Can something be done? Removing the Werdnabot facility from her talk page would probably be a good start, since she is clearly using it for purposes for which it wasn't intended. Thanks. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Can something be done? Removing the Werdnabot facility from her talk page would probably be a good start, since she is clearly using it for purposes for which it wasn't intended. Thanks. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:I know the Werdnabot banner on her talk page says it is archived every ''3'' days, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrL&diff=prev&oldid=80677269 here] one can see how she set it to 1 day intervals. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pingingisnot enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
I know that we're not suppost to log chats from any IRC chat, but apparently it's all been logged here on www.wikipedia-watch.org/findchat.html—everyone's favourite anti-Wikipedia site. Everything from April to August. There is also hostmasks and IP addresses for 225 wikipedians who were on #wikipedia. I think this has gone far past any dispute. This is just breech of privacy now! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a major breach of privacy though, especially since it lists IP addresses. And btw, it isn't everyone's "favorite" anti-Wikipedia site. My vote goes to Wikitruth. Gotta love a site where it's impossible to get ahold of anyone and when you finally do, they don't correct anything you tell them to correct anyway. --Woohookitty(meow)10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can all try and amuse ourselves with the irony that Brandt is supposed to be a leading internet privacy advocate. We can also mention this irony in the press next time someone asks us about critics. --bainer (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to Thatcher, let me paraphrase Mark Twain: I would rather take my time to compose a post on a Wikipedia Talk page & risk everyone wondering if I'm idiot, than to participate in real time on IRC & remove all doubt. I suspect a lot of people would benefit if they considered that. -- llywrch00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-de indent- They have my IP? How ironic that brandt considers himself a privacy advocate, yet posts hte ip's of hundreds of people. This reinforces my conviction that Brandt is a certifiable kook. And my ip there is old anyway. ~crazytales56297O rly?01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I have it figured out. Brandt is concerned with privacy. Solely his own. That's why he blocks Gmail because they don't reveal your ip. He doesn't give a flying ratshit about the privacy of others. Certifiable kook. ~crazytales56297O rly?11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a person interested in researching and understanding the phenomena of Wikipedia, I comletly support logging the IRC chats, as they contain invaluable material for researchers. As misguided s Wikipedia Watch is, by logging the chats they have actually done us a service.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it, salt the page and deal with the reverters appropriately. --Aaron 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I'm an idiot; I just asked for an admin move to be salted. I'll put it up for another full-blown AfD in a few minutes; it violates WP:C&E. (Yes, I know it's only a proposal, but most AfDs are already following it.) --Aaron17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it go to another AFD? This is clearly a recreation of deleted content, which falls under CSD, and should be deleted immediately. The proper way is to go to DRV. Do that. Thanks. --Ragib17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the version I have restored [1] is substantially different from the version that went through AfD [2]. It was the speedy deletion of that that was out of process. the wub"?!"18:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a question of whether the version you restored is substantially different from the AfD version? Isn't it the community consensus vote on the AfD version that takes precedence? If Diane Farrell's page is back, all candidates for Nov. 7 elections need to come back: they're all in the news now, and if election articles don't have to be created first, guidelines mean nothing. Wiki guidelines are determined on IRC chat. Sandy19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so AfD and DRV become meaningless: the community voted the article deleted, one person can overturn a community decision. Sandy18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things move on. At the time of the AFD I guess they were not notable enough, but in three months a lot can change, especially in the run up to an election which is only four weeks away now. An AFD delete vote does not mean delete and salt - if the subject does become more notable then it is ok for somebody to re-create the article. The unusual thing her is the undeletion, but I see no problem with somebody starting with a decent article rather than a bare stub. Thanks/wangi18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions made by community consensus should only be overturned by community consensus. Administrators do not have the power to overturn consensus by themselves. In other words, delete and bring up to DRV. Joelito (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From deletion policy - "If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article." The original AfD was in July and (IMO) was fairly close to no consensus. I discussed this with Malangali on IRC the other day, and given the evidence he provided then and on my talk page (including national and international news coverage) restored a reasonable version for him and others to work on. Also in future Sandy if you have questions about my actions please ask me on my talk page.the wub"?!"18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask on your talk page, as you know. It concerns me that community consensus decisions are overturned by one person based on IRC chats: this goes on all too often on Wiki. Should we now restore all candidates who are up for election Nov 7? Absolutely - you've set a precedent. Further precedent that process is irrelevant next to IRC and AN/I is being established. Yes, I do believe process should be respected, and individual exceptions shouldn't override community decisions based on chats that occur out of community view. Sandy18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sandy, I just noticed you did leave a note on my talk before coming here, but you didn't give me very long to respond. As for the IRC thing, believe me I'm not part of "The Sekrit IRC Cabal", in fact I am usually fairly sceptical about decisions made there. This was also one of the first times I've used it, and honestly all happened was Malangali said that his page had been deleted and he didn't know why, I asked him a few questions, and asked him to post evidence on my talk page. If you really care and Malangali agrees I can post the logs, as we were the only ones involved in the discussion.
