Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive139

I would like some advice in dealing with a tendentious editor on policy/guideline pages. He doesn't understand that guidelines are prescriptive and thus keeps editing them to reflect what he thinks should happen instead of what actually does happen according to consensus. He makes arguments for this using spurious logic, misinterpreting other policy or guidelines, ignoring evidence to the contrary, insisting on straw polls to "prove" him right, and personal attacks. He reminds me of the ill-fated Zen-Master (no, he's not a sock, he just acts similarly). Basically, he is starting to show all the signs listed on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, except it's in Wikispace and it's not out of hand (yet?). I tried talking to him but that doesn't help; other suggestions would be welcome. >Radiant< 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is it, or at least which policies? Guy 10:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sift through the Radiant!'s contributions and it will soon be clear. --Doc 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A clue might be good, he's edited a lot of different good stuff. (man am I glad he's back!) ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should be less obtuse :) It's Fresheneesz (talk · contribs). This has been going on for about three weeks now. Among others, he has claimed that style guidelines aren't guidelines, that there's a difference between guidelines, "full guidelines" and "official guidelines", that the GFDL isn't policy, that numbers aren't verifiable because addition is original research, that policy pages may not link to non-policy pages because of a status conflict, that AFD is a vote and therefore Wikipedia uses polls whenever desired, and that it's proper (or even possible) to make a guideline to force editors to stop a common practice. Oh, and a bunch of personal attacks thrown in, and calls for people to "fight" others.

His main agenda appears to be opposition to WP:DDV (formerly VIE) and WP:N - however, confusingly, he makes a somewhat nebulous difference between notability and votes (which he opposes) and significance and polls (which he approves of). Anyway, while he has every right to his opinion, the above practices are not at all a constructive approach. These two diffs pretty much sum it up: [1] [2].

>Radiant< 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts... ignore it. Seriously, the changes he is suggesting are significant and the number of people who knew of them insignificant (though 'advertising' like this may change that). Generally major changes like this happen because alot of people want them to happen. One guy and a couple of people who say, 'yeah I can sort of see some benefit to that but what about these three problems?', don't seem likely to amount to much. Even if he holds a 'poll' and five out of the six participants support him... a reason to significantly rework Wikipedia policy it is not. If he tries to change policy without widespread consensus it can be dealt with then. If it develops widespread consensus... well then it is a reality of what users do and could then be recognized as such. --CBD 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Radiant seriously misconstrews my actions and my thoughts. Many of the things he complains about me are old news - for example, I did claim that "style guides" weren't guidelines - but I have seen that I'm wrong, a looooong time ago. Also, he misinterprets me, for example - AfDs using polling, they aren't pure votes. Wikipedia *does* use polling, as i'm sure all of you know. Radiant is under the perception that polls shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all - and hes making his case by tagging his pet proposal WP:DDV as a guideline without any clear consensus. Hes actually gone so far as to delete a poll I was trying to run - saying that I "just don't get it".

I can't disagree that radiant has a very many good edits, but almost any time i'm dealing with him, its somthing disruptive and agressive (probably because I don't bug him when he does stuff well). Frankly, I find his actions abusive. Fresheneesz 01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't pitch in then, as I have had a long-standing disagreement with Fresheneesz over other issues. In fact, I think Fresheneesz's non-notability policy may have been a response to the aggressive pruning of articles on personal rapid transit subjects, particularly the UniModal concept by Douglas Malewicki, which currently has no prototype, no funding, no customers, no test track and no similar installations in use anywhere in the world but is being pitched all the time. Personal rapid transit is a transportation technology which in several decades has yet to achieve a single real-world implementation, although one very small installation quite unlike the wide-scale urban schemes described in the article is currently being constructed in the car park at Heathrow Airport. Heaven forfend that we should say so, though, as that would be bias of the most appalling sort :-) User:Stephen B Streater may be a good person to ask, he has more patience with Fresheneesz than I do. Guy 09:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You never miss a chance to get back up on your soapbox, do you Guy? Face it: you tried to you tried to slant the article to reflect your POV, and failed, then tried to suppress verifiable fact that you didn't happen to agree with, and you failed on that count too. We've all moved on, and the articles haven't significantly changed in months. Maybe you should let it go now? :-) ATren 12:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Same old bullshit, I see. My POV is that the article should reflect reality, not what Douglas Malewicki and Jerry Schneider think reality should be. In this I succeeded admirably for a long time against considerable opposition from you and Fresheneesz. Stephen Streater also pitched in, and you'll note that his views pretty much coincided with mine: it's a hypothetical form of urban transport, interesting but unproven. Last time I looked the article still represented my POV, starting out by saying that it is a category of proposed urban transport, and that no wide-scale implementations exist or are planned. You can portray this as victory for yourself if you like, as long as the article remains accurate in respect of the unproven nature of the scheme I don't really acre overmuch. Guy 11:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz has established a clear pattern of disruptive editing on policy pages. It is not so much his opinions, though to be clear his view on voting is completely mistaken, but his method of making them. You can't change policies you don't like by modifying the tag yourself, and trying to round up others to revert for you, and concocting votes where there is no dispute, and being rude to others, and especially not when you are simply wrong. I feel like our time is being wasted for no discernable reason. I am ready to suggest a community ban from policy pages, at least for a bit. Opinions on that? Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that Fresheneesz has been primarily engaged in policy edits by the contributions. There's a patter of a response to a Wikipedia talk: page, followed by editing of the policy in question. The responses of the user on the talk page are not very combative, they are tearse though. I think Fresheneesz is meaning to do good things, but in an improper and inappropriate way without discussion. Proposed and official guidelines and policies must be hashed out with appropriate channels. Fresheneesz, post to the talk page what you'd like to change, or make a user subpage. I'm not for community banning a user for taking a part of policy or process, just watch your steps and consider the whole community before editing a policy or guideline. Stay within bounds to play ball. Teke ^(talk) 04:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing a community ban, per se (as in, by block), but just a probationary restriction from policy(guideline/essay)-related pages. I agree with Lar's proposal below. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a bit of a saunter through his contribs... changing a guideline that we've been using since forever to a guideline [3]. Threatening Radiant: [4] and just generally arguing about whether the sun rises in the east or not: [5] I don't at this time support an indef ban from all policy/guideline/style/proposal/essay pages but a ban for a while to get this user to realise he's not being constructive might be a good idea. How about a week for starters? ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How is [6] a threat on Fresheneesz's part? ATren 12:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The guideline we've been using "since forever" has been a guideline for one week, the opening words of his "threat" are "that was not meant to be a threat", and the last citation isn't a problem in any way. This user has 4989 edits. 360 of them are to project space. Let's take it easy with the flaming torches. —Nate Scheffey 12:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Freesheneesz has to say first, but that's not too shabby. Teke ^(talk) 05:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Users should discuss on the talk pages and gain consensus before making major changes in policy/guideline pages. I am not suggesting a ban here, but user should take this seriously enough and not engage in what would amount as disruption. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, I second DMC's and Lar's suggestion. Let's just give him a time-out for a while. By the way he's now asked Jimbo to step in :) >Radiant< 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The appeal to Jimbo: Wikipedia's version of Godwin's Law. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good to avoid unnecessarily hostility. Fresheneesz has put a lot of work into developing a view of how Wikipedia should work. His generous view of notability is out of line with consensus, but OTOH the notability article is less than a month old and has not yet completely settled down. Whether such an article in flux should be termed a guidline or a proposal shouldn't be allowed to cloud the bigger issue - whether there should be a guideline at all. I started the rationale section to show how the guidline relates to policy, and Centrx and others have refined this. The article is becoming tied down to official policy. In the mean time, I suggest Fresheneesz raises his more general points about notability - perhaps on the mailing list. Stephen B Streater 11:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Freesheneesz's talk page, I support an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing all pages related to the Wikipedia policy, guidelines, essays. Additionally I suggest an one week community probation that prohibits Freesheneesz from editing Policy/Guidelines talk pages. For the duration of this probation, Freesheneesz is restricted from editing places that these discussions occur and starting policy discussions on another user's talk page. After the probation ends Freesheneesz is encouraged to limit his discuss of his ideas to the talk pages of these policies and other customary places for these discussions. Freesheneesz is counseled to avoid spamming his opinions across multiple user and article talk pages.

