Absence of Due Process in Homeowner associations

• A year ago, Radiojon wrote in an edit, "Homeowners may be victimized without due process or appeal."
• On February 20, Argyriou challenged Radiojon's statement with a {{Fact}} template.
• On May 7, Argyriou deleted Radiojon's sentence.
• On May 22, I replaced Radiojon's deleted sentence with text that I attributed to a reliable source (a law review — case law — written by a supreme court justice, and published by an accredited university).
• Twelve minutes later, Argyriou deleted — without discussion, much less consensus — the sourced paragraph that I had replaced Radiojon's sentence with.
• I reverted Argyriou's summary deletion, and we went back and forth like that for two or three days.
• On May 24, Argyriou (who had previously threatened that "[he] will not work with [me] on articles"), and banned me from posting on his talk page, finally initiated a discussion on the article talk page — and simultaneously, unilaterally deleting the sourced text again! Unfortunately, Argyriou didn't write why — in Argyriou's opinion the paragraph violated NPOV. Argyriou just stated Argyriou's opinion as a fact that people, I guess, were just supposed to accept — because-Argyriou-said-so.
  
• Wp:dispute_resolution states, "try talking privately to those involved." That's kind of hard to do with Argyriou, after Argyriou:
  • Announces that Argyriou will not work with me on articles.
  • Bans me from posting on Argyriou's talk page. (I'm not the only one.)
• Nevertheless, it was on Argyriou to discuss and seek consensus. Argyriou was the one trying to delete content that was attributed to a reliable source. Once Argyriou saw that I was not going to allow him to summarily delete the well-sourced material, it was incumbent upon Argyriou to take it to the talk page and seek consensus.
• Argyriou has never written that the sourced text was harmful, or that it was "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons [and therefore] should be removed immediately and without discussion."
  

— Rico 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here which requires administrator intervention, as it is a simple content dispute, unless you want to have both of you blocked for WP:3RR violations. Please try to agree on a neutral wording for on the article's talk page. If you really can't come to an agreement, try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. —dgies^t_c 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Associations Institute lobbying organization

• This started on May 7, when Argyriou prefaced material attributed to a peer-reviewed textbook that was published by Yale University Press, with "According to McKenzie, the author of a book critical of common-interest developments," providing no source that establishes that Professor "McKenzie [is] the author of a book critical of common-interest developments."
  Argyriou's edit summary is, "clarify bias of source" — so Argyriou admits that Argyriou's insertion of the unsourced material is to make the author of the book, an academic, out to be "biased".
  It is not necessary to preface the sourced material with "According to McKenzie," because the statement is obviously "according to McKenzie," because Dr. McKenzie's book is cited in a footnote immediately following the material.
  But the article is not about Professor McKenzie. It is about the Community Associations Institute trade association. I could have just as easily written, "According to Professor McKenzie, the author of a book that won the 1995 American Political Science Association prize for best book on urban politics."
  The difference between Argyriou's content and my content would have been that I would have attributed mine to a reliable source.
  I could have just as easily written, "According to McKenzie, the author of a book that is currently in use as a textbook in accredited universities that are highly ranked by US News & World Report's annual America's Best Colleges article."
  But the article is about the lobbyist, not Dr. McKenzie.
• On May 22, I removed the unsourced material.
• Three hours later, Argyriou reverted my edit.
• On May 25, Argyriou finally writes, on the article talk page, "stop removing the description of Evan Mackenzie (sic) as a critic of homeowners' associations". So Argyriou's edit is to write that Professor McKenzie is a "critic of homeowners' associations"? I could just as easily describe Dr. McKenzie as a professor at the University of Illinois, that also teaches at The John Marshall Law School — in other words, he's an academic — but the article is about the CAI trade association.
• May 25, Argyriou is blocked for editing abuse on the Community Associations Institute article.
  The administrator's comment? "Clear violation."
  

-- Rico 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you're asking for that requires administrator intervention. Page protection for an editing dispute? 3RR block? Block for some other reason? —dgies^t_c 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for anything, beyond what I questioned in my initial replies. I'm not the editor that filed this report. -- Rico 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's edits suggest s/he has a POV

Argyriou's vandalism

The homeowners association article had an external link to the Community Associations Institute trade association in it. Next to it was a {{Verify credibility}} tag, that produced "[this source's reliability may need verification]." That made sense. CAI is a duplicitous spin meister that uses specious propaganda and doublespeak to con Joe Sixpack.
The {{Verify credibility}} tag is listed as one of the dispute tags.
Argyriou summarily deleted the tag, with no discussion, even though there was no verification done of the source's reliability.
At the time, Wikipedia:Vandalism stated:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
[…]

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.

-- Rico 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in edit summaries

Argyriou wrote, in this report, "He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries."

1. The Wikipedia community does not indicate that edit summaries are the proper place for discussion. That is what the talk pages are for, where all the editors of an article can discuss the article and come to a consensus.
2. Argyriou uses edit summaries to call me names, so I can't be expected to accept them as Argyriou's substitute for talk pages.

-- Rico 15:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Two incidents tonight throw a little more fire on the ongoing war between DRV and BLP. First, User:David Gerard deleted and protected an article that DRV closed as restore history and redirect. Discussion here and here reveals the same arguments both sides have been using in this debate up till this point. The pro-DRV people are saying "we are following consensus and you are wheel warring" while the BLP-ists are saying "DRV is invalid plus respect for people's personal lives trumps everything else."

The second incident involves User:Tony Sidaway [closing] a DRV he voted in, and called the nomination "trollish" and "stupid" and subsequent revert warring over whether he should be allowed to close it after making such comments. The DRV itself also has other BLPists weighing in, with users such as (once again) David Gerard insisting BLP can be a speedy deletion criteria even in excess of CSD:A10 [127] and BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was. See also [[128]]. -N 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issues concerning how BLP and related concerns should be addressed in connection with this general type of articles are extremely significant. I would prefer to see them discussed in the context of the relevant policy pages and as appropriate in specific cases, with an eye toward gathering experience and building consensus, rather than in the crucible of a multi-pronged and bitter arbitration case, but the latter is becoming more and more unavoidable if this keeps up. The excessive name-calling that continues to pour in from lots of experienced Wikipedians who should know better is not helping matters one bit. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see it discussed that way too, especially since I refuse to participate in arbitration cases. But Arbcom was unavoidable the first time someone said "No, you can't contest my BLP deletion!", because our dysfunctional dispute resolution process has absolutely no other way to impose sanctions on long-standing contributors who at least can make a believable claim that they are acting in good faith. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, the problem is it's not being fought in appropriate cases. People on both sides are fighting battles over EVERY ARTICLE where the subject wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion without the one bad incident, even in cases where reliable sources are available ad infinitum and the articles are carefully written to avoid making disparaging comments beyond mere recitation of the facts. -N 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the whole point is that the mere naming of the article after the subject of the one-off incident is a problem, because it's certain to be the number one hit on the search engines for their name. Wikipedia happens to be ridiculousy powerful on the net, and the BLP policy was put into place pretty much as an "or else" by Jimbo and the Foundation for damn good reason. That's why policy and practice ever since the introduction of WP:BLP was to shoot such articles on sight and shoot them again every time they rise again. I'm at a loss to understand how anyone ever got the idea it was otherwise, or that a DRV straw poll could override it - David Gerard 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(And by the way, WP:BLP came this close to mandating sympathetic point of view, in direct contradiction of the fundamental content policies, rather than being an expression of them. Check its early history - David Gerard 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The way it's currently being interpreted, it pretty much does mandate sympathetic point of view. That's one of the fundamental problems with it. *** Crotalus *** 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it mandates is that we don't allow our encyclopedia to be converted into an attack vector by way of "biographies" which use reams of wikitext to list every single possibly bad thing a person ever did, right down to the time they listed that $20 donation to the Salvation Army twice on their tax return. Minorly notable people who have only been in the public eye because of a single incident in their lives cannot possibly have balanced, encyclopedic biographies written about them and thus Wikipedia becomes a permanent Internet record of that single incident masquerading at their entire life. FCYTravis 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was." You've stated it absolutely succinctly: product is more important than process. BLP is a content policy formed of fundamental content policies turned up to 11; DRV is a process aiming to work around problems of another process, AFD, to deal with maintenance - David Gerard 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I just want to see the cases not decided by those who would interpret the principle in the most restrictive possible way, which is the way things are being done now. The admin community, I believe, understands, agrees with, and believes in the principle, and should decide these in a consensus manner. The way things are being done now leads to not only incorrect decisions but also a REALLY LARGE amount of Wikidrama. Mangojuice^talk 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not agonise over these fripperies. This was my close and it will stand, proceduralism and wikilawyering notwithstanding. My only contribution was to give the community a chance to end the silliness now.

This isn't a hard discussion to close. There are living people involved here who have had no part in what happened to them--they were days old at the time. The arguments that say essentially "this subject should be covered" are valid. But we also have a policy on Biographies of living persons and its guiding principle is that of the hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.

This subject, that of the terrible damage caused by hospital mishaps, can be covered adequately without creating articles about individuals who have been the subject of such mistakes and must live with them. Wikipedia is a top ten website, and such entries would follow these blameless people wherever they might go.

