Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive48

I've blocked {{vandal|Holywarrior}} for 48 hours per the below (see relevant above thread):

:"Third rate-liar" is a personal attack and any editor (admin or not) would be in the right to place an NPA warning on the talk page of the issuant. User:Holywarrior's user page is also inappropriate in my opinion by listing diffs with spurious added commentary by him (e.g. "CVU deletion trial" as opposed to an MfD that failed) and ("Admin who tried to bully me"). The entire commentary above is suggestive of trolling.

I submit the block here for review -- Samir धर्म 20:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:Despite the fact, that I don't consider User:Holywarrior to easy to deal with (and a change of username may be an option), the thread above has a prehistory, as User:VandalPatrol (now indef blocked) and socks were busy making threats against User:Holywarrior and try to give the impression of acting as delegates of the CVU. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VandalPatrol&action=history userpage history of VandalPatrol] of and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhurabal. Anyway, 48h block may be OK for cooling down. --Pjacobi 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::Just for clarification, I have no prehistory with User:Holywarrior (Please review my contributions). My only "Ganging up" activity was issuing a WP:NPA against this user, for reasons cited above (i.e. calling another user a "3rd rate liar"). Following that, I looked in the other comments in the talk page, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_22&diff=prev&oldid=60399032 voted here] in a CFD for renaming, which Holywarrior opposed (My comment there was : Rename: as per Mareino hardly even a comment). Holywarrior turned his actions against me (see his last 15 edits or so) and claimed I pretended not to know anything and was bullying him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragib&diff=prev&oldid=60490287][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARagib&diff=60493802&oldid=60493372]. Well, as I said, my only knowledge of this affair is ANB, and I don't really care to delve into the past or present disagreements this user has with others. That seems to be what Holywarrior has against me, and for this, I had the honor of making an entry in his attack page.

::Well, I hope he cools down, and gets back to editing. His recent edits in the last week show only reverts or attacks in different pages, and a very dubious nomination of WP:CVU for deletion. I hope a 48 hour break will change such behavior. Thanks. --Ragib 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

::Holywarrior as a vandal, nominated by Debonshire, itself need a review.Possibility of story being the reverse is not ruled out.Wmnnzzr 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I have had no interaction with Holywarrior prior to this incident. I first encountered him when I saw his nomination for the deletion of the CVU page, claiming that it had spawed User:VandalPatrol, who I knew nothing of. I then looked at his talk page and saw that he had refered to every warning placed there by VandalPatrol as vandalism, so naturally, I assumed that he had been comitting vandalism and was angry about it having been interfered with and therefore decided to nominate the CVU page for deletion as a means of retaliation. Then after the matter, I did some investigation and found that he had a right to be angry with VandalPatrol, as that user has had a history of trolling and harrassing him and is currently blocked indefinitely, though he is now using sockpuppets. While I disagree with some of his actions, I can better understand them now. I have personally sent Holywarrior an e-mail apologising to him for having misjudged him and letting him know that I have made an effort to have VandalPatrol's harrassement put to an end. Hopefully he will decide to come back.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, it looks like he has.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Deadhead documents the term "deadhead", meaning a fan of the Grateful dead. Most of what is in this article is uncited, and some editors are arguing that Usenet is a reliable source since no other source exists. I think this article needs to be around 1/3 the current length. Maybe some others with more experience of rock culture could have a look? Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

:usenet isn't a reliable source if no other sources exist. Its a neologism, and if they can't find any primary or secondary sources using the word and have to rely on usenet, I believe that qualifies it for deletion. --Crossmr 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Of course the article needs to be properly sourced but deadhead is by no means a neologism--in fact it is very well known and has been used ubiquitously for decades to describe the fans of the Grateful Dead, who are (or were) really closer to a phenomenon, than any other fans I've heard tell of--thousands of people who essentially devoted their lives to following the band around and had an almost cultish entire culture centered on the band. In high schools in the U.S. for the last three decades, for example, cliques were often described as the preppies, the metalheads, the druggies etc. and deadheads (often for those who were hippieish but not even dedicated fans of the band. I'll see if I can drum up some reliable sources. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User has consistently engaged in personal attacks on me going so far as to vulgarly proclaim to having sex with my mother.

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=next&oldid=57359024]

2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=prev&oldid=57358356]

3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=prev&oldid=57355569]

4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Wayne&diff=next&oldid=60855831]

I took this to the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APersonal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=61017700&oldid=61016837] and the only action taken was a warning added to the users talk page. Shown here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A195.93.21.100&diff=61017420&oldid=60587635]. You'll see that it is at least 20-30 times this user has been warned about vandalism and personal attacks.

I understand he's using AOL, but that in itself is NO excuse to allow him to continously vandalise articles and engage in vulgar personal attacks on me. I find it highly inappropriate that he's allowed to continue his vile rampage simply because he's using AOL. If any other user had said the things he's said about me (i.e. accusing me of being a pedophile, having sex with my mother) they would have been permanently banned from editing here.