This restriction on talk page discussions is necessary to remind this user that we are here to write great articles not great policy. His tendentious focus on writing and discussing this topic makes me believe that s/he does not understand this point. Freesheneesz talk page has feedback from a variety of users that he encountered while editing policy/guideline pages and talk pages. Very few are supportive of his approach to this topic. The suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Freesheneesz's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 12:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse FloNight's suggestions. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for any kind of block/ban here. Debate over policy is normal. —Nate Scheffey 12:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I browsed the talk page, and there were several people on both sides of the debate. It was not just Fresheneesz. In fact, a quick look at the history of the page shows two editors other than Fresheneesz changing guideline back to proposal. Also, I am new to this debate, but Radiant's argument seems dangerously circular: he says Notability should be a guideline because that's what is currently done, but he ignores the fact that what is currently done is controversial (isn't notability one of the most hotly debated topics in content disputes?). Shouldn't there be a more rigorous process for accepting a controversial guidline than "Well everyone's doing it these days, so why not?"? The Notability "guidline" was still listed as a proposal just two weeks ago, so this is far from a settled issue.

Back to the question of Fresheneesz, I've not seen any evidence of behavior that would warrant a probation (what does "community probation" mean anyway? Does that mean he's blocked but not really blocked?). Radiant's original complaint was vague, and the evidence presented by others seem to prove nothing more than a minor dispute. Perhaps before any action is taken, someone should document here exactly what edits he made to deserve this probation? ATren 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These two remarks are a sample of some that go beyond simply debating the policy. [7] [8] Freesheneesz is ratcheting up the discussions past the point where a civil exchange of ideas is going to occur. This topic ban is preventative not punitive. Freesheneesz needs to learn the boundaries for productive editing related to policy changes. FloNight 14:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The first is a relatively polite plea to Jimbo to intercede (certainly not unusual or in violation of anything), the second is a single revert of a rejection of the policy proposal - and note that he did not re-revert after that. Was consensus reached on rejecting that proposal? It's quite possible that the other editor was jumping the gun on rejection. In any event, he did not re-revert.

I still see no evidence of anything more than a spirited debate. Let's not overreact here. ATren 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some poking around on Non-notability talk page, and it seems there was an extended debate over whether to have a straw poll - Fresheneesz wanted one, Radiant didn't; when Fresheneesz started one, Radiant deleted it, which angered Fresheneesz. Regardless of the merits of straw polls, there is no policy against them, so was it appropriate for Radiant to delete Fresheneesz's edits? Now, if Fresheneesz was misusing the results of a straw poll to, say, change the proposal to a guideline, that might be a different issue. But just calling for a poll doesn't seem to be like that big a deal, and deleting it was unwarranted. So I believe this just is a spirited debate with some minor transgressions on both sides -- and we shouldn't be singling out one side or the other. In fact, Stephen B Streater has a good solution below: they should both back off the notability pages for a few days and let things cool down. ATren 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite his comment here [9], Freesheneesz continues in the same manner. He needs to take a break from policy making until he sorts out a better way to go about it. FloNight 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is. He is polite and he offers rationale for his position. The examples of some sort of egregious edits on his part do not seem worse than others I have seen. There is no evidence of any violations of policy here. It seems like folks are piling on. I think ATren said it very well and I am troubled that this fellow is being given threats and bans for extremely vague reasons that seem to amount to "I don't like him". --Blue Tie 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stopping the discussion will not resolve the underlying issues. The problem seems to be between Fresheneesz and Radiant. Perhaps they should both refrain from editing the policy pages for a while, and leave this to more mainstream editors. In the mean time, I am happy for the discussion with Fresheneesz to continue on my talk pages. WP:NOTABILITY is developing nicely. Stephen B Streater 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Um. Anyone who wants to claim that Fresheneesz is polite clearly hasn't even looked at what is being discussed here. He's calling others' edits vandalism, threatening someone with "If you don't replace my poll, I'm going to arbitrate against you. You are the most abusive administrator I've ever come in contact with.", soliciting help by calling Radiant a "very abusive and violent editor", and just generally calling him abusive at every chance. I would remind you that incivility and edit warring are two of the strongest policy violations you can make. I find it hard to take this comment seriously. Dmcdevit·t 18:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Fresheneesz should have another look at WP:OWN. He has got a bit close to these particular policies. He is not the only editor to implement strong opinions in this dispute though. Stephen B Streater 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fresheneesz clearly lost his temper a bit here, but Radiant also deleted Fresheneesz's poll on the talk page. If you are going to condemn Fresheneesz for his hostility, then Radiant cannot be excused for his actions either. Frankly, I consider removing someone's talk page comments (that's considered vandalism, isn't it?) a more serious offense than the incivility shown by Fresheneesz. Once again, I would also repeat Stephen's suggestion that both these editors should back off from the policy page temporarily and cool down. ATren 19:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• A poll is not a comment. Removing polls is common practice because polls are generally considered a Bad Idea (needlessly polarizing, not conductive to consensus and inhibiting creativity; see also WP:DDV). >Radiant< 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing polls is commonplace? So anyone has the right to remove anyone else's poll? This doesn't seem right. Also, I found this quote on WP:DDV: "Straw polls, a type of non-binding poll, are sometimes used to gauge where editors stand after a lengthy discussion. Such a poll can be a simple tool to help explore and negotiate a consensus, and is often seen as a simple means to recap current positions, or to test or document a likely consensus." That article also says "Polling isn't evil in itself", and I didn't find anything that says polls should be deleted on sight. In fact, the guideline seems to say that polling itself is not evil unless the results of the poll are misused. Certainly the "evils" of polling, if any, pale in comparison to the evils of deleting someone else's comments (we're not talking about personal attacks here) ATren 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• For instance, [10]. By the way you are citing (part of) the letter of a guideline in a way counter to its spirit. >Radiant< 23:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the guideline (DDV), and the spirit of the rule seems to be "Polls are not evil, but they can be misused". In fact, the words "Polling isn't evil in itself" appears more than once. Straw polling even seems to get a mild endorsement on the page ("Such a poll can be a simple tool..."). I see no justification in that guideline (neither literally nor in its spirit) for removing another editor's straw poll. Now, maybe deleting polls is commonly done, and maybe it's even an accepted practice, but I don't see where that's documented as policy or guideline; in fact, it seems to run smack in the face of two well-known policies: civility and vandalism. I think I would have reacted the same way as Fresheneesz, if my edits were deleted in this fashion. ATren 03:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised this discussion all developed in 12 hours. I'm also surprised that a great many people think my actions are worthy of a ban. In the last few weeks, my faith in the wikipedia community has been dwindling.

One interesting thing I see is that peoples main grudge against me is that they think i'm taking policy/guideline into my own hands - and changing tags without discussion, etc. The funny thing is, that is exactly what i'm combating. A select few editors have been trying to change old guidelines into non-guidelines, and new proposals into old guidelines - without consensus. I've come in contact with a larger group that agrees with Radiant than I expected to find - and these people all agree that guideline is basically someones description of what already goes on. Personally, I find that view of guidelines to be very inefficient, because rather than giving us the ability to better wikipedia, we are at the mercy of what people already do. That narrows our options a bit.

If you want to ask me and Radiant to step back from policy pages for a week or so - I'm all in agreement. It'll give me more time to get started on some actual content pages (now that i'm starting school, I'll be editing pages that should (but don't) help me with HW).

Seriously tho, I'm not concerned with a ban against me - but i'm very concerned with what happens to our guidelines and policy here on wikipedia. I'm also concerned with the way people seem to preach consensus, but are scared to find out what it actually is. I don't want wikipedia to turn into a giant beuracracy, or some oligarchy of abusive admins. I'd like wikipedia to stay as a place based on consensus, with a common goal of helping people.

Lastly, I ask you all to just look at how you contribute, and see if you discuss with others enough, or if you actually know that you're doing something that is endorsed by more than one or two people. Please utilize the discussion pages, for eveyone's sake. Fresheneesz 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fresh is now also calling Doc Glasgow a vandal ([11]) and threatening him with arbitration ([12]). >Radiant< 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mhm, deleting someones talk page posts is vandalism. Does anyone disagree? I have also warned Radiant of this. Fresheneesz 23:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling an established editor's edits vandalism is considered poor form on Wikipedia. Do you think that Doc has suddenly become a vandal? Wasn't he putting a specific tag on an failed proposal. Didn't Doc mark out a straw poll that the editors of that proposed policy had not agreed to use? IMO, neither of these actions deserve warnings, but discussion. Please make your comment on the talk page and then wait for many other people to remark before you claim to know something so strongly that you will start an arbitration case against those that disagree. --FloNight 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He is not a vandal, and I didn't say he was. However, good editors, and good administrators still have the power to vandalize wikipedia - and he has used that power. It is now within my power to make sure his vandalism is corrected, and stopped. You haven't told me i'm wrong that "deleting someones talk page posts is vandalism" - so i'll just assume you don't disagree.