Numerically there is already a clear consensus to endorse the deletion. Morally, and I do not use that word lightly, there are unimpeachable reasons to endorse without prejudice to the information being used, sensitively and with due attention to balance and privacy, in other article. But we do not have the material to write a biography. These are private individuals.

In the name of Wikipedia and in the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy, this deletion stands. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If policy and consensus rule here, your decision will remain overturned. Who's side are you on? and why do you continue to cite a policy you've never read? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh a little bird told me to close it, and dictated the wording. I'm on your side, Jeff. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could have fooled me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your closure and I would do it again. It is clearly inappropriate for you to close speedily, just as it would be for me to do it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was David Gerard's edit that you reverted. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write an article on the hospital mishap itself, and make the two names as redirects to that article? *** Crotalus *** 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. We could conceivably produce an article on the incident that did not unduly reveal personal identities, but cited reliable sources that may do (and in most cases necessarily so otherwise they wouldn't be much use). But then why would we keep the redirects? The individual identifies are not relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral deletion is not the way to make such a change. That's the whole point. The way, the truth, and the light 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The close was not a deletion. The article has been deleted and there is a clear consensus to keep it deleted. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. Now you're simply making things up. No legitimate deletion rationales have been given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There quite clearly isn' If you would stop vote counting for a second you would notice that DRV is about deletion policy. The cited reason for deletion is quite clearly invalid - there was assertion of notability irrespective of wether you think it was notable or not. The second issue of BLP is clearly under attack as well - apart from the fact that that was not the reason given for the articles deletion in the first place. Viridae^Talk 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rightful aim is to be a respectable and freely-available academic resource and, as such, a force for global intellectual enlightenment. To become a theatre for gawking at the mishaps and misfortune of private citizens, or worse still a platform for their communal ridicule as with QZ, would be a gross and intolerable perversion of that goal.Proabivouac 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of us disagree with that goal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't make the news, it only records it. We didn't cause QZ to become an internet meme. We didn't cause Crystal Gail Mangum to make a false accusation of rape and thus become notable. For us to fail to record those facts because they may be unpleasant is, in my opinion, a breach of that aim. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were we a news outlet, you'd have a very good point. To state a principle which should be obvious, merely appearing in the news does not make one notable enough to merit mention in a serious encyclopedia. Sources are a prerequisite, not the justification, for an article.Proabivouac 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty in this encyclopedia that is far too trivial for a normal encyclopaedia, but wikipedia is not govered by matters of space so ther si room here for an article on anything the community judge notable and can write about in an encyclopedic manner (NPOV, referenced). Similarly some of the community may find some topics to be too much fluff/too trivial so they are quite welcome to take the article to afd for disussion - but not delete it out of process citing bogus reasons. Viridae^Talk 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an observation, the bio on Gail seems to meet WP:BIO on several points; WP:BIO is longstanding and has broad consensus. If people want WP:BLP to trump WP:BIO's generally-accepted guidelines on inclusion, they should bring up the issue there, as well. --Aquillion 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, Biographies of living persons (BLP) is far more important, and has much stronger teeth, than Wikipedia:Notability (people) (BIO). This isn't an issue. BLP is, however, far more controversial than BIO. Obviously not having ever read BLP or BIO I cannot undertake the task of education. I can however predict the result of this struggle: BLP will win hands down, every time. Skimming the top of BIO, which is the most I ever do, I see this statement: "if the subject is living, we must follow our policy for biographies of living people." Being the brainless gadfly that I am, I assume that this ends the argument. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, WP:BIO doesn't really have much going for it against BLP; policies generally beat guidelines. What does is that Wikipedia is not censored. There is a difficult line to draw between the two. Mangojuice^talk 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but "not censored" has never meant "not edited." We exercise responsible editorial policies and selectivity in the subjects that we cover and how we cover those subjects. The fact that "Wikipedia is not censored" does not now and has never been interpreted as issuing a free pass to write anything on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) There are a number of things that concern me about this entire situation. Wikipedia is run by consensus. Not only the utter disregard for consensus, but the (seemingly) sheer contempt for the masses that some editors have shown, is deeply and utterly disturbing to me. While libel guidelines are important, they do not excuse unilateral action. While policy permits, and demands, that material failing the three core policies be removed from BLP articles, the actions under discussion here are of another scale and scope. The admin forum and biography noticeboard both provide appropriate places to discuss potentially controversial, disruptive or counter-consensus actions. No individual sysop has the ability to lay down office action-like demands. If after discussion on AN or BLP/N, there is a lack of clear support for the action, it should not be undertaken. The Foundation can be contacted if there is truly a BLP concern that both consensus and further on-wiki discussion have not addressed. There are plenty of appropriate avenues to take regarding these issues and they should be used. Of course, that's my own view and you're welcome to some salt with it. Vassyana 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actions in question demonstrate that Wikipedia is maturing into a responsibly : written and edited encyclopedia. If there ever was a time when it was OK to write fundamentally and permanently unbalanced "biographies" of people on Wikipedia simply because "they're bad people" - well, that time is over. The article on Crystal was the account of her creation of an unfortunate and scandalous newsworthy incident, along with whatever other tidbits that reporters dug up could be found to insert. That is patently not a biography. A true biography would involve multiple interviews, lengthy research and repeated trips through editorial review, and would be written so as to place that incident in context within her entire life. There is no published biography of her to provide such a source, and we can't do it ourselves - thus, we cannot have a biography of her. It's just that simple. FCYTravis 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. If that is the new requirement for biographies in Wikipedia, you will need to delete over 90% of the biographies, because most of them don't have bloody books written on them. That's not realistic. Horologium talk - contrib 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe we should. We cannot create entire biographies for people based on news reporting surrounding a single incident in their lives. That's not how biographies are written in the real world, and Wikipedia exists in the real world. FCYTravis 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are establishing a standard that does not exist in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Articles about people are biographical, but there is no standard that says they must be proper literary biographies. The standards say that outside sources must have treated them as worthy of notice, that the information included in verifiable in reliable sources and that the presentation is a neutral reporting of the available facts. Additionally, I hardly find it to be a sign of maturity when people take it upon themselves against the rules and principles of Wikipedia to enforce their view of a rule. WP:AN allows sysops to confer openly with other sysops. WP:BLP/N allows an admin to seek consultation on BLP issues. The Wikimedia Foundation has a process for reporting and resolving BLP concerns that cannot be resolved through consensus and discussion. What requires the need to short circuit these available avenues? Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A neutral reporting of the available facts" is no longer enough. Articles about people which focus entirely on a single negative incident and fail to place that person's actions into context are fundamentally unbalanced and place undue weight on negative aspects of their lives. If we cannot create an article which encyclopedically and biographically explains a person's entire life, not a single incident in their life, we should not pretend to have article on them. "Good enough for now" is no longer acceptable when it comes to living people. FCYTravis 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this explains why existing avenues of discussion and appeals to the Foundation need to be short-circuited. Our policies and guidelines additionally do not reflect a position as strict as you espouse. Again, what creates the need to ignore consensus and available avenues of recourse? Vassyana 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation is MIA. In an ideal world, they would be combing through all this cruft and removing all potentially libelous or otherwise damaging material about living people. Here in the real world, if we won't do it, it will, in the best case scenario, ultimately be done for us by some combination of lawyers, legislators and journalists. In the worst case scenario, it won't be, and we'll wind up hurting a lot of innocent people.Proabivouac 06:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them. Removing all potentially damaging material is hardly ideal. Should the articles of convicted murderers (as a clear example) have all mention of their wrongdoing removed because it is damaging to their reputation? BLP already allows, and has allowed, the immediate removal of poorly-sourced negative information to protect people from unfair accusations and false statements. There is no good reason, outside of clear speedy deletion or BLP violation, for well-sourced articles to be deleted against consensus without open discussion and other available options. Vassyana 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them."

