various vandals. talk to +MATIA 01:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And of course the page history proves her wrong. Radiant_>|< 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • These are from the talk page 1, 2. talk to +MATIA 01:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oh. And did I mention the endless campaigning for more RfA pilers on on article and personal talk pages (including my own)? Join in: Let's have a lynch party! Martha, you bring the picnic basket, Tommy 'll get the kerosene, and Dickie I'll bring the camera."

Is that acceptable here? To compare folks filing an RfAr (which means...me) to a family conducting a "lynch party"?

-Justforasecond 01:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone the likes of Clarence Thomas can make such a comparison ("a high-tech lynching," blah, blah, blah) and still get congressional approval to serve on the highest court in this nation (particularly with the questions raised about his conduct), then certainly I'm entitled. It's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. I'm not the only one who sees racism in the way this matter has been handled. It's a witch hunt -- and, frankly, the appalling comportment of one of Wikipedia's own sysops would seem to corroborate our worst suspicions. deeceevoice 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PS If you're wondering, I *did* inform her on her talk page that an RfAr had been filed. That is a requirement of any RfAr. I also contacted every user that posted on the RfC who did not know about the RfAr. I did not post it to any article pages. I can't believe anyone thinks those images and indictments are a reasonable response.

The adjectives are "article" and "personal" the subject is "talk pages." And, yes. You repeatedly campaigned for participation in your little cause all over article talk pages and even posted a solicitation to my own talk page -- after being asked repeatedly not to post there. The info is correct. deeceevoice 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:User page#What should I avoid?. While this user's page is disturbing, it doesn't really contravene policy, AFAIK. This user is involved in a case before the Arbitration Committee, and rather than starting a separate issue over this page, it's probably best to leave it be for now. Just my $0.02 BCorr|Брайен 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Having been contacted by deeceevoice before after reverting vandalism to her user space, she prefers to leave vandalism in place (and here I have to paraphrase) to show others the kind of hassle black editors on Wikipedia get regularly. If you look beyond the past month in the page history, you will note that all that stuff has been added to her page as vandalism, all she has done is restored the vandalism to make her point. -- Francs2000 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it doesn't affect only black people. There are a lot of not-good people, who harass others one way or the other here at WP. Yet, I'm not sure about the way she makes her point. talk to +MATIA 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it makes her point quite well. It is shocking. I don't know about the kind of vandalism you've had on your user page, but I've certainly never had swastikas plastered all over it. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 01:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Justforasecond has been engaging in a massive pattern of harassment about Deeceevoice (as evidenced by the fact that well over half of his total edits on Wikipedia have been related to Deeceevoice and having her sanctioned). I can attest to the fact that for as long as I've been on Wikipedia Deeceevoice has had a policy of using her talk page to showcase racist vandalism that other users have left there. Personally, I wouldn't leave this on my talk or user pages but she is making a valid point of showing others the racist vandalism that can happen to Wikipedia users. That said, this RfA against Deeceevoice is stirring up major problems between users here. I'm also not alone in believing that racism is at the core of those pushing this RfA.--Alabamaboy 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't affect only blacks. If you're e.g. white they just call you other bad names, e.g. nazi. And yes, that can also include swastikas. I don't think it's racism even, it's just trolling. Radiant_>|< 02:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let the Arbitrators examine the RFArb. Hopefully they'll find everything related to the case. talk to +MATIA 02:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. I left a message on Justforasecond's talk page asking him to let the RfA run its course without continually posting about Deeceevoice all over Wikipedia.--Alabamaboy 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pushing a POV causes reactions that are then explained away as being anti the POV pusher. How is anyone to know if you are short, black or jewish unless that's the POV you're pushing. DCvoice admits to pushing a pro-black POV and protecting her opinions even as trivial as protecting "affect" rather than "effect" just cause she thinks a thesarus is a dictionary. WAS 4.250 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

