Resolved

 –As of 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC), the page no longer has reports.

Could someone please checkWP:UAA? Some reports are over 3 hours long.Cool Blue^{talk to me}23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still one report there that I'm not sure what to do with. ··coelacan23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, backlogs at WP:UAA aren't exactly urgent, most of the names listed there don't/won't ever have any edits, so there's no real rush to block them--VectorPotential^Talk23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps on being disruptive and offensive. See:[1] or[2] --Tresckow23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When is he gonna learn that calling someone an idiot is a personal attack? --24.136.230.3823:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an administrator to use their rollback feature to revert 13 edits atCulture of Australia, by64.119.64.211. The user is being warned.Cool Blue^{talk to me}00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, but I just reverted back to an earlier version which anyone can do, rollback wouldnt even work as there were later edits.Ryan Postlethwaite00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)::

Alright, and thanks. I didn't realize how the administrator rollback function works, since I'm not an administrator. The only edits after the 13 edits were more vandalism, however.Cool Blue^{talk to me}00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You can always just pick the version you want from the page history and revert (seehelp:reverting). ··coelacan02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollback only appears for the very last revision of an article. Undo works nicely for everyone after that.Teke04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 –tentatively resolved, 24hr block for Lode Runner, warning for Sanchi Tachi⇒SWATJester^{Denny Crane.}05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is regarding an ongoing debate athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages. User SanchiTachi replies to nearly every single post that is pro-change and lectures them about how he believes their posts violate Wikipedia policy. His explanations do not make sense, and as of yet there is no one who publically agrees with his analyses. He has just recently taken to blockquoting entire (irrelevant) sections of the rules--a LARGE paragraph--instead of merely a link. I have repeatedly deleted this inclusion as off-topic spam.

Remember, this is NOT regarding the issue being debated--it is regarding SanchiTachi's (and only SanchiTachi's) belief that every single person's arguments are not only wrong, but *against the rules.* I do not believe that his own crazy interpretation of the rules gives him the right to spam and ruin conversations (and this is not the first time he's done this, either.)

Yes, I am personally involved. Yes, I do think that, objectively speaking, SanchiTachi is doing nothing but harm at this point. --Lode Runner01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not requesting a ban per se, but perhaps instruction from an admin (or his fellow editors) that his off-topic attacks are not constructive and will not be tolerated. --Lode Runner01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside perspective: Having reverted the removal once and run through the history of this discussion, this would seem to be nothing more than a dispute between two users. It's certainly not in the same vein as off-topic spam, and is more of a vague personal attack than anything. —Someguy0830 (T |C)02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that in his attempt to remove the context of SanchiTachi's statements, Lode Runner has broken 3RR:[3][4][5][6]. —Someguy0830 (T |C)02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's illustrative of behavior in different places, usually based on claims of what is valid and what is not as a source (obviously, whatever Sanchi doesn't agree with is invalid). SeeWikipedia: WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 andTalk:Warhammer 40,000 for examples. I'd say this was POINT, but I'm not sure what the point is. Could someone look into this?MSJapan02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that you are an "outside perspective." You reverted my edits too, and are the only one other than Sanchi to do so. (In fact, you weren't participating in the discussion at all, leading me to suspect that you are either a socket puppet or a friend of Sanchi.) And technically, I did not break 3RR (because there was stuff added in-between)--Sanchi did. This is quibbling, however--I have voluntarily chosen to stop the edit war, and I appologize for whatever inconvience by *minor* alleged breakage of the 3RR rule (i.e. ONE extra revert) caused. I am concerned for the future of the conversation, not assigning blame for what's happened in the past. Sanchi's personal attacks (or spam, or whatever you call it) must stop in the name of constructiveness. --Lode Runner04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you because you were removing the entire context of his statement, including his signature, leaving only a single link to a policy page. This is in every way unacceptable behavior, disregarding whatever reason you had for reverting it. Second, you did break 3RR, because you reverted the page four times in a row. The 3RR rule does not make exceptions for altered text, which in your case is just noting your blanking. —Someguy0830 (T |C)04:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, you are party to the situation (having already made your judgment and acted on it) and not an outside perspective. Thank you, I was just clarifying that.

Fine, even though I disagree, I confess to it! I'm guilty of a *single* extra edit! I'll do whatever penance is required of me!

It happened *once*. It is already fixed. I won't do it again (for the sake of not providing quibblers ammunition, if nothing else.) I am not being accused of being a repeat offender here. Sanchi is. --Lode Runner04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue this, since you are intent on character destruction and clearly unwilling to admit fault beyond the obvious. I will only explain to you why your point of view is quite frankly, stupid. SeeWP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. Specifically, read this line: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.", which is what you did. —Someguy0830 (T |C)04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not truthful. 1. I editted a blockquote down to a link instead. First off, they weren't HIS words (it was a quote), second, I left in the link so the meaning wasn't changed. 2. I just admitted fault. I'm sorry for whatever infraction you think I committed, real or imagined. It might have sounded sarcastic, but it was genuine. My exasperation was only to point out what a quibbling little point it is. YES, OK, I REVERTED A FOURTH TIME. Didn't quite realize/am sorry for/won't happen again. Etcd. It doesn't require a more sincere appology then that, because it is such a completely trivial quibble.