Just because someone isn't currently aware of a Wikipedia article about them or hasn't yet complained to the Foundation doesn't mean we're not responsible for what we publish from now until they are/do.Proabivouac 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I never said we were not responsible for it. On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that there are avenues that already address this. Again, what requires a need for unilateral action outside of policy against consensus, without using the other avenues of resolution available? Vassyana 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus takes time to obtain under the best circumstances, and this conversation is proof that the community's decisions - especially when hobbled by a view of "consensus" which asks for considerably more than a simple majority - don't reliably produce the appropriately responsible answer. Most cruft has a constituency which can produce a local bloc large enough to thwart a "consensus," if not a majority. This is bad enough when the material is merely flippant and irrelevant, but unacceptable when the well-being of innocent people is concerned. At the end of the day, and in the real world, "but there was consensus on Wikipedia!" isn't really much of an argument compared to "I lost my job due to false rumors," "my son committed suicide due to constant ridicule," etc., anymore than is, "but it was ultimately deleted after our elaborate processes had taken their due course!"Proabivouac 07:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were false rumours, the material could be immediately removed for being poorly-sourced negative claims. That would be well within policy. If something has multiple non-trivial reliable sources, to be a bit cold, it doesn't really matter how the subject feels about it, provided we properly report what sources say about the person. I am sure a lot of people would like that kind of information to go away. I'm sure Michael Jackson doesn't want the coverage of child abuse allegations, for example. You can argue all you like that M Jackson is somehow different because he is famous. Notability is not fame. He is still a human being with the same feelings as other human beings. However, it is a subject covered in multiple non-trivial sources, so there's little to no question that it fits out inclusion criteria. I will again ask: What requires these issues to be handled outside of policy, outside of process, outside of on-wiki discussion and outside of the available appeal to the Foundation, when these avenues are available? Vassyana 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I think you're linking to the wrong page: the relevant page for libel is Wikipedia:Libel. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that page. I apologize for being less than clear. The strict guidelines found in BLP are founded on concerns of libel, hence my allusion. Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this time to point out these recent edits by Tony, one of which is in my userspace. He blanked userboxes in userspace protesting out-of-process deletions: diff on User:Disavian/Userboxes/Out of Process; diff on User:CharonX/Userboxes/User admins ignoring policy. Both of the edits had the edit summary, "This user is against inflammatory userboxes." Now, these userboxes had nothing to do with the ongoing BLP "fight" (for lack of a better word); they refer to the mass userbox deletions on anything that was remotely inflammatory around the time WP:TGS was invented and implemented. Now, I know there's no policy that says someone can't edit another person's userspace, and that inflammatory content may be deleted, but I think these edits violate WP:DICK and that the boxes are hardly inflammatory. Silencing someone else's respectfully stated viewpoint is no way to argue your point. In summary, I'd prefer it if all of this BLP drama stayed out of my userspace... but I fear that is too much to ask. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that's not BLP drama, that's idiocy. I'm quite frankly at a loss to why someone won't just block him for disruption (but I do know it won't happen). -Amarkov moo! 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure, i'm thinking about making that block right now. DES ^(talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm really annoyed that I've sworn never to begin an RfC. The problem is, I know I have a good reason for it, and it's not worth violating to get disruptive things stopped faster. -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I personally feel nearly all userboxes useless at best, at least those are related to Wikipedia, and, though I utterly disagree with their editorial statements, I do not find them particularly inflammatory.

However, I cannot see neither how these edits would merit a block, or what they have to do with this discussion. Restore and ignore.Proabivouac 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I copied a bunch of userboxes to my userspace oh so long ago, I've put them aside and focused on real editing. Sometimes I wish I'd never gotten involved in TGS, but while I've got 'em, I might as well do a little to maintain them, ya know? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these ubx's are stupider then most. Thank him next time. -M^ask? 05:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through two DRV's this whole thing, all the links in here that weren't to policies i'd read before, some policy, and at the end, as a regular editor and as a regular observer here, I see Tony Sidway getting away with BLP = IAR, consensus be damned, with a big fat side of 'And if you don't like it, I'll delete your obvious sign of opposition, so PH3AR me'. This is a very disappointign showing to a regular editor. Sure looks unethical that Tony got into the DRV with a clear intent, and ignored the massive discussion and, as I saw it, reasonably balanced number of people on each side, to get his way. the fact that those on his side were eventually resorting to 'sod off' instead of discussion hardly does anything to make me more sympathetic to their side. Like another editor above, I know Tony won't even have a handprint on his own hand for this, much less serious review, but there's one more editor who sees less and less good every day when it comes to admins policing each other. The blue wall's building here. ThuranX 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. I couldn't agree more. It worries me that so many experienced Wikipedians are using BLP as an excuse to ignore others and do as they want. Unless the material is libellous, then this kind of decision should be open for discussion and debate. We shouldn't have biographies on some people, sure, but we do have to draw a line somewhere, and this line is not clear-cut. And the debates should be conducted fairly, which includes not being closed by people involved. There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure - speedying sourced articles, early closing any debate involving DRV, closing debates they're involved in, etc. Even if their POV is right (which it often is), the way they're going about it seems designed to piss off everyone who disagrees with them. Would it hurt so much to follow process occasionally (particularly when the article itself has been deleted, so there's no immediate BLP concerns)? Would it not save time in the long run by avoiding tiresome meta-discussions on the validity of previous discussions? Just because you're convinced you're right, doesn't mean you're not sometimes wrong (in the eyes of the rest of the community). Trebor 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest "There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure." This is the case if the situation is grave enough. You can take them to arbitration if you think they're getting it wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In one of these cases, the one I submitted for review, I don't think the situation qualified as "grave" enough to bypass the AFD process. I find it troubling that administrators are apparently so highhanded and feel they have a right to bypass the usual procedure that would allow for discussion and a consensus vote. I think speedy deletion is appropriate in cases where there is clear libel of the subject or where no sources are provided. I've nominated articles for speedy deletion in those cases or where notability was in question. None of those criteria were met here, in my opinion. I am glad that Tony Sidaway or someone else decided to overturn his original decision to close that review and allowed the discussion to continue. I also appreciated Tony Sidaway's apology for calling my nomination of the speedy deletion for review as "trollish" and "stupid." --Bookworm857158367 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It was certainly incredibly stupid. I apologise for implying that any malice might have been involved in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the situation isn't grave once it's at DRV. The article is no longer there, so there's no immediate problem. There should then be an opportunity to review the decision. The problem is when you decide that you can also force through the review by closing it yourself. Discussion is good (unless you're suggesting you're infallible at this). Since when were we encouraged to go straight to arbitration? Trebor 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I echo that. I think David Gerard should be commended for a one hundred percent correct decision. Whether BLP was invoked for a good enough reason certainly can be debated further, but DRV is not a supreme court of deletion, and the decision can still be appealed to and overruled by the Arbitration Committee. El_C 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The right to appeal BLP decisions to ArbCom (if that were the only way, which it isn't) would seem a bit vacuous these days, considering that even when Doc & Tony (representing one extreme) and Jeff (representing the other) want them to accept a case, they teeter on the edge of refusing it. Fortunately we still have DRV, which can't override BLP policy, but is fully empowered to decide what things have BLP implications and what things don't, just like any other place where editors seek consensus. Vadder 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I understand that you don't think it's competent, but then you don't think anything which disagrees with you is, making that description fairly useless. But since when was deletion review not empowered to review deletions? Show me anywhere where it says BLP deletions can't be appealed except to ArbCom (who don't do content disputes anyway, so I'm not sure why we'd be supposed to take it there). Trebor 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. Deletion review may review deletions. However my statement did not say that it could not. I said that "Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy." I hope that makes things clearer. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin may hit an emergency BLP button, and if/when they invoke it, then it's up to the AC to approve or disapprove (including desysoping). El_C 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another