She was correct on affect. Guettarda 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And now the usual POV charges -- and a complaint about a dispute over grammar?!! Thank you, WAS, for illustrating the points I've made on my user page. Insane! deeceevoice 15:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Usernames which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious/ideological/homophobic hatred are not permitted. Personally, I feel this policy should also apply for user pages, since the same rationale applies there IMO. I think this userpage also breaks Wikipedia:Profanity. Jacoplane 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Deeceevoice is entitled to keep her user page as it is. However, I feel the arguments she makes are quite flawed and unhelpful. She confuses Wikipedians and vandals, essentially saying "look at this shocking racist vandalism; therefore, Wikipedia is full of racist bias". That's somewhat disingenuous: it means only that vandals are racist — not particularly surprising or, ultimately, a huge problem. Vandals are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and the racist attacks on DCV would have been reverted long ago if she had not made it quite clear that she wants them left as they are (for whatever reason). Another argument on DCV's page is that Wikipedia contains "shocking" offensive images (bondage, genital piercings); therefore, Wikipedians are hypocritical when they try to enforce Civility or No Personal Attacks policies — an unconvincing non sequitur, presumably to somehow justify Deeceevoice's violations of policy.

Let me state that there is almost certainly racist bias within Wikipedia articles, and we should recognise and deal with it. However, Deeceevoice's inflammatory user page (and her combatative editing style) is hardly the best way to fix it. — Matt Crypto 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as she isn't breaking any rules (i.e. attacking users by name, etc.), her userpage should be hers to do with as she pleases, IMHO. While the images on her userpage are offensive, they were retained there to prove a point; beyond which, Wikipedia isn't censored, and as she observed, the images are all available elsewhere on this site. Given that the images can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, there's really no argument against her placing them on her userpage -- it's the context in which they're presented that makes her userpage offensive to people. Which is precisely the point she's trying to make. I can understand how and why people would disagree with me here -- I was shocked too when I first looked at it. But as I read through it and realized what she was trying to do, I was more dismayed at the how's and why's of how the information got there than that it was there at all. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Profanity: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. So while those some of those images (the bondage image for example isn't linked to from any article) are allowed in the context of some articles, here they are not appropriate, and break WP:Profanity IMO. Jacoplane 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it boils down to whether the point she's making violates WP:POINT. Basically, is her user page disruptive to Wikipedia? I'm really on the fence on this issue. I don't think user pages should be treated like personal web pages where "anything goes". However, I also don't think offensive necessarily equals disruptive. In this specific instance, if Deeceevoice is truly leaving Wikipedia, it might make sense to blank her user page until/unless she returns. Carbonite | Talk 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Profanity really apply here because this is her user page: she's neither disrupting Wikipedia as a whole, nor is this profanity in articlespace pages. Another thing we have to keep in mind is that most (if not all) of the offensive content was placed on her own user page (or talk page) by other users... leaving it in would be bad if it were in the main articlespace, but it's in her own user page, so it's not disruptive. --Deathphoenix 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• By reinstating the vandalism after it was removed, she takes responsibility for it. Radiant_>|< 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if this was in the article namespace (or almost any namespace other than user), we wouldn't even be having this discussion; the images would have been removed instantly. It's only because it's user space that this is even being debated. It takes a lot to violate WP:POINT in user space, but the guideline does still apply there. User pages are viewable by everyone and they're intended for assisting the user in their work on the project, not for use as personal web space. I think the material on Deecee's page is borderline disruptive, though I won't go so far as to say it should be removed against her wishes. I do realize that the offensive material was not added by Deecee and she's rightfully angered that the images and text were placed there. I just can't agree that it makes sense to offend others to prove a point. Carbonite | Talk 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Deecee's been up against a lot lately and should get the maximum slack possible here. See for example this unfortunate exchange on her talk page. An anon suggested that she visit white supremacist websites, referred to her "tribal mentality," and accused blacks of wanting to commit genocide against the white race; when Deecee responded by calling Stormfront a crew of "inbred, sleazoid, mental-cretin, hatemongers" (pretty near a scientific description, if you ask me), administrator Friday threatened to block her for incivility while taking no action on the anon account. I think Friday's a great user and a great admin generally, but on the other hand, if I had gotten that note, I'd be feeling pretty disillusioned about Wikipedia, too. Let's give her a break for a bit, no?

What's most disturbing to me about all these conversations, though, is... where's the Wikilove, folks???? I can't be sure where the rest of you are, but here in Louisiana, it's Christmastime, and I think it's time for everybody on either side of this to back off and just relax for a while--we're all on Wiki for the same reason, after all, and it makes me sad to see this taking such massive amounts of time away from good editors. For better or for worse, it's at the RfAr now, and anybody who needs to can soon chime in there. Happy holidays to all... --Dvyost 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't enforce some common sense criteria for user pages then what's the point? Are you entitled to libel, slander, or copyvio on your user page too? -- Jbamb 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This user is an agressive militant. Logic say to delete his user page exactly like we delete shit in article's area. Yug (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One has to question how rigid your "logic" is, considering that you can't even get the user's gender correct.

