Note: Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.

As part of a comprehensive updating of its systems and processes, the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator. This role is to carry no additional substantive authority but will primarily involve scheduling work flow and setting target dates for completion of tasks.

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has been offered and has accepted this assignment, effective immediately, with the title of Coordinating Arbitrator. Arbitrator Roger Davies (talk · contribs) will serve as his Deputy.

Additionally, as previously announced, former arbitrator Deskana (talk · contribs) will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's good news: if anyone can organise and coordinate, it's Kirill. This is good news for all of us. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep. ;-) He is already off to a great start by setting up an agenda for our discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps this section title should have been "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yo dawg! I heard u like arbitrating so we put a bureaucracy in your bureaucracy so you can arbitrate while you arbitrate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm in ur bureaucracy, updatin' ur arbitrators... GlassCobra 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hate to see two of our msot active WP:MILHIST coordinators taking responsibilities that require so much time.--Patton^t/c 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. Kirill has already been the most active arbitrator for almost two years and it hasn't seemed to stop him from doing anything else he's wanted to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP User:67.159.50.130 has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy.[1] It was used only once in April of last year. I have email permission from Tomascastelazo, a talented Wikimedia Commons photographer, to disclose that it is his underlying IP address. He already has one FP on this site and several on the sister site, and I have been trying to set up a featured picture nomination here for him (English is not his native language). IPs can change and we rarely block any for such a long time. Please review. Durova^Charge! 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can change the settings to a softblock. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I told User:Spellcast since it was his block so he can review. If something has changed, he would know if others may be blocked for similar reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is no longer an open proxy, there's no need to keep it blocked at all :) (I can't nmap from here) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's still open, but I'm no expert with nmap, so I'll leave that decision to someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The above IP is within this range: 67.159.0.0/18 owned by FDCservers. Currently the range is blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kanonkas (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if that IP is still an open proxy because even if it was unblocked, that rangeblock would still be in effect. So, I've given Tomascastelazo WP:IPBE. Spellcast (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a backlog at C:CSD currently. If there are any free administrators available, assistance would be nice :) Please remove this message when C:CSD has been pared down. seicer | talk | contribs 04:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on why File:BSicon ÜWo+r.svg is appearing there? I don't think I'm missing the obvious (I hope), but I can't figure it out. - auburnpilot talk 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We're also building up a backlog in the Category:Disputed non-free images area. JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone can replace Image:Bandera de España(1701-1748).gif with Image:Bandera de España 1701-1748.svg in Template:Country data Spain? Thanks. --Durero (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Horologium (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Please could you indefinitely block user 'Terry Hatchett16'? The account is erroneous.

With kind regards,

Terry Hatchett16 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a spelling difference I'm not seeing, or is the user wanting us to block his/her own account? Tan | 39 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, I created this account thinking my original had been deleted but it was my silly mistake! rather than having two similar accounts floating around Wiki I would like this one to be blocked to make it clear I am not sockpuppetting. --Terry Hatchett16 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Kingturtle (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

-Fixed what seems like the eighth image today, but it should be now NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Rhododendron-by-eiffel-public-domain-20040617.jpg must be protected at commons or, alternatively, uploaded and protected here.
• File:Pink ribbon.svg must be protected at commons or, alternatively, uploaded and protected here.
• File:Woodesrogers.jpg must be protected at commons or, alternatively, uploaded and protected here. Also, important source code must be given, as this is currently a copyright violation and should not go on the Main Page.

I've found three problems today, which is up from my usual rate of two per day. So far, I've been forced to go to the commons IRC channel and ping an administrator there. We need a better permanent solution; is a new Main Page Upload Protection bot in the works? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Please tell me when and how long the will stay on your main page. With that information I can protect them for you :) Abigor (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure; DYK operates on a timer that I am unsure of. The best option would be to protect them all for 30 hours or so. Thanks for responding so quickly :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will protect them all for 2 days. Thanks for notifying me. Abigor (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The images are all protected at Commons, but File:Woodesrogers.jpg is still a copyright violation as pictured now. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no source info for it, but assuming a reasonable timeline for its creation after Woodes Rogers's death, I could be convinced that it meets common's PD requirements. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, as it has been nuked off of Commons, I had to improvise. I asked User:Zscout370 to use the only available free use image File:PaschalEze10plus.jpg (which looks really awful) and replace it on Template:Did you know/Queue/5. If any DYK regular could fix that, it would be much appreciated. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • User:RMHED found another picture, which is going up on the Main Page. All is resolved. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN. Since that time, he has persisted in disrupting Wikipedia - revert warring, making false/inflammatory edits that are likely to cause edit wars, making personal attacks, using talk pages as soap boxes, making false claims about policy says and then using those false claims for wikilawyering, etc.

He recently returned from several weeks on hiatus and resumed his disruptive ways, leading me to warn him that any further disruption would not be tolerated. He continued revert warring (in violation of the 1rr he promised to adhere to the last time his behavior was discussed on AN), so I blocked him. GoRight posted an unblock request template on his talk page, and unfortunately he found an admin who fell for the trick. Aitias unblocked him, claiming falsely that I was involved in the matter (I was not; I issued my warning to GoRight before ever reverting him) and that no valid reasons for the block had been provided (when in fact they had been provided in abundance. [2] [3]). To wit, since his return, GoRight has - literally - not made one single productive edit. Instead, he has been using talk pages as soap boxes for personal attacks, revert warring, removing relevant sourced information from articles - all in all, disruptive editing.

I think it's time to re-consider the GoRight community ban. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in his January contributions to justify a community ban, but don't really care enough to have a strong opinion either way. The one thing I do care about and think is important to say here is that Aitias acted correctly in unblocking this user. You were obviously a heavily involved admin. In addition to your reverting with him in that article, you were in a discussion with him on Talk:Global warming [4] and were obviously involved in August. Aitias acted correctly - if you want to propose a community ban, fine, but you don't have to do it by criticizing the actions of an admin who was pretty unquestionably in the right. --B (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you bring up no particular edits here. You say that all of them are terrible, but I'm not seeing it.

• One of his edits (edit-warring) was on adding a closing statement to a RfC on his behavior. Perhaps technically not permissible, but certainly not a terrible banworthy action. One can understand why he would want to clarify something in that sort of page.
• In another case he wanted to trim a long quote to the basic gist: the guy said he was not a global warming denier. This is perfectly reasonable given summary style.
• Edits like this and this are more troubling. It's disruptive to make inflammatory, unsourced statements on the talk page. And he apparently did edit-war to keep it in [5].

I'm not ready to say he should be banned, but if he keeps up with those kinds of comments, I could see a ban in his future. II | (t - c) 04:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, in my above summary, I certainly discussed individual edits. Specifically, I linked to this edit of mine, where I broke down all of GoRight's edits for the last week into three categories - the inflammatory edits to talk:global warming you mentioned (and subsequent revert warring and wikilawyering on his talk page about it), the attempts to rewrite his history on the RFC, and the disruptive editing on The Deniers.

GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning. GoRight's other edit there, was to insert original researchy commentary from Solomon, as WMC explained on the talk page. In short - GoRight's edits to the article made it worse, and predictably, caused an edit war.

As to the third set of edits - the soapboxy personal attacks on the talk page, I'm glad you agree that are "troubling". But what do you mean, "if he keeps up with these"? He has a 2 year history of disruption here, including a prior block for personal attacks last summer. Even prior to the last August's RFC and community sanction, he had already been sanctioned for violating BLP with regard to William M. Connelly's biography, and making personal attack against WMC. It's not as if these behaviors are new or unexpected - they are par for the course with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies about missing your diffs, but you could telegraph them better. After looking around a bit again, I'd probably agree to his banning if I had to make a decision. But the process for banning long-term editors on Wikipedia is flawed. It would be best if we could do a query of the database of users for 15 or so with >500 articlespace edits who have edited within a week. Then trim out involved users (and those who don't want to comment) from that list and ask them to look at the evidence and vote. That would be the best. Here, the most likely people to weigh in are those with some sort of agenda for/against GoRight. But I think a topic-ban from global warming articles is fair - the fact that his response below doesn't even apologize for his talkpage comments is telling. II | (t - c) 09:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm seeing evidence of disruptive bahaviour, has anyone any diffs of positive contributions since GoRight's return, or indeed at any time? . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked that question on my talk page, and the answer I got was a resounding silence. I think we can safely say the answer is "No" - by any reasonable standard, he has not made a single positive contribution since his return. Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has at least one, here. Has there an RFC on this user? rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was revered by consensus it appears, so it probably wasn't that good, and the general language is good enough probably for NPOV. rootology (C)(T) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between "criticism from climate scientists" and "criticism from some climate scientists". The latter leads one of think that the criticism comes from a relatively small number of scientists, or that there is dissent, when in fact none exists. GoRight's edit distorts the reality of the situation, which is something common to much of his article editing. And, as you said, it was reverted. So that's still 0 good edits from GoRight.

For your other question, here's a short history of GoRight: GoRight caused much disruption in 2007, then left for several months, returning in mid-2008 and picking up where he left off - he started 9 simultaneous edit wars. He was brought to AN last June for BLP violations and making personal attacks. Then in July there was an RFC where a plurality of folks endorsed the idea that he contributes nothing to the encyclopedia, followed by an ANI discussion in August which resulted in community sanctions. During that ANI discussion, GoRight promised to turn over a new leaf - to be less disruptive, adhere to BLP, adhere to 1rr. I knew this was a lie (As R. Baley said, "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard"), so I began keeping track of his edits here. GoRight caused more disruption from September-November, then left for two months. He returned last week, and again resumed his disruption. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on all this he falls into that cheeful polite POV pusher side of things. Or mostly polite. Either way, he's playing games with the articles and we can do without him, I agree on that. rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also support a community ban on GoRight. After reviewing the evidence, that is the only option left for dealing with this editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping to stay out of this discussion so that others could decide for themselves the truth of the situation, but Raul's ongoing litany of lies and distortions demands some sort of response.

This WP:HARASSment by Raul654 is beginning to get old. The simple fact of the matter is that he disagrees with my POV on AGW and things have escalated to the point where he is now using his administrative privileges to attempt to institute his own personal community ban against me. The edit he blocked me for speaks for itself on this point. Read it for yourself. There is nothing overtly disruptive about it. Check the edit summaries and commentary on the talk page as well and decide for yourself.

Here are a few points to consider if you believe that I am simply being hyperbolic here:

1. He began his campaign for a topic ban against me on 24 June 2008.
2. When this didn't yield the desired result, he decided to WP:FORUMSHOP by creating a User RFC against me.
3. The RFC itself yielded no consensus for any action as evidenced by the fact that on 3 August 2008 one of the co-certifiers proposed closing it since everything had pretty much already been said. The only reason it remained open is that a few people wanted to make some final edits.
4. On 7 August 2008 a WP:AN thread was started that was completely unrelated to the RFC was started, and while that thread ultimately resulted in a very narrow topic ban against me, the topic (pages related to William M. Connolley) was never even mentioned or discussed in the RFC. In fact, when some of the participants in the RFC learned of the WP:AN thread after the fact they expressed dismay that they had not been informed nor had the matter been mentioned in the RFC (see this, this, and this).
5. Raul now wants you to believe that the sanction against me was a direct result of his RFC (e.g. "GoRight, is a single-purpose account who last August was the subject of an RFC, which led to community sanction here on AN.") when it had absolutely nothing to do with the RFC.
6. Apparently since the sanction was imposed, Raul has been WP:STALKing me and maintaining a WP:Attack page against me here.
7. I guess he now wants to simply WP:FORUMSHOP the same topics again in the hopes of getting a different result.
8. My edit history will show that I have respected the topic ban against me and there have been no additional incidents in that regard. The topic ban specifically does NOT restrict me from continuing to edit global warming pages.
9. I have never made any secret of the fact that I am a single issue editor (this does not disqualify me from participation on wikipedia) nor that I am a skeptic. As I said in the previous WP:AN thread my purpose here is to combat the blatant AGW bias that is pervasive on these pages. This too is completely within intent, purpose, and spirit of being inclusive in wikipedia and trying to represent all points of view. Does that make me a POV pusher? From Raul's perspective I have no doubt that it does which is why he wants me to simply go away, apparently by force, coercion, and subterfuge if necessary. But from wikipedia's perspective? I don't think so.
10. This edit which evoked this response and description: "GoRight's edits to The Deniers were certainly disruptive. The quote in question was not overly long, and GoRight's edit substantially whitewashed meaning of the cited sentence (GoRight's "I am not a denier" version is substantially weaker than the previous version, which, to paraphrase, said "Solomon's newspaper columns were misleading. I am not a denier. There is overwhelming evidence for global warming. Solomon misquoted other people too") The latter is an accurate representation of what was said; the former is a watered down and less informative, which was GoRight's goal from the beginning." is a fine case in point. It is completely illustrative of Raul's modus operandi here. He is completely exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth of the situation in an attempt to bias you against me. He does this when he says that my sanction was a result of the RFC when it was not. He does this in the example above. If you want more examples simply look at the descriptions he has in his WP:Attack page then follow the links and read the context. In the overwhelming majority of cases there the outcome will be just like this example.
11. Raul wants you to believe that this edit is inflammatory and POV pushing on my part. But take note of the content that HE is arguing to keep in the article, not me. Did I simply trash the entire comment? No. Did I leave the operative portion of the point being made? Yes. Did I improve the article by removing biased material that was being given WP:UNDUE weight given its context and location? I claim yes. He claims no. But if you go read the section that comment is in you will find that the whole thing is highly summarized. The entire series of articles has been collapsed into a single paragraph. The original rebuttal paragraph was similar until this comment had been added. This single comment almost doubles the size of that section on its own. Is that, therefore, WP:UNDUE? I say yes. He says no. This is a simple content dispute and nothing more. So, who is POV pushing here and who is not?
12. Raul claims that I don't follow wikipedia policies. But WP:DISPUTE clearly states that disagreements should be taken to the talk page. When KDP reverted my edits I did so. Raul on the other hand simple committed 2 drive-by reverts without so much as an edit summary as to why. This is a very common modus operandi of his as well and this is but one example. So who's following policy and who is not?
13. Raul claims that he was not in a content dispute with me prior to warning me and blocking me. He then impugns the character of Aitias by calling him, in effect, a liar and saying that he falsely claims Raul was involved in the content dispute. Check the timestamps here and here to see if Raul is being truthful in his description of the chronology of the events.
14. Given our past history together I think it is fair to say that Raul and I are perpetually in a content dispute regardless of this most recent edit he is objecting to. He knows this well and he could have easily gotten an uninvolved administrator to make the block if it was justified. He chose not to because he knew he wouldn't be able to find anyone who agreed. That only left him to use his administrative privileges to try and silence me. Apparently this is a recurring theme, see here and here and even comments already expressed by others in this very WP:AN thread. So, who is adhering to policy here and who is not?
15. Raul also knows that maintaining WP:Attack pages over such a long time is considered unacceptable. He himself has made that very argument in the past when it suited him. Now he chooses to ignore that reality. Note in his attack page that he claims I am maintaining hit lists. Those pages contained evidence I was collecting as part of the WP:AN discussion. Note also that those pages no longer exist and were deleted within days of the sanction being imposed against me. Who is following policy here, and who is not?

I would very much appreciate some action be taken to prevent Raul from continuing to WP:STALK and WP:HARASS me (as evidenced by his WP:Attack page and his repeated and failed calls to ban me), and most especially to prevent him from continuing to abuse his administrative privileges as a means of silencing me in all manner of content disputes because he simply disagrees with my POV. Since others have also commented that this is a recurring theme with him against other users on GW pages, perhaps a general ban on his using administrative privileges on GW pages would also be in order. Either way something should be done to rein him in as this current incident illustrates.

The questions you have to ask yourself here are, does this edit that he blocked me for represent the devious and nefarious attempt on my part to destroy the whole of wikipedia that Raul would have you believe, or does it not? Did he block me to prevent imminent damage to wikipedia or did he simply do it to punish me and teach me a lesson? In other words, was he following proper wikipedia policy or was he not?

--GoRight (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting away from the red herring above, a number of editors have now supported a community ban for GoRight. His behavior has continued unabated for 2 years, despite multiple administrative steps to correct it (multiple ANI threads, an RFC, community sanctions). More-or-less all of the people who edit the articles he does have weighed in support of banning him. Virtually all of his edits are revert warring, and he does not contribute to any non-GW articles. I think it's time to put a community ban into effect. Raul654 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to give one representative example of the kind of stuff GoRight does: during his last stint of edits, he started nine (yes, nine) simultaneous edit wars. One of them was him adding a claim to the global warming article that global warming can cause earthquakes. He modified our global warming article to say that global warming might cause earthquakes, and cited it to a Fox News article which essentially said "Fringe scientist claims global warming causes earthquakes (But everyone else disagrees)." On further investigation, we found out that Fox News had already retracted the article, and that GoRight was aware of this retraction from the first time he cited it in our global warming article. This is the nonsense we have to deal with from him.

Raul654 (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide link to Fox retraction and a diff showing GoRight knew of it. Three diffs at least for the nine edit wars would be useful. Mccready (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The same story was reported in MSNBC, CBS, and the AP (not Fox, my mistake), then withdrawn by the AP and CBS. Here, GoRight admits he is aware of its withdrawal by the AP and CBS, but that we should go ahead and cite the MSNBC article: Don't let the fact that CBS News and the AP have backtracked (withdrawn the story) stop you. MSNBC is considered a credible news source, is it not? Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are GoRight's edit warring diffs that you asked for:

• William M. Gray - [27][28][29][30][31]
• William Connolley - [32][33][34][35]
• Fred Singer - [36][37][38][39][40]
• Global warming controversy - [41]
• An Inconvenient Truth - [42]
• Lawrence Solomon - [43][44][45][46][47]
• Real Climate - [48][49]
• Global warming - [50][51][52][53][54] - (global warming causes earthquakes, based on a story he already knew had been retracted by the AP and CBS)

Notice that I haven't collected these from separate edit wars that happened over a period of months -- most of the above edits are from one week at the end of June 2008 (and a few from July). This is what happens when GoRight edits regularly - lots of disruption and revert warring. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If Cool Hand Luke thinks I should participate more in this discussion, I'll try to oblige.

I'll save Raul the trouble on the whole earthquake episode and provide the requested links myself. Here is the original edit and here is my one and only revert per WP:1RR. The discussion on the talk page can be found here. Does this incident make me look bad? Yea, probably. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have done it. But I still maintain that I was within allowable wikipedia policies and guidelines in doing it as I argued at the time. Your mileage may vary.

Note that this is what Raul is calling an "edit war". One revert. Raul would also have you believe that this is a "representative example". It is not. It is a cherry picked example and he would be hard pressed to come up with anything similar (excepting, of course, the incidents that lead up to my current sanction which I have respected since it was imposed).

I rarely add wholely new material like this. As I said above my purpose here is to combat the blatant bias that is pervasive in the GW articles. So mostly I either attempt to reword things to make them more neutral (as in the case of the edit Raul blocked me for) and/or I follow the same sources used by the AGW proponents to make sure they have not been cherry picking. If they have I try to balance out what the sources have actually said by including the other side of the story from the same sources if possible, or comparable sources if needed. Probably 80% of my work falls into this mode of operation.

If you want to get a feel for what I am really up to check out my updates to any of the following pages: The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon, Fred Singer, Robert M. Carter, William M. Gray, An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and my participation in this wikidrama.

Come to think of it, I don't think that I have actually even edited Global Warming directly much at all. How do you do the edit counting thing that I saw above? --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through GoRight's self-justifications above, and in particular at the example GoRight links. That was clearly edit warring against consensus, inserting information on the basis of unreliable sources and deleting properly sourced content to present a misleading impression. A community ban is evidently in order. . dave souza, talk 09:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is almost certainly going to end just as all the others have: with no consensus. The issue here is that any sort of edit that "rocks the boat" on the GW articles it bitch-slapped by the WP:OWNers so quickly and users are labeled as trolls, sockpuppets, or edit warriors so immediately that WP:BRD is impossible. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are several well-respected editors around the GW pages who are less civil than GoRight is and I don't believe his behavior in particular should be singled out for a ban. Oren0 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

With partisan topics, there never really is a consensus. I think that ImperfectlyInformed (II) is right when he says we should have some sort of jury system for these sorts of disputes. Almost everyone commenting here has been involved before, including me. For the record, I think GoRight's editing since returning has been somewhat more provocative, which is disappointing because I hoped that the RFC would improve his behavior. If there's no improvement, blocks should be issued—but not by partisans in these articles. Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though ThoranX is referring to me as a troll (which is not very WP:CIV), I kind of agree with his sentiment. There really is no reason to drag this whole thing out. The simple fact of the matter is that I am a dissenting voice up against a small group (and it is well known who they are) of editors who believe that they WP:OWN anything even remotely related to GW and they tag team revert anyone with a dissenting opinion. Once the discussion is on the talk pages they simply refuse to agree to anything and so nothing but their views are represented.

This ultimately leads to some low-level of reverting back and forth. But in all of the "revert wars" that Raul is complaining about how many WP:3RR blocks occurred? How many went on for days and weeks as so many of the real "revert wars" do? None. If that level of activity is disruptive then I guess I am guilty, but don't forget that there are always two sides in every revert war.

As a dissenting voice anything I change is going to be viewed as disruptive to the status quo. That is inevitable. Raul labels me a "Polite POV pusher." This is a silly term. It describes anyone who wants to operate properly within the rules and policies to bring change to an entrenched status quo. If I am not WP:CIV I am violating policy and I get bannd. If I say something the status quo disagrees with they label me disruptive simply because they disagree with my POV. They don't want to have to bother to keep defending their position. It is easier to simply dispatch with the naysayer as Raul is attempting to do now.