The DRV closed improperly last night (here) was closed again properly as 'undelete and list'. 30 minutes later, this was reversed and the articles deleted again. The way, the truth, and the light 01:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported my actions to arbcom, and am willing to defend them there.--Doc^g 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per your talk page, that re-close was quite ridiculous. There is nothing in BLP that stops these articles. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is consensus to overturn, may I add?--Wizardman 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my closing reason. I was not being the judge of consensus, the close was procedural upon consultation with the deleting admin who had admitted her (honest) mistake in deleting something as an A7 when it is not. Viridae^Talk 03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Badlydrawnjeff is now saying your closure was out of process. So, I guess it was right of me to undelete.--Doc^g 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if the DRV closes again with the same result, undeletion would be in order. And we know how you feel about that. The way, the truth, and the light 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there consensus to delete? Not a single worthwhile delete argument has been made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc did the right thing. He will not be sanctioned for this. Viridae, please carefully consider your responsibilities as an administrator on a top ten website. Treating such obviously problematic articles as routine "procedural" cases is not the right path. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop already, Tony. Unless you have evidence that the articles were problematic, of course, which ahsn't been forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic nature of these articles is not in question. It has been very widely discussed and is fundamental to the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Do you want the brief explanation or the full one? The brief explanation is "Wikipedia is not Jeffopedia", the full explanation is that the subjects of the articles are private individuals who were only newsworthy because they were switched at birth. This isn't a tabloid newspaper and we don't do human interest stories, and we most certainly are not about to invade these people's privacy by putting an imprimatur on articles in their name. The material can be used, with due respect for their privacy, in appropriate articles in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is why it's patently false - your policy analysis is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat in this case. We are incapable of invading their privacy, as we write from sources. If it were unsourced, you wouldn't see me complaining as much, if at all depending. You must read the policy for anyone other than disruptive people to take you seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, you forgot about the part where these news stories, such as they are, were forgotten along with all the rest of yesterday's news - or they would have been, except for the fact that Wikipedia had articles on the two people purporting to be "biographies," meaning that anyone browsing one of the world's top-10 Web sites could stumble over their whole sordid history with a few mouse-clicks for all of eternity. FCYTravis 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an overly-detailed article on Terri Schiavo, an article for Michael Schiavo. Should these not be deleted also? Gtrevize 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the above is deceased and both became involved in a major public debate over the right to die which involved everyone up to and including the United States Supreme Court. These two boys... were not. Next? FCYTravis 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bartman, Juanita Broaddrick, Brian Chase, Dog poop girl (photo), Trisha Meili, Shazia Khalid, Earl Washington Jr.? 24.118.58.205 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance, Broaddrick and Meili are clearly encyclopedic biography subjects - Broaddrick publicly accused the president of the United States of rape, while Meili is a rape victim who has written a memoir and speaks publicly about overcoming sexual assaults. Washington, Jr. is probably a candidate to be merged into an article on overturned capital murder cases. The article on Bartman is probably far too detailed, and should either be ruthlessly cut down or merged. FCYTravis 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is notable... the people aren't. Their "biographies" are basically only about the incident... another one (from the same article) William Hammesfahr. Gtrevize 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite debatable as to whether we should have a separate article on Mr. Hammesfahr. That article, we should take a look at merging. Maybe there's enough to merit a full bio, maybe not. FCYTravis 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that sometimes notability overrides privacy. In that case, what level of notability is sufficient is a legitimate question. The way, the truth, and the light 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also consider the fact that Mr. Schiavo made repeated public statements on his own behalf, and has now written a book about his experiences. He is in no way an unwilling participant. These two boys have not done anything to place themselves in the public eye - the only reason they are known is that their mothers filed lawsuits. FCYTravis 05:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Schiavo differs from QZ...how? He may have not been originally willing, but he certainly is attempting to capitalize upon it now, as an adult. Horologium talk - contrib 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about QZ? FCYTravis 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course the same issue as with QZ and Mangum, both of whom are clearly more notable than this. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) :Some questions. When does notability overcome privacy? When there notability for only one event, or a very limited set of circumstances, where is the line between the event being notable and people being notable for the event? What is the line between unflattering sourced information and harmful sourced information? On merging as a solution to claimed harm, won't the name and incident still rank high in search engines if the data is there, regardless of the name of the article? How does merging minimize and/or prevent harm? Thanks for you time and consideration. Vassyana 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I don't think any simple policy will suffice for all cases. I don't see the problem in reaching consensus on a case-by-case basis. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV has been closed again, by uninvolved admin Kurykh. This is probably the most reasonable outcome at this point, though it does not justify the disruptive out-of-process deletions. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in a discussion at the Virginia Tech massacre pages about the appropriate way to write articles like that. It seems that what happens is that in the initial news frenzy, the articles gets extremely bloated, and people write minute-by-minute accounts of what happens, including trying to find lists of all the injured (ie. still living) people. I'm ambivalent enough enough about the inclusion of gory details of how the individuals in question died (that should be toned right down, in my opinion), but including details of how the injured got injured was way too much. It seems that eventually such articles get revisited and cut down to size again, but there should be a way to control such editing frenzies. Otherwise Wikipedia just looks like a sensationalist tabloid news site. Carcharoth 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user continued to personally attack me past his fourth warning. See Pankkake's personal attacks and corresponding warnings. His behavior is annoying at worst, but since he has not heeded any warnings, administrator intervention may be more effective against his behavior. --Leon Sword 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uncalled for, but a lot of this was provocation. He was clearly nonplussed by using impersonal templates (as most wikipedians are) and instead of putting a personal message telling him to cut out the personal attacks, you slapped more generic templates on his page. Thats goading and baiting a clearly upset user who got more upset each time you ignored his requests to cut it out with the templates. Shame. -M^ask? 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just pulled that entire section off of his talk page. Both of you can cut it out and give it a rest for a while. To paraphrase a well used Wikipedia philosophy, if a user makes you annoyed or depressed, ignore them. -M^ask? 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've left me confused. I was using the correct templates which were specifically designed to warn other users of such behavior. If I am the one who is going to get blamed for that users bad behavior for using these templates correctly, then what is the purpose of those templates, they might as well be deleted. --Leon Sword 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are optional. Most editors will tell you that a handwritten message is much more effective. In this case, the user told you he rather disliked these, they made you seem like a bot, etc, and you put more on his page. He became even more dismayed, so you put more templates on his page. At no time did you try to solve the dispute but seemed to bait him on. This doesn't mean the personal attacks were appropriate, they clearly weren't, but you had ample opportunity to diffuse the situation, yet clearly made it worse. Think when using templates. If they work, they work. They dont always work. In this case they even made things worse. Dont adhere to something just because, make sure it's doing what it's supposed to, and if its not, try something else. -M^ask? 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can an objective administrator please review the above-referenced page. It is massively POV, written in the first person and an advocacy piece originally created by a student from his/her own thesis. I fixed as much as I could but it remains subject to revert warring. Thanks!!216.194.0.76 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this IP as a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the suspected sockpuppet category will show this anti-Irish POV pushing editor frequently edits from 216.194 prefixed IPs. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet or not, that article does need a neutrality check -- just not necessarily from an administrator. I read the article before I looked at the diffs and the user's contribs, and the exact same sentence that I am now very tempted to excise was the one that the IP took out: "Rather than isolation, the Irish Emergency represents a bold celebration of coming-out of Plato’s cave and of walking independently among the men and women that cast their shadows against the wall, casting Ireland own shadow against the wall of history alongside them." That is pretty darn POV, and putting a neutrality-check tag on it is less anti-Irish and more pro-WP:NPOV. I find one silly edit on April 7th, but the rest of the IP's contribs seem to be good.

I'm not sure about the sockpuppet patterns of that particular puppetmaster, but the message, if not the messenger, seems to be legit here. I would assume good faith until I see true signs of maliciousness ... though the immediate resort to ANI after a grand total of seven edits, six of them today and one of them here, would make me watch this editor carefully. --Dynaflow babble 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the edit. Regardless of who he is, his concerns about the article are quite correct. The way, the truth, and the light 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the merits of the edit, the editor in question is community banned and I reverted per WP:BAN. There is no obligation to assume good faith with banned editors, especially if you see this requests for comment. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know for sure s/he's a banned editor? I see no evidence of sockpuppet warfare on either the article the anon legitimately tagged for an NPOV check or the NN housing project s/he prodded for deletion, so it can't be a return to familiar articles that's tipping the hand of a puppetmaster. Familiarity with process and an IP in the same rather huge range that saw past manifestations of puppetry aren't surefire enough proof of sockpuppetry to revert every one of an anon contributor's contribs, as seems to have been done. How does this fit a pattern, is what I'm asking. --Dynaflow babble 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[from User talk:Dynaflow:] See the IPs listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According ARIN, 216.194.0.0 - 216.194.63.255 belong to MetTel in New York City. An IP editor in that range taking an interest in Irish articles shouldn't strike anyone as suspicious -- do you know how many Irish people live in New York? --Dynaflow babble 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had experience of dealing with this editor, you would know that a 216.194 prefixed IP, making edits such as that to Irish related articles, and immediately making ANI posts about articles are three red flags. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had that article bookmarked for a while and have considered nominating it for deletion. The primary article author says on the talk page that it originated as a college essay, and it doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It either needs stubbing down or outright deletion and starting from scratch. —Kurykh 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I just redirected it to Irish neutrality, which seems to cover the same topic in a more neutral manner. If this is controversial we can go to AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this discussion. I have always agreed that the tone was POV. However, the content is strict NPOV. As it stands, I believe that all it lacks is "retoning" to remove the argumenative style as per How To, specifically the section on undergraduate essays: "Articles that are not written in an encyclopedic style should be rewritten that way, or at least tagged {{cleanup-tone}}." While I only tagged it with clean-up today, I posted to the talk page agreeing that tone was a problem.

In response to Kurykh, I never said that the article doesn't even come "close" to meeting the requirements of NPOV. What I said was that the tone does not. These are very different concepts. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have done it (redirected) if it hadn't been for the comments by Crotalus and Kurykh above. Why don't you read Irish neutrality#World War II and see if there's anything enycyclopedic in your essay that's not already there? The way, the truth, and the light 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I've read those article - you hardly believe that I would comment on the merits of content that I know nothing about? Who would do that? In any case, I believe this to be a matter for relevant editors to resolve rather than an administrator issue. I'm sure you agree. If you are proposing a merger or a deletion of the article, it should go through proper process.

Which do you prefer? Merge? Or delete? Though of course I would prefer to follow policy. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous reply. If you insist on restoring the article anyway, we'll have to discuss it on AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "delete" it is. I'll restore it, place the appropriate tags, add it to AfD and notify the relevant communities of editors (contributors, History of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, The Emergency, Irish Neutrality, WP:IE etc.) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jampop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone block his latest account please, confirmed as open proxy by checkuser. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Moreschi ^Talk 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.190.179.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also Cmm 394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) -- could someone talk a good look at the edits here? Wildly imaginative page moves, insidious changes in information in articles, but mixed in with other stuff that's (presumably) correct. Expert eyes needed. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is at it again [129]. I have undone their last move and warned them again, but I think administrative intervention will be necessary here. --VirtualDelight 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islas De La Bahia (Deparment) (!) is another one of his, but I can't fix it. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student-First Accreditation Is it possible to get this AFD closed sooner rather than later? It's starting to show signs of turning into another filibustering sockpuppet fest like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International School - Richfife 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one user doing all the trolling and filibustering; I've blocked him since he's a clear SPA and more than likely a sockpuppet of the user responsible for the SPA flood on the Linda Christas AFDs. --Coredesat 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having been warned, having appeared here twice for exactly this behaviour, Having an Communit Sanction proposed, and an RfC... [130] and surrounding edits.77.176.245.163 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging sections and asking for citations is not edit warring. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but deleting content, as in the diff linked above, when that content makes it perfectly clear that the Southern Cherokee Nation is not federally recognised, purely because that content contains the words "Southern Cherokee Nation", and despite it being in perfect context with the relevant part of the article, is. You have repeatedly stated that you will delete any references to the Southern Cherokee Nation on sight. And there you are, doing it.

