User talk:Splash/Archive16

Archives
Archive to end 1st August 2005 17th August 2005 11 September 2005 02:53 (UTC) 26 September 2005 22 October 2005 19 November 2005 5 December 2005 3 January 2006 20 January 2006 5 February 2006 4 March 2006 23 March 2006 3 April 2006 29 May 2006 1 August 2006

Destabilized

I wish you would have told me before you reverted me, rather than after. Ral315 (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have respected your decision a lot more; that's all. I'm bold, but I don't mind being reverted- it's just a personal thing. Ral315 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rayleigh fading

I have been thinking about this for some time...in Rayleigh fading, where you have the model distribution

$p_{R}(r)={\frac {r}{\sigma ^{2}}}e^{-r^{2}/2\sigma ^{2}},\ r\geq {}0\ \ \ \ (1)$

I wonder if it might be better to define say, $\Omega =2\sigma ^{2}$, and set this quantity as the reference total power? After all, the radial distribution arises from the summation of two Gaussians, so, I wonder whether it is necessary that both of these components contribute only half of the total. What do you think? --HappyCamper 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to check with a textbook on that... -Splash - tk 16:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So your suggestion is the version that Proakis uses directly in the relevant equation (14-1-23 in my 3rd Edition). I wanted to avoid introducing a dummy variable of $\Omega$ because it seems to obfuscate things rather. It is a condition of the Rayleigh distribution that the two constituent variables have equal variance (Proakis, p. 45), but I'm not quite sure what question you're asking in that regard.

In eq. (2-1-128), Proakis uses the equation that I preferred in the article and I have just checked my mental arithmetic on that. Using the gamma-function-based expression for $\mathbb {E} (R^{k})$ (eq. 2-1-130), I am missing a factor of 1/2 in my definition of $\sigma ^{2}$ so that it is really:

$\sigma ^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}\mathbb {E} (R^{2}),$

whereas using your $\Omega$ as Proakis does later, drops the factor of 2 in exchange for an amended PDF of:

$p_{R}(r)={\frac {2r}{\Omega }}e^{-r^{2}/\Omega }\ \ \ \ (2).$

I'm not sure which representation I prefer. Now I look at it again, I realise that really there is a dummy variable either way: I was just thinking in terms of $\sigma ^{2}$ being a variance, when it isn't for the Rayleigh distribution anyway (it is just the variance of the two underlying iid's). The tradeoff is in a slightly non-standard representation of the PDF (2) versus the standard in (1). I think for simplicity I prefer (2). So we should change it, then, right? In any case, the article as it stands is wrong, so I'll just dive in I think. -Splash - tk 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible new Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet

JianLi (talk · contribs) seems to be making some similar edits to this sockpuppet group. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

José is Fluid (talk · contribs) might also be another sock. --CFIF (talk to me) 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. A simple check of my IP address and my user contributions (which significantly predate the AFD discussions) will confirm this. JianLi 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not convinced that you are. -Splash - tk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jose is Fluid on the other hand, almost certainly is. -Splash - tk 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this mean his entire talk page gets blanked?! You all are acting a little peculiarly. Can you explain what this is all about? What is this supposed sock master doing? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, he is sock puppeting, that's what sockpuppeteers do. I have taken to blanking his talk pages because he uses them to hold conversations between his socks backing up his case on whatever his issue du jour is; you can find the previous, minimal, entries in the history if you have a need for them. He uses sockpuppets in the classic manner: he uses them to back himself in AfDs (sometimes carefully choosing both side of the debate), he uses them to to back himself up on talk pages, to engage in edit wars avoiding 3RR etc. It is not peculiar to stop him from doing so. If he would only edit benignly like everyone else, there would be no problem. -Splash - tk 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Aren't you supposed to be getting more proof - like checkuser or something - before eradicating the user from existence? Just curious. From reading WP:SOCK, it seems like we're supposed to be a little cautious with such cases. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

People can change IP's, plus, how can a new user know so much about Wikipedia and how it works, along with requesting deletion of TV-personality articles right off the bat without being a sock? --CFIF (talk to me) 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't need to trouble checkusers for obvious sockpuppets, which these are. I've done lots of reading and studying on this before blocking each and every one of them. Have you done any before telling me what I should be doing? -Splash - tk 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is causing far too much trouble. I'm quite keen on bringing a resolution to this perceived problem, and here is something that I expect to nip the problem at its bud. I finally got a chance to go through every single edit of José is Fluid's account. Even if it is not a sockpuppet, I agree with the permanent block 100%.