It's a user page: unless the stuff on it is illegal or immoral, it's her call as to the face she wants to show the world. Don't like it? Don't look at it. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't call a page full of Nazi flags that has "Seig Heil Motherfucker" on the top immoral, I'm afraid there is no such thing. -- Jbamb 00:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain which of the following definitions of "immoral" is consistent with your example:

1. deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
2. base: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"
3. morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior"
4. bad: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life"
5. depraved: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"
6. with low moral standards, especially relating to sexual behavior ( archaic )

Don't like the page? Don't look at it. No gangs of armed men forced you there. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "deviating from what is considered right or proper or good"? -Justforasecond 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am a white, liberal, middle aged, midwestern guy, and I find nothing whatsoever offensive about the way she has constructed her user page. On the contrary, I find it funny in a certain twisted way. She is wearing the slings and arrows of her persecutors proudly, like any red-blooded American individualist. If some of you find it offensive, maybe because it hits a little too close to home for you, by all means don't go to her page. No one is forcing you to go to her page, you're doing it voluntarily. You all are putting yourselves in the position of "nannies", trying to impose your views on other people. You are the kind of people Alan King meant when he said that, "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Mind your own business, and let others mind theirs. Wahkeenah 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Homebrew computer club move to Homebrew Computer Club

Page already exists; need admin assistence to move. Thanks for your time. IanManka 23:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. IanManka 04:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• For future reference, such requests belong at WP:RM. --Bob Mellish 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

MilkMan accounts

Out of curiousity, I attempted to click on "email this user" for a random selection of MilkMan accounts, and to my surprise, these had emails attached to them. Is this something typical of vandals to do? To provide an e-mail address for such things during registration? I would not attempt to e-mail these accounts through Wikipedia yet, but just an observation that I thought was odd and wanted to share with everyone... --HappyCamper 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A month or two ago, when some vandals were creating accounts with the password in them (i.e. creating user names like "Thisaccountspasswordisa" or something like that), I logged in to them and changed the passwords because I had read earlier that indef blocking could contribute to server strain (which, it seems, is false). What I did notice, though, is that the emails were enabled, and though I can't remember the exact email, they were something like "wikipediareallysucksishouldruletheworld @ yahoo . com" or some rant like that. Didn't try emailing, but I highly suspect a false email. Then again, the email may have just been entered because the vandal suspected someone would log-in to that account. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable Citizens

I have noticed a bit of a vandalism trend lately with the notable citizens sections in the various town pages on WP. It seems like there is a big bullseye on that section where every Tom, Dick and Harry feels like adding in their name and anyone else that catches their fancy. I think that as a guideline -- if someone has a WP page on them they are notable enough to be included in that section but otherwise they should not be there. I am going to go on an editing comb through the page with this thought in mind ... feedback? novacatz 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; if they meet the notability test for an article, then they're probably going to be notable enough for a list in an article. Use with caution though, and read any supplementary text that went alongside it; for example, there is no article on John Fairfax but he's definitely notable. enochlau (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Article on JF? This is WP... sure there is an article....... :) novacatz 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Boo, you ruined my favourite example of Wikipedia's incomplete coverage of notable people. :P enochlau (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tab behaviour 138.106.143.116 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a feature that, if used correctly, saves clicks when using Wikipedia.

The key combination Ctrl-Tab takes the user of a browser to the address field. When focus is on this field and the page browsed is Wikipedia, I feel that pressing the Tab key should move the focus to the search field. This has to do with the fact that I use the search field most frequently, but I guess that is only natural since I am looking up meanings of words in an encyclopedia.

If this feature is no good, please explain why?

This isn't quite the place to post this, but I'll quickly explain something. Ctrl-Tab is a little problematic because in tabbed browsers like Mozilla Firefox, that key combination changes tabs. In general, Tab moves you around an interface, but because you can tab around the web page, one needs a separate key combination to get out of the browser control in IE, and I guess they chose Ctrl+Tab. So, Ctrl+Tab doesn't specifically focus on the address bar - the address bar just happens to be the only other focusable control in IE. enochlau (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That may be so but you did write

    "In general, Tab moves you around an interface..."

and I think that the first component focused in that interface should be the search field.