If they are referred to as "Southern Cherokee Group" its ok. "Nation", "Tribe", or "Band" implies Federal Recognition. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the diff above that you removed even states there was an attempt to get recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" (with quotes!), so even if "Nation" implies recognition, it is understood in that context that it is not recognized. BTW, anyone can call themselves a "Nation", whether recognized or not. What something is called is what it's called, and if that conflicts with the federal government's idea, so be it. Lexicon (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on Micronation for some interesting examples. *Dan T.* 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but I'd like to submit a couple diffs, and as what is the next step for the dispute between Mr. Merkey and I (and others?). Mr. Merkey has a viewpoint of WP:V which says that in matters related to the Cherokee, only the US government and representatives of the three Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government can be used as reliable sources, while my interpretation is more broad (I wish to include academic and reputable news sources (using these as examples so as to be clear that I am not wishing to include websites and self published sources)). He and I discussed this issue on Talk:Cherokee, as well as on his talk page (relevant diffs of our discussion here and here, although more can be read at Cherokee's talk page). In the end, He decided that he did not wish to enter into one of the wikipedia based dispute resolution channels, and recommended that I edit freely. Having done so (much to his ire), he has reverted a number of edits, with a focus on his concept of WP:V, a particular example being this. This conflict makes it very hard to edit Cherokee, although it must be said that Mr. Merkey has a record of very strong edits. Given his refusal to go through dispute resolution, I am not sure what my next course of action is, and I bring this here mostly for dispute resolution advice. However, the nature of the dispute is relevant to the incident at issue, and perhaps understanding the dispute as a difference of opinion on WP:V will better help the community deal with the situation. Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's pretty extensive discussion of these issues on Talk:Cherokee, which I haven't read fully, but it looks like Merkey has an odd interpretation of WP:V and some WP:OWN issues. Peer-reviewed academic material is almost always a good source for an article. Mediation could be helpful here, if we can persuade Merkey to participate. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and we were very close to agreeing on mediation with this comment. But then he archived his talk page, and further discussions on potential mediation were rebuffed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) has been actively participating in our normal dispute resolution processes, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. Please do likewise. Uncle G 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that RfC wasn't a separate enough issue that I shouldn't get involved there. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Uncle G's advice, I have placed my comment at the RfC discussion page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking only at this discussion, and taking for now no opinion on the substance of the dispute, I see User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey civilly and rationally discussing his area of expertise as would a serious academic. and I am at a loss to see why he has been demonized on this noticeboard.Proabivouac 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's up and down when it comes to civility towards me (see edit summary "remove non-indian wannabee author and false misleading materials about how "I wannabee and indian" story - no evidence author is Native or knows the culture. Spam ref." regarding author Louis Owens), but he is rightfully indigent when being harassed. This is a difficult case because Mr. Merkey is being very patient and as polite as he can with respect to the harassment he relieves, but then some of his ideas and edits make it difficult for other polite editors to work. I'm not sure his ideas about verification are ones that would be associated with a serious academic, but they are very sensible when one looks at him as a sort of activist. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if I looked further into the matter, I would arrive at the same conclusion. Some of his diffs, as presented in the RfC, are clearly problematic. However - and I think we both agree on this - I cannot see what here should require the immediate attention of an administrator, beside the appearance of anonymous attacks against him on this noticeboard; these should be removed on sight.Proabivouac 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this odd little unblock message led to to User talk:Kfusion, which seems to be a chat page for vandals and socks accounts. I'm not sure how many of them there are, I'm tempted to block pretty much everyone who has chatted there (not, obviously, placers of legit warnings.) Thoughts? Dina 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking carefully through the contribs yet, on the talk page there are certainly at least a couple of clear-cut blocks that could be laid down for sock-puppetry. Pastordavid 17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One them them User:RockRNC appears to have fine contribs, but clearly knows the vandals. Or is one as a sock. *sigh* Dina 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indef blocked User:Polevault101 as a vandal and admitted sock of User:Griddle123. Can't quite bring myself to indef User:RockRNC or User:Kfusion as their contribs don't merit it. Dina 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked User:Kfusion (about to look at User:RockRNC), given he has made various junk articles, had warnings for that and other vandalism, was blocked on 10 May and since return has continued to make absolute nonsense edits (at best garbage at worst libelous) and then proceeded to add some of them to BJAODN, I think it's pretty clear that building the encyclopedia is the last thing he's doing. --pgk 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed this section from "Fundamentalist ashamed of idolatry, blanks out details" for obvious reasons. Picaroon (Talk) 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is currently facing ArbCom. Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war here to blank out details.

Ironically, he is armed with vandal-fighting tools. What do I do? Anwar 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the user has begun another revert war here inserting links from fundamentalist portals and here with his POV. Phew! Anwar 19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. This user strongly believes idolatry is a negtaive word and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the Russian Orthodox customs, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, snakes,...) and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope of iconography. There is no question of malice in the choice of words. I have restored the title so as not to reinforce stereotypes about the negative connotations of idolatryAnwar 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave him a note asking him to discuss. Meanwhile, you should not engage in edit warring either, and try dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no need to discuss. There was already a consensus to use iconoclasm rather than idolatry on Talk:Hinduism. Idolatry is not even used in the context of Hinduism, see Hindu_iconography. In fact Idolatry begins with "Idolatry is considered a sin". The implication anwar wants to give is that Hindus are sinners. I'm merely taking the same line of action with this user that Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and Nobleeagle (talk · contribs) did in the recent past.Bakaman 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, in a brief search, I couldn’t a discussion of “iconoclasm” on the Talk:Hinduism page, much less a consensus determination on its use in favor of “idolatry”. In fact, I would be surprised to find such a consensus, since the term “iconoclasm” is nothing like a synonym for “idolatry.” I believe the word you’re seeking is “iconolatry”. Perhaps both of you should consider taking this term back to Talk:Hinduism as a candidate neutral (and more correct) term than “idolatry”, which is a pejorative term assigned from an “outside perspective,” as the first stage of the dispute resolution Dmcdevit has wisely suggested. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page for Hindu iconography. As for reinventing the wheel I have done that at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F. I will put it forward that I regard anwar as a troll, as do respected wikipedians like Blnguyen (talk · contribs) [131] & Ragib (talk · contribs) and respected former wikipedian nobleeagle (talk · contribs) [132]. Askari, I found a discussion here (Archive 16), here (archive 14), archive 14 again and probably it will be found on the Hinduism notice board. I question anwar's behavior and not so subtle predilections of a religious nature.Bakaman 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, Bakasuprman; I was searching on the word "iconoclasm", as you suggested, and could find no usage of the word on the talk page or in the archives. In any case, as I and Proabivouac (below) have noted, neither "iconoclasm" nor "idolatry" are appropriately used. And again, this is a content issue, not something that the admins here can resolve – at least not until the issue has duly made the rounds of Wikipedia's conflict resolution processes. If a consensus for "iconolatry" could be achieved on Talk:Hinduism, this would have the desired effect without going through more formal layers of mediation and arbitration. If you would prefer for me to propose it as an uninvolved and neutral editor, I will be happy to do so. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Iconoclasm is the destruction of icons, not the use thereof. An icon isn't an idol, but a picture. Whether that term is appropriate to Hindu art and religious objects, I don't know. However, the use of idolatry is pure POV - in this case, Islamic POV which here equates Hinduism with the (purportedly) idol-worshipping Meccan pagans. When User:Anwar saadat writes, "Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war to blank out details," I gather that he wants to tell the world the awful truth' about Hinduism: exactly the kind of edit we don't need.Proabivouac 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's a pure POV term. Ironically in this case (and not iconically), it's an idea most common to the the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum: see Buddhas of Bamyan. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please block this unauthorized bot? Corvus cornix 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was approved for a trial, updating the links to the users new username [133]. --pgk 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where there was an approval on that page. Corvus cornix 19:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WOPR. See the bots userpage. It is also linked there. -- Cat ^chi? 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a request, not an approval. Corvus cornix 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see where it was approved for trial. Would you please throttle it down? Corvus cornix 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throttle it down? Sure, what speed should it run at? It currently has a 4 edits/min. In order to complete 1500 edits the bot would spend 6.25 hours as of its current speed. -- Cat ^chi? 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page. Or you could just not run it at all, since it really serves no useful prupose. Corvus cornix 20:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to comply, "anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page" is not a valid speed/rate parameter. -- Cat ^chi? 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat, forgive my ignorance on this matter. I don't know much about bots. But, is it possible to both increase and decrease the rate? That is, it's currently doing 4 in a minute, every minute, right? Is it possible to do, say, 16 edits within very quick succession, but then no other edits for the next four minutes? So that the bot's edits would appear as easily-ignored blocks? Bladestorm 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to the mounting complaints here I decided to turn the bot off for now. As for your comment. I have not seen such an option on the bots configuration. It only tells me how many seconds should it wait between edits. -- Cat ^chi? 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the bot is approved, it'll get a bot flag, meaning that it won't flood RC (if you ignore the bot edits). This is effectively a non-issue, as it is only a problem in the interim between now and its approval. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I keep running it? I do not really want to bother people. -- Cat ^chi? 20:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the point in this. It serves no useful purpose. I suggest you stop running it immediately. -Pilotguy hold short 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot, WP:BAG or both ? Nick 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have done this before after a username change, though usually if there was a real name involved. Is there any particular reason, Cat, that you wanted to change all of these links? If not, since your old name redirects anyway, it hardly seems worth the trouble. But perhaps there's an issue we're all missing? Chick Bowen 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons.