• 2nd edit to Don Bell (reporter) is adding a speedy.
• 5th edit to Lanisha Cole is adding a speedy.
• 6th edit to Mother nation is adding a speedy.
• 7th edit to Paul Boland is adding a speedy.
• 8th edit is a request for investigation for Splash and CFIF

• After that, a number of harmless edits are made to articles, alternating with occasional posts to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation.

Qualitatively, the amount of disruption and lost time editing Wikipedia this handful number of edits caused is more than enough to warrant the block. --HappyCamper 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

HappyCamper, thank you for the civil response and attempt at explaining. Splash, rather than exalting yourself above anyone who dare question your suspicious behavior, you might want to start up an abuse page on this puppet master so we can avoid unnecessarily nasty exchanges like this. If one exists, make it easier to find. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

An 'abuse page'? They are routinely a bad idea, unfortunately, since they give the sockpuppeteer a sense of legitimacy ("how many accounts can I get on it?" "Did my latest account make it?" "How long before this account gets added?" "Does my abuse page have more entries than X?" "How do I compare to WoW"?" etc). You can question my behaviour naturally, but when you call it suspicious in the same breath, you imply that I am acting underhandedly or for ill reasons; which is prejudicial to put it mildly, no? -Splash - tk 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ANI question

Hi Splash, Regarding this ANI entry, can you stop by and explain the criteria by which you banned those sockpuppets? Although I would personally be willing to assume you had a good reason without further investigation, the offense isn't obvious from the banned users' contribs, so I think the question being asked is a fair one. -- SCZenz 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In a pseudo-edit-conflict, I just wrote a reply, though it's not quite as detailed as you asked for; writing a paragraph on all 36 puppets would be more writing than remains in my PhD thesis! Regards, -Splash - tk 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. As I just said on ANI, I think this issue has now been reviewed plenty. -- SCZenz 00:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

<relief>Splash - tk</relief>00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification I don't want you to think that I'm calling you a liar or anything of that sort. I'm just the kind of user that likes to make sure all the ducks are in a row. It helps avoid bad feelings and questions when someone is on the receiving end of something.--Crossmr 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tea

Come by for some tea when you get a chance? :-) Something at the bottom of my talk page for you to read.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't work from a copy of Proakis - it actually came from a set of derivations I had found after reorganizing my notes. --HappyCamper 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to say keep up the good work! I think you understand the ideals here as well as anyone and we're lucky to have you here fighting for them! 216.43.238.69 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! -Splash - tk 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

plase

plase read the "holdon on Wikichat and mabe revive it! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JosephK19 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#BetacommandBot_expansion_of_task

I have raise a few qustion you need to answer. You seem to be ignoring them. thank you for identifying a bug about category redirects i will fix, that but please respond to the questions your are ignoring. The issue of what needs to be excluded has been raised and i am working on that if you look at User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Cat Exclustions you will see that. we had a discusion on IRC and im headed that direction shortly to see what cats they are using. any furthur help in making the exclusion list will be helpfull. But please respnd to the issuse i have brought up. Betacommand 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

^repost

User:Splash I object to your to how you have handled this situation you are going against Wikipedia policy (empty categories older than four days are subject to deletion), and you inability to read.

This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. It is a category that has no items whatsoever in it, it has been empty for at least four days (CSD C1).
Please Remove this notice if at any point this category is no longer empty

is how I marked the categories ‘‘‘NEVER’’’ did I list it for deletion or attempt to speedy it, all the bot did at this point was state 'This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion'. Regarding the fact that the categories are key elements in series of categories show some proof that there are guidelines to keep them and that they are exempt from WP:CSD#1. Also please show some consensus about keeping them that has more than four editors. That is NOT a consensus on Wikipedia. I am operating per Wikipedia:deletion policy. Please show me some guideline or policy that exist to back up your personal opinion, and the uncalled for hostile bordering on rude behavior you have show in this discussion. Betacommand 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

