Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Naerii (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 21 June 2008 (→‎Civility/account problems with dorftrottel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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


    Problematic edits of Magibon

    A newbie user (Arguecat4 (talk · contribs)) is editing the article Magibon; his edits do more harm than good (adding nonexistent entries to infobox, and a trivia setion to the article). I tried explaining why the content he added to the article was inappropriate, but he just continues editing. Could an uninvolved user have a look at the article and talk to the user? (I have done everything I could, including spending my three reverts.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those are BLP violations, on first glance, I wouldn't worry about the 3RR when protecting it, but it's good you came here. Info about a girl's body measurements and where she lives and works need to be zapped quickly. I'll warn Argue on his talk, although if this continues a preventative block would be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add that Arguecat4 is also apparently a sock of User:Arguecat3, perhaps created to avoid 3RR. Dppowell (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given this editor's contribution history and particularly such edits as this, assuming good faith here would be naive. The duck test suggests some connection to this user, who has received a final warning for vandalism, here. Sockpuppeting to continue vandalism to avoid that block? In any event, I think it's reasonable not to tolerate unsourced additions to this article from this user. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now after further look, and edits like this, I've issued a final warning myself. However, a block may already be in order based on the magnitude of the vandalism, along with BLP issues. The page history needs to be reviewed for private, personal information, although I'm not sure how much of is simply fake. Might be real info, and would need to be deleted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect its garbage information, given such hidden vandalism as here with [[Georgia,_USA|Pennsylvania]]. I would tend to agree though that a block is not inappropriate based on behavior already displayed. I have notified the user of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    not all of it is garbage information. I am looking at it and weeding out inaccuracies. Also I changed user names cause I gave up on outright vandalism and was just trying to add info to a crap page. I will delete where she works etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you add unsourced information to this article one more time, I am going to block you for vandalism. Your history gives us no reason to believe that your edits are made constructively, and rather every reason to presume that you are attempting to be more subtle with your vandalism. Given that your first edit under this "new" name was the same as your last under the former, your statement here is demonstrably false. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ok I wil source it then re-add it. quit deleting it! also some of my info was sourced. And I was working on sourcing others D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arguecat4 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I indicated in my response to your note at my talk page, if you want to add information to the article, be prepared to provide reliable sources to validate it when you do. Again, given your history, there is no reason for us to make special allowances on a presumption of good faith. If you really want to contribute constructively, given that you started off vandalizing the article and admit as much, you should be more than willing to demonstrate that you intend to comply with guidelines now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out to those who arrive late to this conversation that this user's vandalism has included such charming racism as "[[Spic|minimum wage]] , here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the sockpuppet account Arguecat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and gave Arguecat4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a final warning. I still believe that he is not acting out of malice - he just refuses to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, perhaps he isn't old or mature enough to take it seriously. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I half hope you're right, but, on the other hand, I'd hate to think the user could be immature enough to think tucking "Spic" behind "minimum wage" is funny. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I have cleaned the rest and removed the term "wapanese" and personal name (because it is unsourced) from the infobox. I want to add that this Arguecat3 or 4 or whatever number, comes with high probability from a trollsite called "Encyclopedia dramatica" because their Magibon article has a co-author with exactly the same name (registered on ED as: Arguecat3) and I don't think that this is a coincidence because he tried to copy text from there.--Firithfenion (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the context. :) I'd agree with your reasoning there; again, the duck test applies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised noone wanted to be the first ever person to use {{BLP Spec Warn}} ... Neıl 龱 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being ironic. Most admins do realise we had (and continue to have) perfectly adequate remedies without it--as shown here. DGG (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ready for that indef block? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz

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

    I took a quick look. It appears to me that the involvement of rsdadford is very different in the two articles. In the case of Rydberg, he does seem to be removing relevant well-sourced information of the subject's sexuality. In the case of Metz, he is trying to insert appropriate sourced quotations about her biography. There are many specifics I have not fully gone into yet. In terms of manner and argument, his style of discussion is not compatible with proper collaborative editing--but neither is that of some of the people who oppose him. I'm not trying to give a judgment here, just put the matter in perspective from someone looking at it afresh. DGG (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given a final warning to one of the eds. involved about NPA, continuing after this matter has been raised here. DGG (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user showing disregard for 3RR rule and edit warring

    Resolved

    user blocked for spamming Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This User:Carl.bunderson is showing a total disregard for the 3RR rule and a short block might teach him a lesson so that he does not edit war like this in the future.