So ultimately, the real question on the table here is not whether I am disruptive or not, but whether wikipedia and its community is strong enough to allow dissenting voices to participate. As a dissenting voice the entrenched status quo will always view me as disruptive. That is why it is important for independent observers to be the ones to weigh the issues, not the regular participants of which Raul most certainly is one. It is no surprise that he was able to make this statement above: "Kim, WMC, and I were the ones who responded to GoRight's edits, and no one else did. And all of us argued against them." This just illustrates my point here.

So, are you as a community going to allow a dissenting voice to remain or are you going to cast it out? It is your decision. --GoRight (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If your purpose in being here is to be a "dissenting voice" and you are not here to write an encyclopedia, then you are here for the wrong reason. --B (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We're arguing semantics. I believe that I said "As I said above my purpose here is to combat the blatant bias that is pervasive in the GW articles." The fact that I am a dissenting (relative to the status quo) voice merely refers to which side of the debate I am on. Like most editors I focus on the things that interest me, so the fact that I am a single issue editor should not bias anyone against me. This is perfectly allowable.

The fact that I am here to write an encyclopedia (or at least a specific part thereof) goes without saying. If all I wanted to do was be a vandal my life would be far simpler if I just used a bunch of socks. I don't. Instead I take the time to come and defend myself.

The question at hand is are you going to strive to have a balanced encyclopedia by including voices that challenge and are critical of the IPCC view, or are you not. If you want wikipedia to merely be a rubber stamp for the IPCC then blank all of the articles and leave a pointer to the IPCC reports as this would save a great deal of time and trouble. If, on the other hand, you want to provide a balanced perspective as wikipedia policies state we should be doing, then you have to allow the dissenting voices to act as a check against the rubber stamp. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is chatter above about discussing a community ban - has this discussion commenced elsewhere or is this the only place it is being discussed? I have some comments on the matter and I was going to make them here, but if there is a community ban discussion elsewhere I'll go there. ATren (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is right here in this very section. If you'd like to weigh in on the issue, this would be the place. Oren0 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In User:Raul654/GoRight, why are the edits listed under "Politcal back-scratching" being used as some sort of evidence of GoRight's misbehavior? They have nothing to do with Global Warming or edit warring. They all seem to relate to an issue I was involved in as well - trying to get User:Wilhelmina Will's brief DYK topic ban overturned. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the topic ban, as far as I can tell, WW has been editing productively and has earned several more DYKs since the ban was lifted. So how were GoRight's attempts to get that ban lifted some sort of misconduct? The fact that these edits are being used as evidence of misconduct makes me wonder about the validity of the rest of the accusations. Rlendog (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Wilhelmina at all; it pertains to GoRight's interactions with Abd. Specifically, GoRight's support of Adb's advocacy, and later lobbying in order to get Abd unbanned, while Abd was simultaneously involved in lobbying on GoRight's behalf, in order to prevent GoRight from being community sanctioned or banned (by obfuscating the issues, both on GoRight's RFC and further up this thread). I've edited the page to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't banned, I was indef blocked, first and only. Complicated little incident, triggered by a warning from one admin who has since apologized, and with whom I have since enjoyed a good sense of community and cooperation, the block being implemented by another whom I haven't approached, she essentially washed her hands of it (from the start, saying that she wouldn't object to an unblock), and it seems more wikidrama than it's worth to address it with her, and I wouldn't dream of causing massive fuss without first going the simple route. The admin whom I allegedly "attacked" shortly thereafter suggested and granted me rollback. Now, while I was blocked, yes, GoRight felt obligated, because I'd done so much work researching his case and documenting the abuse of him, by Raul654 among others, to take up the cause of Wilhelmina Will, which he did civilly and excellently, no thanks to Raul654. Obfuscating the issues? I made them clear by NPOV description, in my comments and linked files for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight of what had happened, with detailed diffs and analysis, whereas Raul654 simply blusters about with accusations, or pushes the block button when he's irritated. And when other editors or admins question it, he just blows them off. The last person to accuse GoRight of misconduct would be Raul654. GoRight can't hold a candle to him. However, Raul654 is losing it. Read the above, it's incoherent. He wrote the RfC on GoRight and it was quite a mess. I'd urge anyone who'd like a deeper understanding of what's going on here to read the whole thing. Banning GoRight would be a gross injustice, when his accuser, whose behavior is worse and more dangerous, walks free. I'd say they should both be free, though I have some doubt about those admin tools. If GoRight is abusive, let an uninvolved admin block him, just as any of us who become abusive should be blocked. Any of us. There is, indeed, massive incivility in this discussion on the part of Raul654. Has anyone warned him? Or blocked him? If GoRight wrote as Raul654 has written, he'd be blocked in a flash. Does anyone here doubt this? So, admins, this is your noticeboard, are you noticing this? Friends of Raul654, warn your friend! He's not likely to listen to the rest of us. And, Raul654, your block of GoRight was a clear COI block, and you will lose your tools if this goes before ArbComm. There are at least a few other improper blocks I'm aware of, I've protested at least one to you, and I've seen others protest. You have a chance to turn away from this, it's clear that your support is falling apart, editors are no longer believing that it's true just because you say so. Whom do you trust? Who could mediate this? --Abd (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I am still not sure I would consider that particular item misconduct, but I understand where you are coming from. Rlendog (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"GoRight's support of Adb's advocacy" - Yep, I helped defend a little girl when she was wrongly accused and improperly sanctioned. It's all part of my nefarious scheme to destroy wikipedia. --GoRight (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not helpful. ATren (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, you are of course correct. I shall strike the comment and hereby apologize for having made it. --GoRight (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The "nefarious scheme" part was sarcastic; but the defending the little girl (actually a teenager) part was accurate. It was a shocking example of how badly things can go on AN/I. --Abd (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I have browsed through your evidence on this page and after looking at the first dozen or so links, half way down the page, I found no evidence whatsoever that would justify banning. For a community ban, I would hope you could provide something more than a few very minor reverts and some civil talk page debate, which is all I've found so far. I don't even see individual instances of abuse, let alone a pattern. Can you please highlight what you perceive to be the worst example of recent abuse, with links? ATren (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you can look at diffs documented on that page (like this (personal attacks) and this (ludicrously false BLP claims)) and claim that he's not disruptive says more about your own judgment than it does about GoRight's behavior. As to his most disruptive recent edits, it's clearly the his edits to talk global warming, and his behavior/comments on his talk page in response to it. Raul654 (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that really the best you have? To call that first one a personal attack or to call removing a potentially questionable source a "ludicrously false BLP claim" really seems like grasping for straws. Oren0 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(A) If not a personal attack, the first one is a clear example of being a a dick. Kim Peterson's description of GoRight comes to mind - His entire method of operation, seems to be driving at pissing off people, so much that they will be seen as the "wrong-doers" instead of engaging in a reasonable consensus building. (B) It was not a potentially questionable source. It was a perfectly reliable source (The Sydney Morning Herald, a print newspaper in Australia), making a perfectly ordinary claim (that an marine geologist doesn't have much standing in the climatology field). Claiming that this is "extraordinary" in order to remove it is a misuse of the BLP policy, and an obvious one at that. Moreover, I notice you didn't mention his edits on the GW talk page - perhaps because they are obviously indefensible? Raul654 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Raul, with respect to the diff where GoRight calls AGW scientists lobbyists, I don't particularly agree with it, but I've seen you call people lobbyists in a derisive manner, and you weren't blocked for it, nor were your edits struck. GoRight's comments were on a talk page, in the context of a debate about the reliability of sources - while I don't agree with GoRight, and even if I did I would have phrased it differently, this is not block/ban-worthy. Not at all. And if it is, then should you yourself not be subject to the same sanction for calling others lobbyists in the past? ATren (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"(A) If not a personal attack, the first one is a clear example of being a a dick." - And you are accusing me of being uncivil? Does anyone else see the irony here?

"(B) ... making a perfectly ordinary claim ..." - Well if this is so common place perhaps you can provide a handful of other examples of similar claims being made against other scientists in the MSM? --GoRight (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the information here I do not think a ban on GoRight is appropriate. Personal attacks should not be tolerated by either side of the argument and the editors should voluntarily strike the comments. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec @ Raul) "I notice you didn't mention his edits on the GW talk page - perhaps because they are obviously indefensible?" - I can defend them. The first is a statement of fact. James Hansen does, in fact, lobby congress all the time. As for the second statement, referring to climate scientists as "AGW Scientologists" is clearly no more offensive than comparing skeptics to "Holocaust Deniers". Something else that James Hansen has done. Just read his BLP. --GoRight (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I respectfully suggest: shut up! Stop defending yourself. Somebody wants to attack you, ignore it. Let others defend you, or not, as they choose. Your life does not depend on Wikipedia. I'm going to comment above on some of what's been said, but if I commented on every error I see, I'd be doing nothing else, and I have kids to take care of, totally insane at my age. Cool Hand Luke has said that he's disappointed that you've been provocative. My advice: ask him what you should do. And follow his advice, he won't lead you astray. As to irony, yes, what, do you think we are blind? It may seem crazy, but ... trust the community. --Abd (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, again. Fine. I need to go to bed anyway. You go take care of the kids as that should be your priority. --GoRight (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice you didn't mention his edits on the GW talk page - perhaps because they are obviously indefensible? - Quite the contrary. These points weren't addressed because their inclusion here is hilarious. Various admins and respected editors make worse comments about AGW skeptics on an at least weekly basis and nobody calls them out because, like GoRight's edits, the only possible complaint about them is WP:FORUM. Oren0 (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, GoRight, you go right.

Somewhere above Raul654 notes that the comment by Stephen Schulz in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight attracted the most support comments. That's true. At the evidence page I compiled while the RfC was active, User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. I analyzed the edit history of those who commented, with relation to the research I had done on the involved articles (which is above that on that page). This was to determine who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight, whether in opposition to him or supporting him. Stephen Schulz himself had been involved, and so had most commenters. They were not neutral. The comment that attracted the most support from neutral editors was that of User:JeremyMcCracken. Two of those supporters were recently elected to ArbComm. I was, by the way, entirely uninvolved with GoRight before this RfC. I became involved when I saw the RfC about to be closed due to a technical defect, and I intervened to keep it open, I may even have completed the opening, I forget. Then I actually read the thing, and I was horrified, so I did the research to make a comment. So I was, at that point, a neutral editor. I would no longer treat myself that way, though I don't agree with GoRight's POV in his special interest area, Global warming. My position, though, is that we need editors with all varieties of POV to participate in forming the genuine consensus that marks NPOV, there really is no other clear sign of it. So blocking "civil POV-pushers" is entirely the wrong idea, we should engage them, and only block for gross and persistent incivility, edit warring, and the like. --Abd (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

People should look at the weight of support and the supposed "neutrality" of supporters in the RfC. Abd has what I consider "surprising" criteria for classification of users as neutral/non-neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So, Raul, you accuse him of a personal attack, then when someone rightly calls you on the fact that it wasn't really a personal attack, you call him a dick? Do you not see the irony in that? Clearly you believe that GoRight should be held to a more strict standard than yourself.

Further, you have presented probably two dozen diffs as evidence above - and they are all from last summer. Weren't those issues already dealt with in the RfC and community ban discussions? Wasn't it agreed at that time that GoRight should stay away from WMC but would not otherwise be sanctioned? What has he done recently to evade that ban? What recent diffs do you have showing abuse?

I'll repeat: I've seen no evidence of recent behavior that would warrant even a warning, let alone a ban. Please enlighten me with recent evidence in case I missed something. ATren (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The only possible explanation why Raul can't post any serious disruptive edits here since the last RfC is because there aren't any. This entire proceeding appears to be little more than an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP by retrying the previous RfC again. For Raul, I'd ask this: what has changed since the last RfC that leads you to believe the results of this will be any different? Why can't you support this attempt at a ban without using old diffs, tame comments jazzed up with extreme descriptions (this is "indefensible"?), accusations of "political backscratching" (yes, let's ban someone because he supported someone else at a noticeboard), or inconclusive sockpuppetry accusations? Oren0 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wall Street Journal:

John Soong, 18, says that after he had failed to get jobs at several chains that use the test, he began to poke around for an answer key, driven by "altruistic, and maybe vengeful," motives. In a discussion section of a Wikipedia entry, he saw a mention of a set of Unicru statements and answers that had been posted there but removed. Using privileges as a volunteer Wikipedia administrator, which gave him access to deleted page histories, Mr. Soong, a University of Virginia student, was able to recover the answer key and re-post it on Facebook.

Is this appropriate behaviour from an admin? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Already been discussed here, will see if I can find the link. SoWhy 11:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin misusing viewdeleted. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers... good to hear! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, everbody's Good Deed for the Day today...help someone else write an article!, --> Go to WP:PR, take 5 mins (or more, but even a quick peek may be helpful) to look and drop a few notes on a PR candidate, anything, doesn't matter, pretty quick and easy to find some content or prose issues. Go for it and make WP a better place! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you go again....recklessly attempting to improve the encyclopedia - Peripitus (Talk) 04:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK? ... not sure I understand how that automated script actually works, what I posted appeared to show up on a different page than what I thought I was posting to though. I hope it went to the right place. (Bride of Frankenstein) Ched (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC) it ended up posting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bride_of_Frankenstein/archive1 ... is that right? Ched (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You did fine. The article author has responded to your post with a question, which you can answer just below his question (preferably typing ** just before your comment in order to properly indent), if you like. Chick Bowen 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a problem a few months ago with a critic called Dan Schneider adding spam links to his own reviews at the bottom of countless film pages. This was resolved after considerable debate and countless accusations and counter accusations to aliases and vendettas etc and eventually his aliases were removed and the problem solved- there was also a problem with him stretching his own wikipedia article to ridiculous lengths but this was eventually, again after considerable debate, resolved after about 8/10 of the article was removed and the remainder placed under protection. The pages I have removed the new links from include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenzy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_wrath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_of_Fear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguirre,_the_Wrath_of_God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bicycle_Thieves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_1/2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Life_of_Veronique

But there's bound to be countless more, including many that already had the links taken from by myself and others a few months ago. Some details of what happened last time are on my talk page He's very prolific and due to upcoming exams and other commitments I cannot do much myself and would like the Admin to get involved again if possible.

Many of the links appear to be to a site called www.noripcord.com and www.altfg.com

Thanks, and sorry if this is in the wrong section. (StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

You may want to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Also, you can search for linked webpages with Special:Linksearch. Doesn't seem like you are seeking admin action, correct? You just want more eyes on this subject.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Admin involvement might be useful seeing as it was only after they got involved last time that the situation was resolved. Last time it just built up into an edit war. But ultimately any help possible would be very useful.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

From what I see, this will take some time to figure out, so WT:WPSPAM would be the best venue for discussion. Looks like a sockpuppet report and a checkuser will be necessary too. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continuing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dan_Schneider_inserting_spam_links_again --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I remember it well and had another purge of Schneider vanispamcruftisement before Christmas. I'm sure he's evading at least one block by now. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just made aware of this discussion. The spam issue with Schneider involved people and sock puppets on both sides of the issue--i.e., both pro and con Schneider. After all this came up the last time, I personally contacted Schneider and he told me that he is not spamming Wikipedia. He said there are a number of people online who harass him online and he suspects this might be another case of this (i.e., to get his site blacklisted by Wikipedia). This view is backed up by comments some sock puppets made around this issue last time. People should feel free to remove any spam links. However, in my opinion this is not a clear cut issue of Schneider being the one to spam Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved per discussion at WikiProject Spam. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's currently several open WP:BRFAs for bots with admin rights that could use some comments:

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AntiAbuseBot
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CAT:TEMP deletion bot
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 3
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CSD R1 Deletion Bot (in trial, clone of RedirectCleanupBot)
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot (in trial, replacement for MPUploadBot)

-- Mr.Z-man 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring more eyeballs to this situation. It seems to have been handled hastily. I should add that I haven't talked to anyone at the Foundation about it. The user was indef blocked, and userpage deleted, on an accusation of "spamming". But in fact, this is a partnership with the Foundation, and he was only giving instructions of how to get a printed book of articles using the PediaPress system. The main thing that concerns me is that the javascript which is clearly opt-in was deleted. The javascript was not, itself, spam, and it seems premature to speedy it based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also doubt if the user should have been blocked so hastily without some discussion, but on the other hand, perhaps I have overlooked something so I am not unblocking. I did undelete the javascript because I wanted to try it out, but it doesn't work for me so maybe there is something else going on here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A relevant few links (please add more if it's helpful):

• User:Pediapress
• User_talk:Pediapress

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#Pediapress appears to be the only discussion relating to this subject. Mind you, if someone who is affiliated with Wikia opens up a account then it might be worth mentioning it on said userpage!. This place is generally staffed by volunteers, not WikiaMedia savvy types and/or mindreaders... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) (but then we knew that, already, didn't we?)

Is it a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation or a partnership with Wikia? rootology (C)(T) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing do with with Wikia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This appeared in the now deleted userpage, "This page is related to the Mediawiki Collection Extension." Now, I am a complete duffer when it comes to technical aspects of the Wiki(a) world, but it seems to suggest a link - but at no point is there any mention of an affiliation or endorsement or something, so I do not think that it was deleted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It simply appears to be an article, created in userspace, that denotes a function that can run with Wikipedia (which, being a wiki, means anyone can write some script and use the 'pedia and sell it). Again, I ask how humble sysops were supposed to be able to tell that this came with an "official" stamp of approval simply by looking at the content..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes it sound like some "technical" think within MediaWiki was involved, but I was just curious if this was some official thing the actual WMF signed off on from San Francisco, if this was some 3rd party Wikia or independent project thing? If it's WMF, it probably doesn't need our approval. If it's Wikia or some 3rd party thing it would need local support. I'm lost on what it actually is, as is apparently everyone else. I.e, did the WMF say, "You can do stuff on en.wp for this," or did they say, "You can use the content like the recent 3rd party DVD project"? rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer you, since I don't understand the question (and I read it real slow, too...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Useful relevant link Press releases/Wikis Go Printable From the Wikimedia Foundation DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Said useful link is not included in the two or three versions of the deleted page I reviewed - might have been even more useful if it had. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed. Maybe they made the mistake of assuming that Wikipedians would have heard about it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you. My concern is that blocking the user and deleting the javascript (thus breaking this for anyone who may have been using it) seemed a very extreme response to someone who is clearly working in good faith with the Foundation. I should add for repeat emphasis: this has nothing to do with Wikia. No one from PediaPress has asked me about this (I was randomly asked on my user talk page and someone not related to the company asked me about this in email). Why was the user blocked without (as far as I can see) a chance to respond to a warning? That seems extreme. I am not hollering at anyone. If someone didn't know, no big deal. I'm a big fan of blocking... and of unblocking. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    Some admins are quicker to block than others over perceived COIs. Anyway, looks like an interesting idea, and I think an unblock would be nice, maybe with a suggestion that they link to the press release from their userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