may I quote your own words And I don't understand your WP:RFBOT post about "my previous post" this comment shows that you missed the above comment because you said next since your points A-E were i)not questions and ii)I dealt with those of them that needed any kind of a response already given your comments I assumed you must have missed the next post I made and only saw the following comment. Given this I decided to show you my "my previous post" because you obviously missed it. I am not insulting you. you however have been hostile, rude, disrespectable, and threatening to use your admin powers to block my bot. you have raised some concerns about exclusions to the bot I have attempted to identify those, when I asked you for what my bot tagged inappropriately you have stated only those about redirects and categories that are key elements in series of categories you have not given positive input only hostile anti-bot statements that you have yet to back up with anything except your personal opinion which is counter several other users. Betacommand 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ati3414 at photon and 3RR

He's at it again - you might want to check his behaviour out. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Mais oui!

I am nominating Mais oui! for blocking. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at: Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by Mais oui! (Please also pass this message on to anyone else you think might be interested in contributing.) Thanks, Mallimak 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The pair of you should stop spamming people. Noone will pay you any serious attention if you do that. The notion of "nominating" someone for blocking is also something that will not likely be taken particularly seriously. -Splash - tk 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have responded here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_by_Mais_oui.21

Thanks. --Mais oui! 01:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of protection from Meathead AFD

"don't use protection preemptively". Just curious Splash, but did you look at the first AFD and count the staggering number of sockpuppets there? Once the forum echoingthesound.org realises protection is down, all hell will break loose again. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  06:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of sports flops

You closed an AfD in April on the List of sports flops article. As it was Keep, rather than No consensus, how long after a Keep decision is it reasonable to AfD it again? I was just about to AfD it, as a fairly blatant piece of WP:OR, when I saw the blue link to the old discussion. It is still totally unsourced. --Mais oui! 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Didn't realise that the name had changed: that might be useful to know! :) --Mais oui! 13:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The sprotect you removed on Freemasonry

I'm assuming it was due to a lack of awareness of the situation surrounding that article, but I'd just like to point out that since your removal of sprotect, we have had about six instances of vandalization from a user who is on LTA and banned by ArbCom for vandalizing Freemasonry. In short, there was a very good reason why Freemasonry was on sprotect for "a crazy long time." MSJapan 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for bringing Baseband back from the brink.

do you mind if i upload a slightly different and a little more colorful drawing to illustrate it? i think it should have both positive and negative frequency, no?

i'm struggling with another editor regarding the presentation in Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and i linked to baseband in it. r b-j 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rbj. Yeah, Baseband was a bit of a nightmare before I did something about it. You're of course welcome to upload a more colourful image (although generally, I find that if the colour is key to explaining something then the explanation isn't good enough). But baseband signals begin at 0 Hz under any common definition, so no, there are no negative frequencies. The baseband bandwidth is half the RF bandwidth (and vice versa) as the article says, and that would make no sense (i.e. be impossible) if the negative-going spectral components were also present at baseband. CERN's definition here concurs, as does a knowledgeable sounding article here. Now I know more about Wikpedia then when I wrote Baseband, I see that those links ought probably to be added to the article. I'll find the time later today. Thanks, Splash - tk 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Splash, i'll watch your talk page, so we can have a simpler back-and-forth here. i agree with you that the definition of bandwidth is the width of the band only in the positive frequency side (which is why, for AM the BW doubles), but i think that "baseband" can mean the entire chunk from -B to +B. i think you're an EE PhD. student (judging from your figs and contribs) so i am confident that you know why we routinely deal with negative frequencies when we discuss spectrums. i.e. for a real baseband signal x(t) i think the "baseband" is all of the spectrum, X(f), and not the spectrum of this other complex signal:

$(1/2)\cdot \left(x(t)+i{\mathcal {H}}\left\{x(t)\right\}\right)\$

is that not true? r b-j 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand negative frequencies. However, I sense that you are drawing me into a conflict by proxy with User:Dicklyon, who, entirely by coincidence no doubt, has just edited baseband. I see from reading talk pages that the pair of you are conducting a disagreement which you should both not be conducting here but via peer review and in conferences, and that you should both stop. If it comes to it, I will Intervent (capitalisation deliberate) in the conflict, but I will not be drawn into it from my talk page. Wikipedia reports results that others report that others reported (it is a tertiary source). There is no place here for your, or for Dickylon's, favourite formulations or for your personal research programs or opinions. The academic and technical communities provide the relevant outlets for that. -Splash - tk 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

not at all. there are people who have commented on the sampling theorem article a while back, User:Metacomet, who is no longer in WP, and User:Omegatron whom i did solicit to comment, but he hasn't responded. i prefer that you don't get involved in that or anything you don't want to. you were the person to put that drawing into baseband which i think is fine, except for not showing the negative frequencies. this has nothing to do with my discussion with Dicklyon, which BTW is softening a little (i think he has a little more respect for me and a little more respect for the process now, but that is my opinion, i don't know how he would size up our dispute now). the only reason that you were contacted by me is that i like to take a quick look at articles that i link to (and i have never before gone to baseband). it's coincidental. because of this dumb dispute (this "converse" argument Dick is making), i decided to qualify the nominal use of the sampling theorem to baseband signals in an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy his concerns (without caving in to the issue where we disagree) and because of that i looked at the article, saw the diagram, thought "shouldn't the negative frequencies be in there also? let's find out who put this drawing in." and you were contacted by me.

please don't jump to any conclusion that i wish you to jump in this dispute i have with Dick. i wouldn't try to solicit anyone i wasn't confident would support my POV anyway and i have no idea what position you would take. it's really just about the figure, and it's a courtesy call. (i imagine the creator of a figure that took some effort to make might be unhappy if i supplanted it without at least a "heads up".) r b-j 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement With You Is NOT Trolling

I don't know why you disagree with Urban Dictionary as a reliable source of Internet slang. I'd be interested in why. No need to be an asshole though in accusing me of trolling for suggesting it as a source. Magonaritus 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the article's talk page. -Splash - tk 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. But you did not apologize for your insolence in accusing others for being trolls because they disagree with you. I await an apology. Magonaritus 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Long wait ahead of you, and those that call me assholes can expect longer waits still. -Splash - tk 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see by the other comments on this discussion page that you have an attitude problem. I guess you must be new to Wiki. You should check out Assume Good Faith, Etiquette, No Personal Attacks, Be Nice and Please Do Not Bite The Newcomers. Calling someone a newcomer a troll because you disagree with them on an interpretation of an editorial policy violates all these community guidelines. After you have reviewed these policies, you'll see how outrageously disruptive to the Wiki community your behavior proves to be. You have been officially notified. Whenever you're ready to let go of the ego and apologize, let me know. 66.208.54.226 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, adding UD as a source to an article, having it removed and then trying to shoehorn it in by adding it directly to the list of reliable souces has all the hallmarks of someone who is playing around. It appears that you weren't adn that you actually do think that Urban Dictionary is a good, reliable source. Whilst you're wrong on that point, I'm sorry that my comment upset you. Now are we done? Good. Although, in my inexperience, I'm intrigued of what I have been officially notified? -Splash - tk 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

I humbly hope that this is not a violation of any Wiki community practices (I haven't done enough dutiful reading yet), but I want to thank you for the talk on the Slang page. I have learned much by being prompted to think more (I realize that I have a ways to go yet). Now I'm off to study more. While most likely minor (though inconvenient) to you, it has increased both my understanding and enthusiasm. Sincerely, thanks. -Sh33p - tk 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Found another spotteddogs sock