The proposal he marked has not "failed" in any significant way, and noone has agreed not to use straw polls. This is completely ridiculous. Fresheneesz 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So I'm 'not a vandal', I have just 'used my power to vandalize'. Well, I'm glad that's not a personal attack then. I didn't 'delete your post', I struck through a poll you'd unilaterally opened in the teeth of objections. 'No one has agreed not to use straw polls'? WTF type of logic is that? No one has agreed that I shouldn't block you for a week either - so can I? The notion that notability should not be used as a criterion for deletion is often suggested - and there is nothing approaching a consensus to support it. (See any deletion debate for evidence.) This has all been said, but the problem is that this user isn't interested in listening.--Doc 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: why is there such extreme objection to a straw poll? What's the big deal?? I think the actions you and Radiant have taken to prevent these straw polls are way out of line. You're treating a harmless little straw poll like it's a personal attack, reverting it on sight without discussion. ATren 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like polls, but if there is consensus to conduct one, and a reasonable discussion of its purpose and wording, then so be it. But this had none of these - one user instigated a worthless poll, on his own terms. I did not revert 'on sight without discussion', there was endless discussion on the talk page, at the end of which one user unilaterally, in the face of objections, initiated a polling process. I struck it, allowing for further discussion as to the merits/dismetits of the poll.--Doc 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So there has to be a consensus just to conduct a straw poll? How does one gauge consensus on this - might I suggest a poll? :-)

Seriously, I just think deleting someone else's poll crosses the line. There is no policy or guideline that forbids polling, and therefore removing it seems quite unwarranted. As I said before, I think I would have reacted the exact same way as he did, because deleting others' good faith comments is generally considered vandalism. That's all I'm saying. ATren 15:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming uninvolved people re. an arb case? Strongly suggest AC speedily reject and severely warn user. – Chacor 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I agree that removing other editors comment, including polls, from talk pages is one of the most violent actions an editor can take against another. It should only be done in the most utterly stupendously extreme cases. This situation is quite far from that mark. The only goal reached by removing the poll is to ratchet up the controversy. Very bad form, especially for an admin. Wjhonson 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The guy suggests a poll, some users object, a discussion ensues. In the midst of it, without discussing possible wordings, someone unilaterally starts a poll, ignoring all that others are saying. What do they expect, except to be reverted? --Doc 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is removing talk page comments considered "reverting"? I mean, come on, you keep talking like deleting someone's comments is nothing worse than a simple revert, when you know that it's more than that. I'm shocked that both you and Radiant have not only taken these actions, but continue to defend them as "no big deal" while you attack Fresheneesz for insinuating vandalism in response. Something is out of whack here, that you feel fully justified in removing someone's non-binding straw poll (no matter how you feel about) but are up in arms about that same user calling your actions vandalism and telling you (politely!) he's taking you to arbitration! I'll repeat: I probably would have done the same thing Fresheneesz did in response to your actions, and I can honestly say I understand his frustrations that he's being made to look like the only aggressor in this debate. ATren 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:DDV. Consensus is not created by polling, and as such we do not vote on proposals for a variety of reasons explained in that guideline. It is common practice to revert, remove or delete pointless polls. This one in particular was only a call for everyone to repeat what they already said, and that is really not helpful. There were deeper problems with the proposal that its author has so far refused to address. >Radiant< 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the section on straw polling, and point to me the part where it says straw polls are so evil that they justify breaking two policies: WP:V WP:Vandalism and WP:CIVIL. You seem to be saying this is OK because "everyone is doing it", but I've yet to see anything near a justification for this kind of behavior in policies or guidelines. ATren 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What does verifiability have to do with removing a straw poll!? —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, wrong "V". Corrected it, thanks. ATren 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, WP:CIV promotes removal of other people's comments. >Radiant< 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are now saying that conducting an informal straw poll is a violation of WP:CIVIL, and so egregious that it warrants removal of the entire poll? That's a little bit of a stretch, don't you think? ATren 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm saying that if you're wikilawyering policy pages to call people names, you should at least pick policy pages that don't contradict what you're trying to say. >Radiant< 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly is "uncivil" about conducting an informal straw poll? You are clouding the issue, which is that you blanked Fresheneesz' talk page comment based on your revulsion for polls, when in fact blanking someone else's talk page edits is considered vandalism except in the case of incivility or personal attacks. If Fresheneesz's straw poll were uncivil, I would give you the point, but I find nothing "uncivil" about a poll. Therefore, your removal of his comment was unjustified, uncivil, and can even be construed as vandalism. ATren 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just intervened in a spat between three users who escalated a content dispute into a "Vandalism" dispute by warring over content warnings on talk pages. They justified it through the language of {{Wr1}} and {{Wr4}}. Now, {{Wr0}} is reasonably friendly, but Wr1 and Wr4 (and Wr2 and Wr3 which are redirects to 1 and 4) are often inflammatory and not in keeping with the current definition of vandalism, or Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Can we maybe tone down those templates, or even drop them on MfD? Thatcher131 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be blocking for people removing warnings in most cases anyway - it always remains in the history. I don't think those should follow the similar vandalism warning layouts either. Cowman109^Talk 23:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I pulled a complaint off of AIV in which user A was accused of vandalizing user B and C's talk pages, which he did, but only after they all edit-warred over the placement and removal of warnings on user talk:A. Which B and C justified by referring to {{wr}}. I gave them all a stern talking to instead, but this is going to come up over and over again. The current vandalism policy on user talk pages does not agree with the template language. Thatcher131 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The removal of legitimate warnings doesn't have to be defined as vandalism to prohibit it. In fact, {{Wr4}} states that "Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption." Disruptive behavior can be prevented, even when there is no written policy against it. Indeed, many unregistered users have had their talk pages semi-protected to prevent further warning removal -- for a few examples, see [13] and [14]. Furthermore, the warning removal templates have recently undergone a TFD discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_9#Template:wr.2C_wr2.2C_wr3.2C_wr4, which indicates a clear consensus to keep them. John254 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Wouldn't the people voting on that TfD tend to be more representative of the template's regular users than of editors who don't pay much attention to it? FreplySpang 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The TFD process does indeed involve placement of notices on the affected templates to notify interested users. However, many users actively participate in many TFD discussions. Consequently, a number of users would have seen the discussion on the TFD page; we should not conclude that the editors participating in the discussion were necessarily unrepresentative. Furthermore, if TFD discussions aren't votes, then we can't assume that the discussion was closed as "keep" simply because there was a strong supermajority in favor of this outcome. Instead, the outcome of this discussion would represent a genuine consensus :) John254 21:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can see what the template says, but please explain to me how it could be disruptive to the encyclopedia to remove a warning from a user talk page? TFD isn't particularly useful in this regard since by design it cannot decide on policy/guideline matters. >Radiant< 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I explained why the removal of legitimate warnings could be considered disruptive here. Furthermore, the argument that "TFD... cannot decide on policy/guideline matters" is unconvincing since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. John254 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I see, and that is indeed a good point. I suppose a counterargument would be that Wikipedia tends to make things easier for editors than for maintenance workers (including the CVU, admins, etc). Not that I necessarily agree with that but it seems to be the way things work. I believe the main problem is this: removing warnings hampers the CVU - but since it's not actually possible to stop people from removing warnings, you have to check people's history anyway. So prohibiting warning removal doesn't really solve your problem. I think a better result would come from a technical solution, possibly involving some automated off-wiki log page (WP:PROD used to have a very effective off-wiki log page). >Radiant< 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • At least for unregistered users, it is "actually possible to stop people from removing [legitimate] warnings", without blocking them, by semi-protecting their talk pages. A technical solution to parse talk page histories and display the warnings contained there might be valuable -- however, until such a solution is developed, we are constrained to do the best that we can with the existing technology. Furthermore, if we are to designate the talk page history rather than the current version of the talk page as an archive of warnings, such warnings will be effectively irremovable, except by administrators, even where the warnings are mistaken, or completely frivolous. It is possible for an administrator to remove frivolous warnings from a user's talk page history, by deleting the talk page, then restoring the revisions without the frivolous warnings. Such talk page history deletions might frequently be necessary, if we are to rely on the talk page histories to indicate legitimate warnings, but not frivolous warnings. John254 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to talk disruption, I have seen far more disruption resulting from edit wars over talk page warnings than would ever be caused by the simple removal itself. Thatcher131 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Thatcher131, the way to do this is not to allow policy violations until we create a technical solution. We had discussed technical solutions on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, but it kind of fizzled due to the fact that no-one who really needed such a technical solution was involved in the discussion. I would suggest reviving discussion there. JYolkowski // talk 15:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said about the need to find ways of keeping track of 'disruptive users' which are not themselves disruptive. Revert warring to enforce warnings (which are all too often specious to begin with) and then throwing these 'you will be blocked' templates at people causes far more problems than the issue it is designed to address. As to the TfD... there was an active debate on this issue at the time the TfD was running, but the existence of the TfD was only mentioned in that debate after it had concluded. The TfD thus obviously did not include the opinions of many who object to this practice. --CBD 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This user threatened me with violence after I just nicely commented that a certain picture should be kept. The exact threat is: "You're a motherfucking retard, if you ever insult me again I'll break every bone in your useless body.". It can be found on My user talk page. He has been blocked for 1 week, but I think this kind of threat deserves a more serious punishment. This is a very serious criminal threat. I am considering taking legal action and reporting this to his local police.