    • Diffs of 3RR warnings and previous blocks for 3RR violations:


    He was already blocked actually. Carl.bunderson for some reason was not blocked even though he was engaged in this ridiculous edit warring and 3RR violations. Something needs to be done to prevent this type of behaviour from Carl.bunderson. Certainly, he should not be exempted from the 3RR rule as he is a regular user like others. StevenHarrisonJr (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The brand new editor StevenHarrisonJr already knows how to forum shop. The identical case was submitted and closed at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Erm, alright then. What's that got to do with admins? I'll look at the essay anyway, but.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 06:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. When User:Radiant wrote an essay, he talked about it here, and no one complained. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wow"? It's not that amazing. This desk is for things that need admin attention, and this doesn't... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't take offence. I'm not sure why that other essay was discussed here...This page is for discussing admin actions, or discussing what an admin can do about X because of Y. Maybe the essay needed admin attention? I'm not sure. But bear in mind that the noticeboard is backlogged enough as it is, and we can only discuss the things detailed in the header. Otherwise it'll become manic! :) Hope that clears it up, and congrats on your essay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought it might do well for administrators to quote it to those who might need it in the future. It happens. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a noticeboard for things that may be relevant to admins. Issues that require admin action go on WP:AN/I, not here. It was entirely appropriate for TES to post this here. Neıl 龱 08:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the resolved template as there's nothing to resolve. This is a board for communicating with administrators (and others interested), ANI is a board for administrator attention. Evil Spartan; good essay. giggy (:O) 08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you both said that (Neil, Giggy). Talk about cold reception... Spot-on essay btw! Seraphim♥Whipp 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see a different essay. Wikipedia:Don't Accuse People. Naerii - Talk 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't need it as we already have a page for it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I being blacklisted

    Resolved
     – Naerii - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems there is a concerted effort to not acknowledge my work. See the following odd coincidences:

    1. After 127 WP:DYKs in which approximately 123 (97%) were properly recorded at WP:DYKA, the most recent thirteen of my DYK nominations have not been recorded in the archives. This is a bit much to be a coincidence. (Note the statistical odds of this happening as a matter of coincidence seems to be (4/127)^13=3x10-20.)
    2. When I became next in line for the Editorial Triple Crown, User:Durova went on hiatus from awarding them.
    3. Suddenly, none of my WP:FC nominations can get enough support for promotion (see User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews).
      The recent inability to get any support votes for Portal:Chicago, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Germany Schulz, Walter O'Malley are suspicious. These along with the consecutive fails of Rush Street (Chicago), Bob Chappuis, Marshall Field and Company Building, Jack Kemp when added to the mix is highly suspicious. It seems that the consistent theme of all the feedback is instructions to remove information. I am not necessarily suspicious of Dick Rifenburg or Crown Fountain at the stages they were at, although Crown Fountain has been revised and will be a major part of WP:CHIFTD.
    4. The sudden absence of nominees for the WP:LOTM process is also curious.
    5. User:SatyrTN retired leaving WP:CHICAGO without a bot to add {{ChicagoWikiProject}} and WP:BOTREQ has been unable to get a working bot to replace the services of User:SatyrBot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has archived DYKs in weeks. Nobody has been awarded triple crowns in quite a while. All articles at FAC are suffering from a lack of reviewers. The world isn't out to get you. Maralia (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK has been archived quite consistently since during my last thirteen noms. In fact, four new archives exist where my articles should be included (Wikipedia:Recent_additions_215, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_216, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_217, Wikipedia:Recent_additions_218). Please become acquainted with both the archiving process and my statistical argument before sweeping my complaint under the rug. My point is that it seems to be among the many coincidences that Triple Crown awarding has stopped since I became next in line. FAC reviewer paucity does not come close to explaining the sudden absence of support from anyone for any nomination I make.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to Satyr, editors leave all the time and he left a large number of projects with a big hole to fill, not just your fiefdoms. In terms of LOTM, perhaps editors have become bored with the excessive bureaucracy there or are actially using their time to write some articles, because they certainly aren't reviewing any. Every review process is suffering from a chronic shortage of reviews, not just the ones that you have nominated. I think you need to put the tin-hat back in the cupboard and move on. Woody (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand people leave. His absence is not curious in isolation. My first two complaints I am making are actually extremely curious in isolation. Let's start with the first of my complaints. Can anyone who understands statistics and the archive process explain a 10^-20 event to me as a coincidence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SatyrTN, god love him, also left WP:LGBT botless. I should claim homophobia, but I think Satyr's bot was as gay as he was. There is a bot request forum, which I employed while trying to get out the newsletter for WP:LGBT. WP:Florida is also silent. I don't know who to blame for that...someone who's not in the room will do... All groups go through phases of fierce productivity, lulls, patterns as members join and leave. --Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit to add: I left comments for the FAC of Walter O'Malley. I remember reviewing it and the state of the article during FAC. Please feel free to ask me questions about those comments. --Moni3 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your valuable work. But, if you expect recognition, Wikipedia isn't really much for that. We're volunteers, and the pay we get for our efforts is just as often abuse as it is thanks. That's life. Give yourself a couple barnstars if it makes you feel better. Friday (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could go on about this, but I won't, other than to say I see nothing for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is where an investigation would start if you were investigatively inclined: First determine the thirteen individuals who each curiously omitted archiving my DYK in proper sequence. That would lead to clues for an investigatively inclined admin.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So that would imply some sort of conspiracy? Also, can't you archive them yourself? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is I am not suppose to have to run around behind every archiver. I added the four that were mistakenly omitted. However, if every single one is going to be omitted something should be done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that you are being blacklisted, in addition to the absence of SatyrTN I have noticed a sharp decline in several areas of WP including edits in general. It seems that people just aren't participating as much lately. I for one have drastically reduced the amount of time I spend editing and creating articles because my RFA and other RFA's have shown me that the general feeling within the established community seems to be that participating in wikispace and non article pages are more important when striving to become an admin and get the mop. So although I no longer desire the admin bit the unnecessary buearocracy and drama that has been prevailing on WP of late also caused me a lack of edit-drive and thus reduced editing. Perhaps others have the same feelings. Good Luck.--Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again no explanation that seems feasible for a 10-20 event.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You will likely not find a feasible on on WP. All you can do is keep editing and accept that eventually (hopefully) your edits will be recognozed.--Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are failing to understand both the archive process and the statistical argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the argument I just think that its WP in general and not you or the edits your making. Moral seems to be low lately and less editors are participating in things like reviews and archiving. It could also be that whomever is doing the DYK's wanted to use some from other editors instead of the bulk coming from 1 or 2 users as they have in the past. I looked at the DYK's and there are a lot of different users DYK's instead of a lot of DYK's from a few editors. I think Satyr had so many things going on they went for the easy win and used submissions from editors they were familiar with and trusted (IE you) and now someone else is trying to spread that out and give more edits a shot at getting a DYK. I have no explanation for the featured articles or lists other than the reviews have been slower and slower lately.--Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You now seem to be confused on my complaint. It has nothing to do with which DYKs are selected. I am talking about archiving which is a matter of process not choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, it seems as if you won't be satisfied until someone creates a reason to fit into your calculation. "Everyone is slacking" seems to fit, as well as the fact that it's summer, no school, vacations, wikidrama, people will stay in a group for a few months and years and move on. We all will sooner or later. (Though we know it will all fall apart without us, no?) --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that slacking explains why the archivers are archiving all the DYKs but mine?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually don't know. My explanation was more about the larger picture, which it seemed you were trying to make with the inclusion of many facets of Wikipedia. Don't leave out the cause that, were I involved in DYK, would be the reason your contributions would not be archived: incompetence. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you want? People who aren't archiving DYK properly to be blocked? Some sort of wiki-investigation into a massive conspiracy? Based on what you've presented, it looks like people are just tiring of some processes. The solution is to advertise them and get new editors involved rather than claiming a conspiracy against you. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are all DYKs bar yours being archived? You have not, in fact, produced any evidence to support the assertion that you are the only one affected by the archiving issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dammit Tony, you caught us! Come on guys, let's just admit it. Wikipedia is trying to blacklist you Tony. First we started by suspiciously not adding your dyk's to archives, then we moved on to shunning any of your noms, and then, as icing on the cake, we stopped submitting lists to List of the day, list of the month, list of the fortnight, List of the every third Wednesday, whatever it is today. We also have a secret page at WP:TONY (mysteriously red-linked) where we can conceive all of our ideas to blacklist you. Seriously, when I log-in, that's the first and only thing I think about. How can I destroy Tony's Wiki-carer? And see, SatyrTN's little diatribe about taking a Wiki-break cuz he is building a new house is fake (can you believe the audacity of some people, actually doing things in RL...), it was just a cover so we could stop helping you. I am sorry Tony, but for some reason everyone's goal on Wikipedia isnt writing articles (pssshh who would even believe that's what we are here for?), it is to do everything we can to blacklist you! Guys next time we just have to be a little more secretive, Tony caught on pretty quick. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to antagonize him. There is also not much need for administrator assistance, so I can't see why this is here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagishsimon has made the most relevant point here. Tony, you need to look at all DYKs for the period covering the 13 that weren't archived, and see how many were not archived, and then take things from there. What I will say, thought, is that if anyone wanted to blacklist you, then "not archiving DYKs" would come pretty low down the list. It doesn't actually affect anyone whether DYKs are archived or not. The DYKs appeared on the main page, the templates were put on the article talk page, and the template was put on your page, right? Those are the important things. The archiving is nice, but not essential. I don't have any comments on the other points. Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If not archiving DYKs is low on the list where would coordinating failing WP:FC rank?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm' not sure I understand your question, Tony. Here's what I was writing when we ECd.
    Indeed, and to emphasize Carcharoth's point, were you being blacklisted, then I think it unlikely that your articles would have been chosen for DYK. Surely your nominations would have been ignored? Absent the DYK issue, and issues 2 - 5 look less compelling. I can see why 2 would add to the paranoia. 3 is surely well enough explained by apathy. 4 is a much better example of apathy ... seriously, what is the connection between your blacklist and the whole community becoming disinterested in adding nominations to LOTM? How exactly does that slight you, anyway? And 5 - another personal retirement. Surely, as someone claiming a grasp of statistics, you can see that you are selecting evidence to suit your predisposition, that you are being blacklisted. How on earth do you reconcile your blacklisted status with the fact that 13, no less, of your articles were DYKd. And please answer, and do not duck, the significant question about whether or not the failure to archive DYKs applied to others. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging this as resolved as nothing is going to happen but not-entirely-unjustified snipes against Tony. Nothing to see here. Naerii - Talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think I withdraw 1 due to a misunderstanding of whether they have gotten to my dates. It seems they have stopped or slowed the DYK archiving and may just be way behind. I still contest the support blanking of all my featured content. It is extremely curious.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is SandyGeorgia lamenting about the lack of reviewers throughout FAC. It's not just you who is being affected. The reviewers who are replying, though, are giving good suggestions, so their objections (or comments, rather) are actionable. I'm not sure I see any problem here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this harassment?