No I don't think we should restore all candidates, but this one is in a particularly marginal constituency and has hence recieved a significant amount of news coverage.
Also note that I don't have a problem with Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, though it is only a proposal. In fact I mentioned it to Malangali on IRC and suggested making a page about the race, but of course he couldn't see the old Diane Farrell page to work from. I would be happy for this article to end up merged, though with all this bureaucracy she may well have been elected and become "officially worthy" of her own page by the time that happens. the wub"?!"18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on Aaron's talk page, the bigger issue is why individual decisions are made on IRC, basically invalidating community decisions. This is the kind of thing that makes editors really resentful of admins. It also sets a very bad precedent: what is good for Diane Farrell should now be good for every single candidate who wants to bypass Wiki process by approaching an admin on IRC. EVERY candidate becomes more notable as elections near: that's why the election article is supposed to be created first. Perhaps I'm a policy wonk, but this is wrong. EVERY candidate is notable now, as elections near and coverage increases, the election article should have been created first, and the precedent of overturning community decision via approaching an admin on IRC is troubling. On a side note, I'm sorry for not giving you more time to respond, but you didn't appear to be online. Sandy18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your concerns about IRC, but the fact is I would have done the same if I had been approached on my talk page. Would you still object then? the wub"?!"20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned whenever an admin overrides community consensus outside of process: I am *more* concerned when that happens on IRC. Sandy21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I get a little nervous when I see something like "Per our IRC talk" in pretty much any Wikipedia discussion anywhere, but that's mainly due to the whole appearance of impropriety thing; in this particular case I don't see where anyone involved has done anything in bad faith. The reason I'm concerned about this article's recreation is that I have personally already used WP:C&E to get other House and/or Senate candidates' articles deleted through AfD (real, major-party candidates, not cases where someone went down to the county courthouse and paid $75 to put their dog on the ballot as a joke), and I think it's thus unfair to let this candidate's page skate past WP:C&E altogether. I know C&E is technically only a proposal, but it's in semi-regular use on WP:AFD already, so I think we need to keep a level playing field as much as possible. --Aaron20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the article is protected from recreation for a specific reason, it is quite proper to create an article about a notable subject using new content from verifiable reliable sources. FloNight21:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article might or might not be notable. My concern is with the idea expressed above that AFDs can never be recreated. Some articles have very few editors voting in the Afd and never get a good look see in the first place. And situations do change. IMO, all good faith recreations should get a fresh evaluation. --FloNight21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense. There are multiple overlaping discussions regarding the status of Diane Farrell, and my point was that it was confusing to have multiple contradictory community consensuses on the status of the article. Aaron is being less than honest in calling me a vandal because he disagrees with me on the status of this article. Note that he has not hestitated to interject his personal political views into discussions in the past. I'm curious as to what other statements of mine Aaron is using to label me a vandal.--Francisx23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seconding FloNight's comments regarding the appropiateness of sending something to DRV simply because it has been deleted. I regularly wail to people who are trying to get useless sub-stubs restored via deletion review to "just re-write the damn thing." However, that does not mean that an admin is able to use his sysop rights in this way:
If the Wub had restored this into user space, that would have been acceptable.
If the user had written a new and different article from scratch in main space, that would have been acceptable.
When something has been speedied twice by two admins, don't take it upon yourelf to undo it.
