Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive130

Deleted Articles
When an article is deleted, is it somehow still accessible if the content was wanted for reference, to restore the article, or to use it in another article?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An admin is usually able to restore deleted articles & copy to userspace to be worked on. Easiest thing is to ask one listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no guarantee by the developers that deleted articles will remain available forever. We also haven't had reason to discard them in years.  GRBerry 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your replies. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgent external canvassing/disruptive article creation problem
Blatant canvassing in an attempt to stop the deletion of Michael L. Vincent. User also says he’s made “a couple extra copies of the article so they can't get them all.” I suggest that that the creation of other articles with this title should be blocked immediately. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Incident may be resolved now with the blocking of a puppeteer. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's another, Mike L. Vincent. I have no idea how it could be speedied/ i.e. what criteria so I'm bringing it here. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the redirect. Natalie (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange image vandalism?
Something strange. The image at Houtman Abrolhos has suddenly changed, for me at least, to that Wikipedia article breakdown image - you know, the one with "Pokemon characters", "Crappy Myspace bands", "actually useful stuff", etc. I assumed vandalism - either a Wikipedia image shadowing the Commons image, or a new version uploaded over the top of the Commons image. Neither appears to be the case. I've purged everything I can think of and I'm still seeing it. Are others seeing it too, or is it just me. I'm posting here because I still suspect that there is vandalism at the bottom of this, I just can't figure out how it has been done. Hesperian 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears normal to me --Melburnian (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like a misrendered version of Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png to me. I guess it is some kind of personal browser cache issue. I've never experienced anything like it. Okay, thanks Melburnian. Back to work everyone else. Hesperian 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing showing on my imac SatuSuro 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Bizarre, I checked the image's history and no vandalism has taken place, maybe you need to refresh your cache in case that this is the product of some old vandalism at the page itself. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Improper archiving of a user category for discussion
Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX has been archived as a speedy keep for the time being as being too close to the events which inspired it. The archived version does not include at least one "keep" reason which was in the original. It has also been closed as a "delete" on the active UCfD page. I can't work out who did what or why, because of inadequate edit summaries from the closers and archivers. I am in the process of leaving Wikipedia and would like the record of any debates in which I have participated to be accurate. I know it is a big ask, but is there anyone with an interest in keeping archived debates accurate and honest who can sort it out please? Thank you, and I hope goodbye. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One link to the debate is User_categories_for_discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the other version is at User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/February_2008. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you're asking, but there were two separate nominations. One was closed on 14 February 2008 by for the odd reason that it was too soon to nominate it. As such, a week went by and the category was nominated a second time. After the discussion,  closed it as deleted. What is not accurate or honest here? -  auburn pilot   talk  15:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for missing that, however it remains true that the initial archivinh was inaccurate as it did not include all the !votes in the discussion at the date itr was archived. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My further apologies, I have reviewed my contributions and it appears I am mistaken, thank you and good bye. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. For the record, the discussion was archived in the very same manner as it appeared on the discussion page. - auburn pilot   talk  15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had not been aware of the first nomination, as it appears no-one bothered to inform the category creator of it. I hope this will be my last edit ever! DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The concept of "improper archiving" is new to me. Will this instruction creep never end? The Mediawiki software (upon which Wikipedia runs) retains, by design, extensive archives of everything written on every single discussion page, ever--in fact it is necessary to go to considerable lengths to remove a single comment from the page history, unless one happens to have the rare and very parsimoniously applied "oversight" privilege. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well - it's jargon. It's called archiving because that's what the text of the templates say, but as a verb what it _means_ is "to close a discussion by drawing a box around it", and it's often considered rude to do so with an active discussion unless there is a time limit that has been agreed on in advance. —Random832 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Extensive canvassing on a DRV
Cdogsimmons has engaged in extensive canvassing on the deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah (by extensive, I mean over 150 talk page edits regarding this issue. Some of these notices were predicated on membership here (where membership is likely to indicate the way most might comment), while others were based on discussion here (I don't know whether those notices were neutral or geared toward one point of view).  Thoughts?  Ral315 (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He notified me based on the ANI discussion - and I am hardly on his side about the matter. NO problem with that - but the WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members canvassing does appear to cross the line. That said, it would seem that it has been done in good faith, as he hasn't just chosen people that would definitely support his POV. Viridae Talk 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at the wikiproject: WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship, I am revising my view to say that this is all well intentioned, but misplaced - the wikiproject specifically says they don't cover userboxes etc. Viridae Talk 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Contacting the "anti-censorship" project might have been iffy, but they don't care about the Great Userbox Wars. Other than that, he seems to have contacted everyone who weighed in on the ANI, and most of those people were either anti-Hezbollah-userbox or fed up with the whole thing. I don't see why JxG had to revert all of those "canvassing" posts. It was obnoxious. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that I don't see the point of Guy mass-reverting 138 edits. Was this defined as vandalism somewhere? Isn't that what rollback is supposed to be exclusively used for? Franamax (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Further state that I believe the only reason the post was not removed from my talk page was that I had responded to it, thus it was not subject to rollback; I appreciated the post and responded with my views; and I would ask JzG to please never remove a post from my talk page without at least providing an edit summary. Franamax (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 150 talk page posts is inappropriate canvassing, and rollback does not provide an edit summary. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned about this mass-reversion of messages. I saw the message Cdogsimmons left me, had a look at DR, & decided that I had nothing useful to say. Then this morning I received the notice that someone else had left me a message, & found nothing; only after a look at my page history did I see that Guy had rolled it back, & wondered WTF was going on. (Was Cds a troublemakere? Or just someone on the outs with the current Wikipedia in-crowd?) Whether or not Cds was canvassing (which FWIW I don't think he was), having his message removed without an explanation bothers me more than what Cds did. It was not handled well -- although handling things badly on Wikipedia seems to be more & more the norm nowadays, & Guy is hardly the worse example of this. :-/ llywrch (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies to anyone who was offended or annoyed by my messages. Please believe that it was not my intent to disrupt or bias the debate. My intent was to inform and notify. I will avoid such canvassing in the future and try to use the appropriate message board. Again I apologize to those who were disturbed. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, excess of zeal is quite forgivable and I fixed it in no time. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
I've done the bold thing and created Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence §  t / e  16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just a little dubious about this. It's going to be mostly redundant - we have a lot of noticeboards. How do you determine neutrality? Via reliable sources - and we already have WP:RSN. Neutrality problems on BLPs already go to WP:BLPN: most "undue weight" questions have been winding up at WP:FTN, and question of neutrality violated through original research go to WP:NORN. Methinks this is overkill. Moreschi 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see sound reasons. WP:RSN is primarily about questions of the form "Is X a reliable source for claim Y" (with lots of additional details...)  WP:NPOV/N ought to be about questions of the form: "does this article fairly represent the balance of all available reliable sources" or "given the existing article, how should it be changed now that we've found these new reliable sources".  Different questions, requiring different skill sets and attitudes to answer.  WP:NPOV/N may well require an editor to devote a couple weeks to research before replying, if they want to do a good job of replying.  My question is whether we have a sufficiently large set of editors who are willing to devote a couple weeks to researching topics they aren't that personally interested in, or whether we'll get drive by POV editors who just use it as another forum to argue for their POV.  GRBerry 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably both; drive by and committed will happen. However, more eyes always, always in the end seem to cause problems to dry up, since the people in the wrong can no longer hide their POV gaming out of relative sight after a while. It will take a while to balance out, I'm sure. Lawrence  §  t / e  06:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So far the board has attracted a report that should have gone to WP:BLPN, in addition to the editors that are currently at war on Talk:Homeopathy. I'm not going to nominate the board for deletion just yet, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. Also, we can't make binding content decisions, so this is somewhat different to the other noticeboards. Addhoc (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD and templates
Can someone explain the sudden explosion of templates on CAT:CSD? - Revolving Bugbear  22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Given a random sampling of six of them, all of them were tagged by User:MZMcBride. I'm going to ask him. - Revolving Bugbear  23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They were tagged over a week ago. There's a seven day delay for unused templates. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware, but the fact that they all appeared today means they were all tagged 7 days ago. My question is, is there any particular reason for the blitz that I'm not seeing, or did you just decide to do some housecleaning? - Revolving Bugbear  23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, MZMcBride has been doing that for awhile now. Being a template categorizer myself, it's very helpful work he's done. Lots of unused templates out there. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to imply anything nefarious or whatnot. I was more worried that I had missed some discussion that ended in a "zOMG template deletion time!" and would be thenceforth confused. - Revolving Bugbear  23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)From a (different) random sampling, they all appear to have been tagged for 7 days, and orphaned, so appear to fit the speedy criteria. If someone wants to say "Go", I'll start at the bottom and work my way up... GBT/C 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Um - how did these automatically appear on CAT:CSD? I thought time-delayed stuff for categories was unreliable, that's why we have the dated subcategories for the image CSDs. —Random832 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you do recent-changes patrol, you should read this essay.
I've documented several very troubling cases of long-lasting vandalism that I've seen. My essay raises some uncomfortable questions about whether our efforts to fight vandalism are succeeding.

User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/The vandals are winning!

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the essay, but I'd have to disagree, the vandals aren't winning. They may win some of the battles, but the war is ours! Useight (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Useight, great essay, but I think your point more is that even if we get 99.9% of the vandals, there is still those few cases that discredit Wikipedia, which I agree, and we need to strive for perfection. Thanks for the good read.  « Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sensationalist title, ever thought of writing for a tabloid? Can't say I've looked into levels of vandalism recently, but doesn't seem to present any information to demonstrate that vandalism rates or reversion rates are any worse than they were a year ago (say). IIRC after the Seigenthaler and the publicity from Jimbo's TV appearances we had a huge flood of vandalism over a few days, it soon slowed again. Really the vandals are winning if we all spend all our time in paranoia, biting new editors, being over aggressive to IP editors etc. Don't let the vandals win WP:RBI. Your advice also seems to lack one important idea, check the other contributions of the person you just reverted, I've seen plenty of cases where an RC patroller reverts 1 edit and moves on, leaving the other 20 in the contributors history unchecked. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple layers of vandalism detection - if a vandal edit isn't reverted by RC patrol, it may well be reverted by someone who has that article on their watchlist. Several of the examples you cite would fall into this category (reverts of 14 hours, say) so they might not have lasted for long periods of time. Hut 8.5 07:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example I found over a year ago. This edit lasted 41 days until I caught it. And by following up on the user's other edits I caught this one which I daresay would otherwise still have been there today. And here's an example of incompletely corrected vandalism; most of this was corrected, a bit at a time, but one bit remained for 45 days until I caught it. You might want to include some of these in your essay. -- Zsero (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Zsero brings up an important step that may seem self-evident, but is often overlooked. If you do catch a piece of vandalism, on your watchlist or in RC, make sure you check the contributions of the vandal after you revert.  I suspect that most people reading this might regard that as a "duh," but I run into a lot of vandals who were caught on their last edit, only to have the preceding six attacks go unseen. Dppowell (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Drawing a parallel between vandalism and terrorism is a little extreme, don't you think? --Stephen 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Among other things, I've found two substantial sections removed for a year and someone's vanity staying in for eighteen months. Also see User:Shii/Hoaxes. Graham 87 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas) and James Barnett
This article has a long history of being vandalized repeatedly by unregistered users and registered users alike. It seems that those who favor the school possibly the administration is in a constant attempt to remove any reference to James Barnett. What can be done? long term Semi-Protection seems to be in order.CholgatalK! 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas) has been protected. Rudget . 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the future, you might consider going to WP:RFPP. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Akrotiri and Dhekelia Your help would be required on the mentioned page. After the agreement on the talk page to remove the presidents comments from the Dispute with cyprus section. Port 84.66.85.195 has repeatedly re-added these comments (slightly re-harshed i might add). Can you please look into this matter. Thank you.Rockybiggs (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are referring to a statement made by the previous president. This is a new president with a mandate to demilitarise the island. This should be mentioned in the article. --84.66.85.195 (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD Backlog
We have several discussions that have been waiting for closure for several days, which can be found here: Miscellany_for_deletion. One is from the 16th and has been eligible for closure for over a week. Warning, it may take some reading as it's a combined nomination of several pages with a disagreement over the appropriateness of the same. I will gladly do everything except make the close decision (and I can't do the actual deletion) - ie. I'll tag talk pages of kept discussions, archive the discussions, etc. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear
Anyone from the BRITONS' England or Her Former Colonies might want to see to list of nicknames used in cricket, a list which is almost entirely unreferenced, looks as if it's derogatory in places, and confuses the Oxbridge "-ers" with a cricket-specific nickname (yes we know that the old duffers on TMS refer to Aggers and Johnners, but nobody else under the age of ninety does). Guy (Help!) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice title header. Does its best to rope you in. :P Rudget . 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say, Guy, even being the "rabid inclusionist" you've so grown to despise, I say send it to AFD. In fact I wouldn't blame you for deleting it outright (as unreferenced and unmaintainable, nothing to do with "notability"). Then again I'm from one of those intellectually backward colonies where nobody will be caught dead playing that sport ("CRICKET? You gotta know what a CRUMPET is to understand cricket..."), so I could be a little biased. — CharlotteWebb 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't despise inclusinists at all. I even nominated Badlydrawnjeff for sysop, way back.  I get a bit wound up when people advocate keeping stuff despite lack of independent sources, but inclusionism is every bit as valid as my own hard-line deletionism and both have the same end goal: to make the encycloapedia better.  And yes, I agree, this article makes it worse :-) As to crumpet, that can be interpreted one of two ways. Old Joak: "Mother always butters my crumpet".  Only works with a public school accent, of course, but I can do one of those having attended the only school in the English speaking world to include a Pope among its alumni (also Stephen Hawking). Guy (Help!) 00:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Category:English popes really narrows it down, plus Stephen Hawking's accent isn't terribly difficult to imitate. E for Effort, Guy. — CharlotteWebb 01:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Promoting Terrorism - I mean Vandalism
I want to talk about this.

3 things:
 * 1) This page was linked to from encyclopedia dramatica, which I'm not allowed to link to, under the title Vandalize Every Equation, with detailed instructions therefore.  That caused the page to be vandalised, and so it was locked.  The vandalism then spread to any other page on wikipedia, and much of it is still there.  (Trust me.)  This has happened many times before and the result is always the same - the vandalism spills out into random places and stays there.  I'm posting this here in the hope that you'll learn something this time, instead of your usual bureacratic fucktardery.
 * 2) Avraham believes that posting this deserves a 1 month block, as well as 2 pages of huge boxes.
 * 3) My ISP is like a proxy server, and if I vandalise wikipedia anymore, I will be banned from the internet.

They've gone and done it again. You have a lot of work to do; I suggest you get started. Have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.131.167 (talk) coped by MBisanz from AN unprotected  —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Checking the described ED article, I see that you're is telling the truth; it is linked. However, it was linked many, many months ago, and the article has already been semi-protected due to vandalism, presumably from ED. If you want full protection, you can bring it up at WP:RFPP. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal at WT:RFA regarding RfB passing %
For those who don't watch WT:RFA or the CENT template, there is a proposal at WT:RFA to reduce the passing percentage of RfB's below 90%. If you have an interest, feel free to weigh in either way. Avruch  T 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The passing threshold is 85%, not 90%. Dragons flight (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When was it raised? Back when I was active on RfWhatever, the threshold was 80%. --Carnildo (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Must be a common misperception, then. Avruch  T 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the "passing percentage" for this proposal, or do I even want to know... — CharlotteWebb 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/New World Translation
This arbitration case has been dismissed and the final decision is available at the link above. Based on discussion on the case page and the editing history of the article, it appears that the underlying dispute may have been resolved. If serious disputes recur, an application to reopen the case may be made on Requests for arbitration. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I protected the noticeboard due to the recent edits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)  06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested
Still quite green as an admin, so I'm asking for advice... a user asked me about User:Ceauntay, which appeared to be some sort of test area for an article. Upon investigation, it turns out that an IP - and several different variations of the same user name, such as User:Ceauntay1, User:Ceauntay2, User:Ceauntay3, etc. - are using the pages to create some sort of fake fictional universe. (I can't find anything that indicates the characters or "films" have ever existed.) It seems to me that the pages should be deleted, but since it is in userspace I wanted to inquire first, Thanks in advance. --Ckatz chat spy  06:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this help? On the buttom of all pages "Jane Hoop Elementary by Rita Christensen" Maybe some sort of a school project. But what should we do user pages are not really for this sort of thing, but do we want to throw away kids? Igor Berger (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend notifying the accounts in question that this is not a suitable use of Wikipedia per WP:NOT and give them a week or so to make local copies of their material before zapping it. --Chris (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad that we do not have sandbox accounts for kids to learn. That would be great to raise new Wikipedians. We should set up restricted accounts that are protected from being index by search engines for kids to exepriment and learn about Wikipedia world. We would also get much less vandalism if we do something like that away from the main Wikipedia space. Igor Berger (talk) 08:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Utopia.  нмŵוτн τ  08:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not! Make a proposal. We can send all the indef blocks, socks, trolls, vandals, and the rest of the nice people there as well. They will all be behind a firewall screen no harm done..:) We can dub it The Wikipedia Colony. Igor Berger (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be sure not to be WP:BITEy. Let them know they can play like this if they also contribute to the encyclopedia. That's my usual philosophy. Folks can use user space for almost any nonsense they want - as long as there are encyclopedia contributions mixed in as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Spotteddogsdotorg
Be on the lookout. Socks of have resumed after a long period of dormancy.