This is not about fault admitting (even though I have already done so.) I am endevoring to have a constructive debate on the NOR policy, and Sanchi has *repeatedly* interfered. I have every reason to believe that this interference will continue. Will you comment on this aspect, or will you be like Sanchi and continue to bring up my past sins (which always one-time in nature, as I *do* learn from my mistakes) ? --Lode Runner04:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is truthful. Sanchi bolded the point he intended to get across, which you removed. I reverted you because of this, not out of taking sides. As for the both of you, I think you've both devolved to a pretty uncivil exchange. Your view is not constructive, because you seek to redefine policies which you will never succeed in fundamentally altering. You doing so anyway spite of consensus doesn't help matters. Sanchi mentioning this at every opportunity isn't helpful either, and you'd both do well to simply step away from the issue. —Someguy0830 (T |C)04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, right there you show your own bias. You do not know that this clarifiction (and yes, in the context of WP:NOR it is JUST a clarification! It only contradicts WP:TALK, and WP:TALK is not "non-negotiable") is impossible. I say that if the consensus wants it, the change should be made and the higher ups can veto at their leisure. Neither you nor Sanchi (if there is a difference) are allowed to dictate what is and is not inalterable.

As far as the uncivil exchange goes, yes I should endevor not to let him get under my skin. In tone, I could have been better. For that, I am genuinely sorry. In content, I stand by what I have written.--Lode Runner04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, there is no consensus that consensus isn't enough to clarify WP:NOR in the manner I've described. Yet you have used this point anyway to call me "not constructive." --Lode Runner05:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What you call a "clarification" is quite obviously not accepted as such. As for your assertion that my comment somehow shows bias, you need to learn the meaning of the term. Lack of knowledge is not bias, it's ignorance, and I've read your change to the policy. It is not a clarification. Not even close. Consensus, which you will never attain anyway, is not enough to allow your change, which you have been told. On the other note, I hope you mean that, because your current tact isn't all that productive. —Someguy0830 (T |C)05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been accepted as such by at least two other people than myself. --Lode Runner05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And denied by just as many, some of whom also hold more weight in such matters. Simply put, even if you succeeded in gaining acceptable consensus (50/50 isn't), they still have core policies to fall back on, which consensus cannot defeat. —Someguy0830 (T |C)05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, your behavior is no more constructive than his. Especially so is yourrefusal to continue any discussion on the grounds that he is not blocked. —Someguy0830 (T |C)04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to continue because he is drowning out the rational voices, just like he did on theWP:NOR talk page.--Lode Runner04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also refusing to continue because he inevitably hijacks the conversation in an off-topic manner (such as the stylistic problems he has with my posts, the "credibility" I've lost, etc.) --Lode Runner04:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Sanchi's behavior on theWP:NOR talk page. I admit my behavior wasn't perfect either, but I wasn't aware of the policies regarding things like additions to the NOR page being discussed here instead of the talk page (nor was I aware, when I made the addition, that there was any contradiction at all. I later found out that it contradicted WP:TALK.) On that talk page, Sanchi would not let go of the fact that I had violated a policy (nevermind that fixing it took 2 seconds, I said I was sorry, and said I wouldn't do it again) and was declaring my entire proposal invalid because of it. I created this page, and warned Sanchi that I would not tolerate any more off-topic attacks here, yet he did it anyway. --Lode Runner04:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of this incident until just now, but Lode Runner is not a stranger to disruption: he's in the past several days significantly attempted to modify WP:NOR without consensus, edited other people's comments on article talk pages, and now reverts other people's contributions on article talk as "invalid". For full disclosure: I am against Lode Runner's policies, and I have previously called him out on his editing methods, both on the user talk, and on the article talk in question. On his user talk, he told me that he would "not allow me" to contribute to the discussion. I told him that I would not take any actions based on my status as a member of the discussion.

However, this is a clearcut case of disruption after prior warning (which by his own admission he has seen): therefore, I will be blocking Lode Runner for 24 hours to prevent further disruption to the village pump. I invite block review from other admins, and while I stand by my actions, I have no objection whatsoever should any other admin decide they wish to overturn them.

Also, Sanchi Tachi should get a strong warning that he needs to be more civil in his debates over policy and assume good faith; he should also consider using AN/I as a noticeboard for reporting policy violations, as opposed to individual admin's talk pages. I'd advise Sanchi Tachi to take a break from getting involved with both policy pages, and with Warhammer 40K articles for a little while.⇒SWATJester^{Denny Crane.}05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