• I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
• In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time.
• Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

The bots edit rate upset a number of people watching the RC feed. I have since adjusted the edit rate to compensate.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat unrelated question: do the IRC watchers ignore admin edits by default? CMummert · talk 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe PGKbot posts admin edits though with lesser detail since admins are expected not to vandalize. At least that was the logic I followed when I came up with the algorithm which PGK adapted to his bot. I am unsure if it was changed since. I have not been involved with IRC bots over a year. -- Cat ^chi? 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading, it should be noted that this bot is NOT approved, it was given a trial, to ensure that it was working well. The trial is long over, the bot has been denied due to policy concerns and concerns expressed by the community, and any further edits towards this task are being made by an unapproved bot. --ST47Talk 17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per [134] User:Mycroft.Holmes was improperly blocked by admin User:BrendelSignature. The case lists four reverts, but the four reverts were outside of a 24 hour time period, and therefore, there is no violation of WP:3RR, which is what the user was blocked for, as proved [135]. I am suggesting the Mycroft.Holmes should be unblocked as this was an unwarranted blocking for no violation. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spirit of 3rr is to discourage blocks. It isn't a license allowing 3 reverts/day. -- Cat ^chi? 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the reverts are near enough to a 24hr period that I would suggest that clearly falls under Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. . At worst, this is going to make that editor more inclined to talk things out - let it stand I say. --Fredrick day 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mycroft has been a revert warrior at Parma, Ohio for years. (yes, as in over 12 months). Given that I think that block was fine.--Wizardman 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roxas has left several messages on my talk page consisting of the following: threatening me with death, telling me I have a mental condition, and being an annoyance. I'm not in any particular mood to deal with this, so any assistance would be welcome. ' 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats? He's asking for a block... --DarkFalls ^talk 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a warning. Hit my talkpage if it continues. I don't see that as a legitimate death threat so much as just a kid talking smack. Regardless it is not acceptable.--Isotope23 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ' 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipocrite is demanding personal info from other users in order to edit his talk page in a way that strikes me as trying to out the identity of other users. This is not acceptable as wikipedia standards do not demand that we reveal our identities in order to post at the pages of other (as it happens anonymous) wikipedia users, indeed it allows us to protect anonymity, SqueakBox 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Not an admin, but a user who tries to understand Hipocrite's sometimes coded language) Is this the diff you're talking about? I see it as typical Hipocritabolic sarcasm and nothing else. I don't think he's demanding anything really, except perhaps not to defend a particular website on his talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's just being sarcastic, he is not trying to invade anybody's privacy. No admin action required. Picaroon (Talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the current status of the Reference Desk pages and also note Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Humanites_May_24 and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Bot did it again, or actually did it NOT!. Thank you. Root⁴(one) 02:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean/what the problem is. Does it need to be blocked? -- John Reaves (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is just removing the data instead of storing in an archive like it has always done. The links to the supposedly archived ref desk questions are red. nadav (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the bots owner, this isn't a high-speed bot or anything, so I don't think it needs to be blocked. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, you can place the data in the archive by using the history of the page. Od Mishehu 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am running through all of the plant families, then will move on the plant taxonomy articles, using the categories to find them. I found another Brya sock. The socks are obvious, not clever, they do exactly what Brya did, he/she doesn't try to hide the fact that the account is an obvious sock of a more experienced Wikipedia user, and none of them protest being blocked. The edits are rather elaborate Bryafications of plant taxa and plant taxonomy articles.

Is this usual, that people with blocked accounts produce multiple socks (4 found so far) and make a few edits? What's the point?

Is there anything that can or should be done other than labeling or blocking all the socks as they are discovered? She/he is quite busy doing pretty much what got him banned at other language Wikipedias, the difficult writing (which caused us to think the user was a non-native speaker of English, but the user uses English in all his/her non-English wiki accounts, just difficult, jargon laced, incomprehensible English that must all be edited here), changing everything to APG II (something I would like to do in en.wiki taxoboxes, but the community disagrees with) without consensus or community input--the latter going on right now on commons.

Is there any preventative for this, to get User:Brya to stop making the sock puppets? I think I know the answer to my own question, but I would love to learn otherwise.

Thanks.

KP Botany 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution is to have the IP address blocked. Ask at WP:CHECK to have this done - at the lower section, I believe. Od Mishehu 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. That had not occured that he/she might be using the same IP with each sock puppet. Probably, as the socks make no attempt whatsoever to hide the Brya identity. KP Botany 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a routine CheckUser of a vandal account, I Heart Vandalism (talk · contribs), it has been conclusively determined that this is the same person as Rackabello (talk · contribs), MostCover (talk · contribs), and ThaBigCunt (talk · contribs), at least one of which appears to be a regular editor. Also see Special:Undelete/Mighty Morphin Red Sox Rangers. Administrator attention requested. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked indef.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were not socks, I would have blocked due to username violations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the place to get the template he created deleted? Mangoe 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:HanzoHattori has a tendency to upload images of questionable copyright status and as a result has a lot of warnings posted to his talk page. He recently deleted all those warnings in this edit. Then when he was asked why he did this his response was to simply delete the question. It seems very much like he's trying to cover up the fact that he's been warned about copyright issues repeatedly. Is this considered kosher? 81.20.21.67 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By removing them, he has demonstrated he has seen them, if he continues he can't plead ignorance of the copyright problems. --pgk 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the best place to post it, but User:203.113.159.24 in this edit added links to a file sharing site to Adobe Photoshop to pirate the software. I reverted, but I'm not sure if totally wiping them out of the history is good, and what sort of clever ways admins have of preventing this in the future. DreamGuy 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting the files as illegal to rapidshare might be a good option, as they will then be able to remove them from their servers. (See directions here.) --tjstrf talk 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to "update" all my older sigs with the aid of an approved bot in the aftermath of my username change.

• [136] Ned Scott reverts bot edit at My own RFA (4th)
• [137] Ned Scott reverts manual edit at My own RFA (4th)
• [138] Ned Scott reverts manual edit at My own RFA (4th)

User is revert waring over me updating my sigs including on pages like my own RFA. User has a history of involvement with me even on a wiki he has very little involvement with (see: commons contribs commons:User talk:Ned Scott or Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03) (admin only access) (deletion log)). He also has a lesser history with me here: [139] , [140]. I find the users current tone unnecessarily uncivil and dense.

I know signatures are not worth fighting over much less revert war over. I however find Ned Scott's involvement disruptive due to his past history with me.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to be changing your sig on archive pages, where it potentially places the conversation out of context? --tjstrf talk 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the WOPR section here. I do not believe altering a sig can place the conversation out of context in any way. -- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by that link, I see I'm not the only one with this concern.

Yes, the sig replacement can indeed place a conversation out of context, since it no longer links to your name as User:Cool Cat, resulting in confusion if someone refers to you by that name in the course of your conversation. The redirect avoids this problem, but only if the archive still contains the redirect link.