    It looked like a simple case of self-aggrandizement on a userpage, using a role account/spamusername. As LessHeard vanU points out, there was nothing on the userpage at that time to indicate anything to the contrary. (I will note in passing that I did not delete their monobook, and don't know whether anybody else did either.) Thanks for the "no big deal", Jimbo; I'm more accustomed to being accused of being an agent of eviallllll deletionism for blocking spammers, deleting spam, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Unblocked, per this discussion. They could have used the {{unblock|''reason''}} function - but it appears that they are about as savvy regarding WP practice and custom as I am with whatever it is that they do. I will drop a notice on the deleting/blocking admins talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't think we can fault them for not using the unblock template, I have no idea if they even knew they were blocked! They didn't contact me, I just came across this when others called it to my attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Their website at [55] has a link to User:Pediapress as having instructions on how to make collections. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps their user page could also be restored ...so they can go about amending it to establish their credentials (such as referencing the Foundations support of their activities) and demonstrating this role account is one of the six explicitly allowed role accounts listed on meta:Role account (which it is not presently). —Sladen (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have undeleted the page and removed the speedy template, with a hidden request not to place any more. If anyone who understands what it is that the page is being used for can edit it, or place a notice, so this doesn't occur again then hopefully the matter will be resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I have added a link to the Foundation's press release on both the userpage and the talk page. The userpage just gives instructions on how to create a selection of articles from Wikipedia, and then have them output as a pdf or OpenDocument file, or have them printed and bound as a book. I will add that it seems like a useful service, and I do know that other users have asked about such a service before. One more thing - maybe the Foundation could look at ways of communicating more effectively with Wikipedia editors, so that misunderstandings like this are less likely in the future! DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is a bit disturbing for me to see someone involing Speedy Deletion criteria G11 on a opt-in MediaWiki user skin extension far far outside the articles. Even if there was no cooperation between WMF and Pediapress, why should we forbid users to customize their user interface with neat features on the web? For about 2 years now, I have a customized search box at en.wp in my user skin that allows me to search the web with google along with wikipedia. Its a small tool for convenience, a search function provided by a company (google) that probably doesn't even know this extension exists. Roughly speaking: It should be of no-ones business what I do with my user skin at Wikipedia as long as I don't interfere with anyone else. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I wish someone would have responded to my ANI thread in the first place so this all could have been avoided. UAA blew me off (which was reasonable) and directed me to ANI, which blew me off (except for User:Neurolysis), so I took it to Jimbo's talk page. What's even more frustrating is that I gave all of the necessary links in the ANI thread, only to have above users say it would have been nice to know them. ARRGGGHHH! Their monobook was deleted after I posted on UAA, but no one ever notified the user nor made any statement anywhere. Their userpage was tagged after I posted on Jimbo's talk page, but no one ever notified the user nor made any statement anywhere. And to top it off, none of this was even what I was asking about. But I digress. I did what I should have done in the first place, and left a note on their friggin' talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, that the lack of response was likely because the situation was not understood at the time (I don't understand it now, FWIW) rather than being "blown off". I did look at the links, but it meant - and means - nothing to me. I don't know if there is a more technical board where you could have posted this, but generally if you don't get a response here it is because folks don't know and are content to let someone who does respond. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tombstone, didn't see the original ANI post. Anyway, as User:Pediapress hasn't edited since October, it is quite likely that they are unaware of all the shenanigans, so I have emailed their support to let them know about it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fact they hadn't edited since October was why I went to ANI instead of their talk page in the first place. Anyway, Pediapress should be loving all of the free press I've generated for them and should send me a free gift — and take my templates off of their blacklist. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I tagged the user page for speedy and reported the user name to WP:UAA. Maybe I was too hasty, but as the user page existed at the time, there was no indication (apart from the somewhat obscure reference to the Mediawiki Collection Extension) that this was in any way sanctioned by the Foundation. The user page is a lot clearer now. Sorry for creating this issue, but my motivation was sincere. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful with speedy deletion, which I think is one of the admin tools that can more harm if not handled properly. Speedy deletion is meant for blatant advertising or other obvious, clear-cut cases. Something like that user page and the script are better taken to WP:MFD, allowing others to weigh in. --Aude (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a foundation employee or representative to make a project space page for collaborations? Perhaps something like a protected list that includes the project or userpage name and purpose. I don't want to create CREEP, but that would make it easier for those of us on NPP and username patrol to do our jobs. Further, if there is an admin account which can create these pages it will automatically remove them from patrols. We should assume that a user like PediaPress is not lying, but we get enough fake "admin" "foundation" and "wikipedia" accounts that suspicion is rewarded. Full disclosure might obviate that need for suspicion and would have the beneficial affect of advertising those collaborations at a unified page. Thoughts? (Also, I'm aware AN isn't the place for this, but it seems natural). Protonk (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of vandals and hoaxers claiming to have special rights. There should be a protected page where any claims of any special right or special relationship with the Foundation can be verified. A claim is not a proof. Edison (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What if there were a specific username string that indicated such users? Blacklist the string so that it can't be created by just anyone (there is a way around the name blacklist for admins/crats/devs I think?), and Bob's your uncle. //roux   19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this suggestion. We're all editors, admins and above just have more "editing" tools. Differentiating would create a de facto class structure on Wikipedia, as compared to the informal/cabal structure that exists now. --Chasingsol^(talk) 09:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to receive feedback for a comment I left on a user talk page at User talk:Nathanael Bar-Aur L.#Edit warring. Was this appropriate? I would think that good intentions with reliable sources vigilantism do not justify continual edit warring, failure to use edit summaries, etc. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is someone going to answer my question? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your post seems reasonable to me. waggers (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to create the redirection Лeв Давидович Трóцкий as a Russian name redirection to Leon Trotsky, but apparently this particular one is in some sort of "blacklist"... The same happens with Леонід Данилович Кýчма. Could any admin. kindly unblock these? Regards. --Againme (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone be looking for a Russian name (written in Cyrillic) on English Wikipedia? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please look over this editor's contribs? He or she has created numerous redirects in the Cyrillic alphabet. Is that really proper for this project? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You don't have to speak about me in the third person, I'm here... Answer: It's not me who created the categories. We have even redirects from Japanese names in this project. I suposse if they are here they have to be used... Regards.--Againme (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming those names are the correct Cyrillic (which I have no way of knowing) then it is entirely appropriate. We don't have articles in foreign languages, but there is nothing bad about making it easier for Russians to find an article about a Russian. Dragons flight (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dragon. For Ed: here's the category: See [[56]] --Againme (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the category. I disagree that it's appropriate to have these redirects here, nor would I expect Wikpedias in other languages to allow redirects from English. They're also unnecessary, since using the Search box will bring up any instance of the Cyrillic words, as in the InterWiki listings or the transliterations at the top of many article about non-English subjects. I don't plan on doing anything about it, but it seems like a waste of time, space and energy to me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And if the redirect exists, using the search box takes you directly to the page. Redirect from alternative language is one of the encouraged uses of redirects. Obviously, you don't have to work on them if you don't want to, but some people do find them useful. Dragons flight (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The blacklist rules it's matching are those for preventing mixed-script titles, specifically mixed Latin/Cyrillic. --Carnildo (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not understand you, Carnildo. Thanks for your answer anyway.--Againme (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has a set of rules that prevent people from creating articles with certain titles. One of those rules prohibits titles that use letters from both the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets: since the letters look similar but computers represent them using different numbers, mixed-alphabet titles can be confusing. The first title uses the Latin letter "e" rather than the Cyrillic Ye. I can't tell what letter in the second title is causing problems, but it's matching the same set of rules. --Carnildo (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, very clear now. --Againme (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I didn't see this section before fulfilling this request on WP:RFPP. Redirects are cheap anyway :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Wikipedia:Notability has been fully protected since 13 December 2008, because of the edit warring that was going on there. I didn't follow the story at all, but I guess 1 month is probably long enough for spirits to have settled down. I'd remove the protection but I think it is best to have a brain check before putting my hand in the hornet's nest. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, depends. What was it fully protected for, exactly? (Can't say I follow that sort of stuff much.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A link for you, Mr. Fuchs. I think it's safe to unprotect now. Keegan^talk 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I recently had a message added to my user page by Howcheng here: [57]. The point of the message was to invite me to a museum event near me. I certainly don't object to the event, or to the purposes it was organized for. But I do object to the manner in which it is being advertized. The idea apparently is to add, with an automated tool, messages to a large number of pages (about four hundred, I think). The message itself contains an "apology", an indication that the poster had an intimation that it was inappropriate. When I asked him about it here [58] [59], he replied [60], essentially saying that he did nothing wrong. I object because I do not want wikipedia to become another source of spam, another engine for generating unsolicited messages. The event is, in one sense, wikipedia-connected, but in another sense, it's an off-wiki event. There is already the notices that appear at the top of my watchlist, which would be the place for such broad community announcements. If it's not appropriate for that, then I submit it's not appropriate elsewhere either, and certainly not by an automated tool. But I'm uncertain: it's not crystal clear this violates policy, and I would like to find out how best to explore the question. I do think it is crucial that we not come to the conclusion that users are free to post automated messages to hundreds of user pages, to advertize off-wiki things. I don't think it matters much at all whether it's commercial or not; the annoyance factor is the same. What is the best way to explore this? Tb (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• An invitation to a Wikipedia event to Wikipedians who're likely to be local is an appropriate talk page message. There's no need for administrative action here. WilyD 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for administrative action here, invitations to Wikipedia-related events are pretty commonplace on talk pages. — neuro^(talk) 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics" I would have thought that such "invitations" would be more appropriately posted to project message boards or community noticeboards, rather than individual users' Talk pages. But that is just my opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We've tended in the past to find that that aproach doesn't work too well.Geni 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "doesn't work too well"? Do you mean that it is less effective at getting people to do what you want them to do, or do you mean that it is less effective at improving the encyclopedia, or do you mean that it is less effective at annoying them? It is not reasonable to say that people are entitled to do whatever they want to be most effective in reaching their goals. For example, adding ads to random pages in the encyclopedia might be even more effective but so what? Tb (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Less effective when it comes to alerting people. People tend not to read local noticeboard and project pages much.Geni 13:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. There is no right to choose whatever method is most effective at reaching people. It would be really effective to put notices at the top of hundreds of articles: many more people would notice. But it's obviously not allowed. I think this shouldn't be allowed either. The whole reason it's more noticeable is that it's more intrusive and that's the very problem. Notice-givers don't have some kind of right to claim just whatever level of attention they want. Do you not see that user talk pages could easily become one more spam-laden piece of garbage, if we decide that giving any notices, to hundreds of pages by automated tools, is ok? Tb (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at some of the previous uses of MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Mass commenting on talk pages has been around for years and hasn't given us a significant spam problem yet.Geni 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You could try placing a "No spam" type of message on your user talk page in future, if you do not wish to receive anything more. It was Wikipedia-related, which although I don't particularly approve of even that, was meant in good faith and not just a pure spamfest that had no relation to Wikipedia. --.:Alex:. 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone at their leisure confirm that User:Amy Fisher is Amy Fisher (to avoid any sort of user name vandalism) and then sort out the editwar/COI problems? Kid gloves on please.--Tznkai (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed at OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Open letter from FT2.

Can someone do the necessaries. Thanks :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If by "necessaries" you mean summarizing (no offense, but not everyone wants to read the whole thing!), FT2 has stepped down from ArbCom until a way is found to provide a fair hearing. --NE2 08:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the clerks need to do a whole bunch of stuff (updating the ArbCom list, votes, etc.) I suppose that they'll do it soon enough (has anybody been doing anything else besides watch this case?) --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rschen's got it -- clerk work. Which I guess has all been done now anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As detailed in talk:Split (city), the page was renamed from Split → Split (city). This was done to enable Split (disambiguation) to be renamed Split, as there is no primary topic for Split. I renamed Split but was unable to rename the dab as Split because it already exists. Would an admin kindly delete Split and then rename Split (disambiguation) → Split? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just edit Split (disambiguation) to be a redirect to Split? DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That would also require Split (disambiguation) to be manually copied over the contents of Split, thus resulting in a loss of history of the dab. Lambtron (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point! DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. Doing it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)::Are you suggesting a copy and paste move? We need the page histories associated with the actual article if at all possible. A simple admin move would do the trick. That said, WP:RM is two doors down, and they have a section for non-controversial moves (I also believe there is a {{db}} template for such deletes as well.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I moved the history, no worries ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, can this be added as a watchlist message? I would not have known about it if I had not seen it here. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a bit too long and does not concern enough people to have it there. Mass editing should be done using an approved bot, so I guess the operators may^{{sofixit}} be contacted individually. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily done by a bot - I have been delinking dates manually and would have carried on had I not just happened across Ryan's message in passing. – ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A watchlist notice seems a bit excessive. A simple note to anyone who continues to do script-assisted linking / de-linking should be fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The image at File:Split.jpg does not appear to be the image referred to in the description. What has happened and how to fix it please? DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone uploaded a new image over the old one, I've reverted it to the correct version. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah three people "fixed" it at the same time. This messed me up majorly while trying to revert to the good version. I then realized it is an exact duplicate of a Commons file, so it is deleted and the Commons version is now showing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aurora Publishing has some serious sock puppetry and/or meat puppetry going on here to spam Wikipedia with their catalog and self-promotional stuff. The anime and manga project has been trying to police the articles since being alerted to the issue, but the socks continue appearing. The SSP report has sat unresponded to since the 9th because of the backlog and transition going on. It would really be helpful if an admin could review it and deal with them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• If there is an active WikiProject then I suggest that you work together to identify what of the spammed content is significant, and then AfD the balance. I'll be happy to help supervise the AfD for sockpuppetry etc. if necessary. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been doing that, with Prods and AfDs. The problem is the socks keep returning and making more articles, and particularly trying to spam those that remain with a lot of promo material, along with the main Aurora article. Attempts at dialog have been met with them pretending to just be fans (despite clear evidence in their editing history showing otherwise), such as the first account saying they were just a fan, until articles were tagged for CSD for copyvio, then they admitted being with Aurora and having written all the stolen summaries. It seems like they are copy/pasting press releases and the like into various articles, as we're finding copyvio plot summaries, statements, etc all over the place. We're cleaning those that are notable, and sending the rest for deletion, but still would be good if we weren't having to first undo their frequent respamming over and over again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the sock drawer. Anyone is free to unblock if they think the risk of further inappropriate promotion is removed, but right now there is no evidence that these people even see that what they are doing is wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User Donadio created an edit-warring in the article White Brazilian. He removed several informations from that article, before making any discussion in the talk page. He also included several unsourced informations there. He flooded the talk page of this article with unnecessary comments. He seems to be using his personal opinions to make changes in the article. I told him that to remove informations and include unsourced posts are not allowed in Wikipedia, but he ignored me.

Can some administrator do something about it. Thanks. Opinoso (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

MOAR NOTICEBRDZ PLS. John Reaves 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there can be no need for a noticeboard? ArbCom is so dull, nothing exciting ever happens around them. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have updated the Noticeboard Noticeboard accordingly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A bot has deleted the talk page of User:AlexLevyOne as an "old temporary userpage." It seems to me wise to keep the talk page of a multiple-block-evading sockmaster like this around, since it may (I don't really recall) contain evidence of why he was indef blocked in the first place. Is such a deletion standard operating procedure? Deor (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages of blocked socks are not supposed to be deleted. I've restored this one and removed the temporary category from the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few of these have popped up on my talkpage recently, usually with an editsum along the lines of "Talk/userpage of an indefblocked/banned user." I had assumed there was a good reason for it... perhaps I was wrong? //roux   04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Before this turns into a big discussion, I'd just like to interject my thanks to AuburnPilot for the action and the explanation. Deor (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was a bit surprised to see this bot pop up, as I know I've seen the automation of this task shot down before (for the very concern that sock talk pages would be deleted incorrectly). Otherwise, the talk pages of indefinitely blocked users can be deleted; see Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages. - auburnpilot talk 04:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TempDeletionBot. Interesting. - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It only checks the page its deleting, I'm not quite sure why it would check anything else :) The pages are supposed to be kept if needed for tracking purposes, the template on the userpage serves this purpose. If you want I can have it check both, but I'm not sure I see the purpose, the talk page was a bunch of template warnings, most about article deletion. (part of the reason they're deleted is to get rid of such useless pages). Mr.Z-man 04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the talk page may be just a bunch of warnings, but try the history tab. User talk pages of socks are frequently full of information that can help track and confirm connections between accounts. I think the better question is how this task was approved, when it was so clearly rejected at the RfA I linked above. The bots may have different names and operators, but the task is no different. - auburnpilot talk 04:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)And to respond to a few more points:

"It seems to me wise to keep the talk page of a multiple-block-evading sockmaster like this around, since it may (I don't really recall) contain evidence of why he was indef blocked in the first place."

The evidence is exactly where it should be, in the block log, SSP reports, and the sock template.

"Is such a deletion standard operating procedure?"

Yes, people have been doing it for years.

"I've seen the automation of this task shot down before"

And since no one is actually willing to manually go through (what's at some times tens of) thousands of pages of pure crap to find maybe a couple pages that have information that might be useful (though not likely) in the future, people just end up doing with unapproved bots. In any case, the linked RFA was from more than a year ago, opinions regarding adminbots have changed significantly in the meantime. Mr.Z-man 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I have no doubt the opinion on admin bots has changed quite a bit, but I very much doubt that opinion on this task has. This should not be done blindly through the use of a bot. - auburnpilot talk 04:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you volunteering? As I said, there is currently, and there has not been since the decline of the last bot, anyone willing to do this manually. Mr.Z-man 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CAT:TEMP deletion bot. Seems like approval to me. And since its linked to further up this page, I think that if people objected, they would have commented--Jac16888^Talk 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[61] - Talk pages where the corresponding userpage has a sock template will be removed from the category starting on the next run. Mr.Z-man 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes me happy. I'm still very disappointed in the way this very rejected task was slipped through the back door, with half a dozen editors supporting (compared to the 30+ that rejected it). Very poor form. - auburnpilot talk 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You willing to help with clearing the backlog? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Red herring? --Onorem♠Dil 05:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I don't really care much if adminbots are run to make non-controversial deletions, but saying a person needs to be willing to clear the backlog themselves in order to complain is a non-argument. --Onorem♠Dil 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Be willing to help or stop complaining. And "willing to help" isn't necessarily clearing a backlog, it can be commenting on bot requests or talking with bot ops about how to improve their code. But sitting around on a noticeboard and kvetching helps nothing. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean like commenting on the original discussion? Or you mean the second one? Because the first discussion, where the task was rejected, had the input of 70+ people. The second one had only half a dozen. I didn't realize the bot approval group had the authority to override community decisions, but clearly I need to start watching it more closely. - auburnpilot talk 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you're interested in bot discussions, you should participate in them. And they're at the same place every time. I think there's even a pretty chart somewhere that lists all open requests. It may even include colors. And, things change, a fact that you seem to try to be ignoring. In the last year, attitudes toward adminbots have shifted significantly, as others have pointed out in this thread. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, MZMcBride, you can take your condescending attitude and shove it. I'm not ignoring anything, and so long as sock pages are not deleted, I don't have a problem with this task. The only thing that's being ignored is the fact (yes, fact) that this task was rejected. A year later, it was swept through a back door without even a mention of the previous discussion. Fine. That's fairly typical for the general MO of the bot approvals. And looking at Mr.Z-man's talk page, it seems I'm not the only one who has noticed his bot incorrectly deleting user talk pages of sockpuppets. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stay classy, Auburn. Stay classy. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the way I see it, there's basically 4 options here:

1. Someone or some people go through these pages manually. Its been more than 14 months since the last bot was denied, that's 17% of the history of Wikipedia, and not one person has volunteered to do this. This is not a realistic option. We cannot always do what's perfectly ideal, at some point we have to look at what's actually practical and make a compromise.
2. We continue with the old status quo. That is, people clear the category with random, closed-source, unapproved adminbots on a semi-regular basis using unknown deletion criteria.
3. We use my approved, open-source adminbot with publicly stated criteria, open to any reasonable, realistic suggestion.
4. We don't delete any of these such pages, which as with old IP talk pages can have demonstrable negative side effects on things like statistics and maintenance.

I would also add, complaints != incorrect. User talk:WitchieAnna for example has no relevant information either currently on the page or in the history. They were the sock of a user who created 1 sockpuppet (WitchieAnna) 3 months ago and have done nothing since. The sock made <20 edits outside its own userspace. Why does that need to be kept around for all eternity? All the information is exactly where it should be, in the archives of RFCU and SSP, and the block log; not scattered around a bunch of random talk page histories. Why do we even keep the SSP archives if we would rather use user talk history? Mr.Z-man 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never posted anything here. Don't understand "level 2 - level 2" or how to get a link "hot" in what I am trying to contribute...anyway, here it is if someone who knows your SOP's can get it on the appropriate page: McClatchy news today has a story, "Economists: Banks that survive need tougher rules", @ mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/59763.html. I came here to look up "Group of 30" referenced in the piece. They have come out with an important new report, and your entry for them does not reflect it. The article has a link to the 90-some page PDF report called: "Financial Reform: A Framework for Financial Stability"

I hope the above is clear, kudos to all who are able to add current data to the site. I felt this was important in our current 'climate.' Jonz33

ArbCom has issued a statement on FT2's departure, which may be found here.

For the Committee, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, I'm very sorry sir, I'll stay out yes, just please don't do anything to me. Kalajan€₣ 21:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a removal of my admin privileges for this incident and many others. Clearly, I no longer have the temperament necessary to be an admin. I may not even have the temperament necessary to be a Wikipedia editor, for that matter. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Go take a break Elkman. It's bloody 20 below zero where you live, you aren't thinking rationally. Keeper | 76 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't need an administrator, per se, just someone who's skilled at being non-BITE-y (I wasn't sure where such a request should go)). User:Ccumcac recently edited Cass Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, dropping in a massive copyvio of this page. I assume from the username that this person is directly involved with the church, and the edits are good faith, so a good explanation of policy would be best, and I wasn't quite sure how to go about that. (As an aside, I'm not keen on rewriting the material, because I think a lot of it is unnecessary, and if I rewrote it, I'd just delete stuff until it turns into the article I origianlly wrote, and now it looks like I'm owning the article.) Anyone? Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not doneSee ANI. No need for multiple discussions.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I previously requested the protection of Demographics of Argentina nonetheless it was declined and the administrator claimed that this user should be report to block. Cali567 created an edit-warring in Argentina, Demographics of Argentina, White Argentine and Argentine American. Even though a consensus was previously reached user cali567 continues to make disruptive edits. This user was warned several times always for the same reason.

--Fercho85 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already posted a request for intervention regarding this, but it's been two months and yet, nothing's happened.

This IP address is the new IP address for the East Richland school district, formerly this IP address. When this changeover was done, the former IP had a six-month edit block.

I've spoken with the technical coordinator for the district, and we would like to have this IP blocked indefinitely due to the abusive edits made by students. We feel that, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, they can and should create their own accounts that allow for accountability of their actions. - Malykyn (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We do not usually block institutional IPs on request (it's their job to enforce their internet usage policies, not ours), nor do we block IPs indefinitely. See WP:BP. 209.174.247.164 (talk · contribs) is indeed the originator of schoolboy-type vandalism, but not to a degree, I think, that a lengthy {{schoolblock}} would be required at this point.  Sandstein  18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I learned via a discussion on unblock-en-l that we do occasionally issue these blocks, however the proper method would be to email unblock-enwiki@wikimedia.org with the request. –xeno (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Six month schoolblock issued. Don't see the need for a bureaucratic run-around, unblock if you disagree. Vsmith (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I frequently upload fair-use images to use in articles' infoboxes, but for some reason, I still get "orphaned fair-use" alerts often. Yet when I click the images, it says "No pages on the Wikipedia use this image...Yet when I click the article, and the image in the infobox, I find it's the exact image page!

Probably a database issue...Could you guys help me please? Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of User talk:BJBot. BJ^Talk 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen images get removed by vandalism, then the bot sees them as orphans and reports as such, and the images get restored. Could that be happening here? EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess more along the lines that the bot is using a cached version of the page, and a purge would be required on its part to avoid this (no idea whether or not this is a good idea, though). If the images are in fact used, feel free to just ignore the notices and remove them from your talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The error:

Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory)

appears on this page: Chaum_mixes

When I logged in, the message was replaced with the proper math notation, but the error reappeared when logging back out. It may be an intermittent problem in MediaWiki that you need to be logged out to see, for some strange reason.

Shouran (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I told the server to take a hike and it did just that. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this intermittent problem a few times recently. Only seems to happen when you are not logged in, only at certain times, and then only on certain pages. Was happening on Stable module category earlier today, but seems to be fixed for now. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When you are not logged in, you don't always see the current version but a cached version (sometimes a few hours old). If there was a problem when the page was cached, it might stick around until the page is purged. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the "my preferences" link at the top of the page there's a tab for changing how math displays. Likely, it's related to the difference between the default configuration (which you'd have as an IP) and whichever you use when logged in. I don't know off the top of my head what the default is, but I'll bet that whatever it is isn't compatible with your browser. I'd ask over at WP:VPT, where someone oughta' know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let the administrators know that some users on the website 4chan are planning mass vandalism because they are mad that their site article was the featured article on wikipedia. My usertalk was vandalized by them and I didn't know what 4chan was so I looked it up and saw their plans on the site. Mygerardromance (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See the above threads. It's under control, don't worry about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which threads are you referring to? I cant really see any thats relating to this issue. I may be blind though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

/b/ moves so fast that any post referring to a /b/ thread is outdated within an hour, Saddi. Just because there isn't one now doesn't mean that there was before. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The "G.-M. Cupertino" arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available at the link above.