A modicum of respect for the decisions of fellow admins, a little bit of propiety, and a good long think about the path of least resistance should have been applied here. brenneman{L}00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the deletion review discussion. Normally I'd have closed the deletion nomination as the review was first, but there was a good deal more deabte at the AfD and this is already confusing enough for those not intimate with our byzantine machinations. - brenneman{L}01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. (About the only thing in this fiasco) IMO, it really did not need a DRV, just a Afd since it was not the same article. --FloNight01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict reponse to Brenneman]: That is the sensible kind of response I was hoping for: my concern is when decisions such as this one unfold on IRC, leading one to believe that "process" may mean nothing on Wiki, and one should just shortcut to an admin on IRC. Since I still don't know what IRC is, that locks me out :-) A DRV on Farrell could have been put up long ago, without any need for the appearance of circumventing guidelines because of a last-minute, pre-election rush which sets a bad precedent and is prejudicial against other candidates, who might not have IRC channel advocates. Sandy01:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As already discussed on the article talk page, you need to correctly attribute statements, and not state a candidate's opinion or data as fact when it comes from the candidate's own website. I did the attribution for you, since you didn't source the data to an independent, reliable source: another editor has now provided part of the data from an independent reliable source. I wonder why you brought this here, when it was settled in the article and on the talk page ? Sandy07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see [4] (explanation and warning provided to Sadi):
Sadi Carnot has misused Admin tools, by placing a protect tag on the Entropy article. Sadi is not an Admin, and even if he were, he'd be in violation of the following:
Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. Administrators can also protect pages from moves only. Administrators have the additional ability to protect pages from being edited by unregistered or very new users.
Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.
Clearly this is a problem. I've contacted several Admins to get their opinion on how best to deal with your behaviour. BTW: KillerChihuahua, the person Sadi reverted, is an admin.
Also, the transparency of Sadi's talkpage archiving is rather clear, and needs to be dealt with -- his primary purpose is to squelch the discussion. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy (energy dispersal) Finally, his edit summary is rather misleading -- there is no clear-cut consensus -- there are 5 people who want his version, and 4 who want the other version, or want that version to remain until the issue is resolved. As I explained to Sadi, even if there were consensus, it would not override WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR (which, as pointed out by KillerChihuahua (see WP:LA), User:FrankLambert is in no danger of violating). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) .
Not sure if there's some better page to report this, but this ought to get someone's attention to put it where it needs to go if nothing else.
See User_talk:69.50.208.4 -- Someone has been using a bot to go through and request password resets for accounts that are not his over and over and over through an open proxy IP address. The IP addres has already been banned from editing, but not apparently from causing massive email floods into the mailboxes of accounts it requests passwords for. This has been going on for a few weeks and seems to be escalating across more affected accounts and more requests made. Just in a few hours today I had some 200 emails alerting me that my password was being reset because someone, "probably you", wanted it reset... which would be fine if it was accidental and a one time thing ("ooh, what was my account name? me forget"), but some of these are some 65+ requests IN LESS THAN 60 SECONDS. It's like a denial of service attack kind of thing.
Seems to me that there needs to be a change in how these things are handled, otherwise lots of innovent people's mailboxes will get full. Of course I could just filter it, but Wikimedia really doesn;t want to be sending out this level of bad email. I know AOL starts to block the whole server after a while if it sees suspicious emails, as one example.
Banned IPs should not be allowed to attempt password resets. No account should be allowed to have more than one password reset per hour or day or whatever. And so forth and so on.
Did anyone submit a feature request to put a throttle on that thing already? One password request per use per day should be enough for any legitemate use. --Sherool(talk)22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah great, another reason to discourge people from getting usernames. "Don't register with wikipedia, your email will get flooded with 200 password requests a day." I undestand telling people to ignore this when its infrequent, but really, 65 request per minute is insane and should be taken care of by more than just pointing people to a Bugzilla report. This is getting to be frequent complaint. [5]pschemp | talk22:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A throttel feature has aparently existed since May already (per bugzilla:5370), we just need to poke a dev to actualy have it eneabled (I suggest setting to max one mail per 24 hours). --Sherool(talk)22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a request to eneable it at the wikimedia-tech IRC channel. Hopefully some of the devs ideling in the room will take a look at