So yes, stupid edit war, but please stop editing archived discussions in a potentially harmful manner. --tjstrf talk 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! How is "cat out" any more in context than "Cat ^chi?"? I will be renaming the rfas too in due time. Revert wars such as the one quoted here slow down my speed though. How is it useful to anybody for Ned Scott to revert war with a bot and later me over my sig? -- Cat ^chi? 11:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense, changes of this kind are even more ridiculous. Is everyone allowed to their old signature in archives at whim were there not even a username change? Also, yes people would still refer to people by the username shown on mouseover. —Centrx→talk • 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everyone is allowed to change their sigs unless explicitly prohibited. People have done this before and its beyond logic why some people are making a big fuss over it. Not everyone has popups, I certainly don't. -- Cat ^chi? 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think anyone who wants can simply change their signature, not even their username, and make 5,000 edits to talk archives each time to do so? "Everyone is allowed to do something unless explicitly prohibited" is on Wikipedia is not correct, but regardless the redirect policy is explicit about the use of redirects and policies on talk pages and archives are explicit about not editing archives and mutating old discussions. —Centrx→talk • 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they want to press the edit button 5000 times, sure. I do not think there is any policy/guideline basis to oppose my edits. You really have no reason to waste your time on something this cosmetic. -- Cat ^chi? 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you are making are cosmetic. Keeping erroneous text out of talk pages is not. Also, you have completely neglected to address the places where your edits are explicitly prohibited, specifically Wikipedia:Redirects, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Template:Talkarchive, and contraindicated, specifically Wikipedia:Signatures. —Centrx→talk • 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those policies apply as I explained why on my talk page. Please do not post the same thing on multiple locations. -- Cat ^chi? 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Ned Scott and tjstrf on this issue. There's no good reason to alter your sig in archives. I understand that it would be nice to have old sigs take on the new appearance, but this is just a cosmetic concern. If someone believes it was inappropriate to alter your sig on a certain page and reverts the change, it's probably best to leave that one as is. ChazBeckett 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I should have a detailed rationale to make "cosmetic" changes to my signature. It is my signature and the change is as you point out cosmetic. Hence there is no reason for anyone to revert this. This is a non-issue. -- Cat ^chi? 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the majority of pages it probably will be a non-issue. However, if the change is contested on certain pages, just let it be. I believe that maintaining the integrity of an archive (by this I mean keeping it exactly as it was) is more important than cosmetic changes to a signature. The fact that at least three users have now expressed concerns about your changes should be evidence that this is not simply a non-issue. ChazBeckett 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being silly now. Arguments are now "because we say so". Why arent archive pages automaticaly full protected then? Also your argument doesn't explain this edit. user is being disruptive. You do not "raise a concern" via a revert war. You use the proper means of dispute resolution which of course does not include a revert war. -- Cat ^chi? 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this has become silly. Look, you've changed what, 98% of your old signatures? Are the remaining 2% important enough to make a big fuss over? The reasoning isn't that "we said so", it's that archived pages should remain as they were when they were archived. If someone doesn't mind their user talk archives being changed, no problem. If some users object to changing RfA or xfD archives, leave those ones alone. Shouldn't be a big issue, but you seem to be trying to hardest to make it one. Please, if your sig change is reverted, move on. ChazBeckett 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half of Ned Scott's reverts are not on archive pages. "The big fuss" is because someone is revert waring rather senselessly stating that they will not be tollerated. -- Cat ^chi? 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone given any serious example of where this change would make a conversation potentially confusing? It seems a little silly to be opposing a user's control over his own name simply because you can think of some possible scenario where it might be of some inconvenience to someone who really wanted to read archived material. --Haemo 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific instance, the block log of his old sig (User:Cool Cat) did not carry over to the block log of his new name (User:White Cat). Someone clicking the new sig would not see the blocks of the user who actually posted the comment in the archive. ChazBeckett 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my userpage I am linking to that very log. My block log from last year however wont be very useful to anyone. That still does not affect why I can't change my signature. I second Haemo's assessment. -- Cat ^chi? 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put bluntly, your block log is a mile long and is very relevant to your account, whether you change your name or not. Also, the link on your user page to your block log is broken. ChazBeckett 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also include a link to the block log of your original account (User:Coolcat), which also seems to have gotten lost along the way. Thanks, ChazBeckett 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's linking to it, I don't see the problem, therein. --Haemo 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Un-indent)First, the link to his block log on his user page is broken (although easily fixed). Second, to find this block log they have to visit his user page and read the description. So if someone is reading an archive and clicks on his modified sig's user talk link they'll end up at User talk:White Cat. There's no way of telling that the User:Cool Cat account, with its mile long block log actually made the comment. Normally the redirect message at the top of page would perform this fucntion. In a way, this mass sig changing is serving to erase history. See the problem now? ChazBeckett 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serving to erase history? Talk about paranoia. I am "taking" responsibility of my past edits by doing this. Also who isn't aware of my username change by now? If someone is reviewing my history I would expect them to at the very least take a glance at my userpage. -- Cat ^chi? 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect message is what informs people that a username change may have occurred. "Oh, I clicked on User:Cool Cat and now I'm redirected to User:White Cat. He may have changed his name." Altering old sigs removes this hint. ChazBeckett 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats really ridiculous. This isn't the median for this. You are welcome to propose a policy over it. -- Cat ^chi? 14:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an archive or an otherwise "closed" conversation, I personally don't see a big problem with changing the signature, but I still don't think it's worth fighting over if someone else does (have a problem). ChazBeckett 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how a debate being archived or closed matter in my control of my signature. All archives are copyrighted under GFDL which allows modifications legally. Archive pages are not protected, have you wondered why? -- Cat ^chi? 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a legal matter. Under the GFDL, vandalism is "legal". Under the GFDL you would be free to simply delete all your comments just as much as you would be free to change your signature. The issue is whether doing so is appropriate on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not freaking alter the title of this case. This is a review request on User:Ned Scott's conduct NOT mine. -- Cat ^chi? 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a subsection for the more general discussion of this issue. ChazBeckett 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least he moved his page, so he can keep MARMOT's vandalbot in the history, of course that really should be a matter of pride. — MichaelLinnear 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? My userpage was moved automatically. -- Cat ^chi? 19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the signature should be changed really but reverting these changes? That's utterly useless and serves no purpose. Yonatan ^talk 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changing username thingie didn't mentioned if White Cat is allowed to do this or not; the only thing I saw was that sigs had to be changed manually to reflect the new username. But honestly, I believe a redirect would have been easier and a short explaination on the top of White Cat's userpage and talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect already exists. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to keep the talk page discussions intact. It is no more purposeless than reverting someone who simply deletes a section on the talk page, or who changes their comments on a talk archive. It defeats the purpose of having a talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For user page archives, the user should have a choice to keep the signature change or not (I have chosen not to, since I know about the username change). But for the articles, I see you point so they should be left alone, since White Cat's userpage has the information I talked about earlier). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talked about earlier? Where? I really feel the logic of the approach is flawed. Archive pages' content should be preserved and I am not altering the discussions themselves in any way. Syntax of the signature is not a part of the discussion's content. Logs of my edits are already altered. Aside from User talk:Zscout370 all my contribs have been moved under "White Cat". There no longer is a "Cool Cat (talk · contribs)", as it is my former username. -- Cat ^chi? 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping talk page discussions intact isn't some golden rule. If somebody changes a signature, it shouldn't be automatically reverted as it isn't the changing the contents of the discussion (and nobody's gonna be mislead in any way by this change). It is much more purposeless as the contents of the discussion remain pretty much the same. Maybe the changes shouldn't be made in the first place but reverting them is even more pointless than the change in the first place. Yonatan ^talk 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone refers to "Cool Cat" in the discussion, how is the reader going to know who they are referring to? In this case they might assume that "White Cat" was the same "Cat", but maybe not and anyway that is so peculiar a case that it cannot be a general principle. —Centrx→talk • 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone commenting from the outside, I think brining this issue here is beyond lame, if someone wants to change his/her signature, just let it be, why revert someone just because someone wants to change a signature. Go back to writing encyclopedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think this is definately WP:LEW material. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is so lame it isn't even funny :D -- Cat ^chi? 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, if you want to see what a page (and its signatures) looked like at the time of the discussion, then look in the page history. It is terribly easy to fall into the trap of thinking that an archive page is an accurate representation of what the page looked like back then, but this is a wiki and that assumption would be wrong. However, I disagree with changing sigs like this, as the real issue here is that when people read references to "Cool Cat" in a conversation littered with stuff signed by "White Cat". That will be terribly, terribly confusing. Having said that, I too edit archive pages, especially when I see them appearing in cat due to improperly used templates that should have been either linked or substituted, instead of transcluded. Carcharoth 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few days, an anonymous editor using six different IP addresses has persistently added an unsourced quotation in an inappropriate way to the entry on Friedrich Nietzsche. The edit seems to be an attempt to push some kind of pro-Polish anti-German barrow. The edit is identical each time, and the IP addresses have not been used for any other editing. Warnings have been posted on the talk pages, see User talk:83.22.79.54, User talk:83.30.49.70, User talk:83.30.30.35, User talk:83.22.69.61, User talk:83.30.44.30, and User talk:83.22.82.2. However, the anonymous editor has ignored these warnings, most recently here. This editor has now made clear their intention to continue vandalising this entry, and I believe a block of these six IP addresses is now warranted. Any assistance would be appreciated. FNMF 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you requested protection? WP:RPP. Marskell 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected it. A situation like this should be dealt with at RPP, rather than here. Marskell 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... specifically a fight with me, but I'm not really in the mood. I asked Sumple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to remove a personal attack from his userpage, after the target of the attack had complained to me.[141] In place of replying, Sumple blanked my request [142] and added this gracious note to his talkpage, about me being "persona non grata" on it. (I believe the roots of this personal resentment must be in our respective input of evidence in the Certified.Gangsta/Ideogram RFAR). I removed the attack on the userpage myself, warning him that I'd protect if he revert warred [143]; he restored it [144]; I removed it again and protected the page.