 * Targets:
 * User:CFIF
 * Roy Leep
 * WTVT
 * WCAU (TV)
 * etc.


 * Recent socks including TOR nodes:

—Wknight94 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical edits:
 * Changing local news anchor bios into attack bios.
 * Nominating local news anchor bios for deletion - sometimes in conjunction with the first edit. Makes articles look like attack articles and then tags them with db-attack to trick admins into deleting them (he has succeeded several times).
 * More recently resorting to lunatic rants.

Vicki Iseman
I've asked User:VirtualSteve, closer of the AfD, to undo his protection of this article. There was no edit warring, he simply seems to have decided that the pending deletion reviw of the article must go through before any more editing (even a redirect per WP:ONEEVENT) is performed. I believe this is an abuse of admin powers to win an argument and have asked him several times to undo, but he refuses. Would somebody please review. If someone agrees that protection really is necessary, I'll be very surprised but I'll accept it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see edit warring about the redirection in the history. Redirected by Doc, reverted by Buster, redirected again by you.  Probably better if he hadn't reverted again and then protected; but there clearly was an edit war forming, so somebody needed to step in.  Had he seen a consensus to redirect or merge; he'd have said so, so he believed he was locking it in the consensus version.  Protection is appropriate; and the most I'd do myself is remove his protection and immediately reprotect.  Since the net effect is the same... why waste the time?  GRBerry 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfDs need merging
Over at WP:DELT, there are loads of AfDs all for "non-notable Dungeons & Dragons characters", that really want merging since they all impinge on the same point. I'm not sure how; could someone experienced oblige, maybe? Cheers! TreasuryTag talk contribs  19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They were only listed there today, so should be closed (and possibly merged) when the AfD discussion ends (in about 5 days time) &mdash;αlεx•mullεr 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely they should be merged now to centralise discussion? I've often seen multi-article AfDs... TreasuryTag  talk contribs  19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a number with different point (some in one supplement, others in multiple, some in books, others not). I'd rather have multiple AFDs, especially if they could be merging into different articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry – I thought you meant merging the articles on completion of the AfD (if that's consensus). But yep, Ricky81682 makes a good point <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;αlεx•mullεr 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightwing1988
Because of his personal attacks towards one particular user, I think he deserves to be blocked indefinitely. Not just blocked, but banned. And don't say he has not edited since January, because he has edited under his IP address (75.134.82.172). Please block the IP too. 124.181.64.190 (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're asking us to block for something done a year ago. Lighwing1988 has not edited since January. This report is stale. — Kurykh  22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said, DON'T SAY HE HAS NOT EDITED SINCE JANUARY! He has edited under his IP address too, you know (I listed the IP above)! 124.181.64.190 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This may well be true, but the user he is said to have attacked hasn't edited for a year either.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN   aka john lennon  22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) If it quacks like it duck, its probably a duck. Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL here. ;Tiptoety talk 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not letting Lightwing get away with those nasty comments, are you? 124.181.64.190 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, would you like to point out how he has done anything bad under his IP? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This IP is apparently a banned user, . JuJube (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, but decided not to post it since the IP might be assigned to somebody else now (they do shift every once in a while). Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As for bad things he did under his IP, he did, for example, this. 124.181.64.190 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And you feel that warrants a ban? Tiptoety  talk 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, I agree that some sort of short warning block is necessary if he continues this behavior. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That edit is about three months old. Anything recent? JuJube (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I feel stupid that I did not see the date. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, the attack (if I'm thinking right) was in March 2007... (edit conflicted seven times...) WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN   aka john lennon  23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re "but he did it too!" - if he decided to jump off a cliff, would you, too? Two wrongs don't make a right. (But two rights make an airplane) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Series of IPs harassing editors
This has been the second straight weekend but, I've noticed a string of IPs from various locations harrasing editors. Last weekend it was Jimbo Wales and User:Angela and now this weekend it is User:Webwarlock and User:Shadzar that are getting attacked by multiple IPs. This may be a large gang of editors, and looks more likely that it is not from one editor. Anyways, just to let more admins aware of the situation. I've protected the pages that were hit.-- JForget 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Magical Edit Changes at Killian documents?
Can anyone explain how the ref to "Texas Air National Guard" can change to "Texas Army National Guard" and then back again without any edit indications in this series of supposedly consecutive diffs:, , , ? Not a big deal, but the Killian-related articles seem to draw more than their fair share of odd stuff. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice that you are still peddling WP:TRUTH there, displaying the same obsessive interest as before you were blocked. Hmmmm. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The only "Hmmmm..." here is why you decided to pop by to make a rather derogatory sounding non sequitur. The past 24 hrs I've dealt with dubious short lived IP's, dodged being apparently baited into 3RR, and made some contribs to discussions in Global Warming, Killian Documents (of course), George W. Bush military service controversy, Dan Rather and Universal health care. And the only thing I've been "obsessive" with has been WP:HONESTY and WP:VERIFY, which occasionally, I suppose, means peddling the "Truth".


 * All of which, though, has nothing to do with my posting here. Any thoughts on that sequence, or is it just one of those "nothing to see here, folks, just move along..." things? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is that ref? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of non sequiturs.....


 * It has this to do with it: you were unblocked on the strict understanding of improved behaviour. Your behaviour is marginal at best, looking at recent comments on the talk page.  And you're still advocating your novel synthesis of primary sources.  Guy (Help!) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering all the provocations, I think I can honestly say I have been keeping my cool rather nicely. Trying to keep politically sensitive Wikipedia articles from descending into things that more resemble transcripts from conservative radio shows is not exactly the most enjoyable of activities. Last Spring my only intention had been to update some discussion issues on the Killian related Talk pages I had participated in the prior Fall and then leave. That instead turned into a massive edit war with several apparent LGF puppets and apparently at least one hacker. When that was done, and I had an evident opportunity to make big changes to the articles unmolested, I didn't -- I was pretty fed up with the whole situation by then. This last bit of excessive scuffling came about my spotting a bit of nonsense inserted into an article and my merely trying to do the right thing in removing it. That brought out that the articles are now "owned" again, and any and all efforts to deal with even blatant issues like un-cited POV nonsense with dangling "Citation Missing" tags left for ages is met with massive resistance.


 * And in regards to your novel synthesis of primary sources claim -- for the sake of a "clarifying" discussion on a Talk page, I made use of the provision of WP:PSTS that allows for citing primary sources when "they only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge," and "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." If you are citing, say, a picture of a Zebra, it's not exactly synthesis to say it's a picture of a Zebra unless you want to claim that even this sort of thing is not "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge".


 * Does this cover the situation accurately? But again this has nothing to do with why I'm posting here -BC aka Callmebc (talk)


 * Seriously, can anybody explain that magic-seeming edit and re-edit sequence? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although both "Texas Air National Guard" and "Texas Army National Guard" are mentioned in the article, I see no changes to them, magic or otherwise. Can you please be really specific about what you're seeing? Bovlb (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be some sort of red highlighting when it gets changed from one to the other? I have more specifics below. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two instances of the string "Texas Army National Guard" and five of the string "Texas Air National Guard" in all five versions of the article; and they appear in the same places in each. "Texas Air National Guard" appears in the diff table of two of the diffs, and "Texas Army National Guard" appears in the diff table of the other two diffs, but this is because different paragraphs of the article are being shown. Both of the paragraphs in question are present in all versions of the article. —Random832 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought when you make small edits, the changes appear in red. For example, the very next edit in the sequence shows SEWilco changing the text in question again, this time from "Texas Air National Guard" to "Air National Guard" and you quite clearly see the change. But in the immediate prior sequence I had listed,, , , , the text simply changes from Texas Air National Guard to Texas Army National Guard and then back again with no highlighting to point out the changes.


 * Again I don't consider this a big issue, but I am kind of curious.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're just quoting the same diffs again. Please indicate which of the various uses of the two terms you see changing in which direction in each diff.  Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr...I think a very big Whoops! and apology is in order here -- it now looks to be only a very dumb screw-up on my part because I was advancing through the edits and thought I was looking at the same area of the article when it was actually bouncing from one paragraph to another with similar terms in somewhat similar positions:

The text I was looking at is in the very first paragraph of the article where it goes (currently), "The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate[1]) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard." The bit that's currently called the "Air National Guard" is what I was noting.

1) In the 1st diff of the sequence, you see that IP 149.169.94.153 makes a vandal entry, and that Bush's service is listed as being in the Texas Air National Guard.

2) In the 2nd diff of the sequence, you see IP 149.169.94.153's "contribution" being reverted by SEWilco and then another change being made by IP 149.169.94.153. If you look at what at first glance appears to be a change to "Texas Army National Guard (TexARNG)" in the first paragraph is in fact another paragraph further in.

3) In my 3rd diff of the sequence, you see Otter Smith reverting IP 149.169.94.153. Again you're still seeing a paragraph further in.

4) In my 4th diff of the sequence, you are now back to the first paragraph with an edit by Jc-S0CO, where Texas Air National Guard now "reappears".

5) Of course it doesn't help that in the 5th diff of the sequence, SEWilco actually does change the wording of the service to Air National Guard.

6) And what really didn't help my distracted thinking was that Bush's Guard service had been wrongly listed as United States National Guard for a long while until I pointed it out a short time back.

Still, though, in any case, my bad -- I thought it was just some minor matter so I didn't pay nearly enough attention to what I was looking at in the sequence, and I very much apologize for bringing it up here and wasting people's time. If it helps any, I will likely not hear the end of this little kerfuffle anytime soon (seriously -- I can almost hear some lips smacking now....) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

References that have gone south for the winter
Suppose I find in an article some alleged "fact statement" followed by a HTTP source, and try to read the source, and find the reference is not there.

What is the Wikiproper procedure in this situation?

- delete the now unsupported fact statement

- add a code

- delete the code for the source, AND add a code

- leave the article code alone and put a note on the talk page

- none of the above.

??????????? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a "date recovered" thing? If so, you might be able to Way-back Machine to it. --Haemo (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try using Archive.com on the URL to see if it can be recovered. If not, you probably need to find another source.  bibliomaniac 1  5  I see no changes 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've never heard of Way-back Machine or Archive.com till now.


 * The paricular case that prompted me to ask my question is (when last checked) ref 14 in Dana Ullman. Could someone take a look at this and suggest what might be done?


 * My question is broader than a specific example; I have run into the problem quite often even though I don't edit a lot. Is the issue of vanishing references a big problem for Wikipedia?  I'm curious because I have never seen a discussion of the problem.  Wanderer57 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

dead link --NE2 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When I insert and look at a preview, link 14 has become link 9.  I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation for that, but I have no idea what it is.  Can you explain? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you editing the whole article, or just one section? -- Zsero (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was it. Now I know why you guys/gals get the big bucks.  Wanderer57 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Many such links were to online versions of print news sources. Those can be cited without a convenience link if they're no longer online. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So then links to online newspaper stories that are expired after X number of years must be a huge issue? Where might I find this discussed?  Wanderer57 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It comes up periodically on the talk pages of policies like WP:V. Here's the last time I saw it referenced, in a different question. Basically, newspaper citations are verifiable even if they're pre-internet and have no possible link, so it's not particularly problematic when the link dies. Internet sources, on the other hand, might be lost if they're not on the wayback machine. Cool Hand Luke 09:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See Citing sources . Graham 87 10:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why is the Incidents page protected? MarioPartyBitch (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly vandalism. Pretty constant at this rate, which is extremely annoying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:The Undertow
As you may or may not know, The undertow has decided to leave wikipedia. He has deleted and protected his page, however, I've restored the the undertow's talkpage, added a courtesy blanking, and reprotected the page. I have done this on the basis of previous precedents that the userpage can be deleted, but the usertalk page can be accessed. The reason for my posting is I wanted to make sure that may reasoning of this is correct, and that I have done the correct thing. Thank you in advance for your input. Icestorm815 •  Talk  20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am sad to hear this. He was one of the good guys. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very sad to see him go *tear*, he will be missed. And Icestorm, I agree that it is good practice to leave and blank the talkpage for obvious communication reasons. Tiptoety  talk 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears one of the reasons behind him leaving was that his private e-mail address was posted on his talk page. Correct?  If so, maybe he deleted it on purpose.  Selected deletion may be in order at the very least.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, was not aware of the circumstances, maybe that archive page (if it is an archive page) can be deleted. Or maybe it should be oversighted. Tiptoety  talk 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I just saw what you saw - that he left it undeleted in an archive page. It looks like quite a few revisions of more than one page would need to be oversighted to get rid of them.  I guess let him complain if he wants to re-delete.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He specifically said that he was not requesting oversight because he thought it would be pointless. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. His call I guess.  (I didn't read through the whole discussion - just enough to get a general gist).  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No! Not The Undertow! It seems a lot of editors have gotten pretty frazzled lately. Useight (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good Lord. This is very unfortunate.  bibliomaniac 1  5  I see no changes 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No Biblio. It's fortunate The guy grew to hate it here. Best we all move on, for The_Undertow and WP. Pedro :  Chat  23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.148.75
This IP editor continues to make a few good edits and a lot of bad edits, often reverting someone's edit and reverting his own reversion without an edit summary. He's now removing DynamicIP from other IP talk pages he's used. --NE2 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you tried talking with this user about their edits, either about the highway content edits or about the removal of the AT&T Internet Services tags? I would suggest you walk down that road first.  If you think someone is making bad edits, you should consider taking the first exit at the article talk page(s) or the second exit at the user talk pages, instead of continuing on and taking the exit to WP:AN.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have many times; he deletes talk page entries and never replies. --NE2 04:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC created at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. Evil saltine (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Long term abuse, need assistance
For over the past year, there has been an editor who is a Bell Canada user who has been intermittently vandalizing any and all articles relating in some way to Haim Saban. This ranges from posting this slant or whitewashing mentions of Saban's productions from articles. Supposedly, this was dealt with. However, this individual has hopped ranges on his ISP, leading to rangeblocks to prevent abuse and leading to various e-mails by innocent anonymous users.

Abuse reports have been ineffective. Range blocks cannot continue to be used. Discussion with the IP proves fruitless (I would provide an instance where I had been trying to communicate, but I was met with the same disdain and edits to my own comments). It is pointless to continue to block these ranges and the IPs that this individual uses. I need a better solution.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a sample edit of a human-to-human interaction with this individual.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Announce protection for articles relating in some way to Haim Saban and after a week or a month protect the article. Edits can be made by admins only.Momento (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Protections have occurred. Haim Saban, Shuki Levy, and Saban Entertainment have been semiprotected for nearly a year. It is not feasible to protect every page that features Saban Entertainment or Power Rangers on it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

came back as soon as I unblocked another range. I need to prevent this in other ways.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And longer-term anon-only rangeblocks won't help? -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there will be more and more ranges to be blocked. These are anon-only, because he has also created an account on one occasion to continue his abuse.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Too bad. There are only 1024 addresses covered by Sympatico HSE SYMF20070109-CA, but you're saying he has the run of all 524,288 in BELLCANADA-16? -- Avi (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Find/create a category that relates to them all, then add it to VoABot II's watchlist, and it'll be more attentive to changes made to any page within that category. Beware, though, as there's a limit of three active watch categories. -- slakr \ talk / 03:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He went from 70.52.175.121 yesterday to 76.64.20.176 today, and in 64.231 something last year before the abuse report. It is difficult to keep this guy in check, and Bell Canada/Sympatico have not been helpful.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We only have to block around 270M IP's to cover that, piece of cake! [[Image:Smiley green alien sick.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryulong
My user page was recently deleted and violated by Ryulong. I was already informed that my editions on my user page were allowed because I was only keeping them on a temporary basis. I am asking that you please put my user page back the way it was before it was vandalized. &mdash; Nuclear  Vacuum  14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He as also deleted every image I have added. Please also return my images to the way it was. &mdash;  Nuclear  Vacuum  14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) From a quick look back through the deleted edits, it appears that you were using your userpage for long tracts about the made-up "United People's Darughas of Antarctica", as well as other fictional countries. Given that the information had been there for months (not a temporary basis), that you don't own your userpage, and given also that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a permanent free webhost, I don't see a particular problem with the deletion. I definitely don't see it as either violation or vandalising. GBT/C 14:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the userpage material is probably within policy but if you dispute the delection, you can raise the matter for a deletion review. Or, if you need a copy of the deleted content to post it somewhere off Wikipedia, let us know and it can be e-mailed to you. (Admins should let users know this when deleting large chunks of userspace content, and should generally give a warning first.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many other wiki sites with less strict focus than wikipedia, for a few see Comparison of wiki farms. I'm sure one of those could be suitable for your content. Like Newyorkbrad says, we'd be happy to give you access to the content so you can put it on another site. henrik  • talk  14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NuclearVacuum's actions were brought up on these pages before. He has not been using his user page to hold this content for a temporary basis. He appears to only be here to host this content in a free place. If he wants to use a MediaWiki format, then there are other places that he can put this information. If he wants the raw code, it can be provided, but it serves Wikipedia no purpose to have it up on his page since November.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am now aware of how to make a "wiki" page for my work. But for informational purposes, can you please put my userpage back the way it was and allow me to delete it in my own way.  This is so I can take the HTML (witch I do not have backed up on my hard drive) and put it exactly the way it looked, but on a different web site.  This is also because Ryulong (along with deleting my day dreams) also deleted my other projects I was using to add to Wikipedia articles.  Like the "Slavic languages" box to show its history, I was using it so it would be something like the Germanic languages' box.  He also deleted my many other projects, as well as ALL my userboxes.  All I ask is that you restore my user page to its former status so I may clean it up my way (following all the guide lines of Wikipedia). &mdash;  Nuclear  Vacuum  22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking sourced content
I am experiencing problems with User:Mareklug on Diplomatic reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article who keeps on removing content he dislikes, despite them being well sourced, without supplying new sources to justify these edits. He also got involved in personal attacks at me which caused other editors to warn him of WP:NPA policy (he for an example accused me of falsifying quotes on Cuba so I asked him to point at such falsification which he obviously couldn't do). To put it short the article is about diplomatic reaction to the recently declared independence of Kosovo. Suggested title "recognition of Kosovo..." was not adopted therefore we include all international reactions. Countries that do not recognize Kosovo have no obligation to publish an official document as they consider the situation legally unchanged (therefore their positions can be clarified through statements of high officials as there is no legal need to formalize this decision through parliament unlike countries that recognize and that must do this through the prescribed procedure).