it. --Sherool(talk)23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Killfile them. Set your spam filter -- different depending on the software you use -- to either reject any messages with subject lines of "Password reminder from Wikipedia" or send those messages straight into the trash can. That's what I do. The malefactor doesn't have the option of changing the subject line, which is automatically generated. Antandrus (talk)15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After I told User:VinceB not to remove vandalism and personal attack warning templates put to his/her user talk page in the past, he/she responded by placing the same templates on my own talk page. I really do not know what to do. I suspect him/her of being a sockpuppetmaster and this is obviously a kind of revenge against Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB. I would like to ask some neutral admins to review his/her edits of my talk page and to remove the warning templates. The first alleged persoal attack was when I asked him/her why he/she had lied and I provided evidence than his/her accusation was indeed a lie.[8] I was supposed to commit the second "personal attack" by telling him/her that he/she should not remove the warning templates. The third "personal attack" was the above mentioned Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VinceB. Tankred01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that was your third attack, accusing me of sockpuppetry. I know that I didn't used sockpuppets, beause I has a username here. So your action is against WP:FAITH and can be considered as a personal attack. I consideret it as one. The others are clearly against WP:CIV. My userpage is rubber friendly, as you can see wich is legal here. (As far as I know, I can do whatever I like to with my userpages, untill I don't harm others.) So calling my action vandalism is another personal attack from you. Not to mention this: this is obviously a kind of revenge. (WP:FAITH) Well, obviously not. I just want to reach that you stop these actions against me. --VinceB02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users are allowed to blank their talk page or archive it, you should however not selectively remove just warnings unless you feel they are unjust (I think). Can another person weigh in? I know they can blank and archive and the always fun "speedy archive", but can you selectively delete? --NuclearZer012:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users are allowed to remove comments from their talk page as they see fit (as evidenced by the fact that many long-time users do), and that includes insults, irrelevant rants as well as warnings. Editing one's own talk page is not disruptive to the encyclopedia. Of course, removing a warning does not protect you from a later (escalated) warning, nor from a block for repeating the thing you were warned for. >Radiant<14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Radiant! said. Talk pages exist to promote conversation - not as a 'wall of shame' with items that the user is not allowed to remove. --CBD17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bobabobabo seems to not care about what we say concerning fair use images. I just hope s/he didn't revert my orphaning of all of them. Ryūlóng02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's now copying Zero's work area into one of his own. I've blanked it (not the first time that's been done, apparently), and warned him that he'll be blocked next time he tries pulling this garbage. --InShaneee03:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary workspaces don't make using images acceptable. It's still a fair use image that doesn't fit fair use guidelines. Commenting out the images temporarily would be sufficient, however. Ral315 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not used my Workspace for some time due to some problems with it and I was leaving it there for reference. I've now blanked the page. Even so, User:Zero1328/Work Area is in my User space and I consider it impolite to alter someone's WIP without permission, as it may disrupt the work. Please refrain from copying it again. - Zero1328Talk?08:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124.168.15.251 keeps blanking their talk page. Should we just wait for them to get bored and restore the page when they're gone? Or is it worth giving further warnings and possibly issuing a block? Chovain04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is a permanent semiprotection on an article and talkpage a possibility? I ask this because of JB196(talk·contribs·block log) who is hellbent on keeping his crusade up on spamming templates on articles using AOL sockpuppets. If a page gets semi-protected he starts spamming the talk page, if the talk page is them semi-protected he just waits until it gets removed and immediately starts again (the best example being after three weeks of sprotection he returned after only 2 minutes of the page being unprotected, talk about hellbent). JB196 has shown no signs of ever stopping, nor any willingness to stop the disruption. –– Lid(Talk)07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:84.12.242.226 is on a mission to spam links to a music video (copyvio?) site to countless music artist pages, and is exceeding my ability to revert. I am not sure whether there is a better place to report this. Notinasnaid13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been disrupting the Armenia and the Armenians article for over two weeks now by doing the following:
Uploading clearly racist and denigrating photos of individuals purported to be Armenians with comments such as typical Armenian. All the images that were uploaded by the user using obscure 19th century anthropological sources and unverified modern images were deleted and the user was warned numerous times by administrators on his userpage. The user reuploaded the images severeal times nonetheless.