G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should he return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If so could you take a look at this? Then have a look at Mudvayne and Hed PE? There are requests at RFPP but this is getting out of hand. Landon1980 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon has repeatedly removed sourced information and accuses everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion of being a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.200.221 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the edits made to these articles tonight are from the same user, as per the duck test. Dayewalker (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker has also been making spurious accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.200.221 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In a recent discussion here, User:Od Mishehu said that autoblock message now doesn't reveal the IP but "in other blocks the recommended message does". Does anybody know which recommended messages User:Od Mishehu was referring to? Lightmouse (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would recommend asking this at the village pump/technical thread. People there might know about the various mediawiki messages/tools that might do this. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Lightmouse (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As suggested, I posted at wp:vpt and the response was "WP:AN? Almost everyone there is an administrator and can go to Special:Block and look around...". I am not an admin, can an admin please do that please? Lightmouse (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole said "You can see a list of all MediaWiki messages (and their values, default and current) here: Special:AllMessages (warning: large page)." It is a bit complicated for me. Is there anybody out there that can investigate based on the comment by User:Od Mishehu? Lightmouse (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You could take a look at MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, which still invites the user to supply an IP address as part of his request for lifting the autoblock. Some thoughts:

• Autoblocks only last 24 hours. If the user's IP privacy is important to him, he doesn't have to submit a request.
• If the reviewing admin doesn't see an IP supplied as part of the unblock request, he may be less likely to grant the unblock. Sometimes genuine vandals are caught in autoblocks and the admin doesn't want to make a mistake. (He can check the IP's contributions, if an IP is supplied).
• Rangeblock victims (even if innocent) often have to wait for a checkuser to look at the request, to be sure they are not the person the rangeblock was intended to catch. It is possible that autoblocked users would have to wait for a checkuser as well, under the proposed plan. This is hardly a step forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about request messages and those are important too. However, User:Od Mishehu was referring to unblock success messages posted by the admin. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are speaking about {{unblock-auto}} you should check with Od Mishehu. Though he recently updated that template, it looks to me that {{subst:Request accepted|...|...|...}} still prints out the IP address on the User talk page. I agree that it is pointless to echo the IP address there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which messages this applies to. That was why I asked for a review. User:Od Mishehu identified one and it looks like you have identified another that needs fixing (can somebody fix that one?). Perhaps there are more. Lightmouse (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please make sure that whoever constantly writes this:

και για να παραφράσω τον Καραϊσκάκη τωρα που έμπλεξες με δ'αυτους κλάσε μου τον μπούτσο —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.53.62 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

on my user talk is going to stop? This is a heavy insult in Greek, its translation is:

and to paraphrase Karaiskakis now that you messed up with them fart my p**is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.53.62 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't speak Greek at all, so I won't comment much here, but the free translator I ran this through gave me something about "ice cold" and didn't translate most of it besides that. Could be different dialects or something, or the translator sucking, but that doesn't line up with the above quite. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its because it's slang, removing it google gives this. And these are the untranslated:

• [65]
• [66]

I don't want such words written on my talk page.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The user's been given a personal attack warning, if they carry on they will be blocked. I've put your talk page on my watchlist. Hut 8.5 11:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been following around on a fairly regular basis, getting himself involved in many content disputes to which I am a party, undoing my work for the fun of it, apparently, as per this diff - note the edit summary. In addition to this, some previous examples include Israeli settlement - with this diff - (note the edit summary), Muhammad al-Durrah, Nahum Shahaf and others. I have asked him before to stop, which he disregarded (or rather, described as 'Personal attacks, bullshit, threats'), and continued today to follow me to yet another article he has never before edited, in order to insert himself squarely into a content dispute against my position
I am not the only one who has noted this type of behavior - the editor's talk page is full of such concerns from other editors he has apparently been hounding - see this and this. In fact, the hounding behavior is so obvious, and has been complained about so often, that he has taken to prefacing his hounding edits with a "Stalking disclaimer" - see as a recent example. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record (just in case anyone takes this bizarre complaint even remotely seriously) I have never followed this guy anywhere, other than the one occasion (referred to above) over a month ago, when I admittedly noticed on his contributions page that he was putting up an article about a Polish-Jewish politician who had tried to warn the world about the Nazi holocaust for deletion. I believe removing the prod did WP a service. Other than that, editing or commenting on the same page as someone else occasionally in related topic areas, sometimes weeks apart, is only going to be seen as hounding or following that person in the mind of someone with an overbearing ego. And the fact that a smear campaign to that effect seems to have developed, which generates its own momentum and which I have quite correctly removed from my talk page, does not make the allegation any truer. --Nickhh (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Ignacy Schwarzbart article only: Canadaian Monkey, I note that while he did remove your prod, he (along with a second editor), also over the next two days turned it from one line into a full stub, thus fulfilling the goal of the prod. Bringing it here a month later is ridiculous, stale, and an attempt at a gotcha move.

I haven't looked TOO deeply into the rest, but it looks like you saw the other disagreement about Nick's followingor not of another editor, and decided to stack yours onto it, since it's more credible that way. ThuranX (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to really intervene here with any archaeological diffs as my issues with Nickhh have for the most part subsided and normalized but, in general, this diff is certainly not "a month later" and if Canadian Monkey feels there is a problem and that he'd tried to solve it by asking nicely and was ignored, then this is a very reasonable place to request assistance. I would suggest Nickhh make some note that he'll make a sincere effort to avoid even the appearance of following Canadian Monkey's contributions page and we will end this at that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, is the suggestion that I am not allowed to do anything on any page where another editor I've encountered before happens to be as well? And that it is my responsibility to prevent other people coming to their own odd conclusions that I am following them when I am doing nothing of the sort? There's no problem to solve here. And note the diff you've raised above is indeed, er, a month after the Schwarzbart diff; and also, pace CM, I was not reverting any material of his or "editing against his position" on the Gaza page (some five days after his last edit), but never mind either of those points. But hang on a sec .. you yourself dived in, a whole three minutes after my edit to revert it in its entirety. And now you've turned up here too, to add your "no smoke without fire, surely" observations. All very strange. --Nickhh (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say that I see any merit in the complaint against Nickhh. Reviewing the discussions on his talk page and his contributions, it seems the worst he is guilty of is minor incivility in response to provocation. Leaving the warning Canadian Monkey left above is NOT asking nicely about a problem. (if there are other contacts, please provide diffs) It was an uncivil warning that failed to assume good faith. Personally, I believe that while technically against policy, Nickhh's reply to that warning can be explained, if not justified by the tone of the warning itself. Canadian Monkey seems to be caught up in seeing what he wants/fears to see in Nickhh's behavior, which is stalking. I do not think any reasonable user would consider a review of the contribution page of someone you had contact with stalking. The prod removal for example was certainly justified, and there is no evidence that I can see that Nickhh followed Canadian Monkey around and made changes just to harass/disrupt/hound him. Reading the page on harassment, simply following the work of another editor and occasionally dropping in to oppose that editor is NOT harassment. It is only a policy violation if it is "in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" as per WP:HOUND. Even if in all of the cases cited, Nickhh WAS watching Canadian Monkey's contribution page and went to the articles in question because he was there, the incidents are so spread out that no reasonable, uninvolved person should consider them hounding. For these reasons, unless substantially better evidence can be provided in the form of diffs, I don't believe the complaint has any merit; referral to Wikiquette Alerts would not even be justified as Nickhh has already been warned on his talk page by a third party. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree of course. Even if I had been picking up pages from CM's contributions page from time to time - which I have not, whether to argue against him or otherwise - that is not in itself a crime under WP law. As noted I have recently been on the receiving end of a whole rash of these claims, all from editors who I have disagreed with from time to time on the occasions when I venture into Israel-Palestine pages. That's why I get p#ssed off when it happens, because it's a rather nasty smear (remember the policy used to refer to "stalking") often delivered with a very aggressive note on one's talk page, and it's happening with tedious regularity from a bunch of editors with the same POV (who are also making similar wild accusations against others, eg here and here). In a way I'm glad one of them has finally brought it here so it can fall under some third party scrutiny, as it now has. But can someone now close this off? I'd really rather have much less unresolved mud flying around with my name attached to it. --Nickhh (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As a followup, both Nickhh (talk · contribs) and Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) were blocked for edit-warring, primarily at France 2 but it looks like it was also at Chris McGreal and Barbara Plett as well. --Elonka 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody is good at this, Wikipedia:Database reports/Redirects obscuring page content is a pretty good way to find page histories with issues. For example, Busch Gardens Europe and Busch Gardens Williamsburg need to be merged and cleaned up. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Glider article has been held at essentially the same version by two or more editors (User:Rlandmann and User:Jmcc150) conspiring[67][68] to edit war to hold an article and prevent it from progressing, while avoiding the 3 revert limit. They have been repeatedly doing this over a long period.

They even went to the degree of creating what is self-evidently a content fork at unpowered aircraft.

They also keep saying that any and essentially all changes I make to the article are 'non consensus' and require more discussion on the talk page. That's fair- to a point, but they've been saying this for about a month now and the article has changed negligibly. They've also removed citation tags quite a bit.

Trouble is 'glider' is a standard term which is specified by the FAA among others, and it doesn't mean what they say it does (so they are not following NPOV, as that involves including all notable points of view in an article, the use they try to impose is a common one, but there are many common counter-examples) They are going out of their way to systematically remove other points of view from the article, and ganging up on me to do that.

I consider this to be disruptive and abusive editing. Both editors are highly experienced and know that the wikipedia works with respect to NPOV. I've even pointed it out, gave chapter and verse on the policy and shown the relevant definitions, but they haven't stopped.

Um? Help?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I comment, I'd like to see their response to your post above - presumably you left them {{ANI-notice}} notifications? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. First, I steadfastly deny "conspiring" to do anything, let alone edit war. The fact that Jmcc150 and I happen to agree that Wolfkeeper's suggested changes to the article are ill-considered and detrimental is hardly evidence of a "conspiracy". Wolfkeeper's views on the scope of this article have failed to gain consensus, and although she or he has continued to voice them (increasingly more forcefully), exactly nobody has been won over so far.

My involvement on Glider so far consists of one reversion of Wolfkepeer's anti-consensus additions to the article yesterday.

Furthermore, I reject Wolfkeeper's characterisation of this as a POV issue (for reasons that I've explained elsewhere and that she or he is aware of). To give myself a "reality check" on this, I recently posted a question on WT:NPOV as a prelude to taking it to WP:NPOVN if the response there indicated that I wasn't too far off-base in my thinking.

That there has been negligible change to the article despite a month of discussion seems to illustrate to me nothing more or less than the changes that Wolfkeeper has suggested have failed to find support, and that the various people involved have been happy with the scope of the article as it was. People aren't going to radically change an article simply because Wolfkeeper would like them to or says that they "should".

As I read it, the current consensus seems to be that the scope of the article should be a narrow one, covering the aircraft that people commonly refer to as "gliders" (ie, one of these) That's a far more narrow definition than I would like to see, and vastly more narrow again than what Wolfkeeper would like. However, there simply isn't any consensus to implement my preference, much less Wolfkeeper's. I can live with that, and I certainly don't think that there's any "cabal" operating to keep the definition narrower than what I would want.

I believe that Wolfkeeper is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia as she or he sees them; but that this view is predicated on an idiosyncratic and narrow interpretation of policy that others do not share. Her or his treatment of other editors has been consistently sarcastic, rude, and even abusive, and this pattern seems to be intensifying as she or he becomes increasingly frustrated that other editors have not "bought into" the ideas being put forward.

What else can I say? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is a deceptive description of his actions here; as he is one of two people that are actively defining the 'consensus'. His actions in the article include using administrative powers to move the entire glider article and all its history to unpowered aircraft [69] as a way to create a dumping ground for any kind of 'inconvenient' glider that they don't wish to describe as such, but which are described as such by third parties.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am grateful to User:RegentsPark for bringing this posting to my attention. The long established scope of the article has been recently the subject of many discussions with one energetic user. I will not attempt to summarise the basis of the disagreement here but I have attempted to accommodate his views in the text of the article. Discussions were still in progress when Wolfkeeper took unilateral action, which I reversed once. Wolfkeeper also proposed a merger with unpowered aircraft and within hours began implementing it. I accept any sanction administrators may wish to impose for having a rational debate on a talk page before taking action. JMcC (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note also that, perhaps significantly, Jmcc150 describes himself at User:Jmcc150 as a gliding instructor (by which I'm sure he means sailplane as defined by the FAA) on his user page. In other words, there is a conflict of interest in his editing here and you could at least imagine that he would not wish, for example, hang gliders to be described as gliders in the wikipedia because he could even lose business, even though the FAA and FAI definitions do seem to consider them to be gliders... and the name hang glider is a bit of a clue. Or perhaps he just likes to call sailplanes hang gliders, that's not uncommon in the UK, but I just note that it looks fishy to me, and it gives me more cause for concern the more persistently he tries to avoid an article that follows the NPOV policy and the FAA/FAI/NASA definition and attempts to narrow the scope of the article in this way. I personally have absolutely no problem at all with experts editing the wikipedia, even if they have a theoretical conflict of interest, but when their edits appear to be following that potential interest, then I get concerned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of the 97 instructors at Lasham, three are paid, and I am not one of them. I do it for fun. I get concerned when good faith is questioned. JMcC (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You also claim to have written a book though. You can see how this can be misconstrued, and in any case because of your interest nearly anyone will tend to overvalue the particular aircraft they fly. That wouldn't be conducive to neutrality and weight. Among other things if I've understood your position, you don't seem to actually believe that (for example) hang gliders are correctly considered gliders and IRC have acted to remove mention of them from glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the place to continue the same arguments about common names? I plead guilty to being an expert, and I recognise that it does not give me or anyone ownership of any article. JMcC (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The other thing that needs fixing is the history on unpowered aircraft. When Rlandmann content forked glider he did it by renaming it to unpowered aircraft. I mean his intention that this was to be a content fork couldn't be clearer, a good faith article would have been created from scratch, but that aside this means that the glider article suddenly pops into existence (essentially) in December, this has actually confused quite a lot of people into thinking that unpowered aircraft wasn't something they just invented. The reality is the other way around, the glider article is much older. This needs to be fixed. That requires admin priviledges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor and admin who frequently edits aircraft articles, but as yet not this one, let me comment here as a somewhat outsider (to this debate, at least). A review of the long-term discussion shows that Wolfkeeper is a voceriferous proponent of his own views on the article and how it should be structured and its scope, but it also shows that he is essentially alone in that viewpoint, and that a number of other editors have opposed his viewpoint. I'm sure his actions are in good faith, if a bit, um, enthusiastic. However, I would caution that no matter how passionate an editor is towards their viewpoint, at some point one has to back off and realize that consensus doesn't agree. I've been on the conceding side myself more than once, and it's not easy to do, but I'd suggest that Wolfkeeper back off a bit. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the wikipedia simply becomes about ganging up on editors that are pushing for due weight and unbiased sources then the game of building an encyclopedia is lost. Right now, in my opinion that's what's happening, and your comments seem to more or less support doing that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody goes "fixing" anything, they'll need to take a careful read of the edit histories. They will discover that Wolfkeeper is factually wrong on two important points: I didn't have anything to do with the creation of "unpowered aircraft", and I certainly didn't move/merge "Glider" anywhere. All these pages have been shuffled around a lot, to the point where on 19 December two significant problems existed: "Unpowered aircraft" had been created by someone pasting content from the original "glider" article without noting that for licencing purposes, and (more importantly) the actual parent page for all of this stuff with an edit history stretching back to 2005 (that had existed at "Glider" up to early December) was now buried under a redirect at "Glider (aircraft)". I killed two birds with one stone by merging the page history of "Glider (aircraft)" with that of "Unpowered aircraft", which resolved both problems. A review of the page history of "Unpowered aircraft" confirms the first point, the link provided by Wolfkeeper herself/himself above confirms the second. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You might well be right, and if I was inaccurate in any way, I apologise, but the current situation is that the history of the glider article is in the unpowered aircraft article, disconnected from the text in glider. The text in unpowered aircraft shares little if anything in common with that history. Without checking very carefully, nobody necessarily did anything wrong per se, but it hasn't turned out at all well in that respect.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology; it's genuinely appreciated. I have no particular preference that the edit history of the original Glider article stays where it is now, just that it needs to be preserved somewhere and preferably that the "somewhere" isn't buried under a redirect. I chose "Unpowered aircraft" to merge it into since at that time, that article was the closest in content to the penultimate version of "Glider (aircraft)" before it got redirected, because it didn't yet have a long edit history of its own (and because, as I said earlier, it solved a licencing problem). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that comments about Wolfkeeper's behaviour have also been made by a different user on a different subject at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring and meatpuppetry on g-force JMcC (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that use of the term 'meatpuppetry' in the wikipedia is considered derogatory and his use of ANI seems to be part of a pattern of abusive behaviour by that particular user to more than one user, none of which to my knowledge have been involved in any kind of conspiratorial behaviour against him at all, nor have they acted in ways that would normally be considered improper. I'm just hoping Greg_L will add well referenced and clear content to the g-force article. I certainly condemn conspiratorial conduct in all forms however; I prefer to discuss NPOV, due weight and references. I appreciate that others do not always consider these things to be of primary importance, and this is nearly always to be regretted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that Wolfkeeper’s above attempt to deflect the focus from his behavior is typical. As for “meatpuppet” being “derogatory”, that’s what the term is called. This is from wp:meatpuppets:

Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care

That’s what meatpuppets are called around here: meatpuppets. It is derogatory only because being a meatpuppet is a bad thing to be; like being a liar. But if the shoe fits…