I look forward to hearing/seeing a more appropriate response to his personal attacks than a simple warning on a talk page to go along with his MANY other warnings for the same thing. Batman2005 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:User:Wikibofh blocked for the 15 minutes which is all we can give AOL IPs. Sorry, I know he's a pain, but that's the best we can do. I will re-semiprotect the John Wayne article if he continues adding his pet (unsourced, unverified, and hostile attack) section, but of course that won't prevent talk page spam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::Hmm, well, obviously its wiki policy on the AOL thing, so I won't go into my personal feelings about that. It just feels as if he's getting a free pass. Batman2005 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I revert for the third time, I would like to ask for somebody's help at Chinky and the associated AfD. I found a crappy article about a slur and took it to AfD. In mid-AfD another user replaced the contents wholesale with another article on an British slang term referring to Chinese takeouts. Now the AfD has been obviated, AfD participants are getting confused, and I am losing patience and yelling at people. He's been a little too BOLD for my taste. Would someone calm please come and restore order? Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:My advice would be to close the AfD yourself, as a keep, since you're saying yourself that if the decision on the now-removed version was "delete", you'd replace it with the version User:Uncle G has written. It does, however, need to be made plain in the "Uncle G version" of the article that "Chinky" is widely regarded as a racial slur, even when only applied to takeaways. --ajn (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:: It is still a racial slur - and _if_ we need an article on UK chinese takeaways then it should be at Chinese takeaway. It feels like a dic def - and the article is poor and has pov issues. Secretlondon 13:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::OK, I will close the AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at this user's userpage, as he complained about personal attacks. I was suprised to therefore see a long list of celebrities being described as "racist whore, fuckin traitor, homosexual, murdering liar", and so on. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, don't own your userpage, etc. I removed the section, but he restored it. So, question - is the abuse of real people encyclopedic? Proto///type

06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think it should be reomved and protected if needed. Ian¹³/t 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Clearly, this isn't encyclopedic, but I think the user page guidelines need to be clarified. It says that longtime users are often given a great amount of latitude, but to what extent? Some users have had pages devoted strictly to showcasing images of nudity; some are okay with it and some aren't (but the user page guidelines don't really help to clarify whether it truly is okay). And it looks like the same type of situation exists here. The question of whether we should give Batman2005 this much latitude is not answered within the user page guidelines.

::However, I would like to note several statements that implicitly attack certain types of people. From his people I wish would die in a fire, he mentions Zac Efron and Jesse McCartney simply because he's homosexual. He says that people who think Freddy Adu is sixteen are dumbasses. This kind of statement...

:::This fucking page likely contains unnecessarily vulgar or offensive statements. If it bothers you, then you should go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself.

:: ...is just downright insulting. And this...

:::Now, cry babies, don't go crying to the admins (who will likely be included) this isn't a personal attack, i don't wish you dead (most of you) this is just my way of saying..."hey, no matter what you say to me on here, you're still dead to me, so i'm not going to pay any attention to your comments.

::..., once again, just creates hostility. There's even an explicit death wish in there (for those who don't fit under most of you).