In one instance seen here [9], the user blamed the entire Armenian population of Glendale for 80% of all crime in Glendale with the following edit summary: Armenian Crime wave in Glendale over 30 savage murders in the last 18 months
The user keeps reverting the Armenia article erroniously placing Armenia in the Middle East, for obvious reasons.--Eupator15:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned him again. —Quarl(talk) 2006-10-09 18:39Z
There is an on-going edit/revert war on the page Black people between 5 or 6 different usernames. A look at the history makes it obvious who is involved. There is also some potential sock-puppetry involved. Other users have started to to add "perhaps all of you reverters could incorporate my edit into your next reverts" in their edit summaries in an attempt to get their edits kept. Good luck. Lionchow - Talk15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Liftarn has been using unreliable sourcestomake some sort of obscure point by describing George W. Bush and Pat Robertson as "Satanists" who "self-identify as Christians", in deliberate violation of WP:BLP, thus endangering Wikipedia. [10] He's even reverted people when his entries were removed. He's been warned in the past about using non-reliable sources to make a point, e.g. [11][12][13]. He's even been warned about it [14] then gone back months later and inserted the same libellous material from non-reliable sources [15]. I think at this point a block is in order to emphasize the seriousness of using reliable sources, especially when it comes to living persons. What do others think? Jayjg (talk)19:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That kind of editing threatens the project. Bad enough to do it in the first place, but to revert when it's removed compounds the offense. SlimVirgin(talk)19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I'm a little puzzled. How could WP:BLP be relevant? He's saying here -- and correctly, I might add -- that Bush has been labelled a Satanist (and a lot of loony ultra-weird-religious sites have indeed said that, as well as some insane conspiracy sites, and some sites which combine the two), but that he is not one (the entry is in the section entitled "Mislabeled Satanists".) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are unreliable, so they shouldn't be used for any claims about living people. Furthermore, Liftarn was using original research to assert that these unreliable sources were "mislabelling" people as Satanists, and getting a further dig in about them being "self-professed" Christians. Putting someone on a List of Satanists (even in the "mislabeled" section) is no joke. Jayjg (talk)03:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayjg, saying someone is not something is an end run around BLP. If we do not allow into the article that "Person X calls Person Y a satanist", then we should not allow into another article "Person X calls person Y a satanist, but that is false". Its basically restating the same BLP violation. --NuclearZer003:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, a recent edit [18] popped up on my watchlist, it's essentially an advertisement for a local drug dealer. I reverted it as spam and unverifiable, but I'm not sure if further action should/could be taken... is there a rule against this beyond WP:SPAM? -- Chabuk19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should almost certainly be brought to the foundation's attention. I have left a note on Brad's talk page about this. JoshuaZ20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, one of the "Drug dealer" phone numbers is a McGill Network Administrator's number. I'm guessing it's not an actual solicitation for narcotics, but vandalism similar to the "for a good time call" numbers on bathroom walls. --Dual Freq20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that I don't think it's anything worth taking more serious than normal spam and posting of private info... I've deleted that revision from the article history. Thanks/wangi20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peronal Attack
I warned User:Grazon for vandalism and removing content from the article Darrell Anderson he retaliated by personally attacking me with a warning on my talk page, is that vandalism? He needs to be stopped check his history of contributions, there also seem to be 2 or so ISPs with similarly destructive edits on most of the pages he has edited. How can he be stopped? He has been blocked several times and warned a half dozen times, I think its time for a permanent, indefinate or prolonged blocking.Qrc200620:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated failure to adhere to Wikipedia FU policies...
Hi. I have a problem with user Buenaparte_Social_Club. He/she keeps removing the 'No Fair Use Rationale' template for the following images without properly adding the fair use rationale:
Let me also add that this user quite possibly is the one who made a personal attack against me with a sockpuppet account (see my discussion page) which had words which stated my edits were "peanuts" and calling me a "dick" . Edit: I've communicated with him several times and he still does not take me seriously. See his/her discussion page; he/she was completely rude as
well. New Edit: I just noticed this user has deleted my no fair use rationale warnings from his/her discussion page.ResurgamII22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's incorrectly tagging them, as well, such as describing the fifth image there as a 'screenshot', but tagging it as a Movie Poster. --InShaneee03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just checked this person's talk page and I noticed he has moved his talk page to User talk:EinsteinEdits nonsense and removed some warnings from his talk page. I restored these warnings and warned him not to do it again. When I explained to him that removing warnings is considered vandalism, he left this uncivil comment on the page. Seems like someone who doesn't understand the problems of what he's been doing so far. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a suggestion about how to behave with an particularly "hot" user. EnDai and I do not agree on some edits about Shelbourne F.C. What does he think about my edits?
What should I do? When other editors commented with civility my edits, I admited some errors and changed them, but EnDai and his "friend" showed no intention of collaboration at all.
--Panarjedde23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. We still do not agree on something. His constructive way of pointing out his position is to mock me, calling me Muppet and "nuisance". This is getting heavy, I am a little annoyed by his behaviour.--Panarjedde23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't protect the page now. Please next time, when this anon vandalizes the page, give him a warning template, because with a blank talk page, I can't block him. NCursework06:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user is a well known Asylum member. Previously, his edits have simply been to erase all information related to the program. His most recent edit is an attempt to suggest that there is no information. The Asylum program is well known, is not at all hidden, but its members prefer to hide its existence. The fact that he would erase all information, and later simply include a line denying information being available, shows that he KNOWS he is blanking (and therefore, with the latest revision, trying to get around it).