I am afraid he is going for a 3RR, so that his edits could not be undone and that he is counting on lengthy dispute resolution process during which he will push for his unsourced edits. As he is not a simple vandal who makes the most obvious blanking but removing sections with sourced information which is vandalism per definition (Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary.) he could indeed succeed in this bypassing of rules.

I hope you can help us protect the article from such destructive behaviour. --Avala (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He has just reverted the article with "That was your 3rd revert. You're done!". Previously he called me "Mr. Serb Wikipedia Administrator" and wrote some insults in caps. The only reason I am putting this here and not in dispute resolution is the fact that this article is currently active, on-going and cannot wait for the process to finish. It's not a dispute over some historical fact so that article can be locked until it's resolved. --Avala (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article (please don't complain about the version I protected, see The Wrong Version) and hopefully you can reach a consensus on how to proceed with the article.  Maxim (talk)  15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there will be consensus. I am also afraid of sockpuppets - we have 2-3 users who registered just to spam the talk page. Block for the ongoing process article will also make the article itself suffer from any news getting added. So I have doubts over this being resolved so easily but I do hope it will happen. --Avala (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug deleted some of Avala's edits because the references were not relevant or reliable. So he had good reason to delete them. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I did not even know I was being denounced here, until a friendly stranger left me a head's up on my talk page. Wouldn't simple courtesy require notifying me, that a complaint is being made re: my person and edits, so I could defend my reputation and those edits? :) To wit:
 * I did not accuse Avala of misquoting the ranting Fidel Castro; this is a straw man, and I ignored his thread in this matter, which he now makes into my accusing him and failing to back it up.
 * I did accuse him of misquoting the Foreign Minister of Armenia, as well as of misquoting me (he wrote on the article's talk page, that I called him "Mr. Serb").


 * The FM of Armenia was quoted by Avala in the article text as having said: "bla bla bla", whereas what he really said was: "bla bla bla yet. The matter is being discussed, and an official decision is forthcoming." Avala used this doctored, misquoted reference as evidence, to portray Armenia as having officially rejected the declaration of independence of Kosovo! He did so also on the requisite maps (Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png), coloring hte country there red, and not once, but a number of times, finally desisting on this particular score, while introducing other "nonlinearities" :).


 * For the rest of how Avala edits, and other editors' reactions to same, please examine the article talk page (long!), the article's revison history page, as well as the edit war on Commons over the abovementioned maps, also sustained with Avala's participation, and which caused week-long page protection lock-ups there, as well.


 * I think this will suffice as evidence.


 * If I may have the benefit of commenting: An admin edit-warring, and causing page protections on two projects in the course of collaborating with others on one new subject? Oh my. I think, this certainly calls for drawing attention to his being an Admin on the Serb Wikipedia.  Hardly a personal attack, it is an indictment of questionable admin oversight on that Wikimedia project.  And, far be it for me to claim sock-puppetry (I hope, that his is not an insinuation leveled at me, because it is baseless; I am and always will be one Mareklug), but the two "other editors to warn [me] of WP:NPA policy" (strictly speaking, only one mentioned "personal attacks") -- are gentlemen introducing skewed Serbian POV to the otherwise impartial many-editor presentation of material in this article. They are User:Top Gun, and User:Tocino. I suggest that they bear biased witness. One of them accused me of waging a jihad -- his word -- on behalf of the Kosovo Albanians; I have never met a Kosovar and wouldn't recognize a word of Albanian. :)


 * And so I suggest that interested administrators peruse the complete record, as well as complaints lodged uninwited, among others, on my own talk page, made by apparently frustrated editors, objecting to the poor quality of edits by Avala.


 * If possible, I would like to request an RFC on Avala's edits in the matter of Kosovo, as I find them disruptive, and his defense of them, intimidating and inappropriate. I am not the only one, to judge from the talk page content and edit summaries.


 * Furthermore, I object vehemently at Avala's use of wikilingo and wikiwarnings to justify his own POV edits and discourage the correction of these edits by others, including me. By making accusations of blanking and vandalism, whenever his shoddy edits are removed or recast, especially, when falsely sourced (as in the case of Armenia or Cuba (where no official stance exists, because apparently, Cuba has no official position yet), Avala is scaring away people who disagree with him on the merits. That's intimidation, and it is totally uncalled for. If anything here needs protection "from destructive behavior", it is the impartiality of Kosovo articles subjected to Avala's editing, and the typical friendly atmosphere of editing collaboratively, even if coming from divergent viewpoints.


 * In the matter of removing the Fidel Castro-rant at Javier Solana, which was used to buttress portraying the official state position of Cuba, I wasn't the editor who removed it, yet again, prior to the latest series of Avala reverts, that triggered page protection. There was lodged vehement disagreement from other editors in this matter, also evidenced by section "Cuba" on the talk page, which, distressingly, mirror several other sections-objections by variety of editors to Avala's edits on that page. Fair to say, I suggest there be a pattern. :) Cordially, --Mareklug talk 19:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

May I quote you? "Stop misquoting and introducing POV!" directed at me on Cuba discussion. And you called my sources (statements of high officials of Cuba) not good enough. What is a good source then? And you called these statements "a rant" - now if you call Cuban statements a rant is that POV or my imagination? --Avala (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a saying in America: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, surely it's a ...quack? :) I did call Fidel Castro's rant a rant, for rant it is. Did I call it a rant in the article space? No. So, prey tell, why are you hassling me? Did you misquote me? Yes. Did you misquote the Foreign Minister of Armenia (and use this to source bad edits on two projects)? Yes. Did I ask you to stop? Yes. Perhaps it is your imagination after all?... Hey, " there's no countries... and no religion, too..." :)
 * "Did I call it a rant in the article space? No." I agree you didn't, even worse - you removed it completely. --Avala (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And User:Tocino restored it. And then, some third person, who objected persuasively on the talk page, removed it. And it was that way, gone, when I got to making my changes. And I made my whole lot of improvements, quite apart from Cuba's absence.  They you 3RR'ed your way into page protection (of course, your reverts were re-incorporating this Castro rant, as documentation for the purported official stance of Cuba, quite unencyclopedic of you, that). Your point? Something about blanking? Why are you dragging me through the coals here?  Looks to me more and more like abuse of Wikipedia mechanism of noticeobard and harassment of editor who does not share your POV, Mr. Administrator Who Can't Administer Here. --Mareklug talk 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino in main article space, on discussion page: "the Polish fascist Mareklug...."

 * Incidentally, the abovementioned User:Tocino, on whom you solely based your complaint above, as far as "other users" calling me on my alledged violations of WP:NPA (here : The personal attacks by User:Mareklug towards User:Avala are out of order. Mareklug seems biased in favor of the Kosovo Albanian side and it feels like he is on a jihad against Serbia' as evidenced by his proposed title for this article which smacks of POV (the offending title: Recognition of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence :)), just referred to me further down the same talk page thusly : the Polish fascist Mareklug, who's unreasonable, fudges facts and has an agenda for all to see.


 * Ahem, since you are an administrator on the Serb Wikipedia, how long a ban do you suppose he would get for this ...on Serb Wikipedia? Considering especially, that nowhere have I stated that I am Polish, or a fascist :), (it hasn't come up :)) and, presumably, this violation of WP:NPA was sourced :) via some sort of cyberstalking, because even my Wikipedia user page does not state these characterizations of me :) -- and, I was not even conversing with User:Tocino -- this particular bit of wikipedistic ethnic clensing is a drive-by shooting. (I metaphorically call it an act of wikipedistic ethnic clensing, because, ever since rants on Usenet, an invocation of Hitler by anyone, or calling someone a Nazi or a fascist automatically ends the thread, so it is a terminating offense. :)) So, please, tell us, how long a ban?


 * Let's say, it's User:Tocino's only 2nd offense, albeit in 2 days (same talk page, day earlier, abusing another user and being called on it by yet another: ). Cordially, --Mareklug talk 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Transitguru
Reported a few days ago with this retrieved from the archive, but apparently no adminstrator action taken;

User has been permanently blocked for repeatedly spamming the Transit article and a few other ones as well. Since his block, the transit article has had the same spam link inserted by IP editors five times and also once in the Airport article. The IPs are all in the range 207.244.xxx.xxx. WHOIS says this range belongs to Qwest Communications Corporation in Denver. The spam is near identical and clearly still Transitguru, but I don't know what to do about a range of IP addresses.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * File a request at Request for checkuser, listing the blocked account and all the IPs. It's straightforward and usually very quick. Darkspots (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ask for the link to be listed on the spam blacklist.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The IPs don't actually link to the site in the above diffs, however. Darkspots (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, SpinningSpark submitted an RFCU, which came back confirmed that this is indeed a case of an indef-blocked user using IPs to evade their block. Alison said one thing that could be done was a softblock of a tight IP range including most of the IPs used to spam the article. Can an administrator look at this and say whether the volume of spamming makes this kind of block appropriate? Darkspots (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this report the article has been repeatedly spammed again

Although this is not major league as spamming goes, it is persistent, getting more frequent and, I think, needs the message sent that we are not going to idly accept it. I therefore request;


 * Semi-protection of the Transit article
 * Soft block of 207.224.72.0/21 as noted at the RFCU
 * Soft block of 71.37.240.0/21 the range the spammer is using now. WHOIS resolves this range to the same ISP, so it is clearly the same to my mind, but will submit a new RFCU if required.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * DAB page Transit semi-pp for now. Other action reserved. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Airport has not been edited for a while, but I have it watchlisted. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeking resolution or response
I have posted this incident report for the third time; it was archived twice previously with no comment or resolution. Perhaps it was overlooked or maybe there is something wrong with it? Either way, I'd truly appreciate some sort of feedback or resolution.

Thank you. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for you help!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Rschen7754
User:Rschen7754 keeps reverting tags on my userpage with my SSP case with User:Artisol2345 (my cousin). Users at WP:USRD accused my cousin as actually being me, especially since my cousin went on Wikipedia under my computer over last summer. The result of my SSP case was that I was a meatpuppet of my cousin (and I admit it, too), and the users have no definite answers.

Now, Rschen7754 keeps readding the sockpuppet categories onto my user and talk page. Although anyone can edit my page (as with all user pages), I believe that this is my userspace and I think that I can remove those categories. Even if I do, they can still find the past discussion at Requests for checkuser/Case/Artisol2345. The evidence there may seem convincing, but please note that I have always said this and I will continue to do so if necessary: I am not a sockpuppet of Artisol2345. All I'm asking is to have Rschen7754 leave my userspace alone, just as he asked me to do the same at User:Rschen7754/Problems with Wikipedia. I've been trying to assume good faith throughout my edits in WP:USRD, and I have been doing so. But Rschen7754 stated that "he was in the right and I was in the wrong." This person has gotten on my nerves long enough. I want Rschen7754 to leave my userspace alone. What should be done? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is different than the user states. The RFCU was confirmed - therefore, the tags need to stay on. Furthermore, if you look at the diff, this is a straw man or distortion of my position - I was in the right in that particular instance. This user has been very disruptive during his editing career. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see it from his contributions. So I edit like him sometimes. Big whoop. So the CU was confirmed. It's not like I had a choice. I know I did some silly moves too, especially during the SSP. Then you came and accused me again when the 75 IP came in. I don't see my cousin's edits being disruptive. In fact, I checked pretty much a long time ago from his contributions when you and my cousin were building up exit lists together. (He taught me how to create a list, too, as well as other forms of wiki-markup.) I don't see any of his edits being disruptive (except the RfD you told me about, I guess...) And also, this is also different from what Rschen7754 states. He's the only one who bothers to keep those tags on my page. No one else cares. In fact, NE2 recently removed them for me this morning. (Thanks, NE2!) Rschen7754 is the only one who bothers to reapply those stupid categories, and ultimately, he's not leaving my userpage alone. By the way, this is my editing hobby, not my career. And I wonder why Rschen7754 still thinks I'm being disruptive after my SSP case. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that and then you pull one like this: - WP:USRD/A and the WP:ASSESS standard say that a stub article "is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible." Considering that SR 241 (CA) does not follow WP:CASH and is a mess, it must be a stub article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When I read the Wikipedia policies, I learned that a "stub" is no more than one short paragraph. California State Route 241 has plenty of paragraphs; we don't want to make it misleading for readers. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief... there's two kinds of stubs - the type that WP:WSS uses and the type that WP:ASSESS uses. They are not interchangeable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So why don't we just create a category called "Messy-class" articles? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Rschen7754 threatens me saying that he will fully protect my userpage if I remove the categories again. (diff) It gets to the point where Rschen7754 is becoming just simply irrational. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AL2TB, I think you should provide counterevidence of why you are not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Artisol2345. The 75 IP is going crazy and believe it or not, based on IRC conversation, some people accused it to be you. I personally believe that you are not Artisol2345 or related to the 75 IP, but now it would be a good time to provide counterevidence so you won't get blocked again. Pre  ston  H  22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I can provide counterevidence, but it looks like when my cousin introduced me to Wikipedia, he pretty much set me up for all this. Here's one: if you check Artisol2345's logs, you will find that he never owned an account at the Wikimedia commons, and that he does not know how to make an SVG image. The IP has a different style of editing compared to mine, as NE2 said so. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AL2TB, you should probably be aware that "It was my brother/sister/aunt/cousin/whatever" is the standard defense against sockpuppet accusations. Sort of like "the dog ate my homework". Whether it is the truth or not, the nature of the defense tends to automatically raise people's suspicions. That said, it would probably cause the least amount of drama for you to just leave the categories on your talk page. To employ another cliché, "the truth will set you free" - just don't worry about it and after a while this situation will probably resolve itself. Revert-warring over it (no edit warring is justified, ever - that's why we have talk pages) will just make administrators testy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to do leave those categories alone, and I tried to usurp another username so hopefully there will be a higher chance that this case will go away. It was until when one user stated their concern about me that I have been abusing sockpuppets. And Scott5114, I provided a couple of counterevidence... might that convince you? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No - good faith and good quality contributions do. If you look at the user User:JohnnyAlbert10 - he was in a similar situation. But rather than fight it, he kept editing. He didn't initially have the skills, but he drastically improved and now he's accepted by Wikipedia editors today. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected the userpage after AL2TB and the 75 IP edit warred, removing the tags. Could I get input? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give you my input. 1) I haven't finished my infobox page, and 2) This protection is just plain stupid. After all Rschen7754, you're the one who cares about applying those stupid sockpuppet categories; no one cares about this except you. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754, I agree with your protection. Checkuser confirmed, cant say much more than that. AL2TB please change your sig and remove the big HTML markup. βcommand 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I might change my sig again in about three months or so. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AL2TB, let me be a little blunter, your sig is distruptive, remove the markup. βcommand 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist canvassing for AfD
Are these:, , , , a violation of our canvassing policies? If no, please tell me. If they are, could an uninvolved admin address this? Jd2718 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't this pretty much the same as listing it at one of those deletion sorting lists? Ostap 03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alge Crumpler
Just looking for a bit of help here...earlier today there were reports that Alge Crumpler had signed with the Tennessee Titans. This evening, however, his agent denied those reports. I reverted the article to reflect that. Sometime later an anon replaced the Tennessee Titans bit; I reverted (but accidentally also reverted something he had added that I did not intend to) and notified him on his talk page; he replied understandingly. Later still a new account (User:Bart Hinson), apparently not aware of the new information, re-added that he had signed with Tennessee. Having had reverted twice and not wanting to give the impression of edit warring, rather than reverting again I explained the situation to him on his talk page and asked him to consider reverting himself. He appears to be ignoring that.