I have no knowledge of the Canadian juridic system, but my lawyer will find out.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) This isn't really "vandalism" but something more serious. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI to get a consensus of admins. Newyorkbrad 13:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 13:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats. It is degenerative for the encyclopedia. Consider this as a warning. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a legal threat against the encyclopedia, but against a user who has used the encyclopedia to perform a criminal threat. Why should I be punished for it?

At least in the Finnish juridic system, even though it is the Internet, threats of violence will be dealt with seriously. A minimum punishment would be a fine, but if he happens to be felon under probation (for example), he will go back to prison.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're lucky you're not also blocked for personal attacks [15] [16] [17].

Second of all, the No legal threats policy states that you can not make legal threats on Wikipedia against Wikipedia or other users. You can either deal with the problem here through the normal dispute resolution process, or try to take legal action offline, but you can not post legal threats online here. Regarding the attack, a 1 week block is about all you're going to see for a first offense. See the blocking policy. If after the block he makes similar attacks against you or other users, he will be blocked for longer. But you need to cool it too. His opinion about your photo is as valid as yours, and your comments, while less offensive than his, are also unacceptable. Thatcher131 14:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I read your legal threat policy, and I understand. My bad. I do refrain from legal threats and trust that the dispute resolution system, which I am writing into right now, will deal with the matter. Please help me out here. And I deleted my above-mentioned comments immediately after writing them, cooling off.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that I'm very new to this encyclopedia and just wanted to contribute things, and then was pretty shocked to get criminal threats of bodily harm for no reason whatsoever. So please cut me some slack on the legal policy, I did not know about it.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 14:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that given the nature of the threat, your reaction was understandable. I might also suggest that, although it's probably just rhetoric (if only for geographical reasons), Sahands be asked by an admin to withdraw the physical threat. Newyorkbrad 14:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

After Sahands was supposedly banned, this is what is now on his personal page: User Talk Sahands Death threat Quote: "Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com><---the most fucking retard on earth, your location has been tracked down, my boys will come for you now and kill off you and your waste of a family..."

So now it has become a death threat. A DEATH THREAT to me and to my family. I think additional action is required.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to need Sahands IP address, ISP and log information. Could some admin please provide this to me?

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If the police require that information, they should contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See their web site for more information. William Pietri 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely based on these edits:[18]; I will protect the talk page if necessary. If there is another admin who is more familiar with the dispute and thinks I've overstepped, please comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Update. I have protected User talk:Sahands after Sahands used it for childish vandalism/PA and then followed up (after being reverted) with blanking the block notice.

I have also warned Jk-bmw that taunting a banned user is entirely inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins don't have access to that information, only the foundation do. The terms under which they'll release that info are defined at Wikipedia:Privacy policy#Policy on release of data derived from page logs. So you'll need to raise an ORTS ticket by mailing to info-en@wikipedia.org or you may wish to contact your local law enforcement service. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So any admins still think it's a bad policy to take any legal action against a wikipedia user who uses wikipedia for death threats against another person? In this case I think wikipedia itself should take legal action against the user who made these criminal threats!

Your thoughts please.

Jk-BMW - Jussi Korkala <jkorkala@gmail.com> 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In two and a half years here, serving as an admin a lot of that time, I have received at least five separate death threats. I ignore them. Doing anything else would waste too much of my time. You are free to have another opinion, but I think that calmly ignoring them, and not responding in an inflammatory way, is generally the best policy. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NLT policy doesn't say that you can't initiate legal action as appropriate, through the proper authorities, though it doesn't venture an opinion as to whether such action might or might not be a good idea at any particular time for any particular person (only a qualified attorney should be giving you legal advice). The policy just says that you shouldn't be using threats of legal action (against Wikipedia or other Wikipedians) in order to attempt to influence activity on this site (like to get the upper hand in an edit war). *Dan T.* 18:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see people chiding someone who has been threatened with physical violence, just because he mentions the possibility of going to the police over it. We need to keep in mind what the NLT policy is all about and apply its spirit rather than some literal-minded reading. I'm glad to see that there is now an indefinite block in place. Metamagician3000 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though I would like to add that repeatedly posting taunting messages on the userpage of a person that was blocked for threatening you is -- less than constructive. --Sherool (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering the incredible unliklihood that a person would fly from New York to Finland to "break every bone" in someone's body (which isn't possible by the way), I'd say the reaction is understandable. Wjhonson 19:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And I must, in fairness, add that the taunting was not a good idea - though I guess it was also an understandable reaction. Metamagician3000 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Which bones are unbreakable? Given a crowbar, a hammer, and a probe to get the ear bones, I figure I could break every bone. The subject probably wouldn't survive the experience, but that's beside the point. --Carnildo 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Update. I blocked Jk-bmw for 24 hours yesterday for continuing to make various threats against Sahands after being advised that this wasn't the appropriate forum. While I can understand Jk-bmw's concerns about Sahands threats, this – with the namecalling, threats, ultimata ("I will contact the authorities...unless there is a sincere apology...", "You still have your chance to apologize. If you do not, you will be in a world of hurt."), taunting, and misuse of a protection template – isn't an appropriate response. There are appropriate channels to pursue further action; a user page is not one of those channels. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

user:hogeye's game playing continues and continues and continues. With little sign of thewolfstar in a few days (phew), he's the only reason the Anarchism article remains locked. Please could we have some action beyond more 3RR violation blocks? Donnacha 00:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My god that block log is ginormous. Can anyone attest to this user's positive contributions to the project? Is a community ban perhaps warranted? Grandmasterka 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also see this discussion. He is editing warring at individualist anarchism, as well -- he keeps reinserting OR of his that was deleted a long time ago. --AaronS 02:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's definitely making positive contributions to coercive monopoly, in reverting to the agreed definition against an otherwise productive wikipedian who is using an unsourced definition. He may still be edit warring, but there's only 2 editors on the other side. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Heck, if you want I'll watch that page and start reverting back to the agreed on def if it means hogeye gets banned. But looking at the talk page, it looks like it isn't completely agreed on yet, and it looks like there might honestly be more than just one definition. Perhaps we should have a neutral disambiguation page there ;) or else mention that there is more than one definition. I don't really know how notable that source is that those two are using though.