You’ve been extraordinarily tendentious and have refused to accept blindingly obvious facts on talk:g-force, you have an extraordinary propensity to accuse other editors of engaging in the very behaviors you seem to have patented, [70], and you are exceedingly uncivil [71]. And here I am at yet another venue (fresh in the middle of this ANI against you) dealing with more of your antics. I also have great difficulty believing a thing you write. It is nearly impossible to prove that someone is lying since they might simply be galactically clueless. Nevertheless, most of your writings lack that necessary virtue of being true. Yesterday, your talk page looked to me like you are out of control here and need to be blocked for a good solid week until you can learn how to play with others. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply rest my case.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at this user's page? I'm not sure if it's within the spirit of the userpage policy. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's writing a new article, and it's reasonably high quality. Perhaps the best thing to do is not to invoke policy, but to suggest to him that it should be made into an encyclopedia article. Perhaps he's waiting until it's "perfect" to do that--which is a common mistake. Tb (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been moved by its author into mainspace. Looks like good work too. Tb (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been in a minor dispute over a change that I made which kicked off an edit war with another editor. The other editor continues to leave responses on my talk page, accusing me of various infractions and then telling me that if I respond to him I will be reported for harrassment. Am I forced to not respond to these allegations for fear of having action taken against me? The last exchange is here [72] [73]. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is on my talk page, his talk page (which has now been cleared), and on Talk:Deaths in 2009 under the sections including the word "aviator". 87.114.13.108 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I have informed the involved editor, User:Bretonbanquet, of this discussion. ^LeaveSleaves 15:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked this editor twice to leave me alone, and he refuses. There was a lengthy discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2009 which has been resolved satisfactorily without his input, yet he insists on dragging it all out and posting lies and other material designed to prolong the argument on my talk page. I had initially apologised to him for any perceived wrongdoing on my part, despite there being none in my view, and I asked him to leave me alone. Twice. Yet here we are. My talk page is NOT cleared, it is archived for being too long, and I was tired of looking at his petty, false accusations. This editor's edit history consists entirely (apart from two edits) of arguing with me. He seems to think I am out to get him, but I suspect the opposite, and would just like him to leave me the hell alone. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your last post on my talk page [74] contained accusations against me, made comments about my conduct, criticised me, and then told me that if I responded you would report me for harrassment. How can that be acceptable? Either don't post to my talk page or, if you do, permit me to respond to your comments. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Those accusations I made against you were refuting the false accusations you made about me, so I was merely doing what you say YOU are doing. Don't forget you threatened me with a blocking (on your 8th ever edit), yet you don't like being told to leave someone alone? I would allow you to respond to my comments if you actually DID that - you repeatedly dodge all my comments that involve you doing anything wrong, and concentrate on attacking me. If you were really worried about me taking action against you, why did you post yet another great diatribe on my talk page attacking me again? This latest post has been deleted, by the way - I can delete whatever I wish from my talk page. What part of "Leave me alone" don't you understand? It's very simple. Stop posting on my talk page and everything goes away - how hard can it be? No, you want to bring it here and drag it out here as well. What action do you think I would have taken if you'd just left me alone? Or did you just fancy a bit more of an argument? I've been editing for three years and have never encountered any editor as troublesome, persistently argumentative, and impassively obstructive as this. I have NO history of this kind of dispute anywhere, ever. This editor has nothing ELSE. I reiterate, stop contacting me and it all ends. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The bit I don't understand about you telling me to leave me alone, is that you do it in a message that makes further comments about my conduct and goads me which such comments as telling me that I "look stupid". You are trying to make comments and then prevent me from responding to them. That is simply not acceptable to me. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I was trying to make a good faith edit, and provide my reasons for it. Your only actions were to revert me, goad me with such comments as "if you don't understand the word, look it up" and accusing me of "dumbing down". I gave you a warning, and you responded very badly to it, accusing me of all kinds of bad motives and arguing that you should not be warned by me. You DID revert three times (yes I did too) and you were warned, there is nothing untruthful about that. Please provide evidence of any other "accusations" I made. You have taken exception to the warning and, in my opinion, spoken to me with nothing short of contempt from start to finish. Once again, if you don't want to speak to me, stop leaving me comments. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The original dispute is long ago. I explained why your warning was inappropriate, and you continued the edit war after I had begun a discussion on the article's talk page. You never even acknowledged the (very) good faith apology I gave you. I suggest you wouldn't know contempt if it was staring you in the face. I suspect your motives, refute all allegations made by you and I repeat, leave me alone. I HAVE stopped leaving you comments - please do the same. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have stopped leaving me comments??!! What do you think your comment above is, where you accuse me of edit warring, claim again that my action of warning you was inappropriate and then question my motives??!! You claim that you stopped edit warring and instead moved to a discussion, what you fail to clarify is that you reverted once again [75] and THEN started a discussion [76] so that the page was back to your preferred version when the discussion started. You also removed the warning with an edit summary calling it trolling [77], even though you had reverted 3 times. I am going to keep responding to you as long as you keep commenting on me, my actions, my motives or keep accusing me. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant I have stopped responding to you on your page, before you brought it here. It was all over as far as I was concerned, until you brought it here. You say I reverted before I started a discussion. Yes, that is very clear. I did not revert after the discussion had started. THEN you continued the edit war, left me a warning telling me to start a discussion (which I had already done - how inappropriate can a warning be?? You don't think that might be annoying?) and reverted it to YOUR preferred version, which was not the original version. It is patently obvious that I stopped the edit war because the last edit was yours! The discussion had started, the short edit war was over. But not for you, you wanted to edit war just a little bit more. You fail to acknowledge that you gave me a warning for reverting three times, and immediately reverted for a third time yourself. One rule for me and a different rule for you. THAT is how inappropriate your warning was. I know you don't accept these facts, but what else can I do but repeat them? Why should I allow you to attack me here for no reason? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, everything here so far consists of you two arguing with each other. Since this is the admin noticeboard, why don't you wait for a response from an admin (which I am not). The only result of continuing the argument will be that no admin will want to wade through it. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will not post again until it is reviewed, if Bretonbanquet also agrees not to. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, and I apologise. This shouldn't even be here, in my view. This was already over. (If I can get a word in edgeways between the edit conflicts) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You hadn't stopped responding, because you had left the comment that I linked at the top of this thread, where you made statements about me and then told me that if I responded you would report me. I agree that your last revert was before the discussion, but it was JUST before so, again, you made a decision to revert once more and then start a discussion. Again, this left the page on YOUR version. You have questioned my motives many times, so I will question yours here - I believe that you were playing the system, by getting in a sneaky revert and then claim that you had been the one to stop the edit war by starting a discussion. I warned you because you had reverted three times and so were at obvious risk of reverting again. Yes, I had reverted 3 times, but what should I have done? Warned myself?! Thankfully you stopped (I see no reason to believe that you had already stopped - just because you started a discussion on the back of another revert). Your previous comments have indicated that you think that an anon editor should not warn an "established" editor, I still have no idea why. That, it seems to me, is the main underlying problem here. 87.114.13.108 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Phew. While I'm not an admin, I don't think this really needs admin intervention. From the look of things, the whole issue here is that 87. issued {{uw-3rr}} to Bretonbanquet when their edit dispute had reached 3 revisions on each side. Bretonbanquet has cited WP:DTTR and accused 87. of making an assumption of bad faith by having issued said warning. What strikes me about the whole affair is the BITEyness of Bretonbanquet's behavior towards 87.; "do you think it appropriate to be handing out warnings with your 8th edit?" is one example. What disturbs me is that this argument is ongoing even after the content dispute has ended. Bretonbanquet has had several chances to just let it go, which I think would be the best solution for both parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I bite if I'm bitten first. And I DID apologise some time ago. I would LOVE to let it go. Why is it only me who failed to let it go? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• In my first edit I said - "Plain English - making this widely understandable without having to look up far less common word"
• Your first revert said - "rv - it's a perfectly plain word - if you don't know it, click on it..."
• I reverted with - "rv aviator is far more widely understood - the aim is to communicate, not force people to look up words, when there is a more common word"
• You reverted - "Undid revision 263999252 by 87.114.13.108 (talk) if you don't understand the word, this is not a reason to dumb down the"
• I reverted - "there is nothing dumb about using aviator, and nothing clever about using aviatrix - don't use a less common word when a more common word will suffice (and will ease communication"
• You reverted - "rv aviator / aviatrix - we do not substitute words for less common ones for no good reason - use the discussion page if you object"
• I reverted - "rv do not substitute the less common aviatrix for the more common aviator, it makes it less understandable to many (especially those were english is not their first language"

Do you think that you "bit" me with your first two edit summaries? Why is my leaving you a warning, when you had reverted 3 times, a "bite"? 87.114.13.108 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let. It. Go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as I raised at the start of this thread, is that you keep making comments and accusations, and then try to prevent me responding (in fact threaten me that if I do respond you will "report" me). Even above saying "I bite if I am bitten first", is accusing me of biting you (to which I am responding). If you genuinely want this to stop, then just don't post again, or if you do post do not make any comments about me, my actions or my motives. Simple as that. 87.114.13.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

I am letting this go, I honestly suggest you do the same. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:BITE means don't bite the newcomers. That is, try to be more inviting to newcomers (i.e., someone with 8ish edits), and try to assume Hanlon's razor applies. You had made it clear that you had no intent to continue discussing with this comment, yet you responded to 87.'s response which indicated he/she was willing to stop discussing as well. WP:IPAT is good advice for these kinds of situations, though I'm not sure either party was actively making personal attacks. In any case, why not end it now? If 87. comments again, Breton, I suggest you don't respond. And if Breton comments again, 87., I suggest you don't respond. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, you'd both like the other to stop talking to you about this issue? The actual content dispute (Aviator/aviatrix) has several other editors involved and a consensus will no doubt be reached. Your dispute with each other can be resolved by both of you just leaving it alone and going back to regular editing. Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to say that a consensus on the original matter was reached amicably some days ago, and there's been no problem there since. Thanks for your input :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to hear it. There seems no reason for either of you to continue your personal dispute either - both of you should now simply stop responding to the other on this issue. There's nothing to be gained in continuing this thread, so I've marked it resolved. Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arijitlaik appears to be a minor with contact info on his/her user page (school is grade 1-8 in India). I've got the flu and need to crawl back into bed, so if someone could pop over and deal with it, I'd be much obliged.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Page blanked - oversight requested. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can some admins clear the backlog from this CAT? Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone check this edit, about whether Brian Chase was re-hired by his employer? I couldn't find an RS either way and need to go bed. I realise this is not the normal place to ask such a question, but it seemed worth getting a quick response to an article concerned with Wikipedia's reliability. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I recently came into some conflict with an Admin (and Member of the Mediation Committee), User:Tariqabjotu, over the inclusion of a picture of a 5 month old very badly burned dead Palestinian girl on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Tariq said that the photo was sensationalist and should have been removed for that reason. [78] [79] I pressed him on the issue on his talk page asking for a specific policy.[80] His response that that "mere words were incomprehensible to [me]" took me somewhat by surprise. [81] I believe his comment was in reference to an argument I had made before that the photo should be kept. In that argument I used three capitalized words followed by exclamation marks: "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" [82] Tariqabjotu responded that I was being a "jerk". [83]. He then accused me of "making up your own comment and then responding to that". [84] He also made a comment that I found somewhat insulting to User:Sean.hoyland who had agreed with me on the matter.[85] I asked for an apology but so far have not received one. [86] (1) Am I being a jerk? (Possibly by making a big thing out of this by bringing it to Admin noticeboard?) (2) Was my comment defending the photo out of line? (3) Has Tariqabjotu crossed the line? Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, your "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" was definitly being a jerk, but I wouldn't be ashamed of your other actions. Even if the picture doesn't belong on the page you clearly acted in good-faith all along and don't seem to be trolling. I'm not sure what help an admin in particular can do in this case, though. Themfromspace (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my take:

• Whether the image should be on the page is a question for community consensus, as with any other content dispute.
• Your message here [87] suggests that you are thinking that everything is ok provided there is no specific policy. This is incorrect: the policies constrain consensus (editors can't ignore WP:NPOV or WP:BLP even if there is a consensus to do so), but the consensus is free to be more restrictive.
• The reference to WP:UNDUE does seem appropriate to me. Children have been injured and killed on both sides of this conflict; it gives undue weight to post an emotionally inflammatory photograph of a dead Palestinian child, as if there have not also been dead Israeli children.
• Your words, "TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!!" [88] are over the top. It is not censorship for the consensus of editors to agree on what an article should say, and remove text or images that you think should be there. But the all caps and exclamation points suggest that it's time for a cup of tea. Edit something else.
• Yes, you were being a jerk.
• Yes, the other guy was also over the line. Tb (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'll only add that written communication is not a natural way for humans to communicate, given that we rely so much on non-verbal cues. If someone appears to take what you've written the wrong way, don't escalate the intensity. It won't help, and they don't have a way to back down. (I'll avoid the obvious comparison to the conflict discussed in the article.) People can have bad days, or something just hits them wrong, or they were reading (or typing) too fast and leave out a key word that changes the meaning entirely. In which case, as Tb said, WP:TEA is the guideline that applies. (The guideline I give my employees for dealing with the public is that if someone comes off at you, remember their wife probably just had a fight with them, the dog bit them, their boss yelled at them, the tax agent called to set up an audit, and you were just the first person they saw after that. Be nice to them and don't take it personally.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that Tariqabjotu is giving his usual thoughtful and reasoned input here, and that the complainant is mainly disgruntled because he is not getting the answer he wants. The onus is firmly on Themfromspace to achieve consensus for the disputed change he wants to make, and it seems to me that he has failed to do so. There is nothing for us to do in changing that. His use of WP:ALLCAPS is not a good sign, and it is clear that whoever is in the wrong here it is probably not Tariqabjotu. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're talking about me Guy, not Themfromspace. I see that I obviously should have used bold for those three words instead of capitals. I see also that the consensus appears that I was being a jerk. Good to know. However, I note that I may not have been the only one in the wrong. I'd also like to continue to edit the article and try to find some consensus about the inclusion or exclusion of the photograph, which I believe I can do without becoming overcome with emotion. Just to make it clear, there did seem to be consensus to keep the photograph established on the talk page. I had to continuously restore the photograph when anonymous editors removed it with no edit summaries. The photograph has held up under examination of its copyright and verifyability. I still don't think the picture violates WP:UNDUE. To clarify, during the present conflict (for the last month), I am not aware of any Israeli children who were killed while it's been verified there are at least 300 Palestinian children who have died. I do not see the picture as "sensationalist" but as an accurate portrayal of one of the consequences of this conflict. If there were pictures of dead Israeli children that were being removed against policy, I would be defending their inclusion just as strenuously. Anyway, if I've been a jerk. I apologize.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of trying to figure out only how to get what you want, see if you can figure out how to give everyone what they want. Find some pictures of devastation of lives by rocket attack, and put both up to show the devastation caused by the conflict. In other words, address the NPOV concerns that others have expressed, rather than trying to defeat or disprove them. In that way, you will only make the encyclopedia better. You do not seem to have yet gotten the point that there was nothing "against policy" about removing the photo. There is no policy that requires all material to be kept. Tb (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea to find other images. Unfortunately, I don't think it will make a difference considering the concerted efforts of numerous people to remove the picture because they find it offensive, which I still consider to be a violation of our policy that wikipedia not censored. See WP:CENSOR. Obviously, you are completely right that there is no policy that requires all material to be kept, which would make it quite hard to revert vandalism. Luckily I didn't say that. However, I agree that the more photographs of the conflict that can be considered the better.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus of editors determines the content, provided policy is honored. The consensus of editors is against vandalism. You are trying to settle this by the invocation of rules and policies, when it is much more likely that earnest effort towards agreeing will do much good. It sounds very much as if you don't want to work together with other editors who disagree, but that you are seeking some sort of policy stick (or think that WP:CENSOR gives you one, which it does not) which you can brandish against other editors. You are appealing to some sort of rule that anything you like should be there, provided their is no policy opposing it. This is incorrect. The rule is instead that whatever the consensus of editors wants, goes, provided there is no policy opposing it. And even those policies are chosen--you guessed it--by the consensus of editors. This is a content dispute, and WP:DR is the key. Tb (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't think that's really what I'm doing at all. I've always been completely willing to consider the removal of the picture if there was consensus. But there wasn't. There was a consensus to keep it at first. Then people started to remove it without leaving edit summaries. The picture had to be restored. When I restored it, I left messages on the people's talk pages inviting them to discuss the image and whether it should be included on the talk page. [89], [90], [91], [92] I even started a discussion trying to find a new consensus about whether the picture should be kept. [93] Do you still feel that I don't want to work with other editors with whom I disagree? As far as policy goes I try to follow it (unless of course, policy recommends against doing so), and I don't have a problem quoting it to back up my argument. I hardly see doing so are using it as a "stick". Of course I did start this discussion as an inquiry into how I've possibly messed up a wikipedian, so thank you for your criticisms. I accept them in the spirit of self discovery.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the judge of whether consensus was acheived; I'm saying that content is determined by consensus, and not by appeals to WP:CENSOR. You have misunderstood that policy--it says that Wikipedia does not promise to censor material. But the other policies, including those against needlessly inflammator material, remain. As for your willingness to work with others, I'm only commenting on what I've seen here, in which you are seeking first, whether you were a jerk (to which the consensus was, yes), and that you seem to be trying to get the content dispute settled here, which it won't be. Please don't get into the trap of quoting policy as a tool for agreement. It's a last resort. Much better is to work to achieve consensus, and if you can't, then to attempt the normal dispute resolution procedures. I'm simply giving you my advice that your appeal to WP:CENSOR is misguided and irrelevant, and that you seem to be appealing to some fictive principle that content must be retained unless a policy mandates its removal. There is no such policy. Tb (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I disagree with a few things you've said about our policy on censorship, but that's ok. This really isn't the place to debate policy. This has been informative. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Committee has decided to implement several changes to its existing mailing list structure:

• The Committee's main mailing list, arbcom-l, will be restricted to sitting arbitrators, the designated mailing list coordinator, and Jimbo Wales.
• The Committee's private wiki will be identically restricted.
• The current "sitting arbitrators only" list will be retained as a backup to arbcom-l, but will not be normally used.
• A new mailing list, functionaries-l, will be created, with membership open to all arbitrators, former arbitrators in good standing, and CheckUser and Oversight operators.

The resolution authorizing this was passed 12/0, with votes in favor by Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, and Wizardman, and no votes against or abstentions.

For the Committee, Kirill 23:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! It's about time. --Cyde Weys 06:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article Advanced Programs, Inc (API) yesterday on the grounds that it both read like an advertisement and made no claim of notability. The article's creator, User:JAKS1975, protested this decision on my talk page, and I restored the article to their user space at User:JAKS1975/API to allow them to work on it. JAKS1975 is now requesting that it be restored to Wikipedia-space. I personally don't think that the references provided are sufficient to meet WP:ORG as they are limited to entries in lists and databases of suppliers, a short paragraph which appears to be a summary of one of the company's press releases and two stories about the company which this firm later split from to become and independent business. I am aware, however, that this is only my opinion. Could other admins please review the article at User:JAKS1975/API and comment on whether it should be restored? Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All the references in question are either mere directory entries or else the company's own press-releases printed in business pubs, neither of which are sufficient according to WP:ORG. In my opinion, it is not notable, or at least, no evidence of that has been met. Google searches don't give much indication of notability also. However, it seems to be in good faith, and not blatant advertising in my opinion. The "blatant advertising" criterion refers to the nature of the content, not the question of notability. Mere non-notability doesn't turn an otherwise ok article into advertising; and--if it were notable--this would be a fine article. Likewise the article does make a credible claim of notability (though again I think the claim is incorrect), so it would again not be suitable for speedy deletion, in my opnion. On the other hand, the account has been used only for the creation of this webpage, which rasises some WP:COI suspicions. (Not an admin, but this is my opinion.) Tb (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an opinion, but I don't see any reason to move this to mainspace until it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AfD (which appears unlikely in its current state). Deor (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With those sources the article might have a hard time surviving an AFD discussion, but it's way above speedy-delete land. API is the world’s leading provider of shielded IT equipment, meeting both U.S. and NATO TEMPEST standards is a clear assertion of importance, and the tone of the article is not spammy in nature.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The creator of this article is well-advised to find reliable third-party sources to back up this company's importance. The annual sales of $40 million sound like they would meet WP:CORP but so far we have little more than reprinted press releases to document the company's activities. The world's leading provider language doesn't come from any third party reference, it's the company's opinion of itself. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The author of the article posted his own notice on this page, which I've moved here for clarity. Tb (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I recently published an article about the American IT company 'API', which does business with NATO governments, military organizations and the intelligence community (see: User:JAKS1975/API). After the article was deleted due to 'blatant advertising', I amended the text to become Wiki conform. The administrator Nick-D then also asked for more references for API, to srengthen the 'notability' aspect. I then provided 5 references to various news outlets and organizations but Nick-D is questioning if these are sufficient. Due to the nature of the business the company is in (information security), only a limited amount of news are being published about API, due to confidentiality or client request. Given the fact that companies, in the same market space, are listed on Wikipedia, but those companies have less marketshare or overall annual revenue than API, I would seek your guidance how to get my article approved and relaunched. - Thank You - JAKS1975 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that a secret organization--or mostly secret one--is by definition not notable. The question is purely one of notability in independent media. Tb (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the exchange above and it appears the findings are: 1) the article is not spam, 2) grounds for speed deletion do not apply, 3) blatant advertising is no longer the issue. Therefore, the only issue I can see is that references are needed to support the companies industry status as being the 'worlds leading provider'. As company's status is industry knowledge but is not specifically confirmed or highlighted on any public domain site, would it help if I remove this claim and simply state that 'API is a provider of shielded IT equipment, meeting both U.S. and NATO TEMPEST standards'? Again, if I review the catagory 'defense companies of the united states', I find articles with much less references than I provided. JAKS1975 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have missed the key question of establishing notability; please review WP:ORG. Note that press releases and directory information does not count. It is helpful to separate verifiability from notability. Your comment here indicates awareness of a notability problem for one statement of apparent fluffery, but the real point is the absence of notability. While it may be that the article does not currently meet the standards for speedy deletion (I make no judgement about the version that was deleted), note that everyone here has expressed the opinion that the article, as it stands, would not meet the normal deletion process's guidelines. I'm not sure why you think it's relevant that those other company's have fewer references: at most, that would only establish that their articles should be deleted too, not that the API article is fine. Tb (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

TB, thanks for the additional comments. To clarify, the reason I encouraged administrators to review the category 'defense companies of the united states', is because I want to understand the criteria and standard being enforced on having to list references in order to establish notability. There seems to be a fluctuation and un-even approach to other Wiki posted articles, which in return makes more challenging for me to edit my article in such a way, so it does meet the standard. I also did review WP:ORG and here I fail to see what specific criteria's my article is violating or not adhering by. It appears my article does meet the standard of 'evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability'. I provided reference links to independent online publications based in Plymouth Meeting, PA, - Tulsa, OK and San Francisco, CA (though your comment that press releases do not count are duly noted). Can I therefore request if there is any solution to this problem, which you or I have not already addressed or which has not be identified yet? I strongly believe, that based upon the previous changes I made to the article, the latest version is presented is such a way, that it should not trigger deletion of any kind. If certain references need to be removed, for content reason, I will be more then glad to do so. I am open to suggestions. JAKS1975 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be viewing this not in the spirit of "what companies are suitable for inclusion" but "what must I do to include this company". It is quite common for people to be suspicious of single-purpose accounts who do this. Your best bet is to work on articles in your area of interest until you become more familiar with how we work here. Continuing to agitate about a subject which people are telling you is not suitable for inclusion, is unlikely to have any good effect for you. You're adding trade magazine press release reprints which are primarily about the parent company, with a single namecheck for your company. That is well short of what's needed. Better by far to redirect to your parent company and have a short section there. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be concerned to figure out what standards apply to the inclusion of articles, and you've been told several times what they are: the general wikipedia notability guidelines, and especially WP:ORG. The references you give are reasonable references for the purpose of verifiability but they do nothing to establish notability which is an entirely separate concept. If third parties have not noted the company, then it's really not notable. You can figure out the standards by reading WP:ORG and listening to what you've been told here. There may be no way: you seem to be asking, "what must I do to have this page be kept", and the answer is, "the subject must be notable. if it's not notable, there is nothing you can do." Your explanation of why it's not notable is interesting, but unimportant--there is no exception to the notability rules for companies which, by client request, have been asked to keep things quiet. You can't simultaneously get to be quiet and noticed. If we remove the press releases, then the company has not had evidence of international, national, or at least regional media, and WP:ORG is clear that press releases don't count. So what should you do? Make the company notable. If you have the power to do that, btw, then I now have concerns about conflict of interest. What is your relationship to the company? Tb (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Guy and Tb - As mentioned prior, I also thank you both for providing feedback to my questions and to help me understand what the issue is. Having said that, I clearly feel that both of you are acting slightly agitated now, about the kind of clarifications I am seeking, instead of me just accepting what you have previously stated. Again, all I do is ask questions and you have tried to answer them to your best of abilities (I assume). Hence, I propose to leave it at that. Also, for clarification, the thread of a 'single purpose account' is unwarranted, as I have posted a prior article about a completely different subject matter, not in English. Last but not least, the comment 'continuing to agitate about a subject which people are telling you is not suitable for inclusion, is unlikely to have any good effect for you', can be interpreted as a thread or even worse and I do not appreciate it, if it was meant as such. You will probably understand, that after I spent hours in researching the information for this article and it then not being allowed to be published, that I would like to understand exactly why, so that when I want to contribute my next article to Wikipedia, I am not running into the same challenges again. In any event, thx for having taken the time and for your efforts. Hopefully, I will do better next time. P.S. I am not sure if speed-deletion is considered a 'red flag', now hovering above my user ID and causing negative attention - If it is, and as we agreed that the article did not have grounds for speed-deletion, I would kindly request for that to be amended. Thank You! JAKS1975 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are worried about "red flag", worry no further. Everyone here would agree that your edits were made in good faith. As for single-purpose-account, we can only go by this wiki. I trust that you now understand the situation. The consensus here seems to be that the article would not meet the standards for deletion, but at the same time, that it was probably an error to speedily delete it (that is, if the version deleted is the version I saw). It would be an error for you to re-create it unless you are going to work on notability (not verifiability, which is not at issue here), and if I have understood your description of the facts, it is unlikely that notability will be demonstrable. Tb (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and oversight. To confirm what Tb just posted, having a single article speedy deleted is in no way considered a 'red flag'. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TB - I might give it one final effort to somehow unearth the notability information that is needed, as I naturally would eventually like to launch this article; though I am questioning right now how successful I will be in finding this needed information. As I do enjoy a good challenge, let’s see what I can come up with (and as it is 1.50AM here, it’s now definitely time to go to bed) - Good Night Wikiworld! JAKS1975 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:78.150.10.38 keeps vandalising articles about descendants of British royalty who are not royal themselves per George V's 1917 letters patent. I need your help, quick! Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for 31 hours for edit warring over a range of subjects in pursuant to some point or other, without establishing consensus for the changes. Review welcome (of course). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How long does it typically take for someone to respond to an e-mail sent to Oversight? --Glp888 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it's always been dealt with within 24 hours. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I usually get a response within an hour or two--Jac16888^Talk 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, same here, but I didn't want to guarantee that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we dock the oversighters' pay if they do not respond within the documented SLA times. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First point is more valid than the second. If anything should be treated as if it has deadlines it probably is oversight. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that. And sometimes you can find an oversighter on (shock horror) #wikipedia-en-admins. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is kind of a pointless thread, but I find that it fits a strongly left skewed distribution. The vast majority of oversight requests I sent in were handled within an hour, with some longer ones pushing the mean later. Protonk (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like codswallop to me. I e-mailed an oversight user on 30 November and never got any action or response. 'Round Christmas I gave up waiting. Unfortunately the information in question is now all over the internet. — CharlotteWebb 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general FYI, r45503 has been ok'd and will most likely be included in the next scap. This fixes , adding expiry times to temporary passwords, default set to one week. Since the question has already come up elsewhere, if a temporary password expires, you just have to request a new temporary password. ^demon (talk)