Naturally, this situation will clear itself up if/when Crumpler signs with *anyone*, but in the meantime when the player's agent specifically denies that he has signed with a team, I think it's pretty clear that the article should indicate that he is still a free agent. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a ref to the page from ESPN to try and clear it up. Since he hasn't officially signed, the Titans info could be officially removed until it's formally finished. Redrocket (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time, I'd add a hidden comment on the page. It won't stop the crazies, but it might make someone think for a second. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do...
User:Hpt lucky has been around for about a year and a half now and, from what I can see, looks to be a good-faith editor. The trouble is, s/he has a habit of creating inappropriate pages; not wildly inappropriate, but rather pages about subjects which just aren't that notable. When I first saw his/her talk page, I was shocked at the number of AfD, SD and NN warnings. But still the user creates these inappropriate pages. Something needs to be done, but what? Blocking seems harsh, since Hpt really does seem to be making a good-faith effort to contribute. But s/he has literally had dozens of articles deleted over the past year (and also apparently has a penchant for copying and pasting info from elsewhere on the web, i.e. blatant copyvio). I deliberately have not informed him/her of this discussion, as I don't want to seem WP:BITEY. While s/he's been around for a while, s/he evidently hasn't really learned the way things work around here, and might take this discussion the wrong way, and I don't want to chase off a well-meaning editor. faithless  (speak)  11:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this is odd: just after posting this, I noticed that the user had blanked his/her talk page, and left a rather strange/uncivil message on my talk page. Nonetheless, opinions would be appreciated. FYI, there seems to be a language barrier with this user. faithless   (speak)  11:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With the best of intentions, I think you may have fallen foul of systemic bias. It goes to the question of notability; I have reviewed the topics and found that they are largely outside of western culture interests - but that does not make them non-notable to an international English speaking encyclopedia. I also reviewed the deleted contributions for the editor, and while there are many they certainly do not overwhelm those that remain on the encyclopedia. Not only are we dealing with an editor with some language difficulties, but also a likely different cultural perspective. Wikipedia should be able to accommodate the gamut of English speaking cultures (and those cultures where English is a second, business or academic language) and fairly represent that which is both notable and relevent to that range of interests. Of course, this can present difficulties to a majority familiar with only one set of values but it is still possible to accept that there other points of view and that allowing editors to contribute to the best of their ability within the general ethos of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" should be supported. I think your approach of not contacting the editor and seeking advice here first was entirely appropriate, and it is unfortunate that the editor responded as they did (and to others). I am disinclined to think that any further purpose would be served by me or any other admin arriving on their talkpage and attempting to explain the western orientated culture of WP editing. Instead I think we should continue to AGF, and allow the creation of the articles in the hope and expectation that they will be further edited into even more valuable content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. That does seem to be the best course of action. And while I definitely hear and appreciate what you're saying, I just want to note that I haven't deleted any of the page he's created. In fact, I haven't even given his contributions a thorough look-through to see if I agree with the deletions. But it definitely could be a case of unintentional cultural bias all around in this situation. Unfortunate, but there you go. faithless   (speak)  03:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not making myself clear, I didn't mean to suggest that you had deleted content - I looked at the deleted contributions log for the editor; it gives an indication whether the community historically feels whether an editor creates a lot of poor articles. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression regarding your good faith interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

tag teaming or sockpuppetry

 * If you would care to look at the Michael Jackson or Thriller articles you will see that this user was using his account on 1 page and his ip address on the other, their were two of them (the same person) vandalising each page. You will also see that since then I have added an addition 6 sources to the 2 that were already there supporting my argument.

hereherehere
 * Infact its a triple sock puppet.

It seems to be 1 0r the other with someone posibbly using an ip adress as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree Kookoo Star and the IP are most likely the same person, I don't see the connection to MassassiUK... Please do not label other edits as "vandalism" without support and try to use the talk page... also, you have already been reported for a 3RR violation. Sasquatch t|c 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Question
Would it be a copyvio to take text from Wikipedia Italian, have it translated to English, and include it in an article in English Wikipedia?

(and supp question - if this was done, should the Italian Wikipedia be cited as the information source?)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since both Italian Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are under the GFDL, it's fine to translate from one to the other subject to proper attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Translation has additional details. — Athaenara  ✉  15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This page protected
Against trolling. Once they get bored, could someone unprotect? Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a bit, I have unprotected.  Keegan talk 05:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With nine IP vandalisms in the past twelve hours, I re-semi-protected this page. Please feel free to dial it down if you feel I was overly enthusiastic.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Backup page brought online.  MBisanz  talk 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

LBHS Cheerleader
We need to ban User:LBHS Cheerleader, she has been making a lot sockpuppet accounts and has been vandalizing many articles. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A little more context is usually a good idea. Currently tagged as sockpuppets are:
 * All are blocked. Most of the impacted pages have been semi-protected. I'm not sure if I see evidence of activity in the past few days; am I missing anything? At any rate, this an obviously problematic user and will probably be blocked on sight, but doesn't seem to need much in the way of community discussion -- only reporting in the event they return. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Suspected sock puppets/LBHS Cheerleader for today's socks, though I'm sure I've blocked a few more. There is also on the loose. There is something strange going on, I'm not quite sure who is being banned here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go check out Long term abuse. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All are blocked. Most of the impacted pages have been semi-protected. I'm not sure if I see evidence of activity in the past few days; am I missing anything? At any rate, this an obviously problematic user and will probably be blocked on sight, but doesn't seem to need much in the way of community discussion -- only reporting in the event they return. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Suspected sock puppets/LBHS Cheerleader for today's socks, though I'm sure I've blocked a few more. There is also on the loose. There is something strange going on, I'm not quite sure who is being banned here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go check out Long term abuse. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Suspected sock puppets/LBHS Cheerleader for today's socks, though I'm sure I've blocked a few more. There is also on the loose. There is something strange going on, I'm not quite sure who is being banned here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go check out Long term abuse. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if she is related to, though I realize it's too old to be provable, or to matter much. — CharlotteWebb 02:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be verified by a checkuser. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not from so far back it can't. It will be declined as stale most likely. Woody (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What else is new. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just caught another possible sockpuppet vandalising List of cheerleading stunts. The IP sock is 130.156.22.55.

Seeking community sanction on
Any further discussion should be addressed to Administrators%27_noticeboard.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

After working with for approximately six months to reduce his disruptiveness, I am bringing this matter here for consideration of a community sanction. In short, Ronnotel has been consistently disruptive at Indian Rebellion of 1857, maintaining a pro-British/anti-Indian POV by exclusively sanctioning those who adhere to a NPOV. Of particular concern is that he seems to view the matter largely in a religious context by calling users pro-Hindu.


 *  is placed under a editing restriction for 6 months on all Desi-related articles.

I would appreciate community input on this proposal. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I Suggest you take this to WP:RFC first. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's already done that. Ronnotel (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that I have already apologized for mis-identifying Demo's bias as pro-Hindu when I should have used pro-Indian. Ronnotel (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the outcome of that RFC, this thread looks particularly pointy to me but I will defer to a third party with more experience of this obviously long-term dispute. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The is about as pointy as can be found; DemolitionMan is using exactly the same language as in the section a couple above to continue a content/editing dispute. Any discussion regarding Ronnotel's actions can be made there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A minor clarification, I think the record shows that I have not been in a content dispute with DM. My objections have to do with his behavior towards other editors. Ronnotel (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question (perhaps naive) - Is it usual for the subject of an RFC to close it out? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked for precedent but finding none, and considering that the RfC seemed retaliatory, I was WP:BOLD and pointed further comments to a closely related RfC. If I acted precipitously please feel free to undo my action. Ronnotel (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, my question wasn't a veiled criticism, but a real request for information. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took it as such and if I sounded anything other than helpfully responsive in my reply I apologize. :) Ronnotel (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem on my end! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to Ronnotel's comments, it was a bad faith nomination in violation of WP:POINT and was liable to be closed by any party. The RfC on DemolitionMan may also address any query in respect of Ronnotel's actions, if needed. 212.139.83.129 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)(that was me - I kept being timed out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Help me, please from Singapur in Wikipedia Spain
Wikipedia Spain have delete last modifies to the link 'Singapur' and my discusion. I have the yesterday screenshots. I need help for this, many people are involve in this matter so dark. When I upload the screenshots? Please, help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.217.252 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless an admin here who is also an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia reads this, there is nothing we can do here. Can you not raise this on the corresponding page there? -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Spanish Wikipedia takes copyrights a lot more strictly than here, the images were most likely deleted as copyvios, regardless of that there is nothing we can do about it here, try contacting the admins there. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio on user page
Can someone with more tact and, well, more patience with little girls than I have please gently break it to User:Beatlesnicole that the image she has on her user page will have to be deleted as a copyright violation? The text can be added directly to her page, but the image has to go. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More importantly, someone should also get her to remove her real name and birthday. R. Baley (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Lots of people here give their real names, and many people give their birthday. If she wants to give that info out, it's her choice. But having a copyvio on her page is not her choice. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because she's a minor, and we don't allow minors to give out personal information here. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when? WP:CHILD has been rejected as a policy/guideline. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain, but I think Florida law (where the servers are situated) have something about protecting the identities of minors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Nevertheless, it is implicit in the ArbCom ruling that we should be circumspect about this issue, and I take it that we should err, if at all, on the side of caution. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the page gave out too much personal information. She gave her first name, middle name, and last INITIAL only, not her entire last name, and gave only the country where she lives (not even the city, let alone an address and telephone number). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will delete and protect the userpage in the meantime, does anyone believe that it requires oversight? Per the talkpage, I think the editor is in breach of WP:NOT as regards social networking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You deleted the user page, but not the image, so I did that. I don't see any reason to protect the user page unless she tries repeatedly to put copyvios on it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah - I didn't mean to say delete and protect, I was just a little too salty in my expressions... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Work for hire copyright
Recently on Evil Overlord List, I've had a bit of trouble with an anonymous editor who wants to paste in one of the two lists. Disregarding that Wikisource would be the proper place, I'm having issues persuading him that the list cannot be GFDL'd. On Talk:Evil Overlord List, he asserts that the collector of the list, a Butler, claims "Legally, I am the sole copyright holder through work-for-hire transferrance. It says on my site explicitly that anything submitted to me becomes my property and that by submitting to me, you agree that its mine. That makes it mine. And I released the Evil Overlord List from copyright, and did so quite legally. So you tell that "arrogant so-and-so" as you call him that he needs to climb down off his copyright soapbox and smell the public domain."

I don't think this is right, because work-for-hire wouldn't apply to random people sending Butler submissions. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwern (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented at Talk:Evil Overlord List. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How can I complain against an admins actions?
is in apparent collaboration with. I don't think that it is right for administrators to behave as he has done in the article Bloody_Sunday_%281939%29, or in particular Morgenthau Plan for example. Molobos edits are heavily contested in the Morgenthau plan, see the article talk page, and he simply selects to revert back to include all of Molobos edits. And don't even bother to explain himself at talk.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To give a standard answer while I review it. You are at the right place to complain if you are looking that it end in constructive change.  I'm reviewing the edits right now, and assuming there is a valid issue, a discussion will occur here.  If this does not produce a satisfactory conclusion, there is the Requests for comment/User conduct process and I'll note that User:Piotrus has defined a recall procedure for users who wish him to seek re-confirmation of his adminship.  But in 99% of cases, it can be resolved here without longterm issue.  MBisanz  talk 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've given it a once over. Doesn't look like any admin tools were used improperly.  Bloody_Sunday_%281939%29 appears to be an issue of the reliability of sources.  That is addressed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.  At Morgenthau Plan Piotrus did restore an older version, but does not appear to have used rollbacker powers.  Its a POV issue that should be addressed at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or at WikiProject Cold War.  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I simply expected higher standards from an admin such as Piotrus than from the rest. I will proceed as suggested.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Collaboration" isn't inherently bad -- Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative project. There are ways in which it can be bad, but you'll need to be more specific in your complaint if you believe that's the case. Are they conspiring to violate policy or game the system? Has Piotrus used or threatened to use admin tools? Admins are perfectly entitled to get involved in content disputes, so long as they let uninvolved/neutral admins take care of any related admin-specific actions. If you have any more specific complaint, I'd highly encourage you to provide some supporting evidence (diffs are great, there). There are some affairs which will take a high precedence, but generally the dispute resolution process is the best way to go. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we be sending everybody to WP:NPOV/N whenever an admin performs an action that resembels POV. Not that I am saying it is in this case or it is not. But when an admin performce an edit should they not fall under the same guidelines as any other user? Should they not comment on their edits like any other user and get consensus to that edit? Do they just make that edit without any explanation and everyone else just have to take their action for LAW? I have had quiet a few edits like that done to me, and when I go to the admin talk page and ask for a reson they just ignore my request for an explanation. NOT and not a hierarchy. We have no bosses and we all suppose to be equals. Admins are granted sysop tools for maintenance, not as a show of power of superiority. And if anyone questions that status quote are labeled disrupt and violation of WP:CIVIL or now with the new board sent to WP:NPOV/N Igor Berger (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to Luna Santin: Well, I'll have to see if I can collect relevant evidence then, I don't usually accumulate it as I go along. Might take a few days if at all possible, but the first thing that comes to mind if I remember correctly is that he apparently has an old history of unblocking Molobo, from before Molobos 1 year block.--Stor stark7 Talk 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing that out. From Molobo's block log, it looks like that was back in 2005. Anything more recent? (as you said, feel free to take some time compiling -- if there's a history, here, it's important to document it) – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As MBisanz noted, I have not misused (or even used) any admin power w/ regard to Stor Stark7 so this noticeboard is hardly a place for a discussion of my edits; the edits of Stor Stark7 may, however, be of more interests to the community. The user Stor Stark7 has been placed under general ArbCom restriction since January that year for his uncivil and disruptive behavior in January - (see here for details); in my experience 99% of edits from this periodically editing account involve whitewashing (or plainly removing) references to Nazi crimes during WWII and unduly highlighting suffering of the German people. Such edits rarely survive in mainspace, which as far as I am concerned proves that Wiki works well (NPOV, UNDUE, etc.) and as far as I am concerned this is the end of this story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion and personal attacks against Durova

 * Associated sockpuppet accounts and suspected IPs


 * Relevant WP:ANI thread, IncidentArchive378#Justanother_personal_attacks_and_edit_warring_on_IP_address.

After having been warned by a reviewing admin that his block was likely to be extended, Justanother has evaded his block to demand a fourth unblock review and made personal attacks against Durova.

Blocked on March 2, 2008 by for 1 week. Using multiple IPs above to push the limits of the block parameters, removing sockpuppet notices posted by other users:, - Violates/evades block by using yet a different IP to post to talk page of  and edit other pages , , ,. In one of his unblock requests, called a Idiotic pseudo-admin. Already has received 2 warnings about personal attacks quite recently, by admins reviewing the unblock request at User talk:74.225.175.133 - Unblock requests that include a personal attack will not be seriously considered.,. Requesting impartial review by an uninvolved administrator. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Marking this resolved. No retraction of the insult, but the request has been reviewed.  Durova Charge! 06:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting Article history - is it possible?
Hi all, was wondering whether it was possible to split an article history. The article in question is:


 * One for the Money

Jack Merridew's idea was to split off everything up until the redirect should be at One For the Money (The Golden Girls) (w/uppercase "For" as that was the title, I guess) and everything afterwards restored to the above address. I agreed but couldn't figure out how to do it and so took the largest unredirected article size of the original Golden Girls episode and made a redirect at the One For the Money (The Golden Girls) site, as I figured that was the information that was needed. Jack reckons he's seen something about article history splitting but I haven't been able to find anything. Can anyone enlighten us? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be done, but if the goal is to hide it under a redirect anyway, I'm not sure why. Anyway, to split a page you delete it, selectively restore it, move that part somewhere else, then restore the rest. Gimmetrow 05:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Be careful about GFDL compliance, though.  My understanding is that it's not something that you should attempt unless there's a really good reason. (It also sounds like kind of a pain in the ass.) -- Vary | Talk 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do expect that this is a pain in the ass. The point of doing this is to allow interested editors to find the content under the redirect; see ER to list entry and, for example, Category:Oh My Goddess episode redirects to lists. This is a mechanism created by User:Masem; there is talk on his talk page about this and on Caslibers; Talk:One for the Money, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Cheers, WODUP (talk) @ 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Frequently vandalized pages
While I'm sure many are familiar with wikirage, I just stumbled across it, and have been using the tool to look at the most vandalized pages:. Interestingly, almost all of these remain unprotected until I have asked for protection, and they clearly need it (usually several distinct vandals per day). Placing a note here to suggest administrators could frequently check out this page and perform protections on their own. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am hugely curious re: the accuracy of those stats. For example--I know of a page that had more reverts in the past day than the lowest-ranked page on the reversions list--but that page is not listed. Ditto the vandalism list. It's an interesting site, though, and useful in the way you described--every little bit helps!Gladys J Cortez 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lupin/Filter recent changes
Resolved. This script isn't working anymore :( (and neither are the other similar scripts: User:Lupin/All recent changes). Anybody know why? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As of 30 seconds ago, it was working for me. --barneca (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had the wrong version of Firefox open, thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal
The article on has been unsettled since it was first written three years ago and it has become especially contentious in the past month. Parties on all sides have engaged in what some have called "protracted", "silly edit wars". It is currently protected for a week. The talk page is active but acrimonious and angry reverts have outnumbered consensual edits. User:Jossi has proposed article probation and I endorse the concept. We both agree that, at a minumum, a "1RR" preventing excess reverts would be useful. Here's the probation text we've agreed upon between the two of us, the two involved admins.