::In addition, I'm quite fascinated by your question: So, question - is the abuse of real people encyclopedic? Wikipedians are real people too, aren't they? Okay, okay, I know what you're saying. But let's pretend Bill O'Reilly were to become a Wikipedian. Or perhaps Paris Bennett were to start editing Wikipedia. Then Batman's page would absolutely be making personal attacks against Wikipedians. So, the personal attacks against famous people in reality are equivalent to personal attacks against Wikipedians. We would not (I hope) allow something to say about an Wikipedia editor, no talent, ugly, annoying voice, cocky, ugly, etc, etc., or allow any editor to call someone else a fat ass windbag, so why should we allow people to do the same for celebrities who may or may not be Wikipedians? Batman's user page is far from encyclopedic and serves only to create an uncomfortable environment for people (albeit famous people). Portotype, in my opinion, you did the right thing. joturner 12:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The invitation to "hide and go play fuck yourself" near the top of the page is pretty clearly a PA toward real users, not potential ones. As such, the above question (while interesting in theory) is kind of a moot point. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Firstly i think its ridiculous that this was listed without me being told about it, how disrespectful! Secondly, this has been brought to this very page several times in the past and several times in the past it has been established that my user page violates NO set wikipedia policy! None whatsoever! There is not a single personal attack towards a wikipedia user on my entire page, if Paris Bennett were to become a wikipedian and object then I would remove the offending comment about her. As is though, there is no policy violation on my page, simply put...if it offends you, then discontinue looking at it. Batman2005 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::: i actually see how inviting users to play "hide and go fuck yourself" could be construed as a personal attack towards wikipedia users, as such I shall remove that. Batman2005 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Note I have decided on my own to remove the offending part of the page, it still contains a list of people who I do not like...however it does not now implore them to die in a fire. As I added the information in the first place it was done to illustrate a point, that while wikipedians claim that wikipedia is not censored, it is in fact VERY censored. As such, the point has been proven to my satisfaction and I have declared myself the victor, bring me the finest wine in the land. Batman2005 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::As another note, I think the swearing should be removed (infact, from any userpage where it is used). Some find it offencive (it doesn't really bother me), and although the Wikipedia isn't censored - people don't expect to find that on a userpage. Ian¹³/t 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Note, I'm going to disagree there, requiring me to remove swearing is blatant censorship, let me point out that MUCH more offensive stuff is on wikipedia...(Note: disturbing image warning) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg] If this garbage is allowed to stay on wikipedia but a couple curse words aren't how is that not censorship? Batman2005 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::As I implied, a userpage is not where this would be expected. I think you need to understand that the content of the encyclopedia may not be censored - but that does not mean people can say or do what they like. Also, talk pages and userpages are not part of the encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Profanity (Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.) If you are looking for somewhere where nothing is censored - then you are in the wrong place. Your usages of such possibly offencive words does not improve the content of Wikipedia. Ian¹³/t 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::The problem here isn't that its offensive, the problem is that it violates no set wikipedia policy. You highlighted an article that is a guideline, but not a policy. If certain users find my userpage offensive, as you do, then you are free to navigate away from it and spend your wikipedia time elsewhere. There is no policy about foul language on userpages, if you believe there should be one then there are ways to go about getting that policy enacted. But to require/request that I remove it is censorship at its finest, and that is specifically against wikipedia policy. I also grow very tired of people saying stuff like "I think you should understand " as if i'm too dense to read and understand wikipedia, or as if they're somehow more educated on the subject than I am. I have read all the pertinent policies, which is why i'm safe in my contention that I have violated no policy. Perhaps other users should become as familiar with said policies as I am. Batman2005 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia policy isn't intended to be interpretted word for word. Otherwise we would have loads of people reverting 3 times a day just because they feel they have the right too. Ian¹³/t 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have been MORE than reasonable during this discussion. I chose, on my own, to remove the offending part of the userpage, which was the reason it was brought here for discussion. I did so without needing to be convinced and did so against past consensus that my page was acceptable by all standards and violated no policy whatsoever. I will not remove the profanity as it violates no current policy on wikipedia. To contend that the policies herein shouldn't be interpreted word for word is both ludicrous and laughable. If we don't take policies word for word does that mean i'm free to interpret it however I see fit? Am i then free to levy personal attacks because i'm not interpreting that part as written? Policies are meant to be interpreted exactly how they are written, unwritten rules do not apply here nor do they carry any weight with me. If the editors en-masse want to get together and pass a policy specifically against profanity on userpages then I will follow that policy exactly as written. Until that time, I will not remove profane words from my userpage, nor should any user be expected to. If someone is offended, as I said earlier, they are free to navigate away from the page and abstain from visiting in the future. Batman2005 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• :Right. Please see Wikipedia:Interpret all rules (yes, yes, it's not official policy - but we are a community here). Ian¹³/t 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Would you care to show me a policy i've violated? Or are you just going to continue to link to things that have nothing to do with my userpage and don't prove your position right? If you want to interpret the rules to say that my userpage is offensive fine, then don't visit it in the future...problem solved. I however will interpret wikipedia policy to mean "policy" and guideline to mean "guideline." Policies are things I will follow to the letter as that's the meaning of a policy. As such, you and everyone else, has failed to show me a wikipedia policy that my userpage violates, thus...it will remain. Please do not waste more of my time by linking to things that are irrelevant, if you are able to link to solid policy about my userpage than I will entertain that position, if not I have better things I could be doing, as I'm sure you do. Batman2005 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::It seems you havn't considered anything I have said. Ian¹³/t 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::WP:CIVIL I notice several references to that on your talk page. Your user page is only a continuation of that behaviour and is uncivil. --Crossmr 18:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::While I have been warned about incivility in the past, you'll notice that in no way is a userpage covered in WP:CIVIL. You no doubt have read the policy as I have, and i'm sure you saw the first sentence where it clearly says Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. None of my edits that are deemed "inappropriate" occur on a talk page or edit summary. Are YOU able to provide a policy that my page violates? If not I would also ask that you not waste my time with things totally unrelated to userpages. Batman2005 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Quite the contrary, I have considered it and gave it some thought, however...you fail again to produce a policy discussing the use of profanity on userpages. Like I said, if it really offends you that much you're free to propose a new policy specifically outlining userpage profanity, until such time as a policy like that is enacted, my page will remain, regardless of how one or two users feel about it. I stand by my contention that wikipedia is not censored, and i'm both shocked and amazed that someone like you who so clearly understands wikipedia policies would fail to understand that basic concept. Batman2005 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::Not at all. The policy directly addresses the issue here. You are required to be civil in ALL edits, your edits to your user page are not civil. They don't need to address profanity, because the profanity is only a part of the greater uncivil behaviour exhibited by your actions on your user page. Protection from censorship does not give you the right to be as uncivil as you like. --Crossmr 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::You may also wish to reread the policy on censorship and pay close attention to this sentence: " some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography)" The exception is only set forth if the objectionable material is necessary to the article, it is not a blanket protection for user pages. Nor a protection to insert objectionable language in articles unless required by an article, for example one on profanity, or perhaps listing a famous quote from a movie/individual/etc--Crossmr 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Perhaps you should spend less time linking to things that are irrelevant and more time trying to find a specific policy that I have violated. You cannot do so, thus my page will remain. Batman2005 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'll also point out that the page on censorship is a guideline, not a policy. Thus it is irrelevant, guidelines are not final. Policies are. Once again, my page will remain. Batman2005 18:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I've linked you to the policy you violated. Just becuase you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore that fact doesn't mean no one has shown you it. WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a guideline. As is WP:NOT which discusses objectionable content. --Crossmr 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::And WP:CIVIL does not pertain to userpages, if it did it would clearly state that in the paragraph, as such it only pertains to talk pages and everything else in there. There is no policy that my page violates. If you don't like the page, don't visit it, simple as that, problem solved, stop wasting my time saying the same wrong stuff over and over again. Batman2005 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::It doesn't need to specify user pages becuase it specifies "Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias" it doesn't say "This only applies to articles and their talk pages" or "only to articles and all talk pages" it says "edits" and the content added to your userpage was done via an "edit". WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored which is a policy only extends protection to articles where the content is relevant. It doesn't say user pages can contain whatever objectionable content they want. --Crossmr 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::You are wrong my friend, and I'm sorry my page offends you, but like I said, you're free to visit the million other pages. I have provided the "what can my user page not have" link and nowhere does it say profanity, WP:CIVIL is all well and good and I'll be civil in my edits, on talk pages and elsewhere, but it does not pertain to userpages, i'm sorry you don't see it that way, but I do. My page will remain. I would also like to point out the thousands of other user pages that have profanity on them and are not the subject of such heated debate here. I would advise those people who are offended to surf elsewhere and discontinue visiting my page. Batman2005 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You've given no evidence to show that this does not extend to userpages. I've given evidence that it extends to all edits, which were necessary to create your user page. i've also made a list of things you have to remove as per the guideline you wish to follow after stating above that you wouldn't follow any guidelines. You also need to remove anything that falls under "Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material" which covers everything I listed before but also the dead to me list and that would fall under "or other non-encyclopedic material". And you might also want to have a look