    WillyJulia (talk · contribs) is continuing to target myself over Chris Crocker a WP:BLP. At first they were trying to introduce identifying information on the subject against policy and consensus and when I intervened they copied my userpage, annoying but apparently allowable. Lately they have been posting on my talk with pronouncements and dictates for article changes (here, here and now here) despite my encouragement to use the article talk page for discussing changes. I see this as generally harassing me and this user's sole contributions here have been to disparage the subject of the article in various ways and then target other editors who have intervened. As I seem to be the focus of this attention I would appreciate other's take on this as I feel any warning or words from myself may not be seen in a neutral way. Thank you for any advice and assistance. Banjeboi 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left the user a bit of a warning, and watchlisted the relevant talk pages. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's the response. I consider the warning read and understood, and will go forward on that basis. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Willy requests that three sources be provided for analysis, then retorts with this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the user's history of personal attacks, I take it as a kind of baiting. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I forgot that I gave notice to Willy only two days ago, so this is his leash being tightened. If there are anymore, please let me know and I'll do a lengthy block. We don't need abusive "editors" like this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This relates to a BLP, so why don't we just ban him/her from the article and its talk page for six months per this? They could possibly become a good editor if they focused on another topic. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him 24 hours for this edit (coming back to the user's talk page after being warned not to). This short block was meant only to stop the current disruption. A lengthening or an article ban are worth thinking about. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (De indent, replying to WP:BLPBAN proposal) What possible reason would we have for bringing out the "special" big stick here? Just because a new hammer exists, please do not go looking for nails. My disagreements with it aside, this ruling is explicitly for the worst most intractable cases. If we normalise extreme action by applying it whenever we feel like squashing someone extra hard then the potential for abuse goes up by orders of magnitude. - brenneman 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The other option is to block the user from editing the site. Surely it's better to restrict them from editing the problem area and see if they'll contribute constructively in another topic area, rather than just to block them totally? The only difference between a community topic ban on Chris Crocker and using the enforcement is one requires a consensus pre-action, whereas the other doesn't. That's the only difference. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth I see this editor as having the potential to be a good editor just having a rather confrontational style which isn't often helpful. They have made some valid insights that have helped improve the article but the drama and excess energy of others to deal with the related problems is problematic. Wikipedia isn't a blog or chatroom but it is an online universe so I understand when users behave in a manner that would fit in better at other online communities. I wouldn't recommend a topic-ban as much as some version of schooling that WP:Civility is a core concern and improving articles requires working with other editors towards improving articles. Banjeboi 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To comment, it is worth some thought regarding a topic ban regarding Chris Crocker, but an equal amount of thought should be devoted to reviewing actions that transcend the article. There are many instances of gross incivility and personal attacks, for example, that no topic ban would be able to cover. I am suggesting in short, a topic ban from Chris Crocker, and an immediate block for any personal tirades and attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amandapanda1989

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SSP/RFCU merger

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

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

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

    FT2 (Talk | email) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent! And apologies for not weighing in on this sooner but, as a busy checkuser, I certainly support this merger. It makes a lot of sense given the crossover between these two areas - Alison ❤ 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to hear this as well. I always thought the distinction was a bit unclear; this will simplify the process significantly. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Harrassment by User:AnotherSolipsist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I'd like to point out the preliminary CU findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox which do have a bearing on this user's credibility. MBisanz talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is an abusive sockpuppet who was registered to participate in an edit war on Pederasty. I don't understand why he or she even remains unbanned. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record Burrburr has nothing to do with me though my RCU does indeed contain info after AS wrongly accused this user of being my sockpuppet. I think there are real privacy CU issues here and advise caution. I also think AS should especially be cautious rather than making statements including words like "abusive". Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Undelete requested