Read the talk page of the movie gallery article. The following is posted at the end:
"Asylum
To any Who view this page there is a Guy who was upset with Gamecrazy so he says he will continue to post about "The Asylum" even though it is a breach of contract when he joined and posted on said site He agreed to certain Terms and conditions,
the first rule is "Dont Talk about the Asylum"
so if you see a posting under the Game Crazy Section about it Delete it ASAP"
I think that's obvious. They are insisting on blanking the information. It should be mentioned, also, they are blanking it not because the information is inaccurate, but because "the first rule is, 'don't talk about the Asylum.'"
I've opted to move the above discussion here from AIV, since no one's acted on it yet, and it seems to be clogging up the page. It seems more appropriate to place it here, in any case. Luna Santin00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been slapping the {{db-bio}} tag on this article for quite some time, and an editor (and seemingly his IP) seems keen to remove the tag every time I slap it back on. Checking the page history, I noticed that this article has already been deleted three times before. Is a delete-and-salt in order here? By the way, I've added the tag twice now; I don't want to break 3RR. --210physicq (c) 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be under control for now...also, just FYI, the 3RR doesn't apply if you're reverting vandalism, placing a justified speedy deletion tag, etc., so don't worry about that. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry SPUI - I don't see a smoking gun there. Are you saying he left Wikipedia because he was on the minority side of a poll concerning a naming convention? I'm not aware of the history and it seems a bad use of my time to route through histories if you know the answer. Could you please spell it out for me? Johntex\talk02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meow. The conventional wisdom in dramatic departures is to ignore them, that hopeless a wiki-addict will return to editing like a dog to its own vomit. I always do. I like FoN but if he doesn't want to communicate to the point of even disallowing messages asking people to respect his obvious wishes and leave him alone... brenneman{L}02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this may be controversial, so I'm listing it here for discussion and review. Danny speedy deleted the article Fleshlight under the new CSD. As it had previously survived afd, a DRV was begun and is still running. See here for the DRV. Whilst that was still in progress, Phil Sandifer started a fresh Afd, here. I've speedily closed the afd, until the Drv has finished. Else we could end up with two contradictory results, and a resulting mess. I'm sure Phil was trying to do the right thing, but for once I think we need to follow some order of process if we are to harmoniously arrive at a result 9whatever it may be).--Doc08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were absolutely right to close of the the 2. Personally, I think it should have gone to AfD in the first place, so I would have kept that one and closed DRV. However, it did NOT go to AfD in the first place, so technically policy says DRV should happen first. Therefore, I can't fault you for the choice you made. Johntex\talk16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a temporary bot, Werdna Sandbox Bot, which will reset the sandbox every hour. If it needs to be faster, bug me. This has the distinction of the only bot I've written entirely between 1:30 and 1:40am ;-). Code, if really needed, on request. All shouting > my talk page. — Werdnatalkcriticism15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68.5.242.136(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has been edit warring with me and four other editors about the inclusion of a (sourced) paragraph accusing Crocker of having a "close personal relationship" with her team owner. The user has previously been blocked for the same thing. Considering the user's past contributions (especially edits like this) and the fact that he or she has no edits one edit on other topics makes me think that this user is only here to push a POV and that perhaps a longer block is in order. Recury17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Recury - the user's claims are in complete violation of WP:LIVING, and after the user's last block, he or she immediately came back and began this cycle again. -- DiegoTehMexican16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across an IP vandal this morning that I'm having great difficulty in tracking/dealing with. I first encountered him as User:64.231.54.40. As his contribs show, the majority of his edits were removing he: interwiki links from anime related articles. I blocked him to stop the flood, and spent the morning reverting him. However, I've now come across User:67.71.19.130. Same MO, same articles, same removal of interwiki links. I'm working on reverting them, but this is a fairly large number of articles, and if he's switching IPs once, he'll most likely do it again. Any suggestions with how to deal with this? --InShaneee16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that every edit is reverted and a range block is not a solution here. So we should watch those pages for some days, drop me a message when a helping hand is needed. NCursework17:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Jayalalitha
I've observed frequently few users like idleguy launches lot of personal attacks against her. She is the one of the political leader of India. They write about her personal life and quote references from gossips appeared in various magazines. They also mentions defamatory languages like that she is the concubine, she has child(though she is spinster)etc etc which are not relevant for the article concerning political leader. Could you please something to prevent such vandalism.