JohnPaulus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) claims to be the subject of the articleJohn Paulus. He is continually deleting content from the article and appears to me to have broken3RR some time ago. He claims the article is "borderline libellous". I have checked the article and some of the sources appear rather weak to me (bloggish, for lack of a better term). I'm thus hesitant to block because of the possibility of this being aBLP situation. The user has also implied a legal threat:[7]. I have warned the user. The user seems to want this bio deleted completely[8]. I'm bringing this up for attention from others both as to whether this article is a potential BLP vio and as to what, if anything, we should do about the editor. Would rather we don't have another Daniel Brandt on our hands, needless to say.Heimstern Läufer03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block dueWP:NLT until he retracts, then another indef block until we can confirm his true identity (contacting the Foundation could work), and remove all the content that is not referenced from the article. --ReyBrujo03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIR, we don't automatically block when someone claims to be the subject of an article, whether they're using their real name on Wikipedia or not. Let's not bite the newbies more than we have to, hmm?Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)05:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• First order of business should be to request that he contact the Foundation through official channels, in order to confirm his identity. As for the article itself, I agree that some of the sourcing here looks questionable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)03:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am more inclined to delete the article, or at least want it deleted. It is about a guy who stalked a star. We have plenty of people stalking stars daily, yet we do not have articles on them. The AFD is a way to go, and if Mr. Paulus sends an email to OTRS, I have access to the system and see what happens from there.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paulus (2nd nomination) -Will Beback ·† ·03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the subject,John Paulus, identified himself as the editor,JohnPaulus, on his blog,The Naked Truth. -Will Beback ·† ·06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The joys of wikipedia - I just became aware of a stabbing in my university library by way of the wikipedia article on my university. Considering I am on campus at the moment, less than 100 meters from the library I find this quite amusing. (No prize for guessing which university I attend)Viridae^Talk03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was guessing, and it turns out thatat least three universities have had stabbings in the past 24 hours.Anchoress03:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then - you wantLa Trobe University, in Melbourne, Australia. The stabbing happened some 2 hours before i posted that.Viridae^Talk04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I found it out here, before the all students email got to me. How very efficient.Viridae^Talk04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gotten more news from Wikipedia itself than I ever would have guessed. Very odd side benefit to the encyclopedia. :)EVula//talk //☯ //04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Seemy archived report. He justremoved my last notice from his talk page. This is not the action of someone committed to getting along with others.Daniel Case05:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Misbehavior continues. This time heremoved both the original discussion and the{{blankown}} warning from his talk page.Daniel Case16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, folks, I'm getting a little tired of snooty little Danny Case ordering me about and then crying to daddy. I let him have his way onSouth Blooming Grove andMichigan Corners, New York, but, no, that's not enough...apparently, his little feelings are bruised. Here's an idea: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP HARASSING ME. And it's called a life...get one.RMc16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia community and its collegiality are injured by your actions. They demand satisfaction, given thatyou have already been blocked for this behavior once before. If you want to engage in personal attacks on this page, you've earned whatever happens next.Daniel Case17:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "Wikipedia community" isn't as thin-skinned as you are, ace. Goodgrief. Won't somebodyplease get Case off my daniel...?RMc00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Users with truly thick skinsdon'ttry to cover up their past misdeeds as much as you seem to. Wikipedia is not, in any event, about who can shout the loudest or out-revert the other person. There are plenty of other websites for that. If you continue to treatWP:NPA andWP:CIV as if they only apply to other people, I will continue to press this. I have, in fact, contacted some of the same admins and users you dealt with before to look at this situation.Daniel Case03:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good gravy, man...do you ever read your own posts? "Misbehaviour continues"..."collegiality injured"..."demand satisfaction"...comeon. You're doing a perfect impersonation of a pompous, braying jackass. If anyone's violating NPA and CIV (not to mention "don't make threats" and "don't be a dick") it's you, not me. Chill out. Please.RMc10:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, he's not obligated to keep your comments on his talk page if he doesn't want them there. It's not necessarily polite to remove talk messages without archiving, but it's not against the rules, and everything will remain in the page history anyway if people need to find it later. I also have to say as a third-party observer that Daniel's attitude here seems to be more confrontational than might strictly be necessary, under the circumstances. I suggest that you both let it drop, and just go about your business, though you're free to take or leave that advice as you see fit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)13:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to let this drop if Mr. Case is. [/olive branch]RMc14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, this is the first time RMc has been willing to climb down and stop being confrontational. Live and let live.Daniel Case20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* Had to get one last shot in, eh? Whatever.RMc11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AdminAndyZ (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) just went rouge, blocking Ryulong and deleting the main page. A couple people and I are in the stewards channel working to get him desysopped.Sean William01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Eagle 101's deletion of the main page was an accident and in good faith.Sean William01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean, that'srogue notrouge. There's nothing wrong with Rouge admins. Rogue admins on the other hand...WjBscribe02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He's already been desysopped I think. I do believe I sawUser:Drini over at meta change group membership forUser:AndyZ from sysop to (none). --24.44.158.3301:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, to be precise he was desysopped at 1:37 UTC. That's about 10 minutes ago and three minutes before you posted here. --24.44.158.3301:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For explanation, his first edit summary was, "My password is password!". Tell me it's not true.. --zzuuzz^(talk)01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was. It seems the account was compromised.Sean William01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, I thought that the devs indefinitely blocked every user account with weak passwords. (Or maybe that was just where the password=username.) --Iamunknown02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Since another admin logged in, changed the password and unregistered the mail address, I am guessing it was true. Now I wonder how long it took this vandal to guess the password. A dictionary attack maybe, although MediaWiki should have a protection against such attempts. --ReyBrujo01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "fortunately" he blocked an admin and deleted the home page, things could have been much, much worse. --ReyBrujo01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe it'sRobdurbar (talk ·contribs), who happened to go on a wikibreak at the same time as Andy, and went on a similar rampage last month. --tariqabjotu02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed fromWikipedia:List of administrators, added toWikipedia:Former administrators.Picaroon(Talk)01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh - Sorry about the confusion, I intended to delete and restore the page back to the original state, problem is my broswer froze. I did the action in thinking that there was edit history missing, and that needed to be restored, frankly it went so fast that I did not think that a simple "go to history, restore revisions" would work. Again sorry for the mistake on my part. My account is not comprimsed. ——Eagle101^{Need help?}01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Full credit for keeping a look out and doing your best to act in our interests. Mistakes are easily made. The important thing is that (again) the damage from a sysop account used to attack the Wiki was minimal.WjBscribe02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2 questions, is a checkuser in order to check if the account was compromised, secondally, is anyone in contact with AndyZ to see what happened?Ryan Postlethwaite02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Mark Ryan has already e-mailed Andy and that Dmcdevit is currently working on the CU.Cbrown1023talk02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the clarification.Ryan Postlethwaite02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, that is correct. Things are moving a mile a minute at #wikipedia-en-admins.Sean William02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Still have no idea how I'd go about getting access to that channel - I'm pretty much a luddite as far as IRC is concerned :-).WjBscribe02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I can determine from the CheckUser evidence.AndyZ (talk ·contribs) had two logged actions, one on each of two IPs. The first, deletion of the main page at 01:32, May 7, 2007, was using the Tor proxy 88.198.175.78. At 01:33,BuickCenturyDriver (talk ·contribs), on IP 24.185.34.152 (which appears not to be an open proxy; it's the only IP he has used for hundreds of edits over the last month) makes an edit creating the main page[9] (the diff is misleading, since the history was restored after it). One minute later, 01:34, AndyZ's second action, the block of Ryulong, was also on the same IP as BuickCenturyDriver: 24.185.34.152. The conclusion is that AndyZ's two admin actions were done by the same person as BuickCenturyDriver. What I can't determine is whether BuickCenturyDriver hijacked the AndyZ account, or whether both are AndyZ, since all of AndyZ's older accounts are too old. We should compare their editing and see if there are any clues as to whether they are the same or different. There does not seem to be any connection to Wonderfool/Robdurbar here.Dmcdevit·t02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disbelieve that BuickCenturyDriver is behind this. He is a very good editor in standing, who would probably be the last person on my mind to delete the main page and block an admin.bibliomaniac1502:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is unexpected. Then again, who would have thought thatRobdurbar (talk ·contribs) would have done those things...WjBscribe02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the only thing we can look for is any behavior simularities. ——Eagle101^{Need help?}02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, maybe his account was comprimised? Is thereany way of working this out from checkuser? Was it his usual IP?Ryan Postlethwaite02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BuickCenturyDriver's IP isnot compromised. It is the only IP he has been on for months. Someone needs to look at the two accounts. Do they have similar edit histories and interests? Similar quirks? And importantly, has AndyZ ever revealed where he lives before, because we don't have any of the IP evidence from before his wikibreak, so I can't tell if his account was compromised, or if he is BuickCenturyDriver.Dmcdevit·t02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar behavior? How about the fact that Buick justhappened to be the first person to put something on the Main Page after Andy deleted it.On the other hand, I'm not sure why Andy would not have just created the page on his own account. --tariqabjotu02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, either Buick's account was compromised, or it was him all along, Andy and Buick on the same IP, sorry, but that too much of a coincidence.Ryan Postlethwaite02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If Buick was using that same IP for months, then yeah, that's hard to refute. My question is, what IPs was AndyZ editing from previously? If we could find those, maybe we could figure out if the account was compromised or not. Either way though, Buick is looking pretty guilty.Grandmasterka02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it was just the main page, I could AGF. But not with the other things that have happened. Regards,Ben Aveling02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC) and I changed the heading