Anyway, back to hogeye. I was actually thinking of opening an RfA (the bad kind) on him today, but I don't have the energy right now. Here are some other discussions: Bishonen's talk, Woohookitty's talk. I'm most concerned with hogeye's creation of a "neutral" disambiguation page for anarchism (Anarchism (disambiguation)) despite a clear rejection on the anarchism talk page (a couple different times) of his proposal to do so. The page now redirects to anarchism, as does his pov fork anarchism (political). The other pov fork that he created was anarchism (social) which now redirects to social anarchism. He reverted attempts by different users (including myself and Bishonen, an admin) to redirect anarchism (social) to anarchism, calling them vandalism in the edit summaries, which resulted in a 3RR block and several condemnations by various editors and admins, including ones who aren't at all involved in all the battles on the anarchism page. And guess what some of his first edits were after his block expired? You guessed it: reverting Bunchofgrapes and myself. Hogeye has openly encouraged edit warring and gaming of the system. He refuses to abide by consensus and is incredibly disruptive. I has said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: we need to ban him indefinitely! He has consistently shown a lack of restraint and good faith, and I am seriously sick of trying to work with him. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone look into Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? Ryūlóng 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on a community ban, as I haven't investigated the other edit war areas. I'd appreciate a watch on coercive monopoly, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's currently evading his block by editing with an IP sock puppet. I support a community ban. This user is trouble, and never learns -- just look at the extensive block log and dozens of suspected sock puppets. --AaronS 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that the person complaining about how Hogeye is unable to be properly governed goes under the handle "The Ungovernable Force"! *Dan T.* 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, did you pick that one up from thewolfstar? Seriously, grow up. If someone comes into a community and continually makes trouble and repeatedly violates group consensus, we have the right to remove them. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Hogeye indefinitely. If anyone strongly disagrees discuss it here. Grandmasterka 18:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Hogeye, however, has a hamper full of stinky socks that he is not afraid to use. I urge administrators to be on the look-out for his sock puppets. His sock puppetry rivals Thewolfstar's. --AaronS 18:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but putting a indefinite block on Hogeye is out of process. Intangible 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Did you see his block log? Honestly, I'm not sure why he wasn't blocked indefinitely as soon as he got the 3RR vio a couple of days ago. His last block was for 2 months. I only did 1 week earlier today mostly because I know that other admins are more versed on him than I and I didn't want to overdo it. But I can't see disagreeing with the block. He's shown no inclination to change. To me, content forks are the most disruptive thing you can do outside of random page moves. And that's what he's been doing. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience. Is this current ban in line with the policy? Intangible 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. (Not sure non-admins can even post here, but anyways...) I watch this page a bunch, to see how Wiki 'works' behind the curtains, and I have to say, being a 'new reader' to the articles iin question, that it looks like Hogeye's got a lot of research and solid ideas in his versions, and while it's clear he's breaking lots of policy, I have to ask, how did this entire mess get started? was this a case of too much being bold and not enough talk page? Is there any way to merge his long historical content on anarchism in to the page, finding a compromise? ThuranX 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See also : Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30#Simon Pulsifer

Just after one day of closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2, The Land speedy deletes the article out of process. A7 is not valid in this case because AfD has been undergone twice, and the results trump speedy deletion. The article was restored by another sysop, and then Improv deletes it under A7 and protects it.

This is unacceptable, because firstly it is clearly out of process, and consensus has been determined twice to keep the article. This is not even OFFICE. Secondly, wheel-warring has occured, and these two sysops who undeleted the article have not even participated in the latest AfD. Something needs to be done here. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Give the "in lieu of a block" templates to the two deleting admins, restore article, let DRV run it's course. They're my suggestions... Daniel.Bryant 09:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively you could try to find out the reasons why several admins are behaving in this way, decide whether you agree with it, and then decide what to do... The Land 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See the deletion review, where I have thoroughly explained my reasoning. Yes, it is out of process. WP:IAR is a well-established guideline. Hopefully the DRV will draw more thoughtful contributions than 'oh, he's been mentioned in the media, we must have an article on him'. The Land 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about your opinion. What matters is concensus. You can't just waive DRV because you endorse the deletion, against over 50% of people wanting the deletion overturned. Daniel.Bryant 10:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction not a democracy etc. votes are not the be all and end all, what matters above and beyond everything else is wikipedia's core goals, that's what WP:IAR is all about. We can't vote to ignore copyvio's (say) or blatant attack articles or blatantly non-NPOV etc. If you are just going to go with the numbers I guess WP ought to give up now myspace here we come. --pgk 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats the point of having input from admins to DRV if they will just carry out their notions whether there is concensus from the general Wikipedia community or not? Daniel.Bryant 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So do you support the notion that if we get enough "consensus" to allow copyvios, libelous material etc. etc. we should allow it. What if we get enough consensus to say screw this encyclopedia writing stuff, we just want it to host our own vanity articles and act as a free web host, do we do that? --pgk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is, you'd never get concensus for copyvios/libel. This is neither. Daniel.Bryant 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If we ever get consensus for that, the project will have failed anyways. Wikipedia is not primarily the software or a set of articles, its the people who write it. --Stephan Schulz 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course anyone could get enough people together to try and push any given agenda. wikipedia is not an expriment in democracy still holds. --pgk 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So having community concensus is paramount to Wikipedia, yet administrator concensus means more? Geez, no wonder people are losing faith in administrators and their ability to remain part of the general community... Daniel.Bryant 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying our core goals of being a free encylopedia means more. We can't just look at numbers and vote WP:ENC et al. out the window. --pgk 10:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the article specifics I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is the current culture that the community can go thru procedures like AFD/DRV, and yet admins can break the concensus at these fundamental procedures. However, I shall say no more on this issue. I really think it should be undeleted, and if needed, run back thru AFD so it can be evaulated in a way which isn't purely one or two editors opinions. Daniel.Bryant 10:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agenda? Who is the one pushing the agenda? There's 10 days of AfD time, and WP:V concerns was not even raised in either. I wouldn't mind if the article goes through a 3rd AfD. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V still trumps WP:CON, and when AFD fails to recognize this, AFD will need to be circumvented. Kudos to TheLand for stepping up to do something necessary that is going to catch him a lot of shit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why didn't TheLand just take it to DRV? David Mestel^(Talk) 10:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why not we discard AfD altogether and let sysops to delete anything they want? - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that if this is your worry, then it's not so much the administrators you are concerned with, but rather, WP:IAR.

To be honest, an article about wikipedians in the media may just be a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia - it's about a noteable subject that someone may just look for, and wiki would naturally be the first plce to look for it. Naturally, this user would have a reasonable entry on such an article. However, an article about a wikipedian who's become an 'E' list celebrity for nothingmore than editing really is little more than a vanity thing.

In terms of the vote - to the best of my knowledge, it's rather like the RfA process - the votes can be counted, but the comments are more important, and so with valid reason, it's perfectly acceptable (and required) to go against consencus by invoking WP:IAR for the sake of the encyclopedia, which is what's happened here wit User:The Land. Of course, it may get undeleted on the decision of another at some point, in which case there will undoubtedly be complaints in the opposite direction. --Crimsone 10:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's the closing admin's prerogative to gauge consensus and assess the quality of argument, and if you disagree with that you go to DRV - you don't just take unilateral action. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ignore all rules and speedy deletion don't go hand in hand. CSD A7 was the stated reason for deletion. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am not sure that trying to trip me up on whether I deleted it on the basis of A7 or IAR is very helpful. I was perfectly aware that there were two AfDs which had been closed as keeps, and therefore a7 as written was of limited help. However, I felt that it was nevertheless an unencyclopedic biography, and applied IAR in ignoring the AfD discussions and part of the written CSD rules, to remove content which was clearly unencyclopedic: and gave a7 as the deletion reason because that is the CSD that matches unencyclopedic biographical articles. Hope this clears it up. The Land 10:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  So for all that, choosing to wheel war rather than discussion is also correct? - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I was not wheel-warring and it does you no credit to say I was. We don't want to be in a situation where people should 'OMG! Wheel warrior!' at every controversial admin action. Specifically, I did not overturn anyone's use of admin tools and did not use mine to further a dispute about content, policy or behaviour. The Land 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  You knew it was going to controversial. And you did not even bother to try even discussing it with me first. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  I knew it was going to be controversial. It didn't occur to me that I should consult you: it never struck me that closing an AfD as 'keep' should be treated in the same way as a deletion, protection or block. Sorry if this aggravated you. The Land 11:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  That is at least better, and first step in the right direction. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that it's the best use of IAR I've ever seen for sure, there's no WP:V concerns here, it's someone who's been written about or mentioned in theglobeandmail.com, beachwoodreporter.com, canada.com, Gannett News Service/USA Today, magazine.utoronto. Rx StrangeLove 10:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a fair comment, and I'd have to agree that it's probably not te best use of WP:IAR in the world on that basis. I just don't believe that an admin has done anything strictly "wrong" with it - though certainly somewhat eyebrow raising so to speak (ie - the minor controversy here). To be honest, having looked at googles cached page of the article, I'd have to say that the form it was in (unless there were major changes afterwards) was little more than a stub. Were it to be expanded, then it could only ever go into such things as editing style, preferred articles, articles created or featured, etc, etc. Of course, that would be vanity anywhere other than in userspace, where EVERYbody has their own page.