I ask the community's consent to impose this as a temporary peace-keeping measure. I welcome improvements to the framing of this probation as well as dispute resolution interventions and suggestions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikilawyer in me says you want to say "articles currently in Category:Prem Rawat, being...", or anyone can impose 1RR on a page just by adding it to the category. Pedantic I know, but I can't help myself   <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From my own experience with article probations, 1R rules can easily be gamed by people who will continually be inserting new tendentious material, or similar material with varying wording. That way, they never "revert", but keep being uncooperative and POV-pushing. No matter how glaringly tendentious their additions may be, a pure 1R regime gives this form of POV-pushing a tactical advantage over constructive editors. I would recommend adding a safety valve to the rules, defining some class of obvious, blatantly tendentious edits that can (and should) be reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly Fut.Perf.. And how do you deal with the often anon IPs, who insert an unsourced, defamatory comment. Three editors may delete it, but it may be reinserted 5 times. Does this mean that the unsourced defamatory comment remains in place for a week and then the same thing happens the next week, 5 editors insert an unsourced, defamatory comment and three editors delete it? Cumulatively adding one unsourced defamatory comment a week. That situation is clearly unacceptable. For example. here an anon IP inserted Rawat is "an ugly lying scumbag cult leader" []. So for a start, editing the PR article must exclude anon IP editors and addition to dealing with Fut.Perf. comments.Momento (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anon editing can be curtailed by semi-protection, and removal of obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations will not fall under the 1RR probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The BLP violation would have to be quite obvious in order for an edit removing it to circumvent the probation. Some editors have abused the BLP exemption in the past. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, only obvious BLP violations would apply. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:1RR usually understood as 1 revert per day, not per week? If you go with this proposal, I would suggest to either stick with that, or make the "per week" very explicit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the probation needs to be extended to include other edit disruptions beyond 1RR, as per concerns expressed above. An example of community enforced article probation Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation, which include all what is needed to ensure orderly debate and editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The rules on that page are all about how to be nice to each other on the talk page. That's all good and well, but I doubt it's sufficient here. Editors can be spotlessly nice and civil to each other and yet be thoroughly disruptive by making persistently tendentious edits. What you need is rules about what kinds of content edits are or aren't within debatable limits. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you offer some wording for additional restrictions that may help us here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Difficult, I don't know the article well and what kinds of problematic edits actually get made. On an etirely different type of conflict, I have moderately positive experiences with the rule set shown at Talk:Liancourt Rocks, where the focus is on what constitutes an "uncooperative edit". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing of concern here is that there seems to be varying interpretations of what may or may not constitute a BLP violation, and thus exempt from the 1RR. Momento, for example, is a bit strident in his reversions generally (but not always!) in what he feels are not acceptable. If there is a disagreement whether something is a BLP violation, who makes the determination? Certainly no involved parties, because a disputed BLP violation is not automatically excempt from 1RR or 3RR. Once this is codified as part of the probation in as close of a manner as possible to make it impossible for any "side" to game, I would support this long term 1RR restriction, applying to all editors and admins. Lawrence §  t / e  16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about this version? Would this work?


 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Amended as per FT2 - three months + other restrictions) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better, to use disruption as the measuring tool, since that leaves it for the uninvolved community to decide rather than someone playing games by saying "BLP! BLP!" when it may not be valid. Lawrence  §  t / e  16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One tweak--I changed "uninvolved admins will make a determination" to "uninvolved editors will make a determination" as admins have no extra authority in consensus. Perfect otherwise. Lawrence  §  t / e  16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to visit and give a view here. Quick thoughts. It looks fine, but a couple of thoughts. First, a month (4 weeks) may not be very long. If it's enough of a problem to need probation, maybe consider an initial period of 3 months, not one. The aim of probation is to see the article stable and with time to get sorted out, and a month isn't very long. Second, consider the bahaviors seen, and the (apparent) goals of those editing on each side, and consider if disruption and reversion are sufficient, or if blocking is the only remedy to be considered. A good option might be that editors engaging in disruptive behavior may incur escalating blocks "or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics" by any uninvolved administrator, etc. (The wording "in relation to these topics" allows better coverage of disruption related to the topic on other pages, project pages etc too.) It gives a bit of flexibility if you have an editor who engages in problem behavior. But this is a pure generic outside view, and if not needed, ignore them :) My $0.02. FT2 (Talk 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Amended as per suggestions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As an outside editor who is currently involved in editing this page, I strongly support this probation, esp. with Lawrence's and FT2's tweaks. One additional thought -- and I hesitate to even bring this up, because I'm sure it's a very touchy subject.  It's very clear to me that the edit warring, and the uncivil discussion on Talk is driven in 90% of the cases by a handful of current and bitter ex-devotees of the article subject fighting each other.  I don't know Wikipedia traditions nearly as well as others here.  Is there any way to address this in the probation? Msalt (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These may be covered under the proviso of "disruptive editing" in the probation notice. But if necessary, the probation could be extended to abuse of talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point, in case it's not clear, is that perhaps restrictions should focus on the editors with admitted COI issues, on both sides of the issue -- both current devotees and bitter ex-devotees. I admire and appreciate very much, Jossi, that you have recused yourself from editing. Unfortunately, only one other person on either side has taken that step, and the ones that haven't are causing all or nearly all of the problems on the page.  I don't know that much about different restrictions and how they've worked in the past, so I don't have any specific suggestions.  But I think they should be focused on the clear cause of the problems. Msalt (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. "... we need some assistance to tweak the wording of these restrictions ..." - I'd appreciate a 0-CANVASS on this one. I don't like Jossi's pre-emptive idea that this will fly, and only needs "tweaking" of the wording. There's no consensus, it's badly set up, and it bends good guidance in all sort of directions in order to give POV-pushers an unjustifiable advantage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be jocking.... I asked one experienced editor and arbCom member, and you call that canvassing? I am starting to doubt your ability to remain neutral in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't changed my opinion since Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128 - archived last week. "community-enforced article probation restrictions" (with an included piped link to WP:RESTRICT, a page talking *only* about restrictions on users, not restrictions on pages - similarily WP:1RR is about users, not pages) would be a very bad next step. There's a lot of POV-pushing on the article. Relatively uninvolved editors (at least, with no involvement in the article's subject), have shown up and do a hell of a job of working on the article content (as said, a "thank you" is not needed as far as I'm concerned, but please let us do the job, it's difficult enough as it is). Several involved editors work on the talk page with (self-imposed) editing restrictions to the page for COI and/or "too angry" and/or "not believing Wikipedia can get the article right" reasons. Then there are *a very few* still edit-warring on the page. The Prem Rawat article needs to be dynamic, at least for some time still to come, and not give the POV-pushers an advantage ("I can't edit the page for COI, so others should also be restricted in editing the page" or whatever flaky rationale). The advantage should be to the relatively uninvolved editors, and we will revert POV-pushing. Individual POV-pushers can be set on a WP:RESTRICT as foreseen by that project page, thus applied to users, for disruption. Similarily for WP:1RR restictions, to applied (as foreseen) to users, not pages. I'm not going to impose such restrictions to users, but will bring to WP:AN/WP:ANI when such restriction might be warranted, for others to decide. For example above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. There are precedents for 1RR probation on articles (such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation. Note that 1RR is a good thing even for editors that are not disruptive, unless you believe that edit-warring is a viable option, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I contest the usefulness of the measure, even for the Homeopathy articles. Some time ago we had a sudden raise of Homeopathy-related rants at WT:NPOV. Finally I know how come. Even if you think it worked regarding Homeopathy-related topics: the situation hardly compares with Prem Rawat, where I definitely see no reason for the same. I'd oppose it. I'm no POV-pusher and would not allow myself to be forced into restrictions on the same level as the POV-pushers who might need such restrictions imposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposal for restrictions on Momento, had no traction, Francis. And the disruption at that article, was not just from Momento, but from many editors actively editing that article. You yourself engaged in revert wars, so I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make. POV pusher or not, editors should not engage in edit wars, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, it has traction from every contributor appart from Momento and Jossi, see above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs).
 * Re. "You yourself engaged in revert wars" - I haven't, so I invite you to stop your poisonous language. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 08:24, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191344759 by Janice Rowe (talk) per Talk:Prem Rawat pls take part there if no agr")
 * 22:42, 15 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191736297 by 24.176.193.149 (talk) per talk, also replacing dmoz by p-r-m")
 * 23:08, 15 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191743263 by 32.155.57.53 (talk) per talk page and previous edit summary")
 * 09:59, 17 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192032024 by Momento (talk) Per talk page, and discussion ont Momento's talk page")
 * 21:19, 18 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192370604 by Louise.Po (talk) undo edit by SPA (had messed grammar; had added unsourced statement)")
 * 21:29, 18 February 2008 (edit summary: "rv some edits by SPA; keeping to talk page discussions")
 * 08:57, 19 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192408147 by Momento (talk) + cite")
 * 09:19, 19 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192514791 by 121.218.20.254 (talk) IfD not concluded yet, see talk page")
 * 17:58, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192767943 by Rainer P. (talk) it's what the website says, no need for interpretation, see talk")
 * 18:04, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192524515 by Momento (talk) per Talk:Prem Rawat")
 * 18:05, 20 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192514791 by 121.218.20.254 (talk) IfD still not concluded, see talk")
 * 12:56, 21 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 192926449 by Momento (talk) IfD still open. Have asked its conclusion ASAP. Already would have been if urgent BLP.")
 * Sure, it is always the others that are edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your alleged proof is a sham. No revert-warring, as I said. POV-pushers are reverted, as I said. The remedy is to stop the POV-pushers, not to protect them, as I said. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The diffs above say otherwise, Francis. The remedy is to assure orderly debate and assist involved editors in finding common ground, reach consensus and improve the articles in that manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The diffs do not show otherwise, so please remove your PA.
 * Re. "The remedy is to assure orderly debate and assist involved editors in finding common ground, reach consensus and improve the articles in that manner." Of course, thats what I'm defending. As I said, the current page protection is not very well contributing to orderly debate, . I fear the restrictive measures now proposed will have a comparable effect.
 * And again, remove the PA above, and the other PA I invited you to remove from the Prem Rawat talk page. I see no reason to be lenient on these PA's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Query for uninvolved parties
In the interests and well-being of the wider community, I might delicately suggest that the view of the "regulars" who've been slugging it out on the article (or any article in similar circumstances) should have less weigh in whether this should be protected with the 1rr, once the idea is floated. They're welcome to slug it out; the community is equally entitled to say knock it off whether involved parties care for it or not.

What uninvolved parties support the above amended hopefully hard to game as written 1rr restriction by Jossi? Lawrence §  t / e  22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawrence, the most interesting parties to listen to in this case are those who have little interest in the content of the Prem Rawat article, but have jumped in to monitor and assist to get the article through a difficult period. Among which Will Beback, Msalt and myself. They're doing the job on the ground, hands on. Thus we need the instruments to perform the job we have taken upon ourselves. So it is more important to have a consensus on methodology among those putting their time into this from the desinterested angle, than have a decision pushed by those who do have a POV interest in the article. Jossi doesn't edit the article for COI reasons. Now he's severely pushing, using a myriad of methods, to have as much restriction on editing the article imposed on others, especially the non-POV-pushers, as possible. While it is evident that left to POV-pushers alone from both camps the pro-Rawat POV-pushers have slightly outnumbered the critical POV-pushers, this might lead to outside commentators assessing that Wikipedia is unable to improve, even when the problems on the Prem Rawat article are pointed out to its editors. For the ones committing themselves to keeping the POV-pushing on this article down, there is no consensus on the methodology of general editing restrictions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not jumped in to "monitor", you have jumped in and engaged in the revert wars alongside others. There is no such a thing as fighting POV puhsers with revert wars.; that does not work and you should know that by now with your experience. People there made outrageous personal attacks, and you did nothing, and instead of assisting editors there in finding common ground, you have become part of the problem, Francis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, this it the third PA on me in four days. Please remove it. Also please remove the other two, see above and the Prem Rawat talk page. Also, I never said "fighting POV pushers" - I really don't know what you're talking about. I think this has gone quite far enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not personally attacking you, Francis. I am making an assessment of your behavior, same as you are making an assessment of mine. You seem to think that asking for community input for remedies that may help in assisting and encouraging editors to engage in an orderly debate without drama, is "severely pushing". I beg to differ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No again, I never said that nor implied it. I used the expression "severely pushing" because you used a myriad of techniques, some with drama. Having this on WP:AN is not something I object to in the least, although I pointed out it was recently discussed here, see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128.
 * The first sentence of your comment above is a PA, and I insist you remove it. Same goes for the other two PA's. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Side comment: Instead of saying that this applies to a category, which could change, the articles that this restriction would apply to, should all be listed here, so that editors/admins considering this proposal can see its scope of articles for the potential probation. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * , this is not a "support" or "oppose" comment, it is a side comment related to this issue. Please do not move other editors' comments, especially not here, as you yourself are "involved" and should not be moving around other editors' comments.  If you feel that strongly about the placement of my comment here, ask an uninvolved admin to act, instead of yourself.  Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the second time,, please stop moving my comments. Diff 1, Diff 2.  It is inappropriate.  I am not casting a "vote" in this subsection one way or another, just commenting that the related articles that this proposal applies to, should all be listed here.  If you feel this strongly about where my comments should be placed, please do not move them yourself, that is highly inappropriate of you as a very involved admin in this issue, rather ask an uninvolved, neutral admin for input, instead of moving another editor's comments.  Thanks, Cirt (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have objected repeatedly to Jossi's involvement, even on the talk page, to these articles because of his COI issues. I also suspect that Jossi is making this proposal because the Rawat article is currently locked in a version that he doesn't approve of.  Nevertheless, since Jossi's proposal has the support of Will Beback, who appears to be trying to stop the POV-pushing in the Rawat articles, then I support Jossi's proposal. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * *comment by involved party trying to stop the POV-pushing* - Will Beback is no less, nor more involved than I am. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The 1rr restriction seems eminently sensible, and I've seen it help with other contentious articles. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A 1RR restriction will never work. The editors are too polarized. Independent admins like Jayjg  should come and enforce the rules.Momento (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, Jayjg just endorsed the 1RR proposal. If accepted, any admin can enforce, not just Jayjg. Cla68 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. "If accepted, any admin can enforce", no: there are admins who could not enforce, for instance those with a COI involvement. Or am I erring and was this an underlying intention of the setup of this proposal? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per usual procedures, the proposal says "uninvolved admin". I don't think folks would accept Jossi taking further administrative actions on these articles, for example. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor you WillBeback.Momento (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, that is understood. An uninvolved admin is one that is not actively editing the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I Support also. If only involved parties are going to object, I move we just do it. Lawrence §  t / e  23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear if the current version of probation addresses talk page filibustering. The page is currently awash in endless discussions over relatively minor points (Momento alone is posting 10 or more times a day, 17 yesterday, many kilobytes, and PatW on the other side about the same.)  My concern is these monologues have the effect, if not in fact the design, of sabotaging any possible progress, much less consensus. 3 editors on the pro-Rawat side, for example, have stated "vehemently" that they will support this probation only if an edit they don't like is reverted.     This seems like a very bad start (and note, I don't like that edit either.  But this attitude is 'my way or the highway', not consensus.) Msalt (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be comfortable with an editor making an undiscussed insertion of 10,000 bytes into the article but the talk page says - "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information". And for your info Msalt, WillBeback has edited 17 times today and I have edited 11 times.Momento (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a clear COI, and a history of disruptive editing and Talk on this article. Will Beback has none of these.  Please stop filibustering. Msalt (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How dare you accuse me of a COI in this matter? You should question any editor who doesn't object to an editor inserting 10,000 bytes of badly written material into the article without discussion.Momento (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's a larger problem which 1RR won't cure. It's only a bandage to address a symptom. If editors cannot act reasonably together, and can't agree to mediation, there aren't many alternatives. While those are being investigated 1RR may reduce the turmoil caused by revert-warring. While even a simple solution like 1RR can be gamed it's better to do something rather than nothing.
 * I urge uninvolved editors who are reading this thread to express their support or opposition to this proposal so that we can either implement it or find something else. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the article probation. All I ask for is more teeth -- esp. editing and Talk page restrictions on the admittedly COI editors who are causing literally all of the problems. Msalt (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And who are the "admittedly COI editors who are causing literally all of the problems"?Momento (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably/mainly all the people that appear to be hear primarily to or only to edit Prem Rawat articles, to either make them sound nicer to Prem Rawat's interests, or the opposite. I'd guess. Lawrence  §  t / e  23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, But since Msalt mentioned me, I wondered who the others were.Momento (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be coy. There's plenty of COI on both sides of the debate.  Unless I am remembering incorrectly,  Momento, Rumiton, and Jossi are acknowledged devotees of Prem Rawat. Maybe Armeisen and Balius too, I'm a little vague on that point.  John Brauns, PatW and Sylviecn are acknowledged ex-devotees. Maybe also Andries?  I think Francis is a former devotee of another guru, and Jayen466 enjoys the works of Osho, by their admissions; they are more neutral in my opinion.  NikWright2 has acknowledged pique over Jossi linking to or citing some web page that disparaged him.  These editors, to my eye, are involved in 90% of the Talk and editing and 100% of the edit warring.
 * Jossi, PatW and perhaps Andries have all voluntarily agreed not the edit the article for the time being, even though Jossi is one of the most level-headed editors on the page, to remove any possible concern over COI. I think this sets an excellent role model. Msalt (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not easy to determine COI if users don't volunteer the information. It is clear that many single purpose accounts are concerned with this article. Among non-SPAs, Jossi has made a total of 3038 edits to the article and its talk page, while Andries has made 1708. Some active accounts that rarely edit other article include: Momento (1354 edits), PatW (484), Sylviecyn (327), Rumiton (326), and Mael-Num (213). The article and its talk page have received a total of 10,787 edits and of those Jossi has made just under a third. The combined SPAs have made 2704, about a quarter of the total. Comebined with Andries and Jossi, these seven accounts have made 7450, or three-quarters, of the total contributions. What this means for the discussion here is that the article is a battleground for a fairly small set of highly-involved users. If 1RR doesn't work then topic bans may be the another solution.
 * Reviewing input from uninvolved editors, I count one who is doubtful that 1RR will help (Fut.Perf) and four who support it (Lawrence Cohen, FT2, Cla68, Jayjg). I don't see any outright oppostion. Is that enough support to give the proposal a 3-month trial? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to note that from all active editors, only two have objected to the proposal User:Momento, and User: Francis Schonken, with others either supporting or not objecting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think before going forward and deciding on this, the uninvolved editors should list here all the articles that this will apply to. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles currently in the Category:Prem Rawat are: Prem Rawat, Template:Prem Rawat, List of Prem Rawat-related topics, Rennie Davis, Divine Light Mission, Divine United Organization, Elan Vital (organization), Ron Geaves, Hans Ji Maharaj, Lord of the Universe (documentary), Sacred Journeys (book), Soul Rush (book), Teachings of Prem Rawat, The Prem Rawat Foundation, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book). Any revisions? Presumably we'd put the agreed-upon text in a box at the top of each talk page and then notify recent contributors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hearing no further objections, and based on the apparent consensus here, I'll go ahead and post the probation notices, set to expire June 4, 2008. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this effort, and thanks in advance for the community's patience. I'm sure there will be need for it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeking community sanction on DemolitionMan
After working with for approximately six months to reduce his disruptiveness, and then consulting with Ryan (who seems to have a great deal of experience in dealing with disruptiveness), I am bringing this matter here for consideration of a community sanction. In short, DemolitionMan has been consistently disruptive at Indian Rebellion of 1857, maintaining a pro-Indian/anti-British POV. Of particular concern is that he seems to view the matter largely in a racial context.