Buick appears to be currently in charge of his account (per his unblock request), and checkuser says he is editing from his usual IP, which appearsto have been static for months. The only credible explanations are either Buick hijacked AndyZ's account, or is AndyZ. --zzuuzz^(talk)02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just declined an unblock onUser talk:24.185.34.152 until this is all sorted out... —Scientizzle19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may have simply been a mistake. People screw up, using open proxies but then connecting sock accounts by accidentally editing with the same proxy for multiple accounts, all the time.Dmcdevit·t02:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need is, buick and andysnormal IP whois reports - then it might be obvious.Ryan Postlethwaite02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, Andy's from New Jersey.Ryan Postlethwaite02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Buicks from New york, are they near each other??Ryan Postlethwaite03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Optimum Online (which is what the IPs are from) is a large north-eastern ISP with a large range of dynamic IPs. The IPs will probably geolocate to random locations, anyway.Sean William03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But Buicks appeared static didn't it?Ryan Postlethwaite03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple contrib checking on the IP shows that Buick was the only one to have any noticable edits from that IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we publish CheckUser evidence??RxS03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's frequently necessary for investigations and blocking IPs. All IPs are logged and usually out the IPs of the intended vandal. The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk.Dmcdevit·t03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Frequently, when's the last time Checkuser evidence was made public?? Investigations within checkusers certainly, but at ANI? And wasn't the incident over when the info was added here, how is that a suicide pact?RxS03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree here with RxS. There was no need to publish the static ip. However, everyone makes mistakes. --ReyBrujo03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. All IP blocks are logged publicly, and that is unavoidable. The information is important for the investigation. Think of most banned users who have used sockpuppets: their IPs are outed, and rightly so, because this is the only way admins can deal with them.Dmcdevit·t03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

God how I hate the drama that comes with any use of Checkuser on any established contributor. -Amarkovmoo!03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just the drama of John254. —Centrx→talk •03:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He tipped his own IP addressright here so what is the problem?IrishGuy^talk09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