I can understand using A7 in combination with WP:IAR (vanity) - though given the exact wording of A7, it's nothing if not a contraversial thing to do - it is possible to see that The Land may well feel he was acting in in the spirit of the clause in the best interests of wiki though (WP:AGF). Whatever happens, I can only hope that the DRV will have the final say on the matter, and will make a judgement poste haste, without passing judgement on the good faith actions of those involved. --Crimsone 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Retracted my comments after IRC convo with Theland. Daniel.Bryant 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do we require that people be mentioned in reliable sources in WP:BIO? So we have sufficient verifiable material for an article. Despite numerous trivial mentions as human interest in stories about Wikipedia, there clearly isn't enough material for an article here.

If you reduce the article to what's backed by the sources, it boils down to "Simon Pulsifer is an 24-year-old from Ottawa who is a prolific Wikipedia editor." All of these articles are not about him, but merely mention his background in a sketchy way as human interest for articles about Wikipedia.

The AFDs forgot that "non-trivial" bit in "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources", and no amount of voting is going to make verifiable content suddenly appear. Discretion is why admin actions are entrusted to people instead of bots, and this is a case in which discretion needed to be exercised. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, that said, I didn't realize that TheLand didn't let Mailer Diablo know what was up, and that's not cool at all. I know I'd be a bit ticked off if my AFD close was suddenly overturned without comment, and I understand MD's feelings of annoyance and betrayal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For the love of god, A7 should have been used in the first place. So this guy has been "featured" in some news articles about his "editing of Wikipedia." (at least that seems to be the moral to the stroy here) So what? There are plenty of other editors featured in a similar fashion, and do you see articles about them on here? Lastly, people come to Wikipedia to read up on things like science or history, not about some non-notable editor of a website. If he has an article we all might as well have one. Not going to happen. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nosnense. It never fit the description of A7 to begin with, and even if it did, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead." If it did fit it, there's more than enoguh reason to keep the AfD result as it stands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all the college students have to do a research project on Simon Pulsifer. Thanks for clearing that up for me. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whatever you feel about whether the article should ultimately be retained, MD was treated very discourteously here. Metamagician3000 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, we have a minor celebrity (subject of a number of newspaper articles including 2M-circulating Mail and Globe). The article on him does not violate the not-negotaible principles of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, copyright law, etc.) Some people consider him to be notable enough to be included, some think it is not the case. It is an extremely common situation and that is why we have the AfDs. There was no consensus to delete (if anything there was a consensus to Keep). Thus, the article should be kept. Do not see anything unusual here warranting WP:IAR and other heavy artillery. abakharev 02:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am dumbfounded. I will simply say that I am in agreement with Mailer Diablo and leave it at that. Agent 86 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if Mailer Diablo's close had merely been challenged at DRV it would have been good manners to discuss it with him first. Failing to discuss a proposed speedy delete action like this with him was very bad manners - such a discussion might have led to MD voluntarily reconsidering his closure, or it might have led to agreement to test his "keep" closure at DRV. I'm not suggesting that what happened was anything worse than discourtesy (such as bad faith, wheel warring, blah, blah), but it certainly was discourteous. This discussion should be a reminder that good manners in interaction with colleagues can go a long way. Metamagician3000 01:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Compare the anonymous user's contributions to Hogeye's contributions. Hogeye is really asking for an indefinite block. He was blocked for edit warring, and is now trying to evade his block so that he can continue edit warring. --AaronS 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is extensive edit warring occurring at individualist anarchism and anti-statism as a result of this sock puppet's constant reversions to Hogeye's preferred versions. --AaronS 18:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this user as a sock puppet of Hogeye where appropriate. I do so under the impression that it will not count towards violating the 3RR, and will instead be considered reverting without edit warring. If anybody disagrees, please discuss it here or on my user talk page, as I am open to alternative solutions. --AaronS 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue double-teaming with you. He's already violated 3RR numerous times - can we please have him blocked? Donnacha 18:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely now. If you find other socks of his, post them here or on my talk page. I have (way too much) experience with this block evading junk. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Judge John (talk · contribs · logs), apparently he wants to make a courtroom for deciding bans and stuff, sort of like ArbCom. Can someone gently tell him that Wikipedia is not a courtromm? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a reincarnation of banned user user:Mr.T99 complaining about his block. I'm going to block indef. Cowman109^Talk 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment. That really is a bit beyond the pale there I feel. [19] --Crimsone 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - it's blatantly clear from his contributions that he's some user already familiar with wikipedia, namely Mr.T99. Cowman109^Talk 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Our messages crossed lol. I figured he looked to be familiar with wiki, but not knowing of Mr.T99, well, I gave the benefit of the doubt and left the message. Never mind - alls well that ends well :) --Crimsone 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be codified in a strict policy involving a 5 day voting procedure -- Drini 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true, and it made interesting reading, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with regards to this discussion? *confused*. At the time I read it, I just figured it was possibly a new user with a bad idea. --Crimsone 14:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To discourage the "rules and process are the only thing that matter" perception, for random reader. -- Drini 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean now, and I agree that it should be discouraged. Rules and process are all well and good, but sometimes they just don'e apply or otherwise get in the way of productive or otherwise valuable work and ideas. (just as an aside, the irony of course is that for this reason, a rule about it exists WP:IAR. lol :) ) Thanks. --Crimsone 16:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: there has been a spate of anonymous Hispanicization of Catalan names. As far as I can tell, it's all anonymous, and while I hesitate to impute motive, given the nature of some of the edits it is clearly not being done in good faith: see for example [20], which changed "Antoni Gaudí i Cornet, in Spanish also known as Antonio Gaudí" to "Antonio Gaudí i Cornet, in Spanish also known as Antonio Gaudí". That is, the Catalan name was removed and the Spanish given twice, despite the article being named Antoni Gaudí.

I realize that only a relatively small proportion of English-language editors are familiar with the Catalan language, but when you see the letter "o" (or sometimes "io", "a", etc.) being added to the end of names of people from Valencia, Catalonia, or the Balearics, then this is probably what is going on; similarly, when names ending in "eu" are changed to "es", etc.

This may not have been the best place to post this, and if someone has a better idea, feel free to copy or to move (but if you move, please do leave the section header and a link). Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related matter, can anyone have a look at the recent contributions of Satesclop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He may or not have a point but I find his behaviour quite disruptive, not to say uncivil. Regards, Asterion^talk 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:MagicKirin for repeated serious violations of WP:BIO/borderline vandalism, violating WP:3RR a couple of times and using a sock User:MagicKirin1 to get around his block, and he only been here for less than two weeks. We don't need these types of editors to edit a long time. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place (sorry if not), but the user severely vandalized a page. He got a Level 4 warning, and then he vandalized the talk page the person who gave him the warning. I just wanted to bring this up, as based on the warning he should be blocked. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He was already blocked soon after vandalizing your page. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be another erpution from a user tagging everything in sight with {{unref}} tags. This behavior seems very similar to the behavior reported a few days ago from user ClairSamoht, so this could be an alternate login for the same physical person. This user goes as far as tagging entire sections of Featured articles as unref (see Canada). Rather than a list of taggings, here is the Contribs sheet of this user. I believe it is rather self-explanatory[21]. Somebody should tell this user that such behavior (tag and run) is highly disruptive.--Ramdrake 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, his behaviour is highly disruptive. The Canada article is very well referenced; in addition to the ref tags for the controversial statements and specific numbers, each section has it's own list of references in the References section. From WP:CITE:

"Inline citations for uncontroversial common knowledge items are not necessary. Common knowledge facts are those that appear in multiple reference textbooks for the field, all of which are listed in the references section of the article."