The relevant details are summarized in this ongoing RfC. Given that the RfC seems to be having little impact on his behavior, I would therefore like to make the following proposal:


 *  is placed under a one revert editing restriction on all Desi-related articles.

I would appreciate community input on this proposal. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read his responses to comments on the RfC I'd suggest that a topic ban would be more appropriate. Leithp 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the possible personal bias of being both British and a Slater in real life I concur that some restriction on DemolitionMan is necessary. There is enough anti British Imperialism academic literature to be cited to support DM's contentions to enable an appropriately NPOV article to be produced, and countering systemic bias is important, but DM's hostility and anti Imperialist (that is AGF) rhetoric is unhelpful. I wonder if there is the possibility of mentorship as well as an editing restriction? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been in touch informally with one candidate who has expressed sympathy to DM and, I hoped, might act as a mentor. However, there was skepticism that DM would be conducive. If that person is watching this thread and cares to chime in it might be helpful. Ronnotel (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think DM does bring a useful perspective and adds some value to the article in question and am willing to be a mentor (assuming he is willing to accept a mentor). However, I don't think it will work unless it is combined with a few preconditions that DM should agree to abide by - A short term voluntary topic ban and a commitment to editing at least three topics that are unrelated to India.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this would be appropriate. I would await the comments of the community, and DemolitionMan, before committing to this though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to RegentsPark and his generous offer of time here, I'd suggest that perhaps someone with more Wikipedia and, in particular, more experience of mentoring might be more suitable in this case. Also, looking over DemolitionMan's block log, I note that a previous short-term topic ban did not have the desired effect, so we may need to look at a longer term ban here. Leithp 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very reasonable. I have not been editing on wikipedia long and have no experience mentoring here. Irrespective of who mentors him or whether he is mentored at all, I do think he will benefit by distancing himself from India and focusing on other topics for a bit. RegentsPark (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have warning DemolitionMan not to engage in further abuses of dispute resolution. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am being castigated for being anti-Imperial? And how does one truly define what is rhetoric? I did abide by a short-term ban which wasn't really that short. And for those 3 months, I continued to argue my points on the discussions page to no avail. My hostility has been directed at people who have been directly hostile to me. It seems to me that Ronnotel wishes to pursue a single point agenda against me, when similar hostility has been flagrantly displayed by Josquis and SRS. So, you would excuse me for thinking that I am being singled out not because of my hostility but merely because of my views. If the tables were turned, and I was pushing a British POV instead ( against someone like me ), would I have to even reply to such allegations? I hope you see where I am coming from. I'll try and be less hostile - and I shall stick to one reversion on this article voluntarily for now and if I violate the self-imposed one reversion rule which I will follow for the next 2 months - feel free to permanently ban me. But do answer the questions that I have raised honestly.


 * if your argument was based on Race or creed then yes you would be brought to book. Morever (and as far as I am aware) I have not been directly hostile to you, I may have been hostiel to some of the ideas or facts you have presented, and I suspect this may be part of the point, not to you. Yu seem to be unable to see the differance between attacks on the ideas you put forward and attacks on you.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)]]

1. Would I be here if I were pushing a British POV rather than an Indian one? 2. Why haven't the likes of Jos and SRS faced similar actions for displaying similar levels of hostility - is it because they hold diametrically opposite views?

DemolitionMan (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your offer to voluntarily limit yourself to WP:1RR. However, the fact that you continue to invoke racial animosity in your arguments (see for the latest) make me worried that you just don't get what WP is about. My concern will remain for as long as you continue to see WP as white vs. brown. Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not invoking racial animosity for crying out loud. I am stating things as I see them - that the views on this article are clearly divided along national and racial lines. Both sides see themselves as the "good guys". It is not like a WW-2 page where Axis are the obvious bad guys and the Allies are the good ones. This is a fact. No point being an ostrich about it. I continue to wonder why must the Indian view be given less credence than the British one - if there is no clear cut right or wrong here. DemolitionMan (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the content issues here, but it seems timely to remind people that our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to communicate civilly is unilateral, not contingent. We are not relieved of it when others are uncivil to us, nor when we see other incivility go unrebuked.  Please think about this if you find yourself justifying your behaviour with an argument that sounds like, "I only did X because someone else did Y first."  Bovlb (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes - there is an anti British POV that both generally and specifically exists, and some parties take umbrage when a neutral (which is regarded as pro by some) position is taken - and some take great exception when a British bias, such as British spellings and grammar, are preferred in British related subjects. It happens, it gets discussed, it mostly gets resolved, and hardly anybody gets referred to as Nazi's and when they do they get banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This restriction should be logged at Editing restrictions in the Community section, with a permanent link to this discussion. The exact wording of the restriction as agreed here should be logged. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was unaware of the procedure but will do so. Ronnotel (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 presidential delagates
Could someone with the tools take a look at this article. I'm not sure if it meets any specific speedy criteriaand a previous tag was removed and replaced with a prod. I really don't see that their would be any controversy in deleting it, none of the content is suitable for an encyclopaedia. Rather than leaving it for another two days maybe it would be better to ignore the rules and improve Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted it as a test page, agree it probably didn't meet any speedy criteria but can't see that it serves any purpose keeping such a hopeless case around for another two days. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User 194.176.201.28 - Request for Blocking
The user history indicates repeated valdalism. the last was on British Raj at 19:53 04th March, when the comment British Reich was added. Request user 194.176.201.28 to be blocked Rockybiggs (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP users are usually given several warnings before being blocked because there's no way to tell if it's the same user who made the edits from a month ago. Please report vandalism to WP:AIV instead of here. Ronnotel (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism
As part of the above dispute that I'm currently mediating, the parties have agreed to having some neutral administrators to act as mentors for the Pro-pedophile activism page and other pages within the scope of the topic. They would be the "go-to" guys and would act to keep the decorum of editing on the page. Of particular concern is the role of new users, SPAs and potential socks editing the page and also the general neutrality of the whole topic. An enforcement page would be created to cover the topic, where all editors would be welcome to report concerns, and the appointed administrators would be expected to look over these in a neutral manner. I'm looking for 5/6 administrators to take this role. If you are interested, could you email me either by using the interface, or directly to ryanpostlethwaite[at]hotmail[dot]com. Thanks,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This formula is based on what, exactly? I note that nearly fifty percent of those who agreed to this mediation have been indefinitely blocked. El_C 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The good faith editors who have been participating in the mediation - they want some neutral admins to go to should they get into any further disputes or problems with the page.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do those (four) editors point to problems with non-neutral admins; not sure I'm following this, still. El_C 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No it was nothing like that - they just want a small group of people who will actively look over the article so will understand the context of disputes that arise there. One of the concerns was that they weren't sure where to go if they have problems. A small mentorship page would allow all discussion to stick to one page. It's almost like continuing the mediation, if further problems arise then there's a structure in place to allow a better resolution.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is a separate enforcement page for this mediation necessary, vs. this page, AN/I or some element of MedCom? I ask because I think the reason there are no admins working in PAW is that its a black hole of craziness, and why would we want to stick a number of admins permanently with the job instead of directing problems here with a link to the resolution and advice on how to react? Is this analogous to article probation, and amenable to the solution being used on homeopathy pages? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason we need a seperate page is because it's not really an enforcement page it's more of a continuing mentorship/mediation page. All disputes don't belong on AN/I and this small page will allow administrators who all the parties have agreed upon to help point things in the right direction. If a resolution is required, the admins can help with that before it need to go to AN/I. Obviously, if one party isn't happy with the arrangement, then they are free to get a second opinion at a noticeboard. The idea is to keep the decorum of editing without having to go running between noticeboards. Having a set few admins will help keep things on the right track and the participants will learn to trust them.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Extreme caution is required here. Pro-paedophile activists have been summarily banned for bringing the project into disrepute, and in such cases it is normal that the only avenue of appeal is through ArbCom.  Having such people editing articles on paedophilia and related subjects is about as welcome as having holocaust deniers editing articles on concentration camps, and for pretty much the same reason: theirs might be a documented minority POV which can be discussed on Wikipedia, but it is a POV which is roundly rejected by a consensus amounting to very close to 100% of reliable independent sources - an extreme fringe minority. There is a significant difference between the pro- and anti-paedophile activist positions, in that the anti position is mainstream, and editing with a mainstream bias is inherently less problematic than editing with an extreme fringe bias. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get reinvolved now, but I have waded in on this in the past. I would have to say that there is both some extremism on the anti-pedophilia front that we need to avoid taking over the articles (stay NPOV / mainstream) and a significant danger of previously banned pro-pedophilia activists trying to edit again and reslant thing to their side.  It's hard to engage here, both because the topic tends to be personally offensive to a lot of people, and because it's often hard to find the neutral wedge between pro and anti extremists.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The major problem in such disputes, though, is the fallacy of the false middle.  The NPOV position is not the average between the extreme pro and extreme anti positions, it's only slightly softer than the extreme anti position. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editor
Since creating his account under a week ago, User:ParnellCharlesStewart has been involved in nonstop conflict on several articles. He created an attack article and removed the CSD tag several times, and is making interesting comments like this and POINTy comments like this and this. He was blocked for 24 hours on the 29th for edit warring on Youth rights, but it seems to me that this user is contributing nothing constructive here. Could be a sock of someone, as I thought I'd seen that deleted article before, but either way, I'm suggesting an indef block. GlassCobra 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * check out his userpage. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I blocked him for creating the attack article, not for edit warring. When I blocked him, I was very close to blocking him indefinitely, but I didn't the case was that serious yet. Well, now I'm convinced that an indefinite block is necessary, since he's apparently Wikistalking .  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked him indefinitely. I'm a bit surprised he was given another shot after that attack page, which was pretty bad, but I suppose it's good to see WP:DBTN in action. Basically everything he's contributed has been unconstructive and obnoxious, and I think we've seen enough. MastCell Talk 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with indef block. He seemed to have nothing positive to offer and seemed only to be here to make one or more points. It did not hurt to give him a second chance to contribute constructively. Now we know. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, he's a Markanthony sockpuppet, as confirmed by CheckUser. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

New essay
hmmm.... thoughts? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved this to User:Halo/How to force through policy without consensus. One person's bitterness is best kept out of projectspace. – Steel 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Staeckerbot Error
Staeckerbot (Contribs) seems to be making an error when notifying users, appending '(page does not exist)' to the end of username talk pages. For example: User talk:Jessr6544 (page does not exist) and User talk:InvaderZimm77 (page does not exist).

I notified the bot operator by email about 5 minutes ago. Brianga (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot operator has stopped the bot's operations and is in the process of cleaning up. Brianga (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to go ahead and start deleting all of those non-existent userpages. Looks like there is quite a few. Tiptoety  talk 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All erroneously-created user talk pages have been deleted. — Kurykh  04:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More still exist created by other users (search) Jackaranga (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometime around the 22nd, the "title" attribute of links to non-existant pages was changed. This has been a bloody annoyance to all of us bot operators -- ImageTaggingBot has been offline for a while, and I haven't had a chance to fix it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who helped to clean up after me, and I'm sorry that it went so long without being noticed. Staecker (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No Block log available for a user ?
Hello is it normal the block log of User:69.I38.73.I58 appears blank even though I reported him at WP:UAA, and the helper bot removed him and said he was blocked ? If one is to look at the deletion log of User talk:69.I38.73.I58 it appears he was blocked previously, yet all his logs are blank, it is a real user though, he has contributions. Note: this is not an IP user, it's a trick the '1's are capital 'i's Jackaranga (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IP adresses can not be blocked for having inappropriate usernames, and as such the IP was never blocked. It appears someone (non-admin) left a block message on the IP's talk which could have made the helper bot say he was blocked, then the talk page was deleted. Tiptoety  talk 06:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Username is blocked (see Ipblocklist entry); the block log sometimes glitches and misses an entry. Can be confusing, but this case seems to be resolved. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And now i see why it was blocked, I even fell for it :P Tiptoety  talk 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, took me a second, too. ;) – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification to Template:BirdTalk
Could someone please make the edit I requested on the talk page? Richard001 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wish admins wouldn't fully protect project templates like this one unless they have been vandalised before. If a group of users started a project and went to the trouble of creating the assessment box, it seems unkind to stop them editing it, when it has never been vandalised.  It is supposedly high risk, yet it has never been vandalised in 4 years!  The same goes for many other project templates.  you might as well protect all articles, most articles 4 years old have been vandalised at least once, some hundreds of times.  And we don't protect articles featured on the main page, even though they are high risk also.  Yes these templates have a high usage, but no they are not high risk because they are only used on talk pages, and are not substituted, so fixing vandalism would be very easy if it were to occur.  Something like Uw-vandalism1 (only semi protected) is much higher risk, especially as it is substituted and vandalism might go unnoticed for a few minutes and be inserted all over the place at random.  Jackaranga (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with templates, is that if they are vandalized, the damage is greater. See how many currently blue-linked user pages there are here (a list of pages in CAT:CSD) left from vandalism reverted about an hour and a half earlier on a "template" which was transcluded on these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Took care of the request.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

USER Himhifi
USER Himhifi has placed continued attacks on the Talk:British Raj talk page. Latest comment was made 09:51, 5 March 2008. Indian nationalism being expressed continually, and last comment highly offensive. Part of the rant included `Did you want to bring Indians on the verge of extinction like Australian Aborignees who are suffering death, disease and poverty in their own country at the hands of descendants of British.``

Please help. Surely these comment should not be on a Encloypedia. Rockybiggs (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd be better off contacting the user in question on their talk page first, and see what they say. To be honest, I don't see why the comment is highly offensive, but I have no idea about the subject matter so it's perfectly possible I don't understand. If you ask the user to clarify or remove their comment politely (or try and engage them in discussion) and they are overtly rude then, do come and reply here <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;αlεx•mullεr 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Some dubious goings-on at Central Communications Command
Could someone uninvolved take a look at the recent history of Central Communications Command? C.C.C. is an information & communications agency within London's Metropolitan Police; an anon IP, clearly either a member of the organisation or someone posing as such (note the "us all") has totally gutted the article, removing more than half the references along with any comment critical of the agency (I wrote the original version, and was very careful to make sure all comments were sourced, given the potentially sensitive nature of the subject) and adding a number of "we are great" puff-pieces about their work. While normally I'd never bring what's basically a content dispute to AN, I'd like someone completely uninvolved to take a look at what's going on here and try to resolve it - previous edits by security agencies to Wikipedia have resulted in some undesirable media attention, and I'm really not sure what the best way to go here is, quite aside from any WP:OWN issues were I to revert changes to an article I wrote the bulk of. (The anon may well be far better placed than I to describe the workings of the agency, but all their additions are uncited and they're removing anything critical.) —  iride  scent  11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first couple of edits from the IP were certainly good faith. After that, things clearly slid downhill fast and the IP began to whitewash the article, removing sourced criticism and adding puff pieces (as you say above). This may or may not be a Metplod IP, but either way, the removal of sourced material and the insertion of puff won't do, so I've reverted with an edit summary that assumes they did it by mistake. I don't see any WP:OWN problems for you to do the same in future, Iridescent, for the good of the article. I'll also watchlist it - can't harm to have more eyes. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WHOIS reports the IP to be an NTL/Tesco IP address. So that's probably tesco.net. The person at the other end may be Metplod him/herself, but isn't editing the page from a Metplod-registered address. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that... I look forward to reading WR's explanation of how I'm collaborating to stifle The Truth... —  iride  scent  12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This bears more than a passing resemblence to this; another British Police agency being zealously "maintained". LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect move technique in lots of places; potentially incorrectly renamed as well
User:Stevvvv4444 has moved some of the articles on Pakistani British around using the incorrect, cut & paste, method. I have no problem with what he's done (in principal), and left him a note on his talk page to come and talk to me if he wants any help. I've flagged the articles as recommended on there, but the problem is I think he's incorrectly renamed them: instead of Pakistani British it should probably be Pakistani Briton(s). Unfortunately following my G6 notices on the page would get them put in, what I believe to be, the wrong place; could an admin perhaps: Please? The articles involved are: NB, he's also attempted to move a category over, but I'll take that to CFD. Any help would be much appreciated. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete the articles this user has created
 * 2) Revert the changes to redirects on the affected articles
 * 3) Move them to the correct place
 * 1) Pakistani British/British Pakistanis (should be Pakistani Briton I think, as per Pakistani American)
 * 2) List of British Pakistani people/List of Pakistani Britons (I believe the second one is right, and is currently tagged with G6, and with it being deleted then correctly moved would be 100% ok).
 * ✅ You can list these at Cut and paste move repair holding pen where someone will deal with them. I have restored the history to Pakistani British and List of Pakistani Britons. I suggest a WP:RM for the Pakistani British article. Woody (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades yelling to make a point on reference desk, using admin status to intimidate and threaten
user:TenOfAllTrades was yelling to make a point on the reference desk seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=193960865