if it makes anyone feel better, it seems to be a dynamic IP, as the user came on IRC with a different IP address.hombrede haha09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The privacy policy is not a suicide pact when the safety of the project is at risk. Interesting. --tariqabjotu04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the privacy policy does explicitly say that the information may be released "Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers". In addition, the IP is clearly that of a large ISP and is not personally identifiable "where they're one of millions of users" and is "unlikely to be personally identifiable". —Centrx→talk •04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done a separate CheckUser which confirms, without any reasonable doubt, that BuickCenturyDriver edited using AndyZ's account. I don't know if they have always been the same editor, but they certainly are now.Jayjg^(talk)04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather belated and unnecessary, but editing times indicate that sockpuppetry was possible. -Amarkovmoo!04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I was asked to do a second CheckUser, and I did so. What do you mean by "sockpuppetry was possible"?Jayjg^(talk)04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean I'm inherently distrustful of anything that I can't see the raw evidence for, so I make sure that the results of the Checkuser were possible. The checkuser still definitely confirms it. -Amarkovmoo!04:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out what happened, and I'm terribly sorry (definitely learned something). Normally my passwords aren't this stupid, but keeping track of various passwords does get quite annoying, and having my WP account hacked was one of the hacks I was least expectant of. Also funny, my IP address has always been 71.something; it never was 24.anything. By the way, I have never interacted withUser:BuickCenturyDriver before.71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ)22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up (after going through pages of discussion on this), I also strongly disbelieve thatUser:BuickCenturyDriver was involved (with all evidence being coincidences); and that my account was hacked by somebody taking advantage of my terribly weak password (same for the other ~3 hacked admin accounts). Definitely not a sock/meat/etc.puppet with BCD, as Ryan noted above I'm from NJ (seeWP:NJ). I concur with most of the discussion around here, esp. those regarding weak passwords. Sorry for having caused [even if indirectly] this mess. After I get a complete hold upon this situation, I'll apply (can't think of better terminology?) for an unblock, and I'll leave my adminship position up to the decision of the community.71.125.65.64 (User:AndyZ)23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second... I got blocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龍)02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel honoured. He chose you above all others... :-).WjBscribe03:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep. Right after the main page was deleted.Sean William03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've just looked at Buicks contrib list -[10], he makes an edit after nearly a day off, 20 minutes before andy deleted the main page[11], 1 minute after the main page was deleted (and after a 20 minutre break), buick creates the main page statingwhere is the main page, another minute ater, Ryulong is blocked under AndyZ's name but on Buicks IP. Buick has also stated on his talk[12] that he doesn't have a weak password. I'm struggling to assume good faith.Ryan Postlethwaite03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to assume good faith too, but unless there is a bug in the log system, or he is sharing the ip with someone else, recreating the page and blocking with the same IP passes theduck test. --ReyBrujo03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right Reybrujo, the fact that he made the first edit after it was deleted is just something else to consider, the fact that the block occurred with his IP address is the hard evidence. I am thinking that is difficult to occur, unless there is a known glitch that causes some kind of false logging of actions and associated IP addresses.hombrede haha03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…—Ryūlóng (竜龍)03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, maybe a year or so ago, there was a weird quirk with Wikipedia's proxy network that allowed spoofed addresses to appear in the logs, but the real address was still available in the proxy logs. And, IIRC, the devs plugged the hole back then. It might be a good idea to ask them to check for a regression, just to rule out the possibility that Buick's Pc wasn't actually involved. --71.162.93.4303:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

MARMOT got banned forspoofing addresses to impersonate other editors. I'm sure it's been fixed since then. —MichaelLinnear04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if he didn't delete the main page with it, it seems possible that Buick saw the deletion summary ("my password is password"), and took advantage of it. Seems crazy unlikely that hedidn't do the block, unless there's some technical glitch. --Consumed Crustacean(talk)04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems unlikely; we'd havetwo rogue editors, one coming back only to delete the main page, and the other only to block. The evidence is overwhelming, but I'm just curious: Did Buick ever have any disputes with Ryulong?Grandmasterka04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember hte time when an admin accidentally deleted the Main Page. It was restored, but without protection, and an anonymous user managed to hit twice before protection was reinstated. It isn't unheard of, though CU evidence > likely coincidence.hbdragon8807:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm struggling to assume good faith. " Me too. Well, user got into irc a couple of minutes after the incident, playing the "I'm not technically savvy, I onlyu know how to use a browser" attitude... and eventually he ended upassuring us he had just switched IPs using the ipconfig DOS command (I wonder how much people know it exists let alone use it properly) to get out of the "bad IP". --drini^[meta:]_[commons:]04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can switch IPs?Viridae^Talk04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DHCP Release, then Renew. That is, drop theDHCP lease, and then ask the ISP for a new one. With most ISPs, excluding the few with static IPs, this will do it. --Consumed Crustacean(talk)04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Woudln't "ipconfig /renew" be?. Ues Crustacean, but hespecifically said he used ipconfig. Moreover, when someone suggested the possibility of his computer being rooted, the technically unsavvy user said

<BuickCenturyDriv>It's not rootesUsed a proxy-checker I have no malware Please, I promise no bad will come from me