    Resolved

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

    Uhh.. it was deleted citing some OTRS ticket. I imagine the folks who handle such stuff would be the ones to know when/if it should be undeleted. I recommend nobody touch this one without further information. Friday (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, your best bet is to email the guy who deleted and ask if it's OK. (See [[WP:OTRS for more info.) giggy (:O) 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I talked with her over e-mail when the article was first deleted. She had the article deleted because she needed to get into Myanmar to do some journalism and prominent web mentions could have jeopardized that. She just sent an e-mail saying that her trip was over. Check the history of the deleted page as well, I believe one edit summary contains a request to have the article deleted for a month; a month has expired. See the original AN thread here. - Icewedge (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored (bar one edit) Happy‑melon 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed a couple more edits, as I figured it would be best not to have the journalist's personal email in the history. - auburnpilot talk 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection Policy clarification

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

    Uh, yeah. That's wheel-warring. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but other than wheel warring, it violates the protection policy, correct? pschemp | talk 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really an abuse of the protection policy per se, it's an abuse of the admin protection tool because an involved administrator has undone an uninvolved admin without consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the part that says, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."? pschemp | talk 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah then, it is against the protection policy - there are more warnings against doing things like that in the admin policy, hence why I said it was more abuse of tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for response. pschemp | talk 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Can't make a trivial redirect because of title blacklist

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

     Done. Not that I'm really sure anyone will search for that anyway, but redirects are cheap... -- lucasbfr talk 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is one even supposed to get that into the search box? This is completely useless. — Edokter • Talk • 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam Blacklist

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

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

    request to delete a template

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

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

    Yep, just to check first: Have they all been replaced as per the discussion? PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that wasn't set to 100% was swapped with {{reflist}} and everything else was switched to <references/>--Rockfang (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user page a copy of an article

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

    Looks like the editor is using his userpage as a sandbox to work on the article? So far as I know, that's fine, as long as there's no fair use media involved. -- Vary | Talk 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Vary said. There's some relevant bits at Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages if you wanted to see it in black and white. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Username

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

    Borderline. WP:UAA handles stuff like this for future reference, but I don't think this particular username is that bad. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess they're thinking of the town in Afghanistan. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, maybe. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 06:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    "Gay" is gender neutral, as a few gay friends of mine (men and women) would likely attest - if they were interested in WP... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Of course, "gay" is a co-opted word.[reply]
    With usernames in the considerably large gray area, it's often helpful to assume good faith and wait for them to start editing, then judge their likely intent based on those edits. In this particular case, it seems they're worth keeping an eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Marie Presley

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

    It seems to have cooled off .... for now ..... — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ever run into that problem again, you can leave a message on my talk page. I'm the rare admin is up overnight US time. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, I thought I was a lonely Ghost at these hours.— Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 07:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unblock of deleted Bum, Afghanistan

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

    Done. From that deletion log, I imagine it will need to be re-protected shortly after you create a valid article (or dab page or whatever you're intending). BTW, you might want to try WP:RFPP in the future... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be formatted as a disambiguation page if there are multiple places known as "Bum, Afghanistan" (not to be confused with "Bumfuck, Egypt" mind you). — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Account creator

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

    I've granted you the right. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kk, thanks. I'll go put it to good use. - Icewedge (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:WPBiography

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

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

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

    The line added should be:

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

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

    Have the bio project said they want it? If this change is made, it cannot be quickly reversed given the sheer number of articles using it. Has this been asked on the project talkpage? Woody (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I've looked at that template before. I'll give it a go. If I run into problems, I'll try the sandbox and testcases pages first. In fact, I'll do that first anyway - that is what they are for! This is a widely used template, so the changes may clog up the job queue for a while. And given Woody's comment above, I'll just prepare a sandbox version for now. Could someone notify the project? Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but C-Class has been recently introduced and needs to be inserted into the template to keep up with things, like with all the other WikiProjects on Wikipedia. It would be a bit stupid to have all the other projects using C-Class and the Biography one not using it. There's no harm in it, is there? D.M.N. (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You somehow managed to make the sandbox changes before I did. have you tested the changes? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there is, this is used on over 500,000 pages; it is the 10th most linked page. When changed, the job queue will be clogged. To do this twice would be very stupid. The "C" class is entirely optional, I know milhist are having a discussion on whether it is worthwhile implementing it. I ask that you do not implement this yet until a discussion has taken place (one just opened on WT:WPBIO). Woody (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of personal attacks from User:Moldopodo & his sock User:Xasha