at this statement: "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere" This means WP:CIVIL applies to your user page. --Crossmr 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::Well, my only question here is...what right do you have to tell me what to do? Are you my mother? Batman2005 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Now that you've been proven wrong, you're going to resort to that? You do not own your page, and it currently contains content in violation of more than one policy. You can choose to remove it, or procedure can be followed to remove it permanently. --Crossmr 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Let me also point to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F] which clearly states what a userpage cannot have on it, and profanity is NOWHERE to be found. AGAIN....my page will remain. Batman2005 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• :thats a guideline, as you've pointed out, they have no bearing here. --Crossmr 18:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• : But if you'd like to use that as some basis, things you can't have "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia", which means you need to remove your reference to kevin federline being a douche, the reference to the frats, this comment "I'm not afraid to say that I want to marry Ashley Leggat and provide her with lots of children." this statement I'd do the same to Amanda Bynes, Kellie Pickler, Nikki Reed, Autumn Reeser, Sabrina Bryan, Ashley Leggat, Cote de Pablo, Scarlett Johansson, Katherine Heigl, Emilie de Ravin, Jane Krakowski, Kristin Cavalleri, Amber Tamblyn, Lacey Chabert, and Brooke Hogan (but for gods sake don't tell her dad) This list "People who are alright...if not spectacular" as it has nothing to do with wikipedia, this list as well "People who are not alright"--Crossmr 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::You are wrong again, as the "what can i have on my user page" clearly states that I may have things that I like and dislike. The stuff about linking Kevin Federline has been discussed previously and was allowed, thus i'm inclined to leave it there. You continue to try to find stuff to get me on and you'll continue to be proven wrong, I've been through this pointless excercise a few times now and EVERY time it has been decided that my page violates no policy. Proto had a complaint, I removed it, end of story. Batman2005 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You can list likes and dislikes, it doesn't say you can call someone a douche on your talk page. And as I pointed out above, those guidelines you now wish to hold onto state that all community policies apply to your user page, which includes WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. "There are quite a few users who I think are losers that edit here. One is the administrator who blocked me awhile ago for basically nothing." This is a personal attack and must be removed per those policies, and the rest of your page has to be made civil as per those same policies. --Crossmr 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Very well, i will delete the bit about people I think are losers, you're right about that, it is a personal attack. You have, however, not proven me wrong my friend. If you've proven anything its that you are vainly searching for any policy which I have violated. And that you are incapable of forumalating an argument centered around solid policy rather than you own interpretation of guidelines and policy. My page, minus what I just said I would delete will remain. If you want to keep debating that's fine, but I suggest you find some solid policies as I'll continue to shoot you down like I have been doing. Batman2005 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::You said you wish to follow what is on Wikipedia:User_page This page clearly states "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. This means all policies apply to your userpage, which means WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL applies to your userpage. WP:CIVIL clearly states: "Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." Which clearly covers your "Dead to me" section which also attacks all administrators by calling them dictators. You choose the guideline you wanted to follow, I've shown you the policy which it covers. You can choose to follow it or not. I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that now that you've been shown the proper policy and shown the offending segments of your userpage you will make a good effort to be a positive part of the commmunity. --Crossmr 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the bit about dictators, NPA has been shown through the last time i had this conversation that it does not cover those who are not wikipedia editors, thus the stuff about Kevin Federline can stay, as was decided by consensus previously. And i think if you bothered to look past my userpage you'd see that I have been a positive member of this community for quite sometime, but alas, you only seem to focus on the bad. Dead to me is not a personal attack, it is my way of staying out of arguments with those users who insist on being disrespectful. It too will stay. Batman2005 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:You can create that list without it being a personal attack. NPA doesn't apply to non-wikipedians, however WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F covers that statement with "Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia". Kevin Federline being a douche seems pretty unrelated to wikipedia. My Frat is cooler than your gay Frat is also covered by this. Reworded you could probably keep a lot of this content, but the attitude on it has to be tuned down. Instead of Dead to me, perhaps "editors I do not communicate with". You also don't need to repeat that admins are dead to you several times. Its obvious you don't like or agree with the admins in general, so simply stating that you don't see eye to eye with them would make your stance clear without resorting incivility. And while your other edits might be stellar and worthy of publication, its not a free pass to be uncivil elsewhere. --Crossmr 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::I think something you need to address here is that we are a community - and arguing over technicalities of policies does not aid the Wikipedia, and is rather disruptive. Your tone is not in my opinion following WP:AGF. If you want a freewebhost, go to geocities or something. Your "Dead to me" section, no matter what you say, seems to violate WP:NPA (a policy!) in that you are commenting on users and not content. Remember no-one owns any page (even a userpage), so your commenting of "it will stay" is invalid. Ian¹³/t 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dead to me" would be a personal attack if it said "i wish all these users would die" it does not say that. It simply says that they are dead to me, which is completely acceptable according to consensus the last time it was brought up. I name no admins by name, thus no personal attacks there either. If arguing over policies does not aid wikipedia, why did you guys start it? A bit of the pot calling the kettle black it would seem. I am aware of what wikipedia is, if you have such a problem with my page, then like i said, you're free to create a policy specifically adressing it. Batman2005 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:Whether you're attacking on individual, or a group of individuals, its still a personal attack. You're not attacking to them by wishing them death, you're referring to them in a disparaging manner which is a personal attack. You're devaluing them, whether by calling them names, or simply referring to them as "dead to you". It amounts to a personal attack and is not civil. There are two policies addressing it, and you've subscribed to a guideline which addresses the issues. Why create another policy you'll choose to ignore when there are 2 and a guideline already covering it? --Crossmr 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I personally think the current version of Batman2005's user page is acceptable - tame, even. Confessing to disliking someone isn't the same as insulting them if done tactfully, and could be useful to know in disputes. While I advise Batman2005 not to ignore users just because he dislikes them, it's pretty clear to me that this section is just a playful emulation of the Colbert Report's "Dead to Me" feature, not a hitlist, and we really have bigger fish to fry. Deco 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::no one said it was a hitlist. --Crossmr 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Nor did I intend to imply that. Deco 23:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::this section is just a playful emulation of the Colbert Report's "Dead to Me" feature, not a hitlist, then that statement was pointless if that isn't what you were implying. Just because he's emulating, or trying to emulate part of humour doesn't justify its use for attacking other users, nor does it justify uncivil behaviour. --Crossmr 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::For gods sake its not attacking anyone, nor is it uncivil, in fact...one or two of the users on there told me that they are honored to be listed. If they're not sensitive about it, why are you? Would you like me to put a big giant photo of people giving high fives, or how about people laughing and shaking hands? Is that how civil you want it? That section of the page doesn't offend the people on it so why does it offend you? Batman2005 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Have you asked everyone in these two groups: "# Power Hungry Admins...you know who you are! OH yeah! Admins who lecture you as if you're a child, then go on and do the same thing they were lecturing you about." I doubt it. --Crossmr 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::The fact of the matter is your userpage has a confrontational, aggressive and uncivil feel to it. You asked for which policy you violated. It was provided for you. --Crossmr 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Whatever, I do not believe that it is uncivil, if you think it is then just don't look at my page. Problem solved. Batman2005 02:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Well - we could say that about any page. If someone dued me for making defamatory comments on my userpage - I don't think 'well just don't look at it' is a very good defence. Ian¹³/t 08:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Also - your linking of certain words to people's biographies (especially your 'douche' link) is defamatory, and within Wikipedia uncivil. (Wikipedia:Wikilawyering comes to mind here). Ian¹³/t 08:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::No, its not, in fact that was the topic of a very long debate one of the times it was brought here and it was clearly established that it was not defamatory. You guys can keep reaching for things to get me on, i don't know what your hard on is for getting my user page changed but its pathetic that you've spent so much time arguing over a page you likely never visited until you started commenting here. I think my "then don't look at it" approach is the best way possible. Perhaps you guys are incapable of understanding that this has been discussed numerous times here and i'll continue to go with consensus there (as it was MUCH more than two guys teaming up for no reason) and keep my page as is because it violates no wikipedia policy. Seriously, its about time you guys stopped wasting your time and mine with this ridiculous excercise and just admit that while you find it upsetting to look at, that it doesn't break any policies. Batman2005 13:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::: Like I said, it breaks two policies, and just becuase you sit there and go "no, no, no" doesn't mean that it doesn't break those policies. Why don't you link to this previous discussion you keep citing, and one thing you have to remember is that concensus can change. --Crossmr 15:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Because it was two months ago on this very page, if you think i'm lying and you're not assuming good faith in my contention about it, then you can do the work and find it, you say it breaks two policies, i say it breaks none. Why does your opinion matter more? Why is your intrepretation of the rules better than mine? Are you implying that you're smarter than I am? Are you the wikipedia god? Is yours the final say in this? I must have missed that somewhere. No, you're not, right now there are two people saying it doesn't break those policies and two people saying it does. Thus...no consensus this time and i'll default back to previous consensus, if you want to see it you can do the work to find it, clearly you've got nothing better to do than wage war on my user page. Batman2005 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::No. I wasn't part of the first discussion and had no idea where to find it or when it took place. You've referenced it several times, but wikipedia is a big place, you need to provide links. Now you've just assumed bad faith by saying all that. There are also three people who don't agree with your page. See Joturners comment above near the top. You still haven't linked