So the references at the bottom of the page are sufficient and extra ref tags are not necessary, and thus his behaviour is uncalled for. -- Jeff3000 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor's blind addition of tags is more disruptive than helpful, and has used only superficial interpretations of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE as "justification." I ask admins to look into this editor's behavior. --physicq210 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He has continued his actions on many other pages. Adding unreferenced tags to every single page is highly disruptive. -- Jeff3000 21:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this user's contribution, he/she has tagged no fewer than 12 different articles as unreferenced in the last 50 edits alone. The list includes such long-standing articles as Canada and English language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs)

Having worked with User:ClairSamoht, this appears to be a different editor. I suspect this user's interest in the verifiability policy started after an edit war at Esthero over including an emailed quote from one of the artists described. Choess 03:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Everything in sight"? No, just the unreferenced statements and articles. Anonymous 57 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) And frankly, given the amount of unreferenced material on pages such as The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (today's featured article), I don't think they deserve featured status. Anonymous 57 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his actions, I think this user is trying to make a WP:POINT as revenge for an article (Limecat) which was deleted despite having so-called "reliable sources". Axem Titanium 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous 57 may have some valid points (I just finished adding some references to sections he marked), but the way he is going about this is only serving to inflame other editors. He has been revert warring over the addition of unreferenced tags and was blocked from 18:32–21:32 for violating WP:3RR. He started editing again at 21:34 on the very article that got him blocked. If he would rely more on talk page discussion I think this wouldn't be such a problem. I suggest a voluntary cooling-off period for Anonymous 57, if he is open to the idea. Pagrashtak 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user seems to still be at it on Detroit, Michigan but is more reasonable. Despite this, the user still is asking for citations for things that are directly addressed in branching articles [22] (in this example clicking George Armstrong Custer would have yielded the same info that the user was asking a reference for). Here he asks for citation for the Detroit flag noting France [23] eventhough just clicking the Detroit flag link above would have shown the same info. I made this known to the user [24] who civilly added the reference. Gdo01 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Recently, A Man In Black created Template:Pokepisode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the episode list pages of which there was one large one, and he had eliminated an image parameter to do so. So, a few anonymous editors and three registered editors; Yugigx60 (talk · contribs), Ragnaroknike (talk · contribs), and Bobabobabo (talk · contribs); changed these pages so they utilized Template:Digimon episode and so that the images were used. After discussion with one, I editted the template so that images were transcluded, but then I was told by A Man In Black that they would never be able to pass fair use criteria number 3, which states that the number of fair use images on a page should be limitted, and the pages would have had upwards of 100 fair use images on them. After all of that, the anons decided to change the Pokepisode template so that it was a duplicate of the Digimon episode template which was reverted as vandalism (along with the extremely incivil edit summaries). It was all good for the night, until Yugigx60 changed the template back to a duplicate of the Digimon one, and then asked Mets501 to protect it because of an edit war. I have been going back and forth between Mets501 and Yugigx60 and I've been trying to contact the others, but we really need an outside view on all of this. Ryūlóng 21:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think images are good for the articles, and as long as images are conveying and adapting on central themes of the plot, they pass fair use. Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments. Identifiying episodes and distingushing between them are key reasons for having List of episodes type articles. (Yugigx60 21:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Don't copy over someone else's text. This is so that other users and administrators can see the whole situation. Right now, it is an edit war that you yourself are involved in and changed the template that was made specifically for the pages to be a copy of another template. I am here to get an outside view on the whole situation, since administrators and regular users are now involved in this conflict. Ryūlóng 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Images really need to go in be removed from list of episode guides, unless you're going to write a two-paragraph summary or something to provide commentary on the image. Hbdragon88 21:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The images would be on the episode lists; it's just that it was created to omit all of the images, which at one point were said were going to be used to make it pretty, which is also an FUC criteria failure. For List of Pokémon episodes (season 1) there are nearly one hundred images in use. Ryūlóng 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that came out wrong. When I wrote "they need to go" I meant they needed to be removed, but they way it's worded it looks like that I am for them. Hbdragon88

Please note that I have edited the now-protected {{Pokepisode}} to the version that does not display images. I respect Mets501's effort to calm the edit war, but it's currently on a version that leads, once again, to massive violation of WP:FUC. I've left a note on the talk page of Mets501 (talk · contribs). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting way out of control. Bobabobabo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created Template:Pokepisode1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to bypass all of this at Template:Pokepisode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Ryūlóng 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the fair use criteria for episode pictures? Because a lot of episode list articles have images. Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We're essentially going off of FUC #3 which states that fair use image use should be limitted (and a little bit of FUC #8, not for decoration). Ryūlóng 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the images are not on one page the images are on 6 seperate pages for each of the Pokemon seasons. (Yugigx60 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

It's still upwards of eighty fair use images on one page. Ryūlóng 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think FUC #8 is more appropriate here. When a TV episode article has a fair use image one can make a reasonable claim that it is necessary to illustrate and discuss events of the episode. Images on lists are largely decoration, and decoration does not meet fair use criteria. (Note that this is just another version of the debate over whether NCAA team logos could be included only on the articles about the teams themselves, or also on game schedules, where they are largely decorative.) Not to mention the fact that a list such as List of Charmed episodes take forever to load on dialup because of all the transcluded images. I believe MiB and Ryulong are correct here. If other TV shows do this (such as Charmed) they should be nuked as well. Thatcher131 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is ongoing debate about this subject at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. In my view, most of these lists have large swathes of images accompanied by very little text, which is usually not relevant to the image in use, and as such the use of images in those lists cannot legally be claimed as fair use. However others (mostly the authors of these pages) disagree. As I see it the discussion is gradually proceeding toward a consensus that as long as images are accompanied by sufficient text to offer some kind of critical commentary on the list item, and as long as the image actually contributed to that purpose, then the inclusion of images would be ok. New voices at the discussion would of course be appreciated. --bainer (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• What are so bad about images? The images improve the article. (72.232.215.170 17:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Robbing a bank would improve my financial picture too but that doesn't make it legal. Thatcher131 18:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in List of ____ episodes

• Low quality screenshot;
• Single image;
• Serves to identify the episode in question;
• Does not infringe on the owner's ability to make a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Japanese_episode_list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale (Yugigx60 19:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

This is getting ridiculous. There are now two new users who have made and used the FUC ruining templates now. Jcox6656 (talk · contribs) and Agumon54 (talk · contribs) (created Template:Pokepisode2 which I have now forked back to the right one). Ryūlóng 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This debate is nothing new, especially to anyone who's familiar with the still unresolved List of Lost episodes dispute. There are already on-going discussions on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 and Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. To prevent discussion forking I suggest you guys continue this discussion on one of those pages or at least leave notice on those pages about the new discussion. Also, it would be good to over-view many of the points made by both sides in those discussions. As it is now there is no conclusive proof that images in a list of episodes, when properly chosen, violate WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

After I reverted some vandalism on Phaistos Disc, 80.90.37.72 (talk · contribs) and 80.90.39.18 (talk · contribs) posted messages to my talk page (e.g., this diff and this diff). Aside from the violations of WP:NPA, these posts are clearly by a banned user who has been a rather problematic contributor to Phaistos Disc, who usually posts from the 80.90.xxx.xx range, but also the account Rose-mary. The specific account that has been banned is 80.90.38.176 (talk · contribs). --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rather problematic" is very tolerant of you, Akhilleus. The Phaistos Disc vandal is the "contributor" from hell. Please could someone, who knows how to figger the right numbers, range-block IP-only for a good long time, if it hasn't been done already? Seems to me this is exactly the kind of thing we got the IP-only feature for. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

Remember Gator1 (talk · contribs)? He was a "martyr" in trying to stop this vandal. 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 80.90.32.0/19. The block log for the range is revealing. I've tried a 3-month, anon only block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As discussed in #Tendentious editor on policy pages above, Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) has embarked on a campaign of harassment against me, and to a lesser extent Doc Glasgow, and persists in doing so despite being told to stop. Basically, he has been spreading nasty insults, threats and personal attacks all over the wiki. This has gone way beyond the line of civility and wikiquette, and discussing it with him has proven fruitless.