So... talking about ipconfig, proxies, etc, doesn't really makes me think of an unsavvy user, rather a cracker wannabe playing the dumb card. By the way, did we mention that he knows how to use TOR? --drini^[meta:]_[commons:]04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Drini summarizes it very well. A pity we lose an apparent good contributor, though, for a one-time mistake (I will assume good faith and think some cracker through TOR breaks into AndyZ's account and deletes the main page (32'), BCD discovers the fact and creates a temporary main page (33'), reads the edit summary and notices the password of AndyZ account, logs into it and blocks Ryulong (34')). --ReyBrujo05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as far as I'm aware, is that the two users were sharing an IP address at the time. Both pieces of evidence are circumstantial on their own, but when put together... --Deskana(AFK 47)11:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that AndyZ no longer has admin powers, isn't an indefblock a bit harsh?hbdragon8807:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounts that have been compromised are always indefinitely blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When the Main Page was deleted today it was recreated and edited by 7 IPs and 3 registered users in the two minutes before it was protected. Am I correct in assuming that adding the Main Page to the protected titles list may prevent this from happening the next time the page gets deleted? If so, are there other pages we want to protect from recreation by non-admins should they get deleted?NoSeptember 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That could work, but you'd need to get rid of the big "DELETE" button.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Note thatWP:PT can only protect non-existent pages. If the page exists, it'll be equivalant to full-protect, which doesn't work if the page is deleted via "the big red shiny button", as Ryulong stated. --Kzrulzuall^{Talk•Contribs}08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It was tried by several admins after the last 'problem' and the main page can't be protected with cascading protection fromWP:PT.--Nick^t08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can still transclude the page and protect it, which is how I believe the protected titles pages works. I'll play around with the template.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding protection? Ryulong... If that works, then anyone can salt articles... --Kzrulzuall^{Talk•Contribs}08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a "bug" that came about with cascading protection. If you transclude a non-existant title onto a page that has cascading protection, that page is protected from creation. That is how the protected titles pages work, however one needs to actualy edit a page that has had cascading protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I see how it works now... So every page that is linked to a cascading-protected enabled page has full protection? --Kzrulzuall^{Talk•Contribs}09:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Only pages that are transcluded like templates. If {{cookie}} was on the page,Template:Cookie would be protected from creation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I deliberately designed the{{protected title}} template to only protect nonexistent pages, but this is an artificial limitation. To protect the main page against re-creation/editing by a non-sysop, we need only transclude it by placing the code {{:Main Page}} on a page with cascading protection enabled. Note, however, that anyone with malicious intent and access to a sysop account could simply remove the transclusion or deletethat page when deleting the main page itself. And of course, such an individual could just as easily...well, I'll refrain from finishing that sentence (for fear of invokingWP:BEANS), but let's just say that there are worse things that this would do nothing to prevent. —David Levy12:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. A rogue admin is likely going for the bang per buck in rogue actions given their limited time to act. I doubt finessing an extra minute of unprotection of the Main Page has sufficient "bang" value to make that extra step worthwhile to them. So this little extra protection may just be worth doing.NoSeptember 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially if it's transcluded on, say, five or ten cascading-protected pages instead of just one. —Cryptic13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into specifics, my concern is that this would encourage a rogue admin (or a hijacker of an admin's account) to do something worse than simply deleting the main page. If this were to occur, the cascading protection might actually work against us. —David Levy13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what you're thinking, and I agree. Cascading protecting the main page wouldn't accomplish enough to remove the risk. --Deskana(AFK 47)14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are any remaining admins stupid enough to have obvious passwords, perhaps we should write a script to locate them and send a list to meta for them to be summarily desysopped on security grounds. This isn't funny. --Tony Sidaway11:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate precaution, perhaps, but I'm not sure how much it'd accomplish. I'm not convinced these accounts sit around for ages with obvious passwords andthen do stupid things. I think it's likely that the passwords are being changed shortly before the rogue activities. --Deskana(AFK 47)11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how your suggestion could be done, Tony. If we can program a script to find obvious passwords, a hacker would have done it before us and compromised the security already....If we could do it, so can they. Unless, we actually base the scriptin Mediawiki software, which could be potentially hazardous if something goes wrong... --Kzrulzuall11:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because we know that this can be done that we should ensure thatwe do it first. The Mediawiki softwareshould stop people using stupid password, that goes without saying. --Tony Sidaway11:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly a past review did reveal several admin account with blank passwords whilst they were still allowed. --pgk12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see theWikipedia Signpost story on disabling of blank passwords.Graham8712:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious or not, all passwords are still vunerable to (censored by the Cabal) attacks. AmiDaniel suggested something similar to a captcha on bugzilla (here) to prevent attacks like that.Sean William13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... did we just getanotherone? –Riana_ऋ13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell just happened to Jiang? He's been blocked indefinitely now for deleting the Main Page and blocking Jimbo.Nishkid64 (talk)14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, another one went batshit insane. Desysopped in 4 minutes thanks to Cyde and a steward.Sean William14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there's someStar Trekesque Admin psychosis going on. Aside from the obvious guess that it's a concerted effort to compromise admin accounts, is it possible that these are all sleepers? A concerted effort to infiltrate through socked RFAs?Anchoress14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

pretty doubtful - Jiang had an 5 year old account and had over 32,000 edits (placing him 62 on the list of contributors) - straight forward account hacking I think. --Fredrick day14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jiang reports that his hacked password was "fuckyou".NoSeptember 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see something simple like a how-to on how to make a good password when users first start an account. I don't think we have it. And I'd suggest that all admins change their password immediately. Letters AND numbers if possible. And longer the better. --Woohookitty^Woohoo!20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Security.

Please edit and discuss. --Tony Sidaway15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not too familiar with CSS and all that, would it be possible to hide the "Delete" link from admins on the Main page using CSS (like we hide the Main Page heading)? While this wouldn't prevent deletion of the main page, it would at least take longer to do so and may deter those unfamilar with MediaWiki. Unless we want the Main Page to be the obvious target as its easier to notice if its gone.Mr.Z-mantalk¢20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Seem like all you'd have to do is enable "edit on double-click" and get to the edit page where the "delete" tab would be visible again.John Reaves(talk)22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Has the checkuserable info forRobdurbar (talk ·contribs)'s last edits gone stale? Is it possible to assess whether that vandalism spree was a test run for the current rampage?Aecis^Brievenbus00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that it would seem unlikely, sinceUser:Robdurbar's vandalism was a lot more damaging that that of my hacked account. If we were both hacked (assuming that Robdurbar's account was also hacked), then since mine was hacked second it would make sense that the vandalism would surpass one block and one deletion of the Main Page. Of course, I'm just starting to piece together what's happening, so don't take my word for it.APR _t (User:AndyZ's semi-bot account)00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