Does this include temporary passwords sent via email through the account creation process? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would believe so. I haven't specifically checked that use-case, but temporary passwords all are checked with User::checkTemporaryPassword(), so it would seem to me that temporary passwords created during account creation would also be subject to this. Worse case scenario: a user gets an account registered for them, temporary password expires, they have to request a new password. ^demon (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Err... I know it's been a while since I've tried any of this but I thought the user cannot receive a password by e-mail until they have entered and confirmed the e-mail address which requires already being able to access their wiki-account (if that makes any sense). — CharlotteWebb 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am new here so 1st of all I would like to say hi to every1.I apolagise if I am useing the wrong place to do this but yesterday I added a section to the techno part and it has been removed today, basicaly I am hopeing that this can be replaced as I am not trying to advertise anything or spam the site, basicly I invite you to look for your selfs [94] basicly soitiz is an information techno site we do have a chat section but that is %100 techno related i.e. peoplre askng what can run well with a roland 303 and about ableton all tecno produceing equipment then we have a section for up and comeing techno djs lots of links to other techno related sites there is a world wide section were people can find out about techno parties all over the world and that is just the tip of the ice burg.basicly I was thinking that the artical you allready have can be ended in what I put up a site that will then (if intrested in techno) will give them any knowledge they need and if its not there a member of staff can useually find out quite quick but this has never happend yet.Basicaly all I am saying is soitiz and wiki are basicaly the same but soitiz is a techno encyclopidia. I am hopeing a member of staff here will return what was put up last night if not please at least tell me why. Thank you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soitiz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL and WP:COI. Note that the website in question is commercial in nature and requires registration to read content. Moreover, because you seem to be adding your own website (please correct me if I have misunderstood), the link is significantly disfavored. See WP:EL#ADV. Tb (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• What Tb said. And if you add it again, it's more than likely to end up on the blacklist. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• An IP editor just added the link back to Techno this morning: [95]. Perhaps it should get added to the blacklist. Tb (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am new here so 1st of all I would like to say hi to every1.I apolagise if I am useing the wrong place to do this but yesterday I added a section to the techno part and it has been removed today, basicaly I am hopeing that this can be replaced as I am not trying to advertise anything or spam the site, basicly I invite you to look for your selfs [96] basicly soitiz is an information techno site we do have a chat section but that is %100 techno related i.e. peoplre askng what can run well with a roland 303 and about ableton all tecno produceing equipment then we have a section for up and comeing techno djs lots of links to other techno related sites there is a world wide section were people can find out about techno parties all over the world and that is just the tip of the ice burg.basicly I was thinking that the artical you allready have can be ended in what I put up a site that will then (if intrested in techno) will give them any knowledge they need and if its not there a member of staff can useually find out quite quick but this has never happend yet.Basicaly all I am saying is soitiz and wiki are basicaly the same but soitiz is a techno encyclopidia. I am hopeing a member of staff here will return what was put up last night if not please at least tell me why. Thank you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soitiz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL and WP:COI. Note that the website in question is commercial in nature and requires registration to read content. Moreover, because you seem to be adding your own website (please correct me if I have misunderstood), the link is significantly disfavored. See WP:EL#ADV. Tb (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• What Tb said. And if you add it again, it's more than likely to end up on the blacklist. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• An IP editor just added the link back to Techno this morning: [97]. Perhaps it should get added to the blacklist. Tb (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is not a battleground and Brandmeister does not seems to care despite a warning by Golbez here [98]. Brandmeister has been engaged in edit warring and personal attacks using such expressions as "groundless mudslinging" (see here [[99]]). Call Brandmeister to order or encourage him to abstain from editing Nagorno-Karabakh. Capasitor (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence of an edit war (at least recently). I do see several heated disputes on the article talk page, though your criticism of "groundless mudslinging" pales a little compared to your insulting comment here. You (and everyone else involved) are reminded to be civil, and to comment on contributions, not contributors. If you disagree with article content you are encouraged to resolve that in discussion on the relevant article talk page. If an edit war does occur the correct palce to post details is at WP:AN3. Euryalus (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs) moved Long-term effects of alcohol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Longterm effects of alcohol. This was reverted by Cyclonenim (talk · contribs), but unfortunatly he reverted it by copy-pasting the text back and making the bad title into a redirect. That means the history of the page currently looks like this, while the history of the redirect looks like this Needs sorting out by an admin.

• I've merged the histories, and notified Cyclonenim of the mistake. seresin ( ¡? )  22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster is evidently trying to engage in hostile suppressing of my role in WP by repeatedly filing irrelevant and offensive appeals against me, all the while demonstrating indignant non-compliance with a recommendation to build a consensual approach to solving a dispute on sources on Nagorno-Karabakh here [100]. In the first instance of such appeal, it was ruled no connection between me and the various other users that Grandmaster tried to associate myself with in order to remove my participation (see here [101]). Please encourage or force Grandmaster to assume good faith and engage in the proposed dialogue in order to build consensus regarding conflicting points of view. So far, by replaying by offensive and irrelevant remarks, he sabotaged the consensus-building measure, and when he failed, he resorts to other tricks, such as this [102]. Wiki is not a battleground and Grandmaster does not seem to comply with that at all. Capasitor (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lodging a request for a sockpuppet check is not "tricks", especially as the previous request was stale (and not "ruled no connection" as you suggest above). I have no view on the actual sockpuppet claim, but note you have raised exactly the same concerns there as here. Forum-shopping is not encouraged - the appropriate place for any further comments on this isssue is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Capasitor. Lastly, as noted below the process of consensus-building at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh would be easier if you refrained from personal attacks regarding your view of other editor's ethnic backgrounds. Euryalus (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check:

"Considering the nature of my question, consulting a doctor would be... undesirable. Once again, Wikipedia proves itself to be full of cancer. If I thought it was important enough to find a doctor to talk about this, I would have done just that. I'm asking for a simple answer to a simple question. I could be mistaken, but I believe general toxicity dosages are available for other substances. Whatever, though. I'm not going to piss around with this with you. Hopefully it won't matter tomorrow. 71.115.157.126 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)"

...I'm worried. Per WP:RD guidelines, a question about the lethal dose of a specific substance was considered to be a question of a medical nature (which the Reference Desk will not answer). The above reply came back from the original poster - and I'm concerned. Per WP:SUICIDE, I added the appropriate template and am now reporting the matter here in the hope that an admin can take the necessary action. SteveBaker (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WHOIS says the IP address is a Verizon address - could probably be anyplace in the USA. SteveBaker (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's worth taking action on, but pool-71-115-157-126.gdrpmi.dsl-w.verizon.net would be in Grand Rapids, Michigan.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty thinly veiled suicidal speech. Per WP:SUICIDE I think it's appropriate to notify the local police in Grand Rapids. While it's not directly applicable to threats of self-harm at this point, several users and myself have been working on a form letter for contacting law enforcement agencies in TOV situations- you can view it here if you want. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I did exactly that last night after User:Kww narrowed down the IP to Grand Rapids. The Grand Rapids police were monumentally uninterested in the matter: "Without a name and/or address we can do nothing." I suggested contacting Verizon and getting the person's whereabouts from the IP address - but I doubt very much they did that. I suspect nothing at all happened as a result of my call. SteveBaker (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That sucks, but is kind of unsurprising. In any case, it's good that the contact was made because it's no longer our responsibility if something bad does happen. We've done all we can do. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, many times more people attempt suicide half-heartedly than succeed at it, and many times more people than that have a curiosity in it that doesn't end up leading to anything. --Cyde Weys 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this, so my apologizes for chiming in late, but a TrustedSource search shows this IP is in Muskegon, Michigan not Grand Rapids. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 19, 2009 @ 00:40

The larger discussion seems to be at WT:RFA#EVula's ideal RfA process and following; Hersfold also has a proposal at User:Hersfold/Admin_recall. My concern is that the admins I've asked think that the first proposal may have a very unhelpful chilling effect (and some say "Over my retired body"). There seems to be support for a straw poll; I've asked for inclusion of an option in the poll, "RFDA only for people whose RFA starts after this proposal is adopted". I'm bringing this up here because I don't think the 3 different groups (do nothing, RFDA for all admins, RFDA for future admins) "play well" together; we'll probably do best if people who see things the same way talk among themselves ... hopefully before the straw poll, and certainly during. My proposal (RFDA for future admins only) is at User_talk:Hersfold/Admin_recall#Yes and no, and my replies in the threads at WT:RFA are summarized at User talk:Dank55/Admins. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to understand why it should matter when someone becomes an admin. The idea that recall is appropriate for new ones but not old ones sounds rather as if the old ones in question think they have some sort of right to magical bits. Tb (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there's a problem of unfairness, and I'm not even "in favor" of my option, I just think it needs to be on the table for comparison. It shouldn't be difficult for the people who have been blocked and had their stuff deleted by an admin to look through an admin's deletion and block log and organize a posse to go through every single contribution of the admin, looking for flaws. We can hope, of course, that angry people will be obvious and clumsy, but that's not a given; they may have friends and socks show up at RfDA who have no apparent connection to the admin, who do a good job of coming off as "concerned wiki-citizens". If RFDA is a vote, we're in trouble. If admins start losing the mop, and other admins get the impression that the RfDA was not entirely fair, that's going to have a strong chilling effect on admins. People who gain the mop after this proposal happens will be able to look at how the RFDA process is playing out, and adjust their actions accordingly. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been here countless times. There's never going to be a consensus here. It's a perenial suggestion that looks obvious at fist glance and falls apart on examination. I'm opposed to it for a variety of reasons, but slightly tired of the discussion too.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's never going to be a consensus because almost no admins would be willing to sign off on something that means they might lose their power. Jtrainor (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF please? Maybe the reason admins won't support this is because it'll open up the opportunity for harassment and huge amounts of wasted time. Many admin actions such as deleting pages and blocking are likely to piss people off and nobody wants to have to defend themselves from regular RfDA proceedings. Also, I'd submit that there are likely no admins which could receive 75% desysop support from other admins (as required by the link above). If someone should that obviously be desysopped, that's what ArbCom is for. This whole thing will be a giant waste of time. Oren0 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You never watched Star Wars Episode III? Granted, ol' Palps was the bad guy, but he still had a point. And I don't think it's a concept original to the film. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape over "Argh, another recall proposal," please give us a chance. You'll notice that both of these proposals are being started by administrators, and in fact the proposal in my userspace was started off of a discussion in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel by several different administrators, not just myself. We are aware of the concerns raised at previous proposals, and are attempting to address these in the proposal. This is a Wiki, after all, and things can and probably will change. As I'll explain when the cleanup of the draft is finished, I believe this is an important thing for us to look into and consider, and it's not because I believe administrators are abusing their rights. Just hang on a little longer, and try to dispel any preconceptions you may have, because we are still working on things and this will be open to community input soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we focus on dealing with long-inactive admins before trying to get rid of active ones first? We have hundreds of admins on the books that haven't edited in years. I don't really understand why the status quo at Wikipedia is to not deal with this problem, as most other sites do not have such a lax take on things as we do. Yes, it is a security problem. --Cyde Weys 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As his first contributions, Gimme46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming that File:That's Where You Take Me.jpg is "is a fake" which he "made and put on internet", and tried to nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's Where You Take Me.jpg. The assistance of editors more familiar with this subject matter is requested in verifying the image, to determine what administrative action is necessary. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on a Google search, I'd say that it isn't the real cover. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it may not be that simple. The image appearing in most of those results is File:Britney Britney Album Cover.PNG, which is the cover for the album "Britney", in which the song is included. But File:That's Where You Take Me.jpg is allegedly the cover for the single version of That's Where You Take Me, and was uploaded by the established contributor Avram44 (talk · contribs), claiming that the image "Was sent to me by a Philippenian who owns the cd." The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That image is creepy, it looks like something out of The Ring. I can't imagine that being the actual thing. Zazaban (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a speedy delete tag on it, but have removed it. IMO, it has to be a black market cover using Spears publicity photos, but likely the CD inside is just a burned CD-R. We should get Avram's opinion on this before deleting perhaps. Nate • (chatter) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The more specific Google image search ["that's where you take me" single philippines] returns this image twice: once on Wikipedia and once on a blogspot. Compared to the other CD covers there, it is of totally inferior quality, possibly a copy of the Wikipedia image (which predates the blog posting). I also found a copy here, and here in a blog posting dated 18 January 2009(!), possibly triggered by the AfD or ANI discussion. If this was for real, you'd expect more hits, with images of higher quality. I can't find any reliable evidence that is obviously independent of Wikipedia of this song being released as a single. The statements to this effect on Wikipedia (also at Britney (album)) were added by Avram without references. Compare this to the Google image search for [anticipating single britney], which does produce several high-quality hits for the cover of Anticipating, including one on Amazon. So is it possible, as this cursory investigation would suggest, that no such single exists? 199.3.224.3 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed no relation. iMatthew // talk // 12:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See above sections on User:Kalajan

Kalajan (talk · contribs · email)

KingOreo (talk · contribs · email)

This user has only one edit seen by his contributions. Kalajan is blocked, and I would not be surprised if this is him trying to come back. His only edit is to User talk:SimonKSK and he asked him to "help him out" noting that Simon has adopted Kalajan. This is very likely to be Kalajan, I'd say. iMatthew // talk // 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I am suspicous, but I decided to let it go. But, if it is Kalajan, I would not be shocked. Simon \\ KSK ^{Yes we can!} 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it is. Seems like we need to block KingOreo, and upgrade Kalajan's block to indef. D.M.N. (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Unrelated --Deskana (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This link is on [this article] and goes to the Beer Judge Certification Program. This group (also called BJCP) trains volunteers to serve as judges in amateur brewing competitions. Their website includes [the "2008 BJCP Style Guidelines"]. These "style guidelines" are, in fact, competition guidelines and not a guide to real-world beer styles. It violates this provision of WP:ELNO "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." To understand the difference, imagine a music teacher who gives his pupils sheet music labeled "Beethoven". This sheet music, in fact, contains excepts from various Beethoven works along with bridging material written by the teacher to connect the pieces. In both cases (BJCP and Beethoven), the material is misleading because it gives the reader the impression that the material is actually something that it is not (the BJCP often uses, for example, the names of real beer styles, but the style descriptions are simplifications or otherwise inaccurate representations of the actual style). The "Introduction" section on the BJCP page I linked will provide some confirmation for what I have written. A much more detailed confirmation can be found [here]. I have been in contact with the writer of this confirmation, an official of the BJCP and he confirms what I have written above is accurate. His email address is shown at the bottom and can also be used to confirm this. 80.126.66.106 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, you are allowed to improve articles. In fact, you are encouraged to do so. Have you tried to remove the link yourself? I am unclear on what admins are needed for here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, that's why a request was probably made here. I'd suggest you take this on the article's talk page. An involved user would certainly look into it. ^LeaveSleaves 13:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several problems, which is why I posted here. First, many of the contributors to the beer articles are themselves associated with this organisation and will not believe what I have written above (which is why I offered confirmation from the organisation). Secondly, this issue was discussed and settled in August, but one of the people connected with the BJCP reopened the discussion in November and nothing has been accomplished since then. It is my impression that this is a policy issue (which is why I posted it here). So, if some other editors refuse to follow policy, what other choice do I have? 80.126.66.106 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this editor at his talk page, my message is copied here: As for this particular link, I don't have a big problem with having it in the article, as long as the link description makes it clear what the link is for. It could provide readers with a good illustration of how Beer style is used and measured in a highly standardized context. Of course, it would be better for this information to be converted to prose (ie, something in the main text of the article saying, "For example, in the 2008 BCJS competition, color was rated in terms of ______, bla bla bla" with footnote pointing to that page; this, I think, would be better than just having an EL as it currently is.... but I don't think that means the EL needs to be removed. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Everyme is back at it with 78.34.129.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz¹¹ 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to submit an administrative decision of mine for review. I blocked TimBolen (talk · contribs) indefinitely for what I judged to be violations of WP:BLP. As background, this individual self-identifies as a legal antagonist of Stephen Barrett and his edits raised concerns in my mind of conflict of interest and importation of external disputes, contributing to my decision. This individual has taken issue with my decision at User Talk:TimBolen. Therefore, I invite review of the block. If any admin wishes to reverse the block, or if there is a consensus among non-admins that it should be reversed, I have no objection. MastCell ^Talk 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's actually Tim Bolen (the elusive alleged provocateur of Stephen Barrett's several defamation suits), he certainly shouldn't be editing making BLP comments about Barrett. If he's not, he's a troll. Block is proper. Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be both properly made, and respectfully explained subsequently. I would note that it appears that the editor is violating WP:NLT despite averring they are not, and from the easy recourse to legalism I am inclined to believe that the individual is the party concerned with the legal proceedings referred to. I support MastCells actions in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I also concur with Mastcell's actions. I am also concern with WP:NLT and the reference to use councel. From the writing, it does look to be User:Tim Bolen from his previous comments he has made. Good block, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the repeated references where he suggests MastCell "consult with his legal counsel" demands an NLT block right off, to me. That's legal bluster, no matter how much he says it's not a legal threat, and should not be tolerated. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good work, MastCell. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Reading his talk page, I felt pretty sure that this editor's interests do not really coincide with ours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing urgent, but the deleter seems to have ignored my request. Thank you. --NE2 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems, according to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 7, that the contents of this orphaned talk page were already undeleted and merged into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation, where they can now be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 11#Inserted missing discussion from deleted talk page.. Is any further action needed now? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the history for that discussion undeleted anywhere, though. It seems the content was just cut and pasted, so the page history needs to be undeleted if the content is going to be as well. I've restored on these grounds. seresin ( ¡? )  07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it was likely just going to get G8 deleted again by someone who didn't look at the logs, I did the history merge with the archive page where the discussion is now stored. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So, we have a list of biographies of living persons that contain unsourced statements available here.

Here are the questions that are stopping me from going through the list:

1. Do we remove all unsourced material regardless of whether it's negative?
2. If we remove the material, do we put it on the talk page for others to examine or do we simply leave it in the page history? Or do we just comment it out using HTML comments (<!-- -->)?

Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll go with option one; doesn't matter if it is positive or negative. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't really an admin-specific function, so you might want to visit WP:BLP/N. Zscout370 is correct. WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I think commenting it out is fine; it's perhaps polite, and allows future editors to actually take the time to get it right. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It also makes it easier for them to put it back without finding sources. It also keeps potentially libelous material available in the API, the database dumps, mirror and fork sites, and the internal search in a manner that it appears to still be part of the current version of the article. If we don't have the time to see whether it is verifiable and/or true, we shouldn't be leaving it where it is still highly visible and easy to disseminate. To some extent it all depends on whether we want people to believe that we actually care their feelings, or to only believe that we want them to believe that. Speaking for myself I don't believe any of it. If the out-of-sight out-of-mind approach works for us we might as well just hide it with CSS. That wouldn't be much less effective. — CharlotteWebb 12:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that (as far as I can tell) not all of this is covered by BLP, for instance something like:

  Doe sold his land to the Bronx Bridge Company,^[1] which began carrying subway trains in 2005.^{[citation needed]}

• In this case, the part about Doe is sourced; what's not sourced is a related statement included for context. --NE2 11:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, but it does matter if it's contentious or not. The WP:BLP remark refers specifically to "unsourced or poorly source contentious material". It is not license to start gutting all unsourced material from all BLPs. If it's not contentious, then it should get the usual fact tag and reasonable delay. Tb (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. The community have repeatedly considered and rejected (although not without dissent, including [to at least some degree] from Jimbo) the proposition that statements that are unsourced but (by any measure) uncontroversial be removed from BLPs simply because they are unsourced (or, at the very least, that unsourced but uncontroversial statements in BLPs are to be treated in the same fashion as are such statements in non-BLPs; there are some who argue that WP:V means that if a statement cannot be verified by the reader in a source to which a citation [the strictest would require an inline citation] is given, that statement is to be removed straightaway, but there does not exist a consensus for that construction); the broadest discussions were here and at AN/I in the wake of CyberAnth's removing broad sections of unsourced but uncontroversial material from BLPs (see, e.g., here, removing a paragraph about Hank Aaron's having been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum because it lacked a specific source), but follow-ups have occurred, including in the context of the more restrictive BLP schema toward which we have (one regrets to observe) moved over the nearly two years since the CA affair, under which the categorical, almost reflexive, excision of unsourced but uncontroversial material continues to be disfavored (I would imagine, in fact, that the community would still regard such editing on a grand scale as POINTily disruptive). Joe 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If different people see the same ^{[citation needed]} tag, some of them are going to remove the preceding sentence or clause, others will cut an entire paragraph. Beware of greedy pattern-matching. — CharlotteWebb 11:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Use your head. Don't be a dick. BLP isn't a license to kill. This isn't rocket surgery people. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Rocket surgery", huh? :) Tb (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Olde joak [103]. — CharlotteWebb 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the idea of moving the content to the talk page? It keeps it out of the articles altogether, but still allows people to work with the info if they wish to. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the material is fairly neutral, fine. But a libel on a talk page is still a libel.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, BLP applies to talk pages. From your comments, it seems that you're planning some sort of automated sweep. Don't. See also Jon's comment above. Cool Hand Luke 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And please remember, WP:BLP does not sanction the removal of all unsourced statements, but only those which are contentious. Tb (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to get this out of the way: No one is planning to automatically remove unsourced statements from BLPs, right? --Conti|✉ 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No intention of doing anything in an automated way; as CharlotteWebb pointed out, it's too difficult to know whether to grab a sentence, a word, or a paragraph. (Though some sort of Twinkle-type script to move content to the talk page after selecting it would be heavenly...).

I think examples here might help, so I pulled quotes from random BLPs from the list.

Example 1 (from Alan Bean)

As a painter, Bean wanted to add color to the moon. "I had to figure out a way to add color to the moon without ruining it," he remarked. If you look at his paintings, you will see the lunar landscape is not a monotonous gray, but shades of various colors. "If I were a scientist painting the moon, I would paint it gray. I'm an artist, so I can add colors to the moon." says Bean.^{[citation needed]}

Example 2 (from Jeremy Paxman)

In 2004 Paxman raised the subject again with Howard, by then leader of the Conservative Party. This time, Howard laughed it off, saying that he had not threatened to overrule the head of the Prison Service. ^{[citation needed]}

Example 3 (from Lisa Kudrow)

Briefly, Kudrow joined with Conan O'Brien and director Tim Hillman in the short-lived improv troupe Unexpected Company.^{[citation needed]} She was also the only regular female member of the Transformers Comedy Troupe.^{[citation needed]} She played a role in an episode of the NBC sitcom Cheers. She tried out for Saturday Night Live in 1990, but the show chose Julia Sweeney instead.^{[citation needed]}

Personally, I lean toward wanting to remove all unsourced statements (and frankly I completely disagree with Tb's interpretation that it only applies to contentious material). However, before I start going through these, I think gauging some type of consensus is a good idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd lean towards removing pretty much everything that's unsourced unless it's either very clearly uncontentious, or sourcing it would be risible - e.g. X is an actor{{fact}}. What you or I might consider uncontroversial might not be the case for the subject of the BLP. We have had OTRS tickets in the past for the most trivial of details, and the subjects are right to expect that everything in their article is relevant and tightly sourced. Black Kite 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If a subject objects to something they can say so. The vast majority of the time unsourced info that appears non-contentious is non-contentious. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • On many articles I would agree with you. On BLPs I would err towards caution. Sometimes it's impossible to distinguish between baby and bathwater. And are you suggesting that subjects need to check their own articles every day to ensure they're still OK? Black Kite 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's (Black Kite's) a nice proposal for WP:BLP, but it's not what the policy says. The policy says to remove whatever is contentious and unsourced, not to remove whatever is not "very clearly uncontentious" and unsourced. But, of course, if the subject of the BLP has objected--then it is contentious, without doubt. That's not the case in any of the three examples here. Tb (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm tending to remove unsourced "personal/family" information of any kind on sight, along with all unsourced career content which could even hint at controversy or be taken as unflattering in the slightest way. However, this is only when I stumble upon it, I don't hunt down unsourced BLPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c reply to MzMcBride) My parsing of the key sentence makes the following equivalent to my understanding of it: "Material about living persons that is either unsourced or which is poorly sourced and contentious should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, regardless of whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable"; (I consider the original sentence to be poorly worded and ambiguous.) However, I know that this can cause upset amongst other editors. So, if the material is potentially libellous or highly critical, I remove it (i.e., delete it), in other cases, I merely transfer it to the talk pages and ask that it be verified. If it is, it can be struck out and transferred back to the article page proper. I might add that I have mainly done this with additions to "Notable Residents" or "Notable Persons" sections in articles about settlements.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My "interpretation" is the explicit language of WP:BLP: Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced. It's not as if I made it up; it's the existing policy, and attempts to change that have not succeeded. The worry here is that you are about to engage on a big campaign, to "clean up" something which doesn't need cleaning. Let's take your examples. Number (1) is not contentious. It is a quotation, and it should certainly be sourced. But there is no reason to remove it immediately. It is not as if it is some embarassing thing he's supposedly saying. It's simply not contentious. Your time should be spend locating the source. Number (2) is more interesting. The doubt is not about whether Howard dodged Paxman's questions--that's already perfectly clear--but about whether Howard actually answered it saying that he had not overruled Lewis. If this is contentious, it would be so about Howard, not Paxman. But to establish that it's contentious, we'd need someone in good faith doubting it, and the mere existence of a {{fact}} tag does not establish that. Neither Talk:Jeremy Paxman nor Talk:Michael Howard show any indication of contentiousness, and WP:BLP only sanctions immediate removal of contentious info. So what you should do, if you want to improve these articles, is to contact the person who put the {{fact}} tag there and ask their motives: were they just saying that a citation there would be nice, or do they think there is some doubt about the veracity of the statement? For number (3), again, note than there is no trace of discussion on the talk page, and there is no contention about any of these. We simply have a fact tag--nothing else--and it's contention that licenses immediate removal. Now, if you want to guage consensus, this is the wrong forum. You should pop over to WP Talk:BLP and propose removing "contentious" from the policy. The problem, of course, is that this would mean that literally every single assertion would need to be sourced, and that's ludicrous. Judgment must apply. You seem to be sayning that if there is a fact tag, it must be doubtful, but that's not true at all. There are many reasons for putting a fact tag in, and doubtfulness is only one of them. If you have no actual doubt about the statement, and there is no indication of contentiousness, you have no business removing it under the summary WP:BLP policy. Tb (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• two comments. First, the place to ask for interpretation of WP:BLP is on its talk page, not here. Second, our goal should be to improve the encyclopedia. It would be far more valuable, when running into such statements, to spend some energy trying to verify them rather than just removing them and moving on. If you said that you were going to go through the list and do some leg-work, google-work, and library-work to try and track down sources, and then remove those for which you had been unable to do so, that would be a fine thing. But instead it just sounds like you want to remove stuff, which is not contentious, which is not libelous even potentially, which is harmful to nobody, and for which you have no particular reason to suspect harm. In that case, can I convince you to instead adopt the goal of improving the articles by adding sources as your first priority, rather than removing material? Tb (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We have an obligation to get things right. That means checking information to ensure its accuracy and not including unsourced statements. I agree that simply deleting everything that is unsourced is a heavy-handed approach, however I'm proposing alternatives (commenting out the statements or moving them to the talk page) and looking for alternatives. The reality is, however, that people who add the statements are the ones with the burden to cite the information (just as new article creators must establish notability). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The analogy is a good one. New article creators do *not* have to "establish notability", it's the opposite: people seeking to delete articles must raise an issue, and only then do article creators have to establish notability. Even the barest claim of notability is sufficient to avoid speedy-deletion. If someone raises an issue, contending that an unsourced statement is incorrect or otherwise problematic, then it can be deleted. The alternative you don't seem to be willing to consider is to spend effort trying to track down sources, and only removing statements if a good faith effort fails. And then, what I hope you'd do, is to explain where you looked on the talk page with an explanation. What I'm worried about is a mass deletion of material, accompanied by terse edit histories, and no real attempt on your part to distinguish case from case or bother tracking down any sources at all. What's really dangerous here is that, under your proposed methodology, someone could add "fact" tags to jillions of entirely uncontroversial and well-known statements, and then delete them, and appeal to your actions as a precedent. You are quite right to view the fact tags as indications of necessary improvements, but you do not seem to be asking the question, "How can I most effectively improve this article?" We should all be asking that question and not questions like, "how can I most effectively delete the most unsourced material from articles?" I want you to delete the unsourced stuff only when it's the right thing for that particular article, which I think involves at least a good faith effort to find a source in google or, failing that, a library. Tb (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to strongly urge care here. Many people place {{fact}} templates carelessly. For example, in an academic context it is acceptable to have a footnote apply to more than one sentence. Some overvealous template-placers think that convention shouldn't apply to Wikipedia. They are wrong, and such sentences should not be removed just because someone has placed a tag without paying attention to the relationship between article and source. Chick Bowen 01:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. It is this kind of thing--that fact tags can mean many different things--that I am worried about the proposal here. For example, before removing unsourced material, one should make sure that the existing sources do not actually already discuss it. That might require--shock!--an actual trip to the library, but that's the price of writing an encyclopedia. Tb (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right that fact tags can mean many different things. But actually, I'm primarily talking about places where the context makes clear what the source of a statement is, but the tagger has misunderstood (so no trip to the library would be needed, just more careful reading). Chick Bowen 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is about BLPs with some unsourced statements. What do we do with the thousands of completely unsourced BLPs though? I am currently tagging all of them (well, those I can find), and I am at almost 5,000 ones now and suspect that I will end with between 15,000 and 30,000 ones (unless people start cleaning up after me very fast, which would be great). I try to be very conservative in my tagging, even one external link excludes most pages from this list. Most of the pages are not contentious, some are very contentious (criminals, porn stars, ...) You can find the current list at Category:Unreferenced BLPs and its subpages (starting in August 2006!). Fram (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally had to delete four articles from that above category (two were a copyvio, two were unsourced oprhans). I think that if we have an article on a BLP, tagged with no sources and it has been like that for two years, I really think a deletion (without bias to recreation) could be an option. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 11:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst doing a bit of sock blocking and tagging, I clicked edit on this editor's talk page, and got . My question is how did the stuff above the edit box get there? _Gb^T/c 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying isn't it? Tons of users have them now. I'm sick of them already. --Deskana (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have never noticed it before - what are they and when did they get introduced? _Gb^T/c 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I first noticed it on WP:RFAR, then I think it was on User:Roux's talk page. I've got no idea how people make them, but personally I'd like to see them stop it. I don't need some pointless notices taking up the top of my edit page. --Deskana (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotice --Onorem♠Dil 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaah - now I know where to look when deleting a blocked user's, than. Thanks! _Gb^T/c 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related issue, I tried to get somewhere with WP:VPT#Editnotice a few days ago; no luck, so now I'm trying WT:PROTECT#Editnotice. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That should be used sparely and be admin only. Viridae^Talk 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an edit notice on my talk page, and I happen to find them very useful on other editors' talk pages, as well. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But for the same reason that we have rules about what kinds of signatures are allowed, and what ones are too disruptive, I think that we need rules about edit notices, at least to a degree. — Jake Wartenberg 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure...but...duck test seems to be quacking at me...Colts1 (talk · contribs) was blocked a day or so ago...it's a little coincidental that this person's first edit seems to be telling me he is not Colts1. I was going to block straight up, but thought I'd get some opinions before I did it. --Smashville^talk 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack. _Gb^T/c 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. Their writing styles look different, and besides, Colts2 hasn't done anything harmful (asking a stupid question isn't a blockable offense. He's probably just 12 or something). ...if he starts acting up you could always block him quickly. From what I've seen, there's no clear evidence (without having done a checkuser or anything...which would be a little over the top at this point) that Colts2 isn't just another random idiot. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who happened to register 4 hours after Colts1 was blocked and make his only edits to the page of the admin who protected Colts1's talk page? --Smashville^talk 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be a strange coincidence, but I've occasionally gotten weird random messages, too...I just don't think a weird coincidence should be grounds for blocking an account who hasn't done anything harmful yet, especially given that if this is the same person then he/she will probably show his/her true colors soon enough.

That being said, I have looked more closely now at Colts1's contribs and they do seem to have a very similar style, so I strike what I said about that earlier, and you're probably right about them being the same. I just wanted to say that, in general (ie, in other situations), I don't know if we should be hasty to block otherwise harmless users based on possibly coincidental similarities with blocked users. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe by his unblock he may have accidentally unveiled the sockmaster: [104]--Smashville^talk 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, I suggest you see User_talk:Sinofdreams#Disruption_using_sockpuppets for more socks. D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that solves our puzzle. Sinofdreams blocked for abusive sockpuppetry...it's quite obvious he is using multiple accounts for abusive purposes. --Smashville^talk 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dylan620 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
My fellow administrators, there are grave concerns with this editor from many users. There are several issues that have come up recently on this user's time at Wikipedia:

1. MySpacey use of Wikipedia as per this edit counter.
2. Consistent posting on people's talk pages about different things about them personally. This includes cookies, awards, positive templates, etc. Some people can percieve this as annoying as this does not help build an encyclopedia. A lot of these have come on User talk:Juliancolton, which has been the main source of the problem (No offence to Julian).
3. Ill-informed support of community bans as shown for MartinPhi's ban discussion
4. Ill-informed commentary in general, merely parroting what others have said (roux's RFA why it was merely parroting)
5. Strange obsession with adding users to WP:LOBU (recent history), including adding Betacommand well before the discussion had resolved in that direction [105]
6. Arrogantly informing established users of things they already know, as if he is the only one who knows what's going on ([106] and there's probably plenty more)

Many people (Mitchazenia, iMatthew, roux, GlassCobra, and NuclearWarfare) have tried to gain his attention but to no avail. His admin coach, Juliancolton, also told him to stop the admin coaching and work on the issues raised ([107]) with little effect. He tends to respond to these suggestions with announcements of taking breaks (which tend not to happen), and returning with the same behaviour.

He has recently announced yet another break using the WBE (WikiBreakEnforcer). (Notice on User Page and addition to his monobook). The problem is that he (sometimes) takes these breaks, and comes back without the least improvement in how he behaves. It seems as though he thinks taking a break resets everyone's memory and opinions about him, which obviously it does not.

What are your thoughts on the user at hand, and suggestion for how we can deal with him and his behavior on wiki?

Regards, The Helpful One 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, user has been made aware of this thread, at User_talk:Dylan620#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.23User:Dylan620. The Helpful One 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has both tried to reason with Dylan620 and helped compile these diffs, I endorse everything above. Basically what I am looking for here (and I cannot speak for anyone else) is a community-mandated temporary namespace restriction. I'd like to see Dylan restricted solely to mainspace (and mainspace talk), as well as user talk solely for discussion of articles, for a period of three months. Not including any further 'breaks' he takes. Many people have tried to talk to him, no improvement has been seen, which is why at this point the community needs to make its position clear. To be absolutely clear: I do not want to see any kind of ban or block here. I think he means well and if he shows the initiative to refocus his efforts he can be an excellent contributor. //roux   17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Roux that a mainspace restriction may be in order. I don't think that he should be blocked or anything, but he should be restricted to mainspace and talk-space, and if needed, answering queues on his talk page only. iMatthew // talk // 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with a namespace restriction, the strange fascination with banned users is a little worrying as well. Mr.Z-man 17:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here, being no one can stop him without one.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Dylan620 respond to any of the above comments? Looking at his contributions, he has enforced a WikiBreak on his account... D.M.N. (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure but there are ways around the wikibreak enforcer - or I could remove it from his monobook? The Helpful One 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To bypass the WBE, (highlight to read) He could: turn off JavaScript in his browser preferences, or change the local system time on his machine. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse a mainspace restriction to last for at least a month and 200 edits, excepting edits to his talk page. A mentor that hasn't been too involved with him can come back to us for a lifting of this restriction later. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do not endorse - what the heck is this about?? Is this editor causing damage? No. Is this user violating policies? No. Is he annoying? A bit, but that's not a bannable or otherwise offence. In short, there is no real problem here, just people making a fuss over very little. Majorly talk 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Do Not Endorse - Per Majorly above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 17, 2009 @ 19:48
• Do not endorse - Agree with Majorly. A solution to this problem could be mentorship to the editor rather than banning or blocking restricting him. This is more of a misguided editor than a disruptive editor. ^LeaveSleaves 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that people have tried to mentor him, for weeks and months now. But after a while, that just becomes impossible. We have restricted people for myspacing too much before; I just saw something at ANI just yesterday. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen any obvious case of myspacing, except of higher involvement in user namespace than article namespace. The case I assume you are referring to included much more blatant violation of WP:NOT. Plus, since when are we setting standards for quality of editing here? Okay, so he is not exactly focusing on creating and improving articles as much. But does that mean you force him to do just that? ^LeaveSleaves 20:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Voting so soon? But, I guess the avalanche has started so oppose restriction. A bit misguided but not disruptive. It does seem that quite a bit of time has been spent on trying to reform him but he wastes very little of others time just by himself, so just ignore him. Icewedge (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Do not endorse - He doesn't seem to be doing any damage, albeit he isn't helping a lot. There are bigger problems out there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Do not endorse, mainly agreeing with Majorly. He hasn't done anything directly wrong or harmful. Garden. 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the "poll" is over, so let's move on with the discussion. Maybe we don't do some kind of edit restriction, but how about a clear community consensus we can point him to to help nudge him in the right direction? That seems to be the kind of thing we can get out of this discussion. I'd be for it. The message is simple: Wikipedia is not a social club. It is an encyclopedia. Please concentrate your efforts more on editing the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What he said. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, if I and four other people hadn't already said the same thing. Community consensus is fine. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose restrictions - At least at this stage. User may be social, but is that really a bad thing? I wish he would move into the mainspace more too, but there is nothing actionable here. Perhaps if he continued down this path for a while longer I might support restrictions, but you would both have to provide evidence that he has completely ignored and/or failed to comply with legitimate requests to stop, and/or has become disruptive in some way through their socialising. Wikipedia is very much a social project, let's not forget that. — neuro^(talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oop, ignore me, didn't realise it was over. Perhaps a section break is in order for idiots like me to see that this has ended? — neuro^(talk) 03:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, let's look on the bright side: Dylan's article editing rate (at 8.8%) is slightly higher than that of Essjay… — CharlotteWebb 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and look at what happened with Essjay ... Cyde Weys 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If something I say sounds optimistic it is pure jest. You should know that by now. — CharlotteWebb 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But I digress. It isn't so much about article-writing as it is about productivity. Alas, my article editing rate has been way down ever since becoming an admin, but I don't think anyone here would contend that means I should be disinvited from Wikipedia. I'm very active with Categories for deletion and other Wikipedia processes, and nearly all of my talk page communication is about issues that directly affect the project. So focusing solely on namespace 0 editing percentages is a bit myopic. What's actually at issue here is a high percentage of meaningless edits (of which those fracking guest books and "secret pages" are the worst examples). --Cyde Weys 00:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support supply of more rope; hanging strictly optional at this stage. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am doing a project and I need to know who the last person to edit The Dark Knight(film) was. How do I find this out? Thank you very much! Harrypotterfanfreak (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just click the "history" tab at the top of the page. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Click the little "History" tab at the top of the article page when you are viewing the article. It will list the full history of every edit ever made. You could also view any of those edits along the way, or look at changes between any two edits. In the future, you may want to ask questions like this at Wikipedia:Help desk, which is better designed for these sorts of questions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting, of course, is that the 'last' editor to edit an article may change frequently, particularly for high-visibility, high-traffic articles. Looking at the history of The Dark Knight (film), it seems that there have been 17 edits to that article in the last 24 hours, by 13 different editors; the last four editors weren't even logged in, and so are just listed as IP addresses. If you are writing a paper or doing a school project and you wish to cite Wikipedia as a source (in your references or bibliography), you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for instructions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to announce that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is now live and fully operational. For those who have not been following the merger closely, a community discussion took place in early April of last year where consensus determined a need for the merge of both Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Myself along wit the help of FT2 (talk · contribs), Lucasbfr (talk · contribs), Nixeagle (talk · contribs), Sam Korn (talk · contribs), X! (talk · contribs), and Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs) (whom my dearest thanks go out to) worked for many months on a process that would be beneficial to the community, and reduce the level of needless bureaucracy. A few notable changes have been made:

• All cases are formatted in the same way, regardless of whether the request deals with CheckUser or not;
• WP:SPI is now assisted by a Clerk bot (created and maintained by Nixeagle (talk · contribs)) which means that there will be no need to transclude any request to the main page. Simply sit back and let the bot do the work;
• Cases that have a CheckUser request attached may be endorsed or declined for CheckUser attention by any clerk with the understanding that any CheckUser may overrule their decision;
• CheckUsers will monitor both cases that involve request for CheckUser and simple investigations, this will allow for a CheckUsers to intervene where necessary;
• Users who were regulars at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets are welcome to continue to do their great (and much needed) work at SPI;

While we have been working on this for over a year 9 months (fixed - FT2), there are still changes that will need to be made, as such I encourage any feedback the community may have on the talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit to fallowing this topic, and offer my thanks to all those who have worked upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay! The paint is still a little wet, so be nice with the bot and the overall process for the first days. We believe this will make things easier for people willing to help on sock cases by making it more straightforward. By the way, there's already a backlog, so chop chop! -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats to all involved. Synergy 00:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As a plain editor who seems to run into sockpuppeteers and their puppets frequently, it looks good to me. Just don't let the backlog accumulate to SSP proportions. Deor (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As part of SPI, the letter codes used at RFCU might be updated for SPI. This is one of the outstanding SPI matters. A summary of the proposed new letters is here - any users familiar with CheckUser or suspected sock cases are welcome to comment.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Open up the blue boxes. Nobody has time to open every single one. If left open, a quick scanning can see if something needs investigation. Often other editors can help make investigative comments. Let's open this up and not close it up/hide it. The old way was better but this way will be better if there are not blue boxes to hide stuff. Chergles (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoey asked me to discuss it. Any objections to opening up the boxes? That way, one can scan the info in 3 seconds. Most people don't want to spend half an hour opening up all the collapsable blue boxes. If they have that much time, they should edit more. Chergles (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are using FF w/noscript, the collapsible boxes are disabled by default, just something as a temporary workaround. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here in the United States there's some sort of inauguration thing going on today (I forget the specifics). Our featured article on Barack Obama is already getting a lot of attention today (even more than normal) and roundabout noon Eastern Standard Time or shortly before, and no doubt for the rest of the day, the edits are going to be coming fast and furious (both constructive and non-constructive). I'm sure a lot of admins already watch that page and no doubt most are aware that it's going to be abnormally active over there, but it would be good if we could have as many admins as possible dropping by the article and talk page from time to time. I've been checking in there periodically for the last week but will be offline most of the day today so if other folks could help out that would be sweet. Do it for democracy. Or freedom. Or something. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We managed to survive the elections, we will survive the inauguration. I doubt there is anyone in the Western World who does not know about today, even here in Germany the news are full of it. ;-) SoWhy 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, in keeping with the times I've updated[108] the Obamania redirect from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration... —Sladen (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, this guy (Marvinst, who has never made a single edit that hasn't been reverted) comes along and tries to rewrite established music history, and when he is reverted he comes on the talk page, calls me a clown, threatens to have me banned, and rants about how Kurt Cobain was a idiot who deserved to die among other things. Frankly, I'm a bit speechless over it all. Just read over the lass three headings on the talk page, and I think you'll agree he needs at least a 24-hour block just to cool down. Zazaban (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, and he doesn't seem to understand the concept of 'original research' and he considers himself as a reliable source over all else. Zazaban (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've left a note on the talk page and will engage the editor with a comment as well. (Considering the topic, I'd suggest a general flailing about with my guitar to get the right tone, but it's already in bad enough shape.) Tony Fox (arf!) 07:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• It is almost as if there is an established relationship between punk rock and anarchist sentiment, isn't it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean? I am an anarchist myself, and I can assure you that Marvinst does not resemble anything to do with anarchism. Zazaban (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke, don't worry about it.