to the previous discussion. --Crossmr 16:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Perhaps if you had bothered to read what I had written, rather than spouting off the same stuff you always do you would see that if you want to see it, if you're assuming i'm lying you can check the archives of this very page. I don't care if I assumed bad faith, you're waging your personal ethics war on my userpage. Your opinion is that it breaks the civility policy, fine, we all know that, great, super...what do you want? I'm not changing it because it offends you, I don't feel that its a violation of policy, i don't feel as though its uncivil, its not defamatory and whoever said that it was needs to read up on defamation, as opinions can't be defamation as long as they're not presented as truth...which...my god they're not! The other user you reference commented MUCH before I removed the offending material that prompted it to be brought here in the first place. You've stated your opinion and for the last 6 or 8 posts you've made you've done nothing to further it so why keep posting? If you don't have anything new to add then just be safe in the knowledge that you put your piece out there and let the process run its course. Batman2005 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::The process has run it course, 3 individuals feel its inappropriate and 2 do not. Which is a solid 60% concensus for its removal, but you'll ignore that too won't you? You've referenced a discussion as your defense and failed to provide a link for it, and replied with "find it yourself". Thats also a violation of WP:CIVIL. Tell me, can you prove Kevin Federline has never edited wikipedia? or that all of the people who's frat you refer to as "gay" have never edited wikipedia? This is your content that has been called into question and you have to defend it, which you haven't done other than repeating "No, no, no". Did you ask everyone in those two groups I mentioned whether or not they mind being on your page and referred to in that manner? I don't care if I assumed bad faith maybe you don't, but the community does. You don't exist in a bubble on wikipedia. --Crossmr 16:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::IF you're going to make stuff up (like your 3-2 consensus) then you should at least use people who commented on stuff that's still in the article, the user you cited hasn't commented since I removed the section he commented on! Yet you're clearly ignoring Deco who said that he thinks the current version of my page is acceptable, so lets see...tally up the votes here...mine, deco and proto, that's 3. You and Ian, that's 2. SO you're right...a 3-2 consensus as of now, so it'll stay, I like how you reference a comment from somebody about something completely different, yet ignore a comment that's perfectly relevant because it doesn't fit your argument, then say that I'm ignoring things. I have more than defended my position, its not my fault that you either don't understand it, can't accept it, don't want to hear it or whatever. And telling you to find the discussion yourself is not a violation of WP:CIVIL you're the one who wants to see it so you can find it, i know what it says. You seem to spend most of your time here trying to lecture me as if you're somehow more qualified or better than me in some way, which I find HIGHLY offensive, you're a user just like me so don't presume to think that you can lecture me about what wikipedia is or is not. Batman2005 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually joturner commented on your dead to me section which is still in the article, and I'm not ignoring deco. i'm ignoring you. Its your content thats being debated, and while you can defend it you can't form concensus becuase you're biased on your own content. And actually I attempted to find it and it doesn't exist in any time frame or location that you've claimed it to, so as far as I can tell, you're inventing it unless you can provide it. I've gone back to March 1, 2006 in the Incident archive and February 5th on the noticeboard. So if any discussion like this took place here, it was never archived. --Crossmr 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of lying, for someone who tries to put themselves up on the wikipedia pedestal you sure break a lot of the policies you preach about. Joturner commented on the part that was deleted, if you read his comment you'll see that. Here you go, consensus from the very last time, after you accused me of lying about it beind discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive43#Personal_attacks_by_user_Batman2005_and_bad-faith_edits_by_Moe_Epsilon] You'll notice that "The King of Kings" "Teresa Knott" "Calton" and "Petros" all supported (petros after suggesting I tone it down, which I did), while only Paul Cyr did not and one guy put a thing about free speech, there'a 4-1 consensus there that a page...which at that time was much more inflammatory was FINE. Now, i'll wait for you to apologize about calling me a liar. I'm sure you won't do that though, as you are incapable of admitting you're wrong. Batman2005 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:did you not say 2 months ago? That was only 3 1/2 weeks ago. Oh you did "Because it was two months ago on this very page" Joturner commented on the part that was deleted, if you read his comment you'll see that and he also commented on the dead to me section, go back and read it. That entire long comment is his. He's commented on both content that was removed and content that is still there. Calton didn't support you on that. He said the content may or may not be appropriate. Petros also suggested you tone it down, so while he didn't believe you violated a policy, he also didn't feel your content was appropriate either. so that drops it down to 2 support, 2 opposed and a neutral. and Sean Black clearly disagreed with what you had on your page, so thats actually a 2 support to 3 opposed and 1 neutral tally. You had no concensus previously. adding the new count, it is now 4 support, 6 opposed 1 neutral and again a concensus for removal. --Crossmr 16:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::Did you not say you went back to March 1st and couldn't find it? Seems like you still called me a liar. You're clearly changing things around to fit what you want it to say, I will not change my page just because you are tallying the votes up so that no matter what they fit your pov. You are, like I said, engaging in your personal ethics war on this page and I think its ridiculous. I imagine you're familiar with "wikipedia is not a democracy" your simple voting method that you seem to think should be used (even though you're interpreting the votes to fit whatever you want them to say). You were proven wrong, there was a consensus the last time, you STILL cannot accept that, which is both hilarious and ridiculous. I don't, for the life of me understand, how you can say that sean black "clearly disagreed with what i had on my page" when he simply said "Incorrect. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish material espousing your political/social/economic/sexual/religous viewpoints, go elsewhere.-Sean Black" There's nothing on my page about my views on any of those things. Once again you change things around to fit your pov. I think that throughout this entire process you have been both insulting and incivil, as such unless you have anything positive to offer to this discussion (which you have shown you do not) then I suggest you go edit elsewhere and stop trying to push your ethics and values on others. There is no consensus to delete as you falsely claim, i'm sorry you can't understand that. Batman2005 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Thats right, because obviously I skipped a couple of archives. Why would I search last weeks archive? or the last 4 weeks of archives, when you told me it was 2 months ago? I assumed good faith and that you would not mislead me on the time frame. I dropped in about a month ago on both archives and started going back. There was a concensus last time, it was for the removal of the material. You only changed it around to fit what you wanted to believe. Sean Black stated that that material wasn't appropriate on wikipedia and if you wanted to write those things you should take it elsewhere. You're writing those things, so they're not appropriate here. Kevin Federline being a douche is a social viewpoint. That frat being gay, is a social viewpoint. Who you want to have sex with, is a sexual viewpoint. There is a concensus to clean up the material. You choosing to ignore that, doesn't make it any less true. Your talk page speaks to your uncivil behaviour, your behaviour in this discussion also speaks to that. Your userpage is an extension of that behaviour. Telling people to go locate the evidence to support your point of view because you don't want to is uncivil. Assuming bad faith is uncivil, which you've done and indicated you don't care about. You've also broken WP:OWN by claiming that the page will not change. The concensus is there, the policies and guideline broken have been clearly spelled out for you. In spite of all your uncivil behaviour I'm going to assume good faith and leave you to clean it up appropriately. Good luck with it. --Crossmr 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm through with this discussion with you as you are completely close minded, i will not change my user page and if you do it will be reverted, there is no consensus here, there was previously, you just refuse to believe it, just as you refuse to admit to implying that I'm a liar. You are NOT the wikipedia final authority as much as you would apparently like to be. You and Ian do not constitute a consensus, I'm sorry you can't understand that. You're right, I don't care about assuming bad faith with you as you've repeatedly done so with me, you called me a liar, you proceeded to lecture me on wikipedia policy as if you were the one who wrote it. You are not a better person regardless of how much you continuously try to place yourself as one. You've spent this entire conversation lecturing as if you're a parent disciplining a small child. You are uncivil and your proposal to censor my userpage based on your own interpretation of the rule is more damaging to wikipedia than anything I have ever done here. I have been supported in this in the past, yet once again you ignore that. Like I said, i suggest you go and edit elsewhere if you don't like my page, wikipedia is not run by you and you do not constitute the final say, this is an ongoing discussion and will continue to be so, as is, there is no consensus, a consensus is not simply a majority vote (were that the case my page would still remain as i have the consensus...its ok though, i know you'll disagree and change things around to fit your pov again). Batman2005 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::you called me a liar where did I call you a liar? I simply pointed out that with the information you gave me I could not find the discussion and from where I sat there was no evidence the discussion had taken place. I gave you ample opportunity to provide a link to the discussion, instead you gave me false information about its location and told me to go find it myself. That is the very definition of uncivil behaviour. I was simply debating a point. If you view that as lecturing, you're free to read other conversations. No one is forcing you to read this one or continue to participate in it. You've made your position clear that you feel your page doesn't violate those policies. --Crossmr 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Guys please! Batman, I don't think he was calling you a liar. Crossmr, is it possible that he miscalculated the length of time between discussions, obviously one took place before..it doesn't seem to me that Batman was trying to mislead you. I think you have both made your positions clear, just wait and see. I think a cooling off period for both might be in order. FordTuffinIt 18:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• :agreed. --Crossmr 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather new to this encyclopedia thing. I looked at the page in question after seeing some of his posts on the national soccer team page for the usa, and I personally disagree with some of the people he doesn't like and that kind of stuff, but i don't see any reason that it should be deleted. FordTuffinIt 18:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note please also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crossmr#Batman2005.27s_user_page] for more support of my position in this pointless debate. Batman2005 15:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Several admins have been deleting and/or changing the original research redirect so it no longer redirects to Wikipedia:No original research and instead redirects to an article such as research. The reason User:Cyde wishes to change the article is b/c Wikipedia should "NEVER allow a cross-namespace redirect to squat on what could be a legitimate encyclopedic page." I personally disagree with this b/c the redirect has been around for more than two years and is linked to by well over 1000 talk pages. In addition, there is no obvious article that the redirect is squatting on. That said, I am willing to go with whatever the consensus decides to do.