InterestingCheckuser on Robdurbar, by the way. If there is a link between the hijacking of Robdurbar's admin-enabled account and today's desysoppings, someone might want to look into the confirmed accounts listed in that Checkuser...Aecis^Brievenbus00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Like other sites, should we have one's account lock for a while after 3 incorrect attempts to log in? --Rschen7754 (talk -contribs)02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The maliciously-minded could use that to lock out every administrator at once, so that's not a good idea. Don't forget that our usernames are on display every time we make an edit. --ChrisO08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand blocking an IP for a few hours after a number of unsuccessful attempts to login might be helpfulAlex Bakharev08:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These anon users whose IP are 59.95.30.220, 59.95.17.75, 203.94.192.142, 203.94.200.55 are removing cited information even after several requests have been made not to vandalize. Please put anon lock on these articles below and block their IP's. The user with IP 203.. seems to have created an accountUser:Deccanwala and is continuing his personal attacks on me.

Vijayanagara
Origin of Vijayanagara Empire
Talk:Vijayanagara Empire-->personal attack
Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri
Talk:Political history of medieval Karnataka-->personal attack
Rashtrakuta Dynasty(FA)
Political history of medieval Karnataka
History of KarnatakaThank you.Dineshkannambadi15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. I intend to question the doubtful and dubious information.— Precedingunsigned comment added by59.95.33.220 (talk •contribs) 12:32, May 7, 2007

That's a lot to look through all at once. TheVijayanagara edit war seems to be overthe addition of an alternate name, surely notWikipedia:Vandalism. --AnonEMouse^(squeak)16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the above user 59.95. is a banned userUser:Sarvabhaum. Also,Vijayanagara is a city in Karnataka state, India. The alternate script being used is from a language not officialin Karnataka. The official language and script isKannada whose text has always existed there and is being removed by anon users.Dineshkannambadi17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats like using Italian language/script to write the name of a place in France.Dineshkannambadi17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir moreveryadavas of devagiri are a maratha empire and its kannadi origin is disputed. A whole lot of section is devoted on it whereas similar claims abtRashtrakutas are disposed off. 59.95 is shared by whole city of mine.

Disputed by whom? Can you show the diffs of disputes if at all they are there and how the disputes are resolved? If you have something legitimate to say, come up with valid references and argue over in talk page. Simply adding tags to an already well written article is not the way to go for it. There are already enough references provided for all points you've been tagging. What are you trying to prove without any citations or references? Your empty rhetoric just a disruptive behavior.Gnanapiti17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are notSarvabhaum why dont you log in? Also being Anon, perhaps protects you from 3RR which is why you dont login.Dineshkannambadi17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I request the admins to revert the anon's edits and sprotect the page. For people who know, its very clear that this is the indef banned (sarvabhaum) trying to circumvent his block. Thanks.Sarvagnya17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, the fact that this anon user 59.85 is the same asUser:Sarvabhaum or one of his sockpuppets comes from the fact he has left a message for adminUser talk:Utcursch regarding one of the above articles I have mentioned. Admin Utcursch was the one who arbiteredthe case ofSeuna Yadavas of Devagiri for us late last year-early this year.If 59.95.. is not Sarvabhaum, how did he know which admin to approach.?Dineshkannambadi18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch had himself contacted with me. 59.95 is shared by whole of my city. The earlier users have presented the citations and i can produce it too. The citations which these kannadi editors are using are disputed. If Kannadi script is justified on Yadavas page why doesnt Marathi script in Rashtrakutas and Chalukyas?

Let me explain this for the last time. Kannada was themajor language of administration along with Sanskrit in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta rule. It was also the language ofpopular literature. There is no shortage of citations to this fact and have been provided. However, There is no proof if Marathi even existed at that point. There is not one shread of Marathi inscription or literature from the above period attributed to the above kings. The first Marathi inscription (which is disputed) is from 983CE. So Marathi cant be included in those articles just to please your ego. In the case of Seuna Yadavas Empire, the situation is different.Most of the Seuna inscriptions are in Kannada, their coins from anearly period have Kannada legends and Kannada was apopular language of literature in the Yadava court along with Sanskrit. Marathi literature started later aroud 1190 CE. Several citations from English sources have been provided for this in the respective article. We have been through this with you repeatedly. I dont intend to explain this again.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Many people both Telugu Marathi and Tamil have made it clear that theydont find suryanath kamath's works correct or dependable, who is nothing but Karnataka govt sponsered self-congratulatery historian. feel free to use in kannadi articles not in Marathi.Rashtrakutas did have kannadi as major language but as pointed out before (i can produce the evidence again) that a branch of rashtrakutas had Maharashtri Prakrit as official language. Chalukya were of Maratha origin and even had works in marathi as pointed by C.V Vaidya. His views should be included and if no Marathi script can be allowed at chalukyas and rashtrakutas than kannadi script will not be allowed in yadavas of devagiri. Yadavas of Devagiri have nothing to do with kannadi language their ancestors might be but not they. kannadi bragging and its scriptwill not be allowed there. Its a matter of pride of our state and history. dont kannadize each and every article u come across.

PCE (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been an issue with professional wrestling related articles since he first appeared last year, just looking at his talk page should give an idea of how mny people have attempted to stop him as well as a block for disruption. This users only edits, apart from sporadic vandalism, is to make up false information (namely names) for wrestling moves and then add them to articles. He has received countless warnings (at least six test4's), never uses an edit summary and is impossible to deal with because he never responds to any person trying to communicate with him. ––Lid^(Talk)00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone help me out? ––Lid^(Talk)16:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted a clear case of vandalism from IP192.234.2.80. Checking on the whois, it looks like it's coming from ESPN HQ in Bristol, CT. Can someone verify this or am I going nuts?--Ispy198103:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not nuts. WHOIS says that the address is registered to ESPN.Titoxd^{(?!? -cool stuff)}03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably some mail room summer intern with a computer. If you're feeling ambitious, contact their abuse address. --Auto^{(talk /contribs)}03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks--Ispy198114:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in reference to a dispute fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Original_research_in_talk_pages andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy

Please try to ignore the pettyness (and I'm sorry for the part I've played thus far.)