The situation is resolved, I suppose, and I'm by no means going to insist on him removing any of the silliness about me on his talkpage. (I see a bit about my number of braincells has been added now[145]—I don't care—surely fishcakes [sic] have at least five of them?) But it's not a very satisfactory resolution. I guess he needed to vent, and I'm not crazy about "winning" over an established user purely by using power answers and admin tools. But neither am I up for trying to talk with someone who blanks what I say withour reply. Anybody tactful out there, who would like to go have a chat? Feel free to unprotect the userpage if it seems the right thing to do. He seems to be trying to get blocked as a martyr for the cause of Telling the Truth about Bishonen, but please don't oblige him, I don't think it's necessary. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• User:Sumple just posted an annoyed request to WP:RPP to have the userpage protection lifted. Declined - Alison ☺ 11:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say in this matter, save that User:Bishonen's comment: "fishcakes [sic]" typifies that user's arrogant mindset and refusal to let ignorance get in the way of power and control. Please read Fishcake for your own benefit. --Sumple (Talk) 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're going with the fishcake thing but I notice that your talk page now says that User:Bishonen is persona non grata on your talkpage now, and that you'll revert her where allowed. It's obvious that you have it in for both of these editors. - Alison ☺ 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have it in for both of these users. User:Certified.Gangsta because of his frequent vandalism on articles that I also edited, and User:Bishonen for two things: 1) unprincipled support for User:Certified.Gangsta, especially during User:Certified.Gangsta's RFAr, and 2) her subsequent active campaign to impede my editing, especially during my last involvement here on WP:ANI.

However, what I personally think about either of these users per se is irrelevant to the present topic.

User:Bishonen protected my user page. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who edits it, that amounts to specifically banning me from my own user page.

The apparent justification was that this link "crazy people" is a "personal attack".

I've read WP:USER. Show me where those policies justify removal of this link and protection of the user page.

I point especially to the "Removal of inappropriate content" section, where it talks about removal of content on community concensus, and latitude to established editors.

User:Certified.Gangsta has been allowed to get away with a UI spoofing banner on his user page despite numerous requests to remove it.

User:Bishonen seems to think, however, that I should not be allowed to "get away" with my link ("crazy people") when only she has complained about it.

Is my editing record somehow worse than User:Certified.Gangsta's? Please be honest. If that's what the "community" thinks, and it damn well looks like that's what it thinks, then I won't be staying around, thank you very much. --Sumple (Talk) 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to stop piping CG's userpage into "crazy people" via wikilink, and you wouldn't...now you come here and do it again? It's simply best to not link editors like that. This should be obvious.--MONGO 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the bit of WP:USER which applies is; "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea [...] Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it.". The header of this thread, "User:Sumple wants a fight", would appear to be correct, largely from your own admission and it's obvious that the three of you have a history. I'm not passing any judgements on your edit record or anyone else's, I'm just focussing on this one incident, as I responded to the WP:RPP request, is all ... - Alison ☺ 12:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground --pgk 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have no problem with that. I accept that it's best not to pipe other users like this. But many users have expressions of personal opinion on their user pages which border on WP:SOAP and WP:CIVIL violations, and I thought the practice in these cases is that if many people complain, they get removed.

Here's User:Bishonen, deeply involved in User:Certified.Gangsta's numerous disputes with other, contributing editors, acting on her own judgment as if that was community concensus. If the community develops a concensus that what I have there is not only "best not done" or "should not be done", but "must not be done", I will gladly remove it.

I don't see such a concensus though, and there certainly wasn't one when User:Bishonen just went ahead and "protected" my page after one revert.

Funny how my one revert is "edit-warring" to User:Bishonen, but User:Certified.Gangsta's thousands and thousands of reverts aren't a problem to her?

Do I want a fight? Now I do. I didn't when I deleted User:Bishonen's note.

Does User:Bishonen want a fight? She knows what I think of her, especially in relation to User:Certified.Gangsta. For her to not only edit my user talk but my user page itself is highly provocative. So who wanted a fight first? --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other people behaviour is never an excuse for your own. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. Surely everyone got told that as children? Community consensus is embodied in the policy and guidelines on userpages. --pgk 12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the time stamps involved, it seems that Sumple has been warned repeatedly, has decided that he really wants to fight a couple of users, and that he need not behave politely unless someone can present a specific link to a specific prohibition, and he's convinced that he is right and should go ahead with his quarrels. It isn't significant disruption, but it surely does seem (barring any calming/cooling...which I'm not seeing) that a short block to prevent further warring would be called for. Geogre 12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? What "warned repeatedly?" You can't just make this stuff up... --Sumple (Talk) 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats all this discussion about? The pipe linked is removed, you replace it, then after it is removed again, and your userpage is protected, you ask to have the page reedited to include the attack...sure, that's likely to happen.--MONGO 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking anyone's name into an unflattering reference, such as idiot or retarded is obviously a personal attack on that user, and is clearly prohibited under the guidelines for user pages. --12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, discussion can cease now. Sumple has indicated to me via private communications that he has left the project for good, by changing the password to something random and removing his email. A pity it had to come to this. Regards, enochlau (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphablast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been confirmed as a sock of banned sockpuppeteer Molag Bal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a checkuser by Dmcdevit (note this was carried out privately). Evidence can also been seen of this in Alphablast's contributions. Would an admin please block. Thanks. Will (aka Wimt) 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the link to his talk page shows its linked to user:Eaomatrix, a sock of Molag Bal here..--Cometstyles 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked this possible sock; please notify me if it is contested. Aquarius • talk 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user now asks for unblock, contesting that there wasn't a checkuser. Is it possible for the private checkuser result to be posted? Aquarius • talk 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[146]

Could I have a ruling on this one please? If my wrists need slapping please slap them. Aatomic1 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The user in question was a proven sockpuppet of Rms125@hotmail.com, who is a banned user. Banned users are banned and their comments at RfCs and the likely regularly struck. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not even a real RfC, so I don't see how any comments made in it can be somehow magically transferred to one that is subsequently opened. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kittybrewster/VK rfc appears to be a private RfC. It's been around since early March, so the authors have had time to compile whatever information is necessary. It's got certifications and endorsements yet it's never been made an official RfC. Editors on one side of the issue are allowed to edit it but there are complaints when editors on the other side try to do so. If there's no intention of making this an official RfC then it should be deleted eventually. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonicrules2 vandalised my user page by replacing it with [a threat]. Since it was a threat, I'm listing it at Incidents rather than Vandalism. I hope this is the right place. Lurker 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is the right place. Consider this user has a history of vandalism. He'll be indef'd, I reckon. --Haemo 14:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd, indeed. Done. -- Merope 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lurker 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scorpion0422 had been warned earlier against the use of deceptive edit summaries at Template:Survivor contestants. Since then his edit summaries at the template have been as follows: I'm not allowed to use edit summaries anymore due to some people having no sense of humour, Doing evil things, More evil things, even more evil things, Not going to bother with an edit summary because I know that 3 or 4 people are going to check what I did anyway (this edit removing an article he nominated for deletion that ended up not being deleted), Q, and, today, Removed about 12 different people (he in fact removed only one). As was indicated at the previous discussion, User:Scorpion0422 has in the past admitted to using edit summaries to bait User:Otto4771 (this one with the edit summary "HA HA HA HA HA") and make him mad [147]. User:Scorpion0422 was warned previously here to "stop editing in ways designed to make other editors annoyed" and that "deliberate attempts at infuriation will only make things worse." --Maxamegalon2000 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evercloser has been adding information to the Brock University Students' Union article that is defamatory towards former members of the executive of the students' union. [148] [149] [150] and [151]. Since the final warning has been posted to his talk page, I have received an email from the user that I feel harassed and threatened by.

Mr. Saunders,

I have no choice but to include your name amongst the other names of those who conspire to keep the fraudulent activities of BUSU from being known. Wikipedia is not a credible source for information, this is knowledge you should know. I will begin the process of mediation as well as ensuring that when the fraudulent information is publish publically, I have no choice but to name you as a participant in protecting BUSU from litigation.

Allow yourself to become well acquainted with the St. Catharines Standard, I hope your are a subscriber.

I am not quite sure how to react to this email that I have received; I have therefore posted this case to the Administrators' Noticeboard for hopeful resolution.

Thank you.

Andy Saunders 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially serious BLP concerns. User blocked, page fully protected. A delete and restore less his/her edits may be in order. Marskell 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to semi-protection to allow you and others to edit, Andy. On the e-mail, it strikes me as a person on some sort of crusade but not of the truly unhinged sort. Keep any comments impersonal and process oriented as you've done on their talk already. Hopefully, it will blow over. Marskell 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a conflict of interest for me personally to take action regarding the title of this image, but I would appreciate it if someone else did. I would also point out that this is the fifth time that Bhowden (talk · contribs) has uploaded this exact same nonfree image of a living person (twice as Image:Stables.jpg, once as Image:Ianstables.jpg, once as Image:Iainstables.jpg. Thanks. —Angr 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have been known to suggest that I have no regard for WP:CIV and that I make a point of defending incivil users. I don't think that's true (but then I wouldn't). Anyway, I've blocked Major Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for this disgusting attack, aimed at One Night In Hackney. Anybody got an opinion, please comment here. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Urrrggghhh. How unpleasant. It's this sort of thing that makes Wikipedia such a misery some days, the nasty sniping. We need to be much more proactive in troutslapping people who create an unpleasant atmosphere. Moreschi ^Talk 19:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block endorsed: blatant violations of NPA deserve no less, and I doubt anyone can see this as anything but exactly that. Phaedriel - 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to be less than thrilled about it though [152], perhaps someone should explain the appeal process. I don't think he would welcome it from me. Giano 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]