While I'm here, I'd appreciate if another admin could look at my messages at User talk:Marvinst - the editor seems unhappy with how I'm dealing with him, and I'd like a second opinion. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem with Tony's messages. The aggressive tone of Marvinst's comments suggests he must not be looking forward to a long career here, in which he will actually have to get along with people. I have notified Marvinst of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, all. This is Marvinst. With regards to this "man", Zazaban, he has made some accusations about me which are not true. First, he accuses me of never making an edit on wiki, which isn't true. I've made MANY MANY edits under other usernames, so he should refrain from making such ignorant statements. Second, he accused me of calling him a clown. I dare any of you to refer back to that discussion and find where I called him a 'clown'. You won't find it because I never called him that and he knows it. Third, Zazaban accuses me of "rewriting established music history". I never tried to rewrite music history. All I did was delete falsehoods about it and replace them with the truth. If history is about the truth, then clearly, he shouldn't be on wiki since he's not apparently interested in the truth. But, yes, I did threaten to have him banned because he sticks to irrational notions about punk which are highly questionable. And, yes, I did wish Kurt Cobain dead because he symbolized for us hardcore punks a long awaited chapter to the death of grunge, the worst genre of music ever created, and the polar opposite of punk music. I see nothing wrong in that. Maybe one should remind Zazaban that wishing another's death is not a crime.

The only person here that needs a block is you, Zazaban. You keep defending the adsurd fiction about punk. YOU DON'T KNOW PUNK! I know punk, I lived punk, and am still a punk. YOU'RE NOT AND NEVER WAS! I don't like people who don't understand punk and have leanings towards american garbage grunge music that did more to destroy any vestiges of punk than help revive it. Then, the punk POSER Zazaban said: "I am an anarchist myself, and I can assure you that Marvinst does not resemble anything to do with anarchism." Obviously, Zazaban IS NOT a punk/anarchist because: 1) He doesn't know ANYTHING about punk history. 2) He defends grunge music since IT'S NOT PUNK. 3) He stated things about punk which is false and which hardcore punks deny to the hilt. 4) And, he is nothing more than a POSER. He's not a punk... never have been, never will be.

Also, EdJohnston's weak tone suggests that he doesn't seem to be smart at wiki. He invites me to this forum to discuss the article, then he insults me by saying that I don't have a long career at wiki. That sounds pretty hypocritical. It's amazing how one can be brave online, but in person, can be a coward. Marvinst (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit summary; I should advise you that it was spelt Oi! (being someone who worked with Wattie's mum when they were part of the scene - and was into punk in the late 1970's.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say tony was more implying oy gevalt than the punk-rocker expression oi! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

*ding* Have some gefilte fish. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

24 hour block for the above diatribe. If you're trying to convince someone you're not disruptive...you probably shouldn't go on the admin noticeboard and make personal attacks. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a punk, and never said I was. I am an anarchist, as I follow the political ideal of anarchism. Anarchism as a political belief is not, and has very little to do with Punk. Also, I do not care what you think of grunge, or what it 'did' to punk (how can music genres 'do' anything?) And I hardly think Kurt Cobain was consciously trying to 'kill' punk, as I think he was probably sane enough not to care about genre transfixions. Furthermore, this is the most appalling behavior I have ever seen on this website. It is very clear that Marvinst has absolutely no interest in civilly contributing to this encyclopedia, and I highly suspect he will continue to be disruptive upon his return. Also, he did call me a clown, on his first post on the talk page. Permanent block. Please. Zazaban (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you had been on wikipedia before, like you claim, you would know better than to act this badly. If you did have older accounts, I'm going to guess they've been blocked. Zazaban (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My "ignore him" strategy ain't looking to bad now, is it Zazaban? kingdom2 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh hell, whatever, nevermind. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody weed through the edits of 208.253.174.70? The few I checked are unsourced and false (especially Harry Truman's boa constrictor). Sorry if this is the wrong venue. --Me, but logged in (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, most of these look so old that many have long since been removed or reverted. Feel free to make any more fixes needed, but that IP has not edited in over a month... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just read this: The toolserver was down for a couple days around New Year's, due to the servers being moved from the Amsterdam facility to another data center.[109] I'm based in Germany and since about that date am facing serious problems while being around here - sometimes the response is pretty lame (both, Firefox and Huggle) and sometimes it even gives some 404s. What's behind this? Thank you!--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From first glance it maybe a problem with your ISP's DNS tables (a problem which usually resolves itself on its own). Try accessing the toolserver using another connection and see if you can duplicate the problem. If it works fine on the alternate connection, then it's probably the DNS. You may want to try posting this at WP:VPT to see if smarter people than me can give you a better answer. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee,
Vassyana (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[120] - Not only does he refer to two editors as "Nazi's", but he also says that if he seen one of them, he'd "kill them". D.M.N. (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week. that is uncalled for and it is obvious that he is making no efforts. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A week for death threats? Surely it's an indef until he revokes it? – Toon^(talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the block. It has already been discussed on Barneca's talk page. He was encouraged by his adoptee to vent, to say whatever he wanted, specifically about those users...it was clearly not a real death threat...and it was 3 days ago. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Why block someone for something they did 3 days ago that they were told to do? --Smashville^talk 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He should be blocked for his behavior in general, not just this comment led to by his adopter. He told him to basically be uncivil and attack others. I'm sure we can agree this adopter is not right for Kalajan, and that he will be blocked next time he screws up. This has gone on long enough. Chance after chance, it's got to end sometime. iMatthew // talk // 22:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He was asked to vent in an "indirect way", and it doesn't look very indirect. It looks pretty unpleasant. Being told to do it is irrelevant anyway, and not an excuse. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning for forgiving Kalajan for the fact that he was asked to vent by his new adoptee. However, as someone who's been trying to help him become a contributing editor, he doesn't seem to be interested in the editing process. He focused way too much on his userpage, creating his own catchphrases, adding "friends", making enemies (such as Sinofdreams and Colts1, who oddly enough approach him out of nowhere) and when discussing a block with Tiptoety referred to himself as an "edit warrior". He's been encouraged by myself, SimonKSK, iMatthew, Nikki311 and others to follow WP policy and to most importantly listen. He's stated that not edit-warring makes Wikipedia boring, and he misinterprets suggestions almost deliberately. (e.g. When I advised him to keep a low-profile and consult a more experienced editor before confronting possibly "uncivil" editors to see if a warning was justified, he interpreted it as taking the abuse and rolling over.) At this point, the block could be considered preventative.  Hazardous Matt  05:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, has no one ever heard of a batting cage or mediation as a means of relieving stress? At the very least, someone should have advised him to vent in an off-wiki blog, MS Word or doc - and then trash it. Wikipedia is not your therapist, much as some use it for cathartic value. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he will do it again after the week is over. Sometimes wikipedia can be frustrating and difficult to get used to. IF it happens again I will gladly block for a month or so. While the actions were horrible I think they were done in good faith. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Any one know where the current sitenotice is coming from or how to turn it off? We do not need to be advertising some internal process to the majority of the people that use Wikipedia (i.e. the readers). John Reaves 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

From Meta, m:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-plain text election notice nom. Majorly talk 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it only be on watchlist pages instead? Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that is a watchlist notice, this is a sitenotice. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be on watchlists, because the notice shouldn't interest non-editors. Majorly talk 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- this should be a watchlist notice, not a sitenotice. GlassCobra 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's also breaking the page layout for non-logged-in readers (that's most of them!) - see Talk:Main Page#.3F. And yes, it ought to only be displayed on the watchlist, but I'm not sure that can be done with content pushed from Meta that way. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to disable for en.wikipedia? John Reaves 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Really the only thing that would work for casual readers would be to completely suppress the sitenotice in Mediawiki:Common.css. Mind you, I think that's tempting, for a lot of reasons, but Brion would surely overrrule it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he once said that would lead to desysopping, but I might be remembering incorrectly. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently I was, still, I wouldn't try to do it without checking with someone. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This notice is highly disruptive. 99.99% of people looking at Wikipedia pages don't care at all. This sort of advertising is intrusive. For fund raising it makes sense, but not for Steward Elections. Do we have a meta administrator who can pull this? Shouldn't there be a meta file that gets inserted into all the watchlist notice files? That would be much better. Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist is fine by me. If someone know how to hide it locally, I say go ahead. John Reaves 05:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully whoever did this and put it on the watchlists instead, it'll be helpful there. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I signed out and signed back in and didn't see the sitenotice either time, looks like it has been removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 05:32

Something is still throwing some of the page layouts off though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 05:36

Hmm, according to m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2009#Centralnotice it only showed for logged in users. While this is better, I still think it'd be better as a watchlist notice because many people that log-in aren't necessarily active editors. John Reaves 05:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway to ask someone over at Meta to move it to a watchlist notice? What exactly is a "Steward" anyway, by the way. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 05:45

Mostly, a steward can give or take away any user right you can think of. They have no decision making role at all, but given what the steward bit technically allows, it's a very high trust thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2009#Centralnotice discussion about this discussion. Hopefully that will bring some Meta eyes over here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 20, 2009 @ 06:13

The centralnotice will be up for a short while before the elections, and another short while at the beginning of the elections. As well, it displays only for logged-in users, and can be hidden (not shrunk like the fundraiser) by any user who doesn't want to see it any longer. There is no way to put a watchlist notice on all wikis at present, though that is perhaps something worth investigating. If anyone has constructive suggestions which are not impossible or unreasonable, I'd be happy to hear them.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the any way to exempt en.wp? We can do a watchlist notice locally. John Reaves 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple points of clarification.

1. It's a CentralNotice, not a Sitenotice. See also Wikipedia:Software notices.
2. It's currently only shown to logged-in users (the vast majority (about 90%-ish) of our readers do not log in).
3. It is fully hide-able assuming your browser accepts and keeps cookies (which you need anyway to stay logged in).
4. Adding the code #siteNotice {display: none !important;} to your CSS subpage will permanently hide this and all future Sitenotices and CentralNotices.

--MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride will also be helping us try to get the notice even tinier than it is already.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was nearly as high as 90%. What's the source for that (not that I doubt you)? 01:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The notice should be considerably smaller now (spent quite a while working on it today). As for the 90% number, I have no idea where the citation is at the moment. But it's surely somewhere! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I remember there were two RfCs regarding linking dates floating around in December, but can't seem to find them now - can someone briefly relate their outcome to me? Should we blue-link dates and years or delink them? Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Temporary injunction against automated date linking or delinking. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - so a final decision has not yet been made, then? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Still in Arbcom. – ukexpat (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try to keep an eye on it from now on. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14273/css/14273_181.htm looks like an extract form a patent or manual - who is the rights owner? Shouldn't we be linking this from a source closer to the originator, not one loaded down with invitations to "buy this content" in multiple formats? Guy (Help!) 20:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Going further up the URL to http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14273 gives a table of contents, which marries up to the third entry of this ebay listing (compare the chapter headings)...looks like it's an automotive e-text book, rather than a patent application, so almost certainly copywritten in some way...20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. We have 180 links tot hat site right now. I guess I might need to remove a few... Guy (Help!) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on the subject matter of most of the stuff on the tpub site, my guess is that the originals are US Government training manuals... fwiw.. --Versageek 06:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed and just don't have any time to fix this right now. I was wondering if one of my colleagues could address the significant copyvio at American Conservative Union. The copied text can be found here. Thanks a lot. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back to the non-copyvio version. The copyvios were added by User:Jluch after January 12, 2009. The user has been warned. Resolving this as it looks like all is cleaned up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jayron32. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 12:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Details of the outcome for the request for arbitration named above can be found at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I would like to invite attention to a new proposal for administrator recall that I along with a group of other editors (most actively User:Jennavecia and User:WereSpielChequers) have been working on recently at User:Hersfold/Admin recall. Additionally, there is another (less involved) proposal by User:EVula at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul. Most of the discussion for that proposal is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#EVula.27s_ideal_RfA_process and the subsequent subsections. Thank you for your time, and any comments on either proposal would be greatly appreciated. Cross-posted at WP:VPR Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• And I am sure that, as usual, it will be voted down, because there is no known way of stopping grudge-bearers and POV-pushers from rounding up a lynch mob. Just imagine the epic shitstorms that would arise if the warring factions on homeopathy were to be able to initiate this kind of procedure - and be in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we would see precisely that: determined efforts to desysop every single admin who ever stood up to any POV-pushing at all. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• And I am sure that, as usual, it will be voted down, because turkeys don't vote for Christmas. (but Guy's point is just as valid and is a realistic take on what would actually happen) --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• What Guy said. --Elonka 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would invite you to take a look at the proposal, then - you'll notice that my proposal has some precautions built in to help prevent that sort of thing from happening, precautions that I believe will work if they are given a chance. Please do not dismiss this out-of-hand based only on what you've seen previous proposals do. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• And there was me thinking that Elonka had already committed to the existing system :o) Actually, though, I have seen no evidence that genuinely abusive admins are let off by ArbCom, and the independence of ArbCom is a very good guarantee against lynch mobs. The main complainants seem to be those whose major beef is that some admin had the unmitigated gall to disagree with them or - worse still - block their sock farm. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One person mad at you: content dispute. Ten mad at you? Time for a block. Fifty people mad at you? It's a lynch mob! Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't particularly support any sort of forced admin recall procedure. ArbCom generally already does a good enough job dealing with admins who are seriously deserving of desysopping. As for others who aren't great, but still have the "mop", at least the situation is still far better here than in, say, real world governance. --Cyde Weys 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is not just the possibility of an abusive use of the process. The fundamental question is why those who seek a mandatory admin recall process believe that our dispute resolution processes apply to everyone except administrators. Both of these two proposals share the same problem as all previous ones--they do not require any attempt either to discuss the problem or to gather a wider consensus about it before assuming that the administrator's competence or good faith must be challenged. One of the most disturbing trends in this project is that administrators who make mistakes are assumed to make them for nefarious reasons by large numbers of people. What we need is a dispute resolution system that allows debate about the action without turning into an assault upon the person who made the decision. These proposals (like all recall proposals) are the opposite. Chick Bowen 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually the proposal in my userspace does clearly state "A request for recall should be made after several attempts to address the situation with the administrator both personally on their talk page and through dispute resolution have been attempted and failed to address the issue." If you'd like me to put that into wiki-legalese, I can, but I would think it's unnecessary.

I would also point out that the purpose of these proposals is mainly to get a way for RfA editors to lower their standards, resulting in more administrators. All of the concerns brought up here are addressed in the proposal, which is making me think people aren't bothering to actually objectively read them before commenting. Assume good faith, please; I'm an admin too. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never commented on an administrator recall procedure but I think it's a good idea. First off, arbitrators take cases that are in urgent need, they don't take cases if there isn't an urgent need that I am aware of. But there are some administrators who feel powerful and even an RFC goes wrong. I think a recall procedure is the best way to go esp. if there is an administrator that has lost the faith and trust of the community. I think what is written in the new proposal has some teeth in it and covers things to prevent abuse. It's unfortunate that right now it is set up as voluntary to sign up for this. Even if an administrator has signed up for a recall the way it is now, it is mostly ignored. Just like mediation needs the acceptance of all involved this just doesn't work in my opinion. If the community is smart enough to accept an administrator then isn't the community just as smart to decide if an administrator should give up their position? I think they are, thus there is a need for this. Just my humble opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(Addressing Hersfold above): I have read your proposal. Yes, it is better than the others. No, it does not justify why this process is needed in the first place. No one has ever provided any evidence that the reason RfA standards have gone up is that it is too hard to desysop people, and even if that were true I think of it is a perception issue--it's actually not nearly as hard to desysop people as is generally thought; it's just that most of what is considered "abuse" is in fact an honest mistake, often mitigated by a lot of good admin work. I'm sorry you think I'm not assuming good faith--on the contrary, Hersfold, I recognize that your intentions here are good. But I think your premises are flawed. Chick Bowen 16:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, your good faith is not in doubt. Quite the opposite. I simply think that this proposal is the triumph of hope over experience, at a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Chick Bowen & Guy: My apologies for misunderstanding, then; thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way to get more admins through RfA - a lot of attempts to restructure it, or at least lower the standards, have failed. These proposals don't have any better of a success rate, but it's at least something to try. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

This is my third request for edits to the InfoBox on the article of William J. Agee. It is my understanding that only an Administrator can change this page. The details of my request follow here. For emphasis: Executives world wide have been married multiple times and their ex-wives are not listed by name in their Bios. This situation involves an annulled marriage so the mention of Diane is even more unacceptable. An annulled marriage never existed in the first place. Please promptly remove the reference to Diane in Mr. Agee's Info Box as well as the reference to having 5 children. Thank you.

Details of my earlier email follow here.

Dear Wickipedia Adminstrators,

I am writing to you about article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Agee that needs immediate attention.

When I was unable to correct errors in an Info box (positioned under the photograph) due to access being restricted, I requested (on 2/23) a review by an Administrator following normal procedures. I offered a detailed explanation in My Talk.

From what I could understand in reading Revision History, an administrator, MGGJ, on 2/24 appeared to accept an assignment to edit this box. Weeks have passed and there is no evidence that this review has happened.

I have been watching this article over the course of many months to ensure that estranged family members with a vindictive POW, cease and desist in their mission. Their tactics have included the addition of libelous, inaccurate and inappropriate material -- which over the course of time is now removed. With the mention by name of the woman from whom he has an annulled marriage, they appear to be back again sabatoging as they find a way to.

I requested removal of mention of a 1st "wife" of an annulled marriage (which by Wiki definition means that the marriage never existed in the first place.) Accepting that definition, listing a "spouse" from that non-existent marriage as divorced is a misstatement of fact. The same is true for including the number of children from this non-marriage in a person's professional biography.

Specifically, the name Diane should be removed and number of children reported as 2 or not reported at all.

Will someone with the authority to do so, please review this Personal Info Box as soon as possible.

Three questions:

Have I done what I need to do to make this request properly? When will an Administrator visit my notes and consider my edits? What sort of communication can I expect that lets me know this has been done?

Thank you so much for your help.

Grateful41 Grateful41 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Grateful41, thank you for raising this with us and sorry for the difficulty you've had trying to address this.

On the issue of removing details concerning your alleged first wife and children, the existence of these would seem to be supported by a cited source, and you don't seem to be contesting. So ordinarily, there would not be much of a case for removing relevant, reliably sourced material like this. However, we have a rather stringent policy concerning material about living persons, and its privacy clause sanctions omitting this sort of material, so I have gone ahead and removed it on grounds of a presumption in favour of privacy.

As to your three questions:

There is no single proper way to make a request like this; we usually recommend starting with the talkpage of the article in question (Talk:William Agee in this case) and escalating to a problem-resolution noticeboard like the biographies of living persons noticeboard, but in practice the adminisrators' noticeboards are fine too. I would recommend in future if you have specific requests or problems about controversial material you send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org; that way our most experienced administrators will be on hand to quickly resolve it.

I have visited your notes and considered your edits.

I will leave a note on your talk page directing you here. Alternatively, you can watchlist pages of interest to track changes.

Hope this helps,

Skomorokh 21:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)