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

    For vandal Moldopodo

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

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

    For vandal Xasha

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

    • 20:44, 3 June 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement)
    • 17:14, 30 May 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) blocked "Xasha (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1largeatom (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 Jun 2008
    And whose sock are you? --Oxymoron83 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer not to use my own account to post the message here. To be fully protected by the wave of personal attacks from that editor.--1largeatom (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above got you fully indef blocked by me - whatever basis in truth the claims, my understanding of WP:SOCK disallows the use of an alternate account to post such content and allow the main account to escape censure/consequences. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I fully agree with LessHeard VanU (it's understandable that someone would not want to be harassed by another user they may feel is likely to do so for making a reasonable accusation- not saying anything about these users or this accusation) but I trust his assessment of a policy he knows more about than me. However, Moldopodo has just been indefinitely blocked, so it may be worth confirming that Xasha =/= Moldopodo. It is worth noting that Xasha jumped to the defense of Moldopodo when no one else did. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you find any merit in the above accusation, please act accordingly. Otherwise, I think this section should be deleted per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits.Xasha (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dorftrottel (talk - contributions)

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

    For a user to be in violation of the 3RR rule, they need to have reverted more than 3 times. Might be an idea to read through WP:3RR to brush up on your knowledge of policy before you make a complaint. I've left a message on the user's talk page about him being a dick here but other than that, the rest of his recent contribs are legit there's really no cause for concern. He just needs to be a little more civil towards other members. I don't think revoking his rights to Twinkle would be appropriate in this case. ——Ryan | t • c 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflicted) uncyclopedia:Nobody cares? Seriously, there's nothing more pressing that you could take it upon yourself to be concerned with? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed twinkle - Dorftrottel clearly labelled good faith edits as vandalism, used twinkle to make attacks and ended up on the 3RR limit, using Twinkle to help him. It's unacceptable behaviour and should he revert again, he'll be blocked for 3RR. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, he's already broken the 3RR limit [2], [3], [4], [5]. Hopefully the warning will make him stop the reverts. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the Euro 2008 talk page and my talk page, though I'll admit I've responded in kind. He's repeatedly been informed that he's a dick, and despite his long history of being a disruptive member of this community, he's still allowed to edit, for what reason I can't even guess. Can someone please try to talk some sense into him? Thank you. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Grant Alpaugh, keep talking about civility, like you did e.g. here and here. user:Dorftrottel  20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have missed, "though I'll admit I've responded in kind." The difference, of course, is that you're also engaged in an edit war and the scope of your dickery extends about a mile further than mine. You also have a history of about 3 accounts that are indefblocked, so, honestly, I have no idea what the fuck it is you're still doing here. You abuse twinkle and are just a generally uncivil person. Hopefully you will be given some time to think about how to be a less abrasive member of the community. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is most certainly not your place to call anyone abrasive. I have never called and would never call anyone 'a cancer to this project'. I am trying to use Twinkle for the best of Wikipedia. I felt like I had to ignore 3RR because I believe (and I still do, in the absence of any valid counterarguments at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008) in the validity of my edits. I know that I can be abrasive, but I'm right, encyclopedically speaking. And you are wrong. user:Dorftrottel  20:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is substantially different from calling people idiots, mouth-breathing idiots, vandals, idiots again, and telling people they should leave the project entirely as you did here and here. As to your being a cancer to the project, I'm not saying anything that disagrees with your own admissions on your user page here: "But, partly owing to the fact that I can be a stubborn and impatient person, I wound up with yet another indef block," here: "After that, I spent a short time as an ordinary IP troll, angrily vandalising talk pages, trying to disrupt the workflow of established users etcpp. I don't remember many details, but the pages I edited were all related to the two prior accounts' actions and blocks," and here: "Obviously, up until that moment, I had no reason to be proud of any accomplishments at Wikipedia. That's why I then decided to create another account, by then knowing that I would effectively be evading an indef block, but I saw it as the only chance of really starting over." From where I sit, you really have no leg to stand on and should either be indefblocked for again becoming the troll you admitted to becoming in the past or you should be blocked for several weeks during which you can contemplate whether you want to be a productive member of this community, or whether you are going to earn an indefblock as soon as you come back. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NOT#NEWS, I would suggest that Dorftrottel was correct in removing live score updates - there is no encyclopedic value in reporting such information. Final scores may be of peripherial interest as regards the tournament as a whole, and may be recorded once the game is over. Without reviewing the content, if Dorftrottel had noted that placing such updates was against policy (and mentioned which one) then Grant.Alpaugh needed to form a consensus to keep posting the scores - and posting without consensus after being advised is bad faith = vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Kindly take a few minutes to review the situation before talking out of your ass about it. I never updated scores for Euro 2008, live or not, and my inclusion of the banner at the top of 2008 Major League Soccer season, an article I am heavily involved in, shows that I understand policy just fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please not continue to use phrases like fuck or talking out of your ass, if only to prove that you can do without that sort of talk? Talking about content: I think I have made valid points and useful suggestions throughout. I freely admit that it causes me stress to see how people like Grant Alpaugh dimiss all of it without presenting any valid arguments whatsoever. See e.g. the threads at Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 here and here for more examples than just the live score issue. user:Dorftrottel  21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take civility lessons from you when pigs fucking fly. The fact that your arguments are based in sound policy does not excuse the way you deal with your peers. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the above comment crossed with a final warning so blocking for this would be wrong but the next one gets a serious block. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's see. I'm right as far as the MOS is concerned (flagicon overkill), I'm right as far as policy is concerned (live scores), I'm right as far as avoidable redundancy in those articles is concerned. But Ryan Postlethwaite has removed my Twinkle, so you are officially right(TM). Wonderful project, this. user:Dorftrottel  21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought WP was uncensored, but whatever, I get the point. If only people were as concerned with the myriad policy violations committed by the subject of this thread as detailed above and below, my attention to this thread would no longer be required. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility/account problems with dorftrottel