While his intention was good, he broke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT He yelled himself to make a point, which I warned him about here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenOfAllTrades#Yelling

Him agreeing or disagreeing with my request for him not to yell to make a point, would have been acceptable, but then threatened to use his administrator status to ban me. Seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196056175&oldid=194745828

He was using his status as an administrator to intimidate, and threaten me, which I feel is unacceptable. Please note, administrator User:Friday was also involved in this issue which can be seen on Ten's talk page, and has a history of being biased and harrassing me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a POINT violation. Capitalizing ALL CAPS is common.  I'd suggest that you take note of the comments left to you here.  Nakon  16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be the case, but the issue of him using his admin status to intimidate me for advising him was uncalled for. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a little far-fetched. It is common for people (not just administrators) to capitalise lettters. It can either get the point across clearer or try reasoning with other parties - both of which have been done in the past. Rudget . 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He never threatened to use his admin status. He threatened that you would be blocked, so not necessarily by him. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Not a WP:POINT violation. 2) The matter had dropped for 6 days until you (IP) decided to have another dig 3) Ten could perhaps have been marginally more diplomatic in his original comment but he was only speaking the truth - CAPS LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING. 4) Ten and Friday are respected editors - where is this history of "bias" and "harrasment"? 5)Please show why Ten is "using admin status to intimidate" - any editor could have given you a warning like that, admin or not. (ecx5) Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec ad nauseam)I can't see that he used his admin status in any way to threaten you - he simply said that if you didn't stop trolling (and I offer no view as to whether or not you were) then you may be blocked from editing. Any user may warn any other user in the same terms. How exactly do you believe this constitutes abuse of his admin status? The public face of GBT/C 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He using his status as an administrator to threaten and intimidate me. By doing that, he is not allowing free communication. He is using fear to control me. He has now threatened to ban me for advising him on his talk page, and now he has threatened to ban me for reporting him to Administrator's Noticeboard. I feel this is an abuse of his power. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For any admins who are curious, the user posting this complaint is editing from a static IP, so a block would be effective. I might just go rouge and do it myself, but I'll wait for comment.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my point. He is threatening to block me for reporting him to Administrator's noticeboard now. He is using his status as an administrator to harrass me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is most definitely a WP:POINT violation here, but not by TenOfAllTrades. I suggest dropping this matter and moving on. MastCell Talk 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox archive?
Just came across this Sandbox/Archive. Is the sandbox supposed to have an archive? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At that time the sandbox had nearly half a million edits in its history, making it impossible to delete - it was moved there in hopes that this would become a regular practice to keep the main sandbox page at under 5000 edits. —Random832 18:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps should be indicated as comment or archive tag on page. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WIKIFASCISM: new word; definition page deleted by wikifascist editor as contentless
I tried to add an important entry: sub-Planck Of course, some stupid editor administrator deleted it instantly; refused to reinstant an underconstruction project; I am not against him personally; he is simply ignorant of the physics. Afterwards he deleted my WIKIFASICM entry (about the general fascism behavior of editors that is killing off this encyclopedia turning into an encyclo-ego-ia on their part.

I know the editors and administrators don't want to admit it but there is an enormous amount of WIKIFASCISM going on these days; it is a problem wikipedia must consciously face and solve although it is sadly in denial.

See sub-Planck See wikifascism Wiki fascism: (noun) The tendency of editors and administrators (or those with Wikipedia power) to instantly assume all contributions, new pages, and other modifications are wrong, invalid, misguided, don't follow procedure, no wanted, and to delete them -- instead of letting these new pages grow by the user community's edits and additions. Killing the baby pages at birth; not letting them mature. This tendency was not prevalent in years before 2007 but is perhaps inevitable now that Wikipedia has grown. Also involves killing common knowledge additions to articles before the contributor has tracked down the exact reference on the assumption that the contributor is wrong or that the contributor has no clue what he is talking about. Also involves petty empowered Wikipedia experts playing “God” with the content and direction of the Wiki project contrary to its original sprit of a community and its replacement by a new orthodox order of privileged editors and censors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if anyone's ever taught you that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. It's also true that you persuade more people with logic than with vituperation. Justin Eiler (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they did and they were wrong...I put in a valid physics entry with logic, math, etc. content; it gets deleted by a wikifascist; I meantion a real problem WIKIFASCISM and I get silly coments back instead of dealing with the issues; There is a lot of vinegar on wikipedia now; there didn'tuse to be. It is poisoning the honey; when I point this out; people criticize ME for being direct which is fine as I can take it instead of dealing with the real issues. A friend of mine told me not to bother with wikipedia entry addition any more because she had a similar experience; I didn't listen; she was right. It is not worth it...wikipedia has become an orthody of feel good types or perfectionists strangling the information additions people are trying to make... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at sub-Planck, I'd say that it was extremely borderline as an A1 deletion. However, Physicman, it did read like an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article.  I'd suggest taking another crack at writing it, only keeping it more encyclopaedic in tone and making sure it's referenced to reliable sources.  I can provide you with the text of the deleted article if you need it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, if you can find ONE good reliable third party source for "WIKIFASCISM" (or even in lowercase) I will personally undelete the article and protect it from deletion... Or do you think that going by the rules is too constrictive? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that I agree that the deletion of WIKIFASCISM was clearly appropriate. My comments above are only about sub-Planck, which was somewhat dubiously deleted as an A1, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Was still speedable. The subject (under-construction for months to come, we are told) is clearly the author's own original theory. El_C 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mm, not quite. . It seems to be a novel branch of physics, but gets ~5,700 Ghits, so presumably could be written about. Whether it survives WP:FRINGE, however, would remain to be seen. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 18:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't think that's the case; I didn't see sources cited in the article, but I don't think it was clear OR. He should have been given the chance to provide sources before the article was deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course people write about what's beyond the visible universe, what happened before the big bang, and what is sub any given planck unit — that is not the point. It was clearly original research, with the main topic(!) being "under construction." El_C 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OR isn't speediable, though. Those criteria are quite narrow on purpose. Natalie (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get stuck on the legalism of it; use common sense. El_C 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, since it seems like it would be easy for an admin unfamiliar with a topic to assume it's OR when it's not. But whatever, it's not terribly important. Natalie (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, though it's common sense for an admin unfamiliar with the topic not to make these assumptions. El_C 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is further to Physicman's concerns just above. Suppose someone creates a draft of a new article and wants to display it for the purpose of getting comments, edits, references, etc that may improve the article. How can they do this without posting the draft article in the mainspace? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refer to this manual. El_C 18:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The use of the Sandbox project pages with a note to the relevant interest group participants that an article is being crafted seems to work well. I have used this method on occasion when there is a topic that is not fully developed yet is in a working stage, and therefore, eliciting comments and edits to the sandbox project is appreciated. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

For those unfamiliar with high-energy physics, Planck units refer to the smallest measurements in physics (length, mass, time, charge, and temperature). Beyond those units, elementary-particle physicists generally do not go (similarly to cosmology and pre-Hot Big Bang era or what if any is beyond the visible universe). What the author did was write an informal piece about the Planck scale, then left the "sub-planck" bit (yes, the actual subject!) "under construction." I would have speedied it in a breath, as Natalie Nawlin did, too. El_C 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I don't think I did that deletion... I am confused. Natalie (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am of course referring to your deletion of sub-Planck. Oops, wrong person! El_C 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Troo Fact: I Googled "sub-Planck" and found links to "Bogdanoff" - and yes, those Bogdanovs, see http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=20423563. Makes you think, doesn't it?  About 4,000 Ghits, starting wiht some incredibly unreliable sources, so it's a likely valid A1, and a possible Bogdanov sock. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow, it just does not strike me as being on that level of fringe-sophistication, but it is possible, I suppose. El_C 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * still not happy. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Article's back up as well: Sub-Planck, no doubt to the chagrin of "grossly Physics-ignorant Administrator Delete-jockies" everywhere. It appears to have one reference now - a letter to Nature which at least uses the words "Sub-Planck". I'm inclined to issue a pretty stern civility/NPA-type warning to the contributor and let the article go for a few days - it needs massive cleanup, at the very least, but nerves seem a bit raw at present. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on it. If experienced people believe in good faith that it isn't a speedy candidate, it can't hurt anything much to send it to AfD and let it stand or fall on its own merits, anyway. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If a page is wrongly deleted, just point out it was wrongly deleted, by discussing the matter with the deleting admin or taking things to deletion review. Running around screaming about FASCISM, FASCISM, FASCISM is entirely ridiculous, inappropriate based on a single incident with a single person, and does nothing but turn people off listening to any legitimate points you might have actually had. If there's a problem, state it simply and calmly. On the internet and on Wikipedia in particular, it is very much in your interest to appear reasonable and worth listening to whenever possible, lest people make the obvious conclusion. Perhaps this comes across a bit strongly, but good golly, if you plan on getting anywhere in a social enterprise, you'll need to develop some social finesse. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard of the word WIKIFASCISM on the Internet, and it is problamatic that the outside community percieves Wikipedia to be as such. I have a paralel article essay that I have created WP:SEI which is about social engineering on Wikipedia and it is being POV to deletion because the topic is unpopular, more like Taboo for discussion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Social engineering Internet. Because I created the essay and have linked to it to show its relevency, now all my past good faith edits are being scrutinized and examined under a microscope. My references from my Websites are being scrutinized as WP:COI in an ANI thread Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Is this type of behavior and action not resemble Fashism hence the terminaligy wikifascism. It is a real shame and a big problem for Wikipedia if the outside community percieves us as such and we do not even want tto identify that it is a problem and WP:STEAM and stonewall the issue to mute its apparent WP:notability Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As Luna Santin said. Applying the term "fascist" to an admin who speedy-deletes your pet page betrays both an extremely superficial and ignorant understanding of fascism and a tendency to hyperbolic vitriol at the least provocation. The second, in particular, plays badly on Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Applying the term fascism to any editor is derogative and should not be done same as any insulting label. And we all know tones of them. But the consept WIKIFASCISM does exist and it is seen from outside at Wikipedia. So how do we all deal with it? Do we just censor it out, or aknowledge it as an article or an essay? Igor Berger (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to advice to the editor as much as there is notability for WIKIFASCISM the term itself is inflamatory and even harmful to the project. Why not use WikiCommonSense and add the description of WIKIFASCISM in the article from an unbiased POV. You can also add Wikipedia Social Engineering content to the article, because I feel WP:SEI maybe deleted soon per MfD and no userified version will be around because of the controversy it brings. Also adding other information relevent to all POVs will make the overall article WikiCommonSense fairly balanced to respect the notability of the topic. By doing this we will apply WP:DUE and preserve WP:NPOV Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. 51 ghits. NN. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) or, for those who don't have a clue about XFD ("deletion") jargon (WP:WOTTA): "I have only found 51 references to this term in google. Therefore it is unlikely to be notable, and we can safely delete it"
 * Try 359,000 of WIKI+FASCISM And please read the titles and snipet descriptions when you search. Igor Berger (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First squillion pages is wikipedia hits. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what social networking industry blog TechCrunch has to say here Also Try Google WIKIPEDIA+FASCISM While this might be somewhat WP:FTN We should not dismiss it as irrelevent. Igor Berger (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those searches search for all words that contain both "wiki" and "fascism" but not "wikifacism". And as demonstrated by several of the results, any Wikipedia fork with the word "fascism" seems to appear.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  05:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:AlisonW
User:AlisonW is an admin who has recently had her biography deleted at Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). She is now using her userpage to label those who led to it's deletion as "trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists", which I believe violates WP:USERPAGE and WP:NPA. I removed it, and after my removal was reverted, asked for it to be removed, but Alison believes it is not a personal attack because it is not aimed at a specific editor. I'm seeking a second opinion. --Stephen 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For reference, the full quote is "though thanks to trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists (and then others joining in) it was recently replaced ..." and, so far as I am concerned, refers to both nominations on AfD. I see nothing in my statement that is directed against any identifiable individual and should someone consider that they fall into the first four groups (and I've no definitive list of who might and who might not) then that is for them to clarify, but my opinion is quite straight-forward and open. --AlisonW (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alison! Most of those who voted delete looks to me like respectable users and admins, and as one of them I find this a bit ridiculous. What happened to AGF? Please reconsider.--Docg 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be a silly question, but why is Alison a sysop? I don't think being chair of Wikimedia UK gives you automatic sysop rights on en.wiki, and I don't see an RfA. 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing she was promoted under a different user name. You should ask User:Danny as the promoting 'crat. See . Ronnotel (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alison, just remove it. Its definitely an attack, its definitely uncivil and frankly it smacks of sour grapes. Viridae Talk 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in that AFD - I'm astonished by that comment - virtually everyone on that AFD was a long-term editor, yes there were a couple of IP socks but they were easy for any closing admin to spot. I would ask you to remove the comment due to the bad feeling it will cause in the community. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I participated in this AfD, as well, and I don't appreciate being looped into the categories she listed (also, how is deletionist on par with the others?). My only knowledge of AlisonW from the past is when she threatened to delete all of Cuyler's subpages if he didn't do it himself. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's inappropriate use of user space. It surprises me that an admin (who is presumably an experienced editor) would do such a thing. Friday (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad form (yes), sour grapes (yes) Took the deletion personaly (yes), obviously she's upset over a processes and its outcome and probably shouldent have added it, but lets not pile on this user and make the feelings worse. She's got to remove it herself, and I trust she will. --Hu12 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * :: Hu - this is not like we are talking about Joe Blow who has wandered in off the streets and is now wondering what has gone on, this is an experienced editor,administrator chair of a wikipedia off-shot and long-term contributor - I think in light of that, the reaction has been rather mild. If this was Joe Blow, an admin would have gone in by now, warned and then would be removing if polite requests were not acted upon. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think removing it will ultimately lead to less stress/controversy in the long run. Tiptoety  talk 23:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is AlisonW's RfA? Bstone (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think RfAs sometimes aren't necessary/needed/used, for example in the case of WikiMedia employees <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;αlεx•mullεr 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But she isn't a wikimedia employee is she? She is chair of a chapter, which anyone can create. (Wikimedia chapters) Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Seems a little wrong to me. But that's just me. Bstone (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly true Prodego, I'm not sure of the technicalities there. In any case, it could even be something like an RTV, where previous administrators can contact a crat in private to regain +sysop. I know I've read that somewhere. This could be construed as searching for a reason for her not to be an administrator, which doesn't strike me as important here <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;αlεx•mullεr 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that perhaps Alison was not entirely experienced, which means she might not understand completely the myriad of rules we have. Unfortunately, as per below, this was not the case. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alisons RfA can be found here - after looking at logs on meta, up until recently it looks like she had two admin accounts, but these rights were cut down to the main AlisonW account a few weeks back.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Any hint as to why she was running two admin accounts? Viridae Talk 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, she had her normal account (VampWillow) but also had a seperate role account for percieved official wikimedia business. I think the reason for the change was most probably because it was made clear that she didn't have the authority to make official actions on behalf of the foundation. There was obviously a mix up at the time of sysopping the AlisonW account.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am dubious that VampWillow is Alison simply as VampWillow exercised a right to vanish. Bstone (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like (a) the RtV deletion of the VampWillow pages is not precisely in order given the person didn't actually vanish and (b) linking to the RfA, and thus the prior identity, of a vanished user sort of defeats the purpose. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise there was a RtV - but that said, when you excercise your right to vanish, you're supposed to leave.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why that page has been protected for over a year and a half now? It's not a big deal as it's pretty rare that editors should edit others' User pages but it seems a bit odd and out of line with the protection policy. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming up on two years, even. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this not seem like an interesting use of admin power? Bstone (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the Alison that fully-protected Vampwillow's userpage was me, not AlisonW - A l is o n  ❤ 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It strikes me the conversation has now deviated sufficiently from the first post in this section. :) <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;αlεx•mullεr 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is AlisonW, and whatever else about her that is brought up is relevant, assuming it is about her behavior. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the log entry from meta anyway - this isn't a legit Rtv request.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the AfD-related incivility, the user also snapped at a wikignome who was going about his business. AlisonW wrote, while deleting a request from her talk page, "rm unneccessary comment - you've succeeded in killing the article; stop pushing". This despite the fact that user:PC78 apparently had nothing to do with the AfD and was just fixing links that had gone to the deleted article. I understand that having a biography on Wikipedia (or having it deleted) can be emotionally involving, but this user needs to chill out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See - this edit summary of reinstate - do not edit this page if you aren't me, thank you) is a bit problematic, generally your user pages are your own but they are actually the property of the community and I don't see a reason why the community has not had the technical ability to edit that page for two years, unless we are all getting the ability to protect our user pages for as long as we like? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, generally speaking you can protect your userspace for as long as you like - it's in WP:PROTECT.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I checked but I thought that was indefinite semi-protect not full? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's actually any protection that the user wants - not what I'd personally do as I like to keep my userspace open to anyone because I don't own it, but hey, I'm just one voice.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that being the case from the policy page - can you point me to what I'm missing? Thanks, <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right actually guys - it's only s-protection. I took it as read that you could request full protection as many admins have their userpage fully protected.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats because User:Alison (not User:AlisonW) just changed it to semi. Tiptoety  talk 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He was referring to the policy (see above) and not the page. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Nono - it was fully protected when Ryan made that comment. I think he's referring to WP:PROT, which does only specify semi-prot on demand for a userpage - A l is o n  ❤ 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with an admin exercising a right to vanish and then having a 'crat move the admin abilities to another account. Anyone else? Bstone (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple - she had two admin accounts (a normal one and an "official" account) - they simply removed the admin bit from one account meaning she no longer could make official actions on behalf of the foundation.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh ok. Bstone (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Right to vanish "Like ENWP, most other Wikimedia projects tolerate the "vanishing" of users who wish to leave permanently." (emphasis added). The permanently seems to me to mean that someone leaves the project in all their incarnations. This seems not to have happened but rather one account vanished and Alison stayed. Does this confuse anyone else? Bstone (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Back onto the logs, and I am of the understanding that AlisonW had the developers remove a handful of log entries related to these two accounts and their access levels. At least, there's no other logical explanation for a log entry for the promotion of an account locally suddenly disappearing, as I observed recently to my shock and horror. Gentle probes to the relevant people have shown a tenderness when I suggested this possibility, so this is my best guess. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, I've boldly reduced her userpage prot. to semi-protection, per policy, so we can move on from that point now - A l is o n  ❤ 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an obvious lack of transparency if an administrator vanishes then reappears under another name. The RfA process is meant to be visible to the entire Wikipedia community. If you exercise the Right to Vanish, then any administrator privileges should vanish along with you, and by creating a new account you are in effect going "back to the beginning" and should have to re-earn those privileges. Unfortunately, policy currently allows you to keep your admin priviliges, which is something which ought to be addressed. (That said, this case is rather complicated, and her position within the Wikimedia Foundation (whatever that position is) complicates things further.)