Lravikumar17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a content dispute rather than vandalism. Some of the references you blanked are from academic journals, Asia Week magazine, and several other sources. While unsourced material may be removed per WP:BLP, if there is any info from a reliable source, I do not see any problem. --Ragib17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Lravikumar has mistaken me for someone else who might have indulged in personal attacks in the past on such articles. I saw that a certain user named Jjayalalitha had blanked the section in this edit and a couple of edits later I reinstated it and added more sources for the same. I reworded "conspiracy theories" which has an entirely different meaning to a temporary heading of "Secret personal life". I also provided credible sources for the "mistress" issue and can continue to point to other edits like this in the past where I've blanked baseless allegations whenever this article does catch my eye. I've even replied in the talk page previously here stressing that "Her so called marriage with Shoban Babu unless backed by a proper cite will have to go soon" and retagged the 2nd para talking about her alleged wedding as [citation needed]. I have given solid sources for the "concubine" issue and I can provide tons more if needed. (btw concubine isn't the correct term and was planning to change that until I was notified not to change for the time being) There has been no violation of any WP policies, especially concerning biographies of living persons. The contentious first para's statements are verifiable instantly, not original research and taken from multiple non-partisan sources. I suspect Lravikumar has not fully read the sources, half of which come from reputable Indian publications like for instance The Economic Times or DCRC, a Delhi University research center among other esteemed publications which cannot be dismissed as mere "gossips". Idleguy18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your view. Any mention of derogatory statements like concubine,mistress etc to be avoided on living persons.
You can get umpteen sources regarding personal life of notable public figures.For example,I can find 1000 websites which makes derogatory statements about Bill Gates or George Bush.(There is a website which even says Bill Gate is dead.Will you believe it?).If some website says person "xxx" is gay does not give authority for wikipedians to edit concerned person article saying that he is a gay quoting that as a citation.
Any personal allegations regarding illegal relationship,dating,sexual orientation etc on individuals to be considered wrong unless it is accepted by concerned person even if there is 100 gossip websites writing about it.I wish Wikipedia to remain as collection of knowledge not as a collection of gossips. If we allow this to happen then each article on living persons will be flooded with Junk personal attacks. Jayalalitha is a political leader. I don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc.I even wish to develop consensus on modifying Policy on living persons to cite my views without any ambiguity. I can argue that each one of your citation is from unreliable sources. I don't want to indulge in edit war.I hope you will agree with my points and remove concerned section.--Lravikumar18:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should have only blanked the page after a consensus was reached. More over, there is nothing called as Gossip Magazine. It is Magazine. And I don't agree with you calling all the sources as Gossip Magazines. You should note that the para is based on well cited sources, which no one in Tamil Nadu can disagree.
Point two. I disagree with your view that don't mind if you attack about her political decisions/political life etc Even that has to be cited and there should be more sources for that.
Remember that it is clearly given (in another article) that another Tamil Nadu CM has two wives.
If people go on blanking all that is not good about their favourite leaders, then we will have no articles in Wikipedia at all.
There is no policy in Wikipedia which says you cannot write about affairs. (Note that Sexual Orientation is different from affairs). See Princess Diana and Bill Clinton for example. Of course, you cannot write completely baseless affairs. But the para is question is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and should be maintained as it is well cited. Doctor Bruno 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This bot has been making mistakes on wikipedia fr and it. It adds interwikis to templates without noinclude and never asked for the bot flag (we have a procedure). Perhaps it dit the same on wiki en. Poppypetty19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is this: I warned her about blanking pages [23]. She proceeded to remove the warning, claiming to "archive" it (but she didn't put it in her archive: she just deleted it) [24]. I replaced the warning, and warned her about removing talk page warnings (an annoying habit she has). She responded by setting her Werdnabot talk page archiver to only 1 day, and then posted this comment, where she not only insults me (calling me "Byrgleturd") but brags about how her Werdnabot will remove the warning for her. I find this devious sort of behaviour deeply worrying.
Can something be done? Removing the Werdnabot facility from her talk page would probably be a good start, since she is clearly using it for purposes for which it wasn't intended. Thanks. Byrgenwulf21:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