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

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

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

    You are just pissed off that I voted against you in the Board of Trustees election. user:Dorftrottel  21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think I typed all that up in the short time between you posting on my talk and me posting here? Nope - there's serious problems here with your editing and I believe some strong editing restriction is required here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that's implausible. So is my editing in question now, or my civility? Please point out very carefully where my editing is problematic. user:Dorftrottel  21:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've told you, and documented above, it's your complete disregard for civility, coupled with the fact you've been shown to harass other users (as shown by indef blocks to other accounts of yours). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Harass other users??? Where did I harass anyone? Also, the indef blocks and subsequent block evasion issues happened one and a half years ago. I wish I had never written that disclosure note. Too many bad-faithed people who don't value honesty (even if it's late honesty) but actually try to turn it against you. user:Dorftrottel  21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The level of incivility is absolutely ridiculous. This is certainly worthy of a lengthy block, especially considering he seems unwilling to acknowledge the wrongdoing. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? I hereby acknowledge that I am too often too uncivil. Better? However, I still stand by the reasoning behind each and every single one of the diffs quoted above. user:Dorftrottel  22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto above comment. The comment on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page just demonstrates what a spiteful guy he is and it makes me wonder why he still has editing privileges ——Ryan | t • c 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to intervene after Dorftrottel was harassing User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and engage in discussion about some actual constructive editing, but the conversation went downhill. I think it may be RFC time first. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LGRdC was harassing my intellect. user:Dorftrottel  22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Beautiful response, that sums up the problem entirely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside observer this is totally and utterly not what is expected from an editor. Ad hominum comments do not help your cause Dorftrottel - I'm suprised you can't see how a comment like that, made in the middle fo this exchange, will do nothing but create even more concern about your net value to the project. Disapointing. I thought a lot higher of you until that. Pedro :  Chat  22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right... So you are posting links back to 2006, and the most recent being early November 2007, showing evidence of incivility and... er... coarseness and block evasion, yet are failing to recognise that 3RR does not count when combating vandalism - and repeated inserts contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS is exactly that (and, of course, what Twinkle is supposed to be used for and which you have removed) - which was the basis for the original complaint, and you think that this constitutes reason to have Dorftrottel sanctioned? I don't think you are being consistent in regard to the application of policy in the matter of this editor, and may consider withdrawing from the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at an original complaint and then decided to look a bit futher into the complaint of incivility. Those edits were not vandalism - not in the slightest. The results were always going to be put on here, it was a question on whether or not they should be put in as they happen (should results be updated mid-match). I'm not sure exactly why you feel there's a need for me to withdraw from the discussion - I've done things correctly so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The uncivil edits have been since November 2007 - most very recent indeed showing continued problems with the conduct of Dorftrottel, despite two accounts being blocked, block evasion and provious incivility/harassment. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not vandalism to edit in violation of policy? Perhaps once might not be vandalism, but repeatedly? My concern is that you appear as being somewhat selective in the upholding of policy, as regards this editor; you are linking to block evasion from last year, for which Dorftrottel has been sanctioned and permitted to return to the community, but removed Twinkle for reverting "non policy content" from the article. There is an appearance of inbalance in the manner in which you have personally interacted with the editor, and the violations you are bringing to the communities notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've highlight the previous misconduct from this user as others may not be aware, followed by highlighting issues since he was last blocked - I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm highlighting problems solely from years ago - I've given plenty of recent diffs. The edits were not vandalism - it was an edit was, simple as that. He broke the 3RR using twinkle, and got the tool removed, and a warning against reverting the page again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is not vandalism to edit in violation of policy?" Not necessarily, no. See Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If there's good faith involved, it's not vandalism, and we therefore should be very careful to label any good faith edits as such. --Conti|✉ 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed in the past weeks (or months?) that I have become less and less careful in distinguishing intentional, real vandalism from simply uniformed or sometimes aggressive edits and reverts. I don't know. Maybe it takes me ages to get my reasoning across in English -- and it's kinda frustrating to see how sound reasoning is frequently just dismissed, not listened or responded to. But I know very well that the people who inserted the live scores were not intentionally harming the article and therefore not vandalising. I was just angry, and the red (revert (vandalism)) button in Twinkle became too seductive. I suppose edits like those which I reverted need a new term. I hereby propose inadvandalism, for inadvertent vandalism. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with any kind of editing restriction. Dorftrottel may be pointedly incivil, but at least he's usually on point. We typically humor far worse on this site from people far more clueless, and with admin tools. Ameriquedialectics 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To your second point Amerique. Whilst agreeing that Dorftrottel may well make useful input, the fact that others are incivil does not mean we accept incivility. This is false logic. As the argument goes; that others people beat their wives does not mean it becomes acceptable to beat your wife. Pedro :  Chat  22:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that Dorftrottel has evaded an indefblock for rampant incivility and has resumed being remarkably uncivil, which means the indefblock should be resumed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that as Dorftrottel assumes he has done nothing wrong and this is already a repeated pattern of behaviour, then there will be another dispute, probably in a matter of weeks. If this doesn't result in an indefblock then there should be an RfC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with the earlier events. He came to me seeking advocacy regarding them a few years ago:User_talk:Amerique/Archive_4#Subversive_element As far as I can tell, the original conflicts he was involved in have long since died off... and these current conflicts are with a different set of people who have not exactly been models of civility in these circumstances either. I'm not say D is not occasionally incivil, but that we have typically tolerated worse than this from some admins. Ameriquedialectics 22:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes others are incivil, but I guess it is the proportion of valuable edits to 'noise' and events leading to yet more disruption, and also the level of responsibility taken in behaviour, responses to others and escalation that is the problem. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone evades an indefblock, but seems to have actually turned over a new leaf we tolerate them until they renew the behaviour that got them indefblocked in the first place. This is exactly what has happened here. How you can argue against an indefblock for an abusive, uncivil user that has already been indefblocked before is beyond me. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that most of the comments that Ryan has cited that go back months & years are particularly incivil. The more recent comments from dorf are concerning though. I don't think it's necessary to be rude or aggressive to get your point across, and I really wish we'd stop humouring people who do. Comments like this show a disturbing lack of immaturity, especially as it follows this (berating another editor for using profanity). We don't need surly, grumpy editors - it's not that difficult to be nice, or at the least indifferent. I agree with Casliber & think that an RFC might be the way to go. Naerii (complain) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the rather marked double stantdards can be (I suppose) seen as a profound lack of empathy or gaming the system. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think "sorry, there's no button for 'You're too stupid and shouldn't edit Wikipedia'." goes way too far though. Naerii (complain) 22:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    LessHeard vanU, you say D's breach of 3RR was valid because he was reverting vandalism? Well browsing through the 4 diffs (1, 2, 3, 4), I can't for the life of me locate the "blatant vandalism" which would excuse the user of 3RR. Secondly, you seem quick to jump to the users' defence but how can one justify these kinds of comments and the incivility used in the edit summary of the 4 above diffs? ——Ryan | t • c 22:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote WP:Vandalism: "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Mr.Z-man 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amerique, LessHeard VanU, thank you guys. But the mob is right. Everything I ever did on Wikipedia is nothing but shit. Everything. Because Grant Alpaugh calls me a cancer of this project, and if he says so, it is so. My attempts to introduce sanity in the Euro 2008 article was also just malicious shit, typical for me. Also, I'm sockpuppet of SlimVirgin. And of Piperdown (but not WordBomb!). The saddest part is that I'm not even drunk because of the antibiotics against my otitis (which, as I recognise now, God himself must have sent to rightfully punish me). Dorftrottel (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to get off the computer and take a break. Naerii (complain) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Could you, by chance, actually respond to the concerns of these many users, rather than throwing a temper tantrum when questioned about your civility problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah dude. Don't take it too seriously. Go watch a football game, or something. Ameriquedialectics 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Don't listen to Amerique, he's just my other sockpuppet.) Luna Santin: Like I said above: I hereby acknowledge that I am too often too uncivil. What else would you like me to say? Should I do the monkey dance? Or what? What everybody appears to dismiss (intentionally or otherwise) is that the reasoning behind practically everything I write is sound, and written with WP's best interests in heart and mind. If you (or anyone) are not capable, or worse, not willing to see that, there is nothing more I can do about it. I will stop being uncivil when people start to actually grasp what consensus is all about and that having the less valid arguments is a distinct possibility in any discussion. I am uncivil to people when I recognise that they are harming Wikipedia. I just have my own idea of what harming Wikipedia can mean. Dorftrottel (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd like you to say, "I will stop being uncivil". If you are not capable (or willing) to see that you can state your concerns about any issue we have here on Wikipedia in a civil and reasonable manner then I fear this is not the project for you. Driving people away because of your rudeness and creating an unpleasant environment to work in falls under the umbrella of "harming Wikipedia". You seem to understand that your definition of harming Wikipedia differs from others, so I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable to call people 'stupid' and so on for disagreeing with you. Maybe if you grasped what consensus is all about you'd be able to see that people should be allowed to express less-popular opinions without being attacked? Just a thought. Please take a break. Naerii (complain) 23:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=220859694"