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

I request that a neutral admin keep an eye out, and block him if he keeps up this disruption. >Radiant< 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just let him have his poll, if this whole thing hadn't been blown out of proportion and umpteen admins rush to the proposal page to tell him he couldnt have a straw poll because there was no support for the proposal, none of this would have happened. Now he has his poll, it will get SNOW'd and be over. --NuclearUmpf 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are missing the point; most of those diffs are entirely unrelated to the straw poll (in that they predate the first proposal of the straw poll, or were made after the straw poll already opened). >Radiant< 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: See also the relevant RfAr --Ligulem 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kimberly Ashton who is 14 according to the user page she created today (but 15 according to her simple wikipedia page), has a lot of personal information posted on her myspace clone userpage. She is over the limit that has been discussed for children revealing personal information but the amount of info and young age are still a concern. She has a simple wikipedia page and a commons page here. Her edits are mostly to user talk pages on all three projects, but there are a few legitimate ones so I think she could benefit from a mentor since a request to consider removing the personal information was denied. [35]. Obviously I'm not the person for the job, but someone should look into this especially since some of the edits border on a bit too friendly for safety. [36], [37]. pschemp | talk 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that's a lot of information. Also, she needs to either license her image freely or delete it, as the description page says that "no one can use it unless they have permission from me." Hbdragon88 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the account being used for the purposes of genuinely editing the encyclopedia? If its activities are not consistent with the goals of this project, well, something should be done. --HappyCamper 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of her 45 edits [38], 9 are in the main userspace, the rest of them being on user and user talk pages. Hbdragon88 04:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

9 main space edits since October 1st, clearly used for editing. But when you look at the edits, they don't look like they were made by a newbie 14 year old. -Lapinmies 06:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Simple Wikipedia. SimpIeton 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just had an interesting trek through CheckUser with this account. "Kimberly Ashton" is the same person as Lindsay1980 (talk · contribs) and the "sisters" Bethicalyna (talk · contribs) and Bethicalyna2 (talk · contribs), who were blocked also for being minors releasing personal information and using Wikipedia for social networking and not constructive editing, and another similar account which has not been blocked or taken note of before, Special Sylvia (talk · contribs), who has a user page which also gives out, unsurprisingly, a lot of personal information for a teenage minor. Of course, all of these users give out different personal information, and appeared in succession. We are being trolled. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you please also run a checkuser on User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz and User:Padawer, just in case there is any connection with this? -- The Anome 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More Cute 1 4 u fun? Well, based on all of this, I'd say an account creation block is in order for this person. Now, we just need to get this person off of Simple and Commons. Ryūlóng 07:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention below, I did prohibit account creation from the IP, Dmcdevit informed me that address is not used for other editing here so there most likely isn't collateral damage. Teke ^(talk) 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If we carry out anything here, I have no problem doing the same on Commons (the images are worrying). I've reported this thread to the AN there.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<tinfoil hat> Perhaps it's a Perverted-Justice.com-style attempt to bring wikipedia into disrepute as opposed to simple disruption. </tinfoil hat>
brenneman ^{L} 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. The pedophilia hysterics would do something like that, maybe they are just trying to get the response they want to prove that wikipedia is bad and create even more hysteria. -Lapinmies 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I support a community ban on all such accounts acting as sole community interaction. I'm not the heaviest mainspace editor of all time, but we are building an encyclopedia. Combine these accounts and you have less than 75 mainspace edits, and they're all fancruft related. We really don't have time to deal with these continual disruptions by users under 13, or claiming to be or whose actions are even suspect, and I can't imagine the lawyer disagreeing. Too many CHU and AN/I notices have been wasted on these kids. We're not a social site period. Teke ^(talk) 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both Special Sylvia and Kimberly Ashton, as they are confirmed sockpuppets and they are misusing the project in a way that, while I am not a lawyer, are potentially damaging and a waste of everyone's time to boot. Teke ^(talk) 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"The pedophile hysterics would do something like that"? Wow, that really does need a tinfoil hat. I agree that bringing WP into disrepute is one possible motive of these accounts. Another, clearly, is that they might be the work of someone looking to bait kids (the MO is right[39][40][41]). Denial may do a lot for your comfort levels, but it doesn't help WP. Just because the media like breathless headlines about such things does not, alas, make them untrue. [42][43] WP needs to defend itself from smear attempts and young users from predation, so we need to not be hysterical but to consider the real possibility of dodgy users, just like we do the possibility of sock and meat-puppets. JackyR | Talk 11:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the users' motivation, I support the blocking/redacting of "minors who reveal Too Much Personal Information" on sight. I'd rather be criticized for bruising the feelings of a 14 year old editor than by letting one come to harm through inaction. Nandesuka 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above, but not necessarily for the same reasons. At this moment, since there is some ambiguity on how to deal with these situations, I will go with the rule of thumb that infinite blocks will be applicable for accounts which are primarily spent on making profiles and such. Well, this is an abbreviated idea, but hopefully the sentiment is clear. --HappyCamper 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user is now also blocked on Commons. In cases like this, inter-wiki cooperation should be encouraged (though not forced). I'm inclined to say users who treat Wikimedia projects as MySpace should be banned.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is, could 'Kimberly Ashton' be a pseudonym and this person/people be attempting to troll us?? But, yes, Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Gold-Horn 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To echo the thread just about this, User:YSHOULDUKNOW123 identifies himself as being 12 on his user page. On top of that, he has his full name, school, and town listed on there. What should be done here? Metros232 03:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it from the page history. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading the (removed) recent stuff about an admin account allegedly being sold on Ebay, I did a search on the search term "wikipedia" on that site. I didn't find any accounts for sale, but there were a few weird entries, like this one with titles like "Practical hand forged Wikipedia Katana for IAIDO,AIKIDO". What the heck is a "Wikipedia Katana"? The description of the item doesn't give any indication of what connection it has with Wikipedia. The same is true of several other entries that, for no obvious reason, include the name of Wikipedia in their descriptions. They seem to be mostly from sellers in China. The only listing that actually had anything to do with the search term was for a magazine issue that mentioned Wikipedia in it. *Dan T.* 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's what eBay dubbed "keyword spamming". Basically, they're there so they'll show up if someone does (say) a Google search for Wikipedia, or something like that. It doesn't make much sense. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, what about the admin account being sold? Is that really true?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it seemed to be true, you'd have to ask the "buyer", and you'd have to believe what the "buyer" said. If the "buyer" actually paid money for the name and password of a retired admin and didn't get it, he -- somehow I imagine such twits as male -- would perhaps be too embarrassed to admit "I was a sucker; I got fleeced." And if it were true and the buyer claimed as much, he wouldn't give convincing evidence as this would identify the account and cause it to be blocked, and what a waste of his dough that would be. Investigating such an allegation would probably be a wild goose chase. Better just to keep an eye on what's done with admin powers. -- Hoary 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, this is just a bit of odd trolling, trying to start some nonsense rumor. Buying admin accounts would be silly anyway. --W.marsh 19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we have to watch out for admins leaving disgruntled with a "bone to pick" with Wikipedia. However the "farm grown" ready-to-sell admin accounts that I read about are a scary possibility too. Courtney Simpson 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Eh. The worst that happens is that we get one bad admin out of the 1000+. We get bad admins occasionally anyway; we deal with them, and nothing that anyone does is irreversible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for people; if multiple people use your PC, and want to edit Wikipedia, block it (so you don't get autoblocked because others are using the same IP address as you!)

Go to C:\Winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts or C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts, and add the following lines: 127.0.0.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/ or (Wikipedia's IP address) - then redirect it to a Wikipedia mirror etc.

Then, when you wish to use Wikipedia, just comment out the block in the hosts file like this: */127.0.0.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/* and you can edit again!

Hope this helps; if I'm helping to prevent vandalism, then let me know! --82.42.237.173 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, get an account, you'll never be bothered with autoblock at all... :) However, don't forget to log out... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will get an account! But this is for people who have an account and when they get an autoblock due to the actions of other people on the PC. --82.42.237.173 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GSNguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to adding false slogans to TV station articles to build up his edit count so he can become and administrator. I think a block is in order. [44] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CFIF (talk • contribs) .

For clarity, this diff was actually from Gsnguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not GSNguy (note caps). I imagine they're related but found no proof of it. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about signing, actually, I was talking about Gsnguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he kept adding false information and admitted to it. This is dangerous to WP. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. We don't need accounts on Wikipedia which behave like this I think. --HappyCamper 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Would someone mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/WTGDMan1986? The edit summaries are particularly odd. I thought maybe it was a recent thing, but I see he has been warned or talked to several times in the past about these type summaries. Also, look at some of the article talk page contributions like [45] (and note the edit summary on that) and [46]. This user seems to be severely disillusioned at times and seems unresponsive to some suggestions to curtail behavior. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? Metros232 13:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The user still continues the ridiculous edit summaries. The edit summary on this edit is "Revert Alex Varkatzas and Matt Heafy following by 69.37.169.238 (Vandalism) to last version by Orz. Please do not use private parts". The two people being singers apparently. What they have to do with a guy adding the word penis to a school shooting article is way beyond any of our comprehensions. Can anyone else try to talk to this editor to get him to curtail his actions? Metros232 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WAWWMER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-proclaimed sockpuppet[47] of indefinitely blocked user Pnatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Quite why anyone anyone would declare on their own userpage that they are a sock of a banned user is beyond me, as it rather defeats the point of evading a block, but still... -- AJR | Talk 14:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We have received an OTRS complaint regarding the state of this article. I have re-stubbed it due to WP:BLP concerns, and ask that other administrators please lend a hand with this article by ensuring that the sources added by editors are valid, and by helping watch out for other various forms of vandalism. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)