I am aware thatWP:NOR is a "non-negotiable" policy. However, neither that policy (nor in either of the other two articles) specifically states that it must be applied to talk pages (on the contrary, the term "article" is used frequently.) This specific application of the ban on original research is directly supported only byWP:TALK.

Still, several people still insist that this "clarification" would not be possible even with overwhelming consensus (I'm not claiming to have such consensus at this point in time) due to it being a fundemental alteration, even though no one has yet claimed an actual contradiction (other than TALK.)

I believe that this issue needs the involvement of the admins (and quite possibly involvement of the very highest levels) to clarify. CAN we decide thatWP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages, or will such a decision be inevitably vetoed?

Note that most of the controversy is surrounding one specific subtype of original research:synthesis. Did the founders of Wikipedia (and creators of the "non-negotiable" policies) intend for synthesis (i.e. most logical deductions) to be banned from the talk pages, even if it's being used to support an action (such as, for instance, a page redirect) that does NOT add unsourced material to the article itself?

I am not asking whether the admins believe such a policy shift to be wise. I am asking them whether it is possible. --Lode Runner05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"No original research" only applies to article space, and that's always been the case. Likewise NPOV only applies to article space as well. Anyone arguing they do is missing the point and is categorically and unequivocally wrong.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (speaking for myself and not for the Arbitration Committee as a whole)

Clarification (before some smartarse comes along and asks "So what about Portal:" - substitute 'encyclopedia space' for 'article space' above.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you are saying that NOR and NPOV do not apply to article talk pages? Interesting, because many admins have said differently onWP:NOR talk. I agree partially with Lode Runner and what (I think) you're saying here, that article talk pages should allow essentially unrestricted discussion as long as the goal is to improve the article. If so, then we need to changeWP:TALK. -Merzbow05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If WP:TALK says that, it should be fixed. I suspect the INTENT of adding that kind of wording was to warn people that they couldn't put unverified harmful stuff on talk pages and have it stay - talk pages are not a free-for-all character assassination zone. However, it is acceptable and always has been to work on stuff on the talk page that's not ready for 'prime time' - that may include stuff we believe to be true but haven't yet foudn a reliable source for, for instance.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)05:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note well that that does not mean that "essentially unrestricted discussion" is permitted.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the proposed changes to the NOR policy by nature allow for unrestricted discussion on talk pages. Clearly, that's unacceptable: talk pages only exist to promote the advancement of the page they represent: whether it be by workshopping future material for inclusion, or discussing changes or gaining consensus. But that's the limit of what talk pages are intended for. Case in point: the0.999... article (I think that's the proper page title) talk page....it's devolved into a "answer your math questions here" and "Lets argue the validity of proofs unrelated to the article". Accordingly, I MFD'd it, but such a devolution is exactly what the changes proposed by Lode Runner create. As I have mentioned before, modifying NOR necessitates modifyingWP:RS,WP:TALK,WP:V,andWP:ATT. That's far too sweeping of a change.⇒SWATJester^{Denny Crane.}06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a clarification on WP:TALK that discussion is intended to produce a result that is NPOV and NOR and should be focused on that goal? IOW, not a place to put all the stuff you'd like to include in the article if it weren't for those pesky policies.

Talk pages aren't an 'anything goes' environment - I just feel that extending NOR and NPOV to them, which wasnever the intention of those policies, is the wrong way, and a fundamentally broken way, to do that. It's pretending a rule applies that never has in practice, and written policy on Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what's actually done.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C)06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold, and removed the offending section fromWP:TALK. Feel free to restore it,if you can provide an explanation of why that section was needed in the first place.^Thanks,_{Luc "Somethingorother" French}07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial revert, because you removed the parts that encouraged editors to adhere toWP:AGF andWP:BLP, both of which are essential in talk pages (especially the former). --Masamage♫07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further reverted: without inclusion of something similar to that, the guideline therefore contradicts itself in the beginning : "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."

The included statement "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." is vital: it allows for wiggle room, while maintaining the integrity of talk pages to do what they were DESIGNED to do. Removing that statement has the effect of removing that allowance as well, which is clearly not the intention of the guideline.⇒SWATJester^{Denny Crane.}07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm requesting some admin help with a revert war over on the Corrigan article. One poster is stating that, because he doesn't accept information published by the subject on the subjects personal website, the information is therefore contentious and BLP and SELFPUB guidelines don't apply. Myself and another poster have explained the points behind BLP and SELFPUB.

It gets a bit more complicated than that but, unfortunately, at this point we need an admin to come in and make some decisions.Jodyw106:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 –Resolved then?--VectorPotential^Talk12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username –Spebi07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, please useWP:AIV next time.Grandmasterka07:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA appears to have taken over.Viridae^Talk07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. –Spebi07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PhotoUploadsBot33 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) has been blocked. It had the same modus operandi as the one that was blocked earlier. It'd be best to keep a look-out for these unauthorised bots. --SunStar Net^talk11:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks it was just an impersonator. Like the last one, there isn't enough evidence to prove that the impersonated user made a bot. --24.136.230.3812:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)