Regarding AlisonW's behaviour, from what I've experienced it hasn't always been becoming of what I would expect of an administrator. (See this, this, this, and this for instance.)  As for the AfD discussion, I can't see anything that could be described as trolling, and certainly not homophobic. (If someone had argued "delete because it's about a lesbian", then that would be homophobic, but such a complaint would be shot out of the water.) Consequently the remarks on the userpage seem totally unjustified, but even if the AfD had been full of homophobic trolling it would still be a personal attack. (As for there being someone with the same name as her, well, the Wikipedia article about someone with my name is about someone who allegedly spontaneously combusted, so beat that.)

I would advocate the de-sysopping of AlisonW and suggest that she have a new RfA to get the admin privileges back again. Then the community's views on her could be discussed in full. I don't know if policy allows for this, though, and also I wouldn't want it to turn into a witch-hunt. --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * AlisonW was entrusted with admin access by the Wikipedia community. She holds that right under the same terms as anybody else. If you feel she needs to modify her conduct as an admin or resign that status, the usual means of redress apply. You can create a user conduct RfC provided that two or more editors have tried and failed to resolve a dispute with her. Alternatively, you can ask ArbCom to review her conduct. She has not to my knowledge made herself open to recall. WjBscribe 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, as far as the community was concerned, it wasn't AlisonW that was entrusted with admin priviliges, it was VampWillow that was. Until someone in this thread revealed that fact by accident, the community (as far as I am aware) did not know that they were the same person.  That's a serious problem. --RFBailey (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins have in the past been allowed to cease using one account and have their admin flag transfered to another account. In some cases where there has been felt to be a good reason for this, the community as a whole has not been informed of the link between the accounts. I cannot really comment further on that. My thoughts as to the avenues of redress available to you if you feel she has misconducted herself as an admin remain valid. WjBscribe 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm - I'm not seeing a serious and ongoing abuse of admin tools here (a page prot doesn't count) so why does she warrant de-sysopping? - A l is o n  ❤ 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think people are concerned at her misleading the community more than anything. Does she even have a role where she can make official edits? I think he user page is a little misleading because being the chair of a Wikimedia chapter does not give you a right to make edits on behalf of the foundation.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The role edit comment, if no longer true, is a bit misleading. Someone should politely ask her to revise it. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 01:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anything that would require a desysop at all. Reconfirmation RfA's based on this sort of situation typically get pretty heated, mostly because generally all RfA voters see them as useless. It is the human being that is trusted, not the username. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no abuse, no mis usual of the tools, and defiantly no grounds for de-syoping. While the message she left on her userpage was not the best judgment that is not grounds for de-syop. Tiptoety  talk 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, she hasn't abused the admin tools. But that's not the main point.  The problem is that she gained admin priviliges "via the back door", or so it seems.  I appreciate that it's the person that has the priviliges, not the username, but as far as the community is concerned, how are we supposed to know the difference?  Rhetorical question: if a user with AlisonW's record filed an RfA today, would it pass?


 * In response to "Admins have in the past been allowed to cease using one account and have their admin flag transfered to another account.", that's fine if they request a change of username. While this can be done discreetly and doesn't need to be advertised, it can be discovered by the community without needing to look up logs on meta.  If, on the other hand, an administrator exercises the Right to Vanish, then that's what we expect them to do--vanish.  --RFBailey (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * She invoked a Right to Vanish which by policy means she leaves WP. Not close one account and open another. There is surely a conflict of interest and the community to some extent feels mislead. A reconfirming RfA is the most appropriate thing to do. Bstone (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Bstone, that's a really bad idea. I went through that a couple of months ago after discussion like this, and it was unproductive for everyone. Unless you've got a proper complaint (not just "she's got no RfA") then don't put her through it again. Keilana | Parlez ici 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. Little evidence of improper behavior, no evidence of tool misuse. WP will not suffer unduly by choosing the course of least drama. Ronnotel (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I stand by it. Someone who invoked an RTV leaves the project. If they have another account which they being to use (besides from misleading the community about actually permanently leaving the project) then they have to go through an RfA again, just like everyone else. You don't get the admin flag transfered as you permanently left the project. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break
Issues as I see it: Attacks on the user page - everyone who commented seemed to agree that they were inappropriate and should be removed. RTV - whether RTV applies when you don't actually vanish. Role account - whether the user page should claim any kind of authority of the wikimedia foundation as it currently appears to indicate. Viridae Talk 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see RtV is that if you enact this - you go unless there's very serious privacy concerns involved. This isn't the case here given she's chosen the identifiable username as her account. With respect to the role edits, I've asked her on her talk page about this because I feel she has no official role.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's against policy to have role accounts. "On the English Wikipedia, the one role account currently permitted is en:User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. Any other accounts with multiple users are likely to be blocked." So anything purporting to be a "role account" should be blocked.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a role account — only one person had access to it. The problem was that it claimed some authority which it didn't have (per what the Wikimedia Foundation have recently told Alison via private correspondance). This confusion apparently led to the dual-sysop accounts as well, which was since remedied. Daniel (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut AlisonW some slack about the Alison Wheeler article. It's got to hurt to endure an AfD dscussion about yourself and I'd probably react similarly, even if inappropriately. I find the template controversy last month to be more troubling; see: -- A. B. (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive125
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5

Content removed
I have removed both the personal attack and the claim to official editing status from. I would normally not do this, but Alison has shown disregard for the opinions of others individually, and is not likely to honour what has been said above.

I am of the belief that a consensus, seen above, supports this action. To this end, I ask that in the event of the removals being reverted for the third time by AlisonW (and the first against a consensus rather than a unilateral action), that appropriate action (including strong warnings/page protection, whereby if Alison is to edit it to restore the content she will likely be desysopped for doing so for violating the protection policy, and scaling into blocks should she do this) be taken.

Daniel (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the removal. If AlisonW does not have authority to enforce "role" edits on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation then it is a blatant lie to claim so or a quite misleading choice of words.  More concerning however is the personal attacks she refused to allow to be removed.  No administrator possesses special privileges when it comes to adhering to Wikipedia policies.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  08:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of the content from her user page, but oppose any other action taken as a result of this thread <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;αlεx•mullεr 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am merely throwing the hypothetical that, should Alison choose to ignore the explicit consensus in this thread, it is ingrained in our policies that action must be taken to prevent the further disruption caused by such removals. I sincerely hope it does not come to that, and I commented to that effect on her talk page. Daniel (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of content but don't see any need for any further action at this moment - if she gets into an edit war about this or (going off what has been said here) tries to re-add claims to a official foundation role account, then we revisit the situation. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what I was saying in my last three comments to this thread. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the removal, I just came past to check if it had been removed yet and would have done so myself had Daniel not got in first. Viridae Talk 11:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I support Daniel's removal of that material as well, just for the record. I find the claim about making "role" edits as chair of the UK chapter rather concerning. Sarah 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also support - while chapters are very important to Wikipedia's growth and development, they relate to WM and not to en.wikipedia, and there should be no need for role editing. If someone is the head of a chapter making edits to chapter-related pages, noone would deny them the ability to do that themselves under their own account with their normal access level. Orderinchaos 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support removal of comment that originated this thread. No opinion on any other matter raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply from AlisonW
I see people have been busy while I was sleeping and the trolls have been busy stirring away. Anyway, to the first point regarding the original claim against me of writing "though thanks to trolls, homophobes, sockpuppets and deletionists (and then others joining in)" I would note that (a) I did not identify any specific individuals, but (b) I can justify *each* and *every* one of those elements with diffs (or links to now-deleted content). The truth may be difficult to accept, but truth is a valid defence. I chose not to list the diffs on my original statement precisely because they could be misunderstood. On the second point, that of 'role edits', perhaps it was slightly the wrong phrase, but it is the case that I made edits in the past at the request of and on behalf of the Foundation. These are all in the past (some distant past) and none had anything to do with my WMUK activities - that was just a juxtaposition of the items. --AlisonW (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alison, if you know that sockpuppets participated abusively in an AfD you should identify the accounts so that they can be blocked. 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe her sockpuppet addition was in response to Stephen's removal of the quote from her userpage; see User talk:Stephen. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's right, we are all trolls - yep that must be it. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please retract your statement that I'm a troll, immediately. I find it another grossly inappropriate edit which further compounds the issue. Daniel (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't accused you of being a troll, so I cannot retract it! Nor, in response to User:Fredrick day, have I said that everyone is a troll. Some people are clearly too touchy about the possibility, but please do not read into what I say things I most clearly have not. --AlisonW (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "I see people have been busy while I was sleeping and the trolls have been busy stirring away" — please clearly name who you were directing that comment out, or it can only be taken to refer to everyone involved. If you do not wish to name people publically, please email me and do so. But unless you specify, then your generalised attack is a personal attack, and no amount of semantics or rules-lawyering will do you any good. Apparently your semantics got a developer to remove the entry to your local user rights log after your removal of access on Meta, presumably to remove the attention it would have caused (and is enveloping now), but such course of action won't divert the issue here. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alison, the article was validly deleted under policy and procedure. Your attacking other editors, for the deletion of an article about yourself, is not acceptable. You may or may not be able to cite those personal attacks you made with diffs and "evidence". That doesn't matter. Saying "User:Bobbyjones333 is an asshole[1][2]" is as equally unacceptable as "User:Bobbyjones333 is an asshole". You are no more entitled to make such statements without facing sanction (warnings, blocks, probation, RFAR) than anyone else. Please stop before this escalates. The matter of the article is over for now; lets move on. Lawrence  §  t / e  14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on adminship and system logs
I looked into this some time ago at a third party request. VampWillow was given sysophood via the usual RFA process. An alt account, AlisonW, was (a long time later) sysopped by Foundation agreement, likely related somehow to separating edits and actions in her usual editing from those she might do in any kind of formal capacity. That adminship was enacted by OFFICE, and the common identity of the two users known to and identified to Arbcom at the time the AlisonW account began being used in that capacity. An early user/talk page version posted by AlisonW at the time, disclosed to the community that AlisonW edits under a second account which at that time, was chosen to not be linked. Non-disclosure that the second account was an RFA, seems reasonable, given that the matter was arbcom-disclosed, office approved and intended to allow her to "go about her business" without speculation on it.

Like various other account matters, it is generally the user that's relevant. I don't think this would count as "deception" in having two admin accesses --she did not for example go through RFA twice pretending to be two people or anything. The matter was agreed and enacted by the WMF office, likely by agreement of board or Brad Patrick, disclosed and known to Arbcom, and she was given by independent others, the approval and right to use a second admin account, this being at a time the community had already expressed confidence in her by giving her one admin account used to that time for personal editing.

Over time evidently the VampWillow account has fallen into disuse, but we do not remove the bit from dormant admins as a rule. However I suggested to her a while back, that she didn't need two admin accounts at this time, and evidently judging by the fact VampWillow is no longer listed as an admin as of mid-February, the comment was taken. The adminship itself seems reasonable.


 * Links: AlisonW current rights, AlisonW enwp rights log; VampWillow current rights, VampWillow meta rights log.

It's also worth noting that whilst a person's granting of +sysophood shows up in the local project log, its removal does not. This is well known, and there's an active bugzilla request for sysop removal to show up under local project logs. (Feel free to support it!) We had the same confusion with recent desysoppings such as Archtransit, where some people weren't sure if the desysopping had been processed since it didn't show up in local logs. It doesn't, and that's how it is for everyone, no developer deletion is implied. It's an easy error since you'd expect to work that way but doesn't; I fell into it my first time of looking up a desysopping too. It may be worth assuming good faith here both by, and of , Daniel, who obviously wasn't aware (as most people aren't), but to clarify, no desysoppings presently show up in any local logs. You have to check Special:Listusers for their current rights, or the user rights log on Meta for it. It's a known issue. FT2 (Talk 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "who obviously wasn't aware" — what? I'm very aware of the fact that a log entry on enwp went missing, and I know that desysoppings are only in Meta logs. That's how I confirmed my suspicions - that fact that AlisonW was desysopped but never resysopped, according to the logs. There's no confusion here. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns about VampWillow on Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler? She's there attacking the nominator the same way that she attacked the nominator of the latest RFA and also voting "Keep" as if a third person. Lawrence §  t / e  14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * She's had my comments on this, though only as a comment. If it was current, or a current issue, I'd say take action (discuss, try to resolve, etc), but this is historic stuff that's dead and put to bed, long ago (2005), and a year before the AlisonW account was actively on the scene; it's long ancient failure to disclose COI on one bio-article and its related AFD. However things change and at that time additionally, there was in fact no communal COI policy. What is now WP:COI was still at that time simply a page covering "vanity articles" only, and its main policy was basically that clear vanity articles get sent to AFD and Wikipedia isn't a vanity press. (I was new in July 2004; I only have written policy to go by for it.) But yes, I had not overlooked to check that aspect also. This is not to excuse or downplay COI or condone the past action, it's an assessment of a users actions way back in 2005, looked back at from 2008. Evidence of current issues is usually the issue. As a rule when examining conduct of active users with a view to criticism, we rarely go even one year back in their active editing history, in checking for evidence of behavioral concerns. FT2 (Talk 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: First off, let me say that you should never attribute to malice what can be blamed on negligence. I received a request from an English bureaucrat that they had questioned Alison Wheeler's "role account" and it was decided, with her consent, that she would have only one sysop account from now on, and that the sysop bit would be transferred to the User:AlisonW account. This is common practice. Unaware of the RTV status on the userpage, I foolishly made the assumption that it was common knowledge that her original account was well known to be her, and suggested that we ensure that things come up in the edit summary. After a distraught phone call from her regarding her privacy, I apologized and asked the developers that the log entries be removed. This is also acceptable practice (see OVERSIGHT, no. 1 for rationale). While I'm not certain why the Meta log entries regarding the AlisonW account was not removed as well, or at the very least the summary which tied the two accounts together, I will state that there was no "Foundation cover-up" involved in anyway, and more a lack of ample communication between the parties (Ms. Wheeler and myself).

Ultimately, AlisonW should no longer be considered a role account, just another administrator. This, I hope addresses the issues with the log entries. Cary Bass 17:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RtV doesn't work in using a real name account and hiding an non-real name account, so I find the "RtV" defence of Alison's to be faulty in the extreme. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Daniel. This is blatantly not a right to vanish, and a poor reason to remove a log entry, as it is common knowledge. You only vanish when you actually go. Alison hasn't vanished. She's still here. How was right to vanish allowed here, and why was the log oversighted? I saw the original log myself. No personal information was there whatsoever, just a link to the two accounts which isn't identifiable information. This is plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorly (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "I find myself agreeing with Daniel" — *inward smile* Daniel (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In certain circumstances, very rarely, there's justification for vanishing from an account with a real life link, to an account without that link (I won't name names because that defeats the purpose, email me if you like), especially where the person was harassed in real life due to the use of the account with a link to their real life persona. Generally, situations like this are discussed at length with the bureaucrats (who have to resysop) and occasionally the Office (for record-keeping reasons), and the decision isn't made lightly. In this case, however, the transfer is from a non-linked-to-real life-indentity account to an account which is linked to a real life person, which struck me as absured back in mid-February (to which I expressed my opinion privately), and still does now. Unless a user is quitting the project or there are extenuating circumstances related to revoking real-life identities due to harassment, the events here under the guise of "RtV" strike me as improper. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)