I tried to start a discussion about this at Talk:Original research but another admin has also deleted the article. I've reverted it yet again but have no wish to start a wheel-war over this. Since a bunch of admins are involved in this, can we get other admin opinions. Personally, I don't see any reason why this redirect should be deleted without a AfD since there is no speedy delete reason to justify this action.--Alabamaboy 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:ASR. We are writing an encyclopedia, not perpetuating Wikipedia. --Cyde 13:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Kill it with a stick. "Original research" is hardly a Wikipedia-specific term. freakofnurture 13:56 30 June, 2006 (UTC)

Changing it to an appropriate redirect doesn't require an AFD or speedy deletion. I personally agree that cross namespace redirects should be kept to a n absolute minimum and certainly not exist for a term which has a strong context outside of wikipedia like Original research does. Length of time of existance I can't see as relevant, we wouldn't allow OR itself to remain in an article just because it's been there a long time etc. etc. --Pgk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::No, changing to an appropriate redirect doesn't require an AfD. But admins keep deleting the redirect (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Original_research]) am I wrong in believing this is no justified reason for deleting the redirect without an AfD? As for changing the redirect to another redirect or an article, consensus should be gained before doing that.--Alabamaboy 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You are wrong in believing that there is no justified reason for deleting the redirect ... please read WP:ASR. And you sure as hell don't need AFDs for redirects! --Cyde 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I restored the deleted revisions. It's a redirect now, there's no harm in having cross-namespace-redirects in the history of an article. And someone should run a bot that changes all these links to the appropriate page now. --Conti|✉ 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::I'm quite familiar with WP:ASR. The problem is that there will now be over 1000 talk pages linking to a wrong place. If you go to Neutral point of view or NPOV, the page is a disamibiguation page which includes a link to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Perhaps we could do that. That's why I proposed seeking consensus on this issue so we can find a solution everyone could live with instead of having 1000 plus pages linking to the wrong place.--Alabamaboy 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If consensus develops to change the redirect, then that bot would definately be needed. Excellent idea.--Alabamaboy 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'd still be interested in hearing from other admins on if it was right for three admins to delete this redirect (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Original_research]) without an AfD. Under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects, this does not appear to have been a valid reason for deletion.--Alabamaboy 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::No, it wasn't. But why do people keep lumping my edit of the page in with them, as you did above? -- SCZenz 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't see any reason at all for deletion here, simply changing the redirect would do the thing. --Conti|✉ 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Apologies for doing that, SCZenz. I was only trying to refer to the admins who deleted the article. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The approach taken by a small set of admins in dealing with cross-namespace redirects appears to be as follows:

1. Delete them and hope no admin notices enough to restore it;
2. If anyone notices, delete it again;
3. Tell the restoring admin how stupid they are, with the additional use of profanity to help make things clear;
4. If they still notice, change its target;
5. If someone changes you back, change it again;
6. Tell the editor how stupid they are, with the additional use of profanity to help make things clear;
7. Regularly cite a policy which doesn't exist (ASR is only a style guideline) in support of your various actions;
8. Iterate until RfC.

Now will one of the editors in question (Cyde would be a good candidate) tell me why this is the optimal way to approach this situation? -Splash - tk 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:This appears (partly) to be a problem looking for a solution: What shall my bot do now? There also appear to have some difficulty understanding the difference between policy and guideline. Some things which should be Wikipedia 101: A) Don't do controversial changes en mass. B) Don't insult people who complain. C) Engage in productive dialog that supports your edits. Is that so hard? --brenneman 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::I suggest to wait until things get calmer again, then use the bot to pipe the links to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. And might I suggest: D) Don't do whatever the heck you want because you're convinced that you're right. --Conti|✉ 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::LOL, nice attempt at slandering my motivations, but if you actually look at my actions you'll see that I've been trying to push the redirect fixes off on other people because I don't want to deal with the hassle. Ditto for everyone else, actually (I think Gurch eventually got roped into doing some). But let me just go on record saying that your accusation of the reason for this is totally false. --Cyde 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see what the problem is here. If Wikipedia:No original research exists, there's no reason for No original research. Just fix all the internal redirects and delete the redundant main-namespace redirect. We have multiple namespaces so we don't need to clutter our encyclopedia with non-article material. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

what Tony said, and use a bot. But be more laid back about these things, please! It doesn't need to be fixed by tomorrow, and there is no need to wheel-war about it! For the time being, you can {{tl|softredirect}} it, perhaps making it a dab page. There is no need for an original research article or redirect (nothing should link there), because the term is tautological (all research is 'original' at the time it is done, otherwise it wouldn't be research but citation, although it may of course transpire later that the same result had been found before). dab (ᛏ) 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I strongly favour Dbachmann's approach. We should avoid redirecting common English phrases that aren't Wikipedia specific to project space, and the links to it need to be fixed, preferably in an automated manner. Meanwhile, create original research, and put links to research and WP:NOR on it. Is it self-reference? Sure, but it's temporary. Wikipedia:Don't panic. Deco 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:::To Tony, (ᛏ), and Deco: The problem was that several admins were deleting the redirect without following speedy delete criteria or going through an RfD and were also ignoring attempts to discuss the matter. Personally, I don't have an issue with deleting the redirects. What I have an issue with are admins who ignore calls for consensus, initiate personal attacks when someone asks why they are doing something, and also don't follow the guidelines for deleting redirects. As admins we are supposed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not do as we wish merely b/c it is too troublesome to bother with said guidelines and policies. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

:As one of the older folks, I must say Splash's characterization seems most accurate. We've had these things for ages, but suddenly they must all go, go overnight, and anyone who disagrees is screamed at. That's not good practice. It's not how we "make an encyclopedia," either. It's how we pitch a fit. No one likes to have a fit pitched at him unless he has a bat in his hand. Now, cut it the heck out. Get your guideline made policy by consensus, after plenty of discussion, then get a solution in place other than "Whoopsie, it went away," and then unleash your bots. Otherwise, it's that moronic "I have 85,000,000 edits to pages I have never read" impulse that's making writing anything impossible. (Try linking to a month somewhere because you want people to read up on the month. I'll bet it'll be unlinked within a week by some helpful bot.) Geogre 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When going though 'Review and restore deleted pages', if I preview a page with an afd notice in (even if it has been subst'ed) it shows an error saying it needs to be subst:'ed (