Lost Knob (talk · contribs) --CFIF ☎ 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• CFIF has accused me of being a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg [1] which apparently is his favoured tactic when he comes up against people who disagree with him, despite the vandal not being active for around a year. I have since removed his vandalism from my user page. (See this unilateral removal of the speedy deletion nomination on the Paul Dellegatto page: [2]) This user seems to have some anger management problems and apparently seems to brand those who are in disagreement with him on television topics sockpuppets of this old vandal. Lost Knob 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously a sock of someone if you know my history. --CFIF ☎ 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CFIF. If I use your logic User:TV Newser is a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg because he seemed to mention this as part of your pattern of bad behaviour there and apparently he knows your history and has made television related edits. In case you didn't know all your editing history is preserved on Wikipedia, so your bad behaviour from the past can come round to bite you in the ass and mind you me, when I saw what he had written I wanted to see what kind of person would do such a thing and looked up what you have done in the past. CFIF, you seem to make assumptions without any evidence or research. You could have handled this in a civil manner, but chose not to. Lost Knob 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Lost Knob, you are obviously a sock puppet. But whether you are Spotteddogsdotorg, I'm not yet sure. Thus, I'm not yet sure if you are using the sock abusively (though judging from your history, you're not a lot of fun to have around), so I'm not going to block you as a sock. Yet. -Splash - tk 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, but I guess me telling the truth just makes me guilty. Lost Knob 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It also could be a sock of Displaced Brit (talk · contribs), as the user is seen calling articles up for deletion "bloody" and calling my tagging of possible sock puppets my "favoured tactic", similar to edits Displaced Brit makes [3]. --CFIF ☎ 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess all the millions of people who use the term bloody and use proper English spellings are all sockpuppets as well. I found all of the articles that I nominated for deletion using the Random article feature, as I find it fun to use it to see what comes up. It just happened that several came up that seemed worthy of getting rid of. CFIF, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles again and note where it says If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.You also may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I assumed good faith until I learned of your past behaviour on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CFIF page. I shall be taking a time out, and I suggest you should do the same. Lost Knob 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found what appears to be ringleader of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring

I am firmly convinced that User:Mr. Scott Brown is the mastermind behind the User:Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring as I have confirmed that the tvnewstalk.net user nyviewer owned the domain name and has had a run in with the same person who used the name MrPhillyTV, which is identical to the name of User:MrPhillyTV, who is a Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet. Apparently, according to those who I talked with and at User:Mr. Scott Brown (which is laced with all sorts of personal attacks) this all was drawn out of a newscast tape trading deal that somehow went south. The behavior of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet matches many of the patterns seen over on the tvnewstalk.net website of MrPhillyTV/Scott Brown and appears to have been an attempt to somehow get some sort of revenge due to the botched tape trade. I have marked User:Mr. Scott Brown as a sockpuppet, and hope that you can take the needed action. TV Newser 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. That's interesting, indeed. I'll add that account to my to-watch list. While its only edits are to its userspace, though, there is no need for me to block it. But thank you for the info. -Splash - tk 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you in league with him?

Why did you delete the request for comments against CFIF? Are you in league with him/her as well? I demand you undelete it forthwith! Displaced Brit 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that's just policy, plainly stated here. "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." —Whomp t/c 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

For the reason stated at [4], and echoed above by Whomp. No. No. -Splash - tk 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A call for vandalism on the User:Mr. Scott Brown page

User:Jerseyfla, who uses the same name at tvnewstalk.net has called for the vandalism of the User:Mr. Scott Brown page in a post on that web site [5] I left a vandalism on his talk page. I feel even if it is something that you disagree with on a user page, it should not be vandalized. I hope I took the right action and if there is further action that should be taken, could you please take it and if you don't mind tell me what I could do in future. Thanks. TV Newser 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Jerseyfla as a single-purpose account with only ill-intent. The content of that userpage is an inappropriate use of user space in my opinion, so I have nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mr. Scott Brown. -Splash - tk 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 05:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander MacGregor

Take a look at the attack piece at [6] which has been up since July 20, and explain why this doesn't need to be protected. Then explain your comment about random admins. This piece was protected after a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation via m:OTRS. Bastique▼^parler _voir 13:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

May I suggest you read WP:BLP? We have to be especially sensitive about biographies of living persons, when potentially libellious material without sources, or personal information (such as the names of relatives who are not public figures) is inserted. Please do not revert such information when it is deleted, and, before unprotecting a page, check whether it is not the target of deliberate reinsertion of such material.

I remind you that such kind of material often results in very real legal threats to the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as real distress for those who are targetted. David.Monniaux 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And here ends the lecture which was delivered because why? -Splash - tk 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Same case as the above one. :-) David.Monniaux 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then stop being an interfering busybody, don't lecture me on stuff I know, don't tell me what I have and have not read, don't tell me not to do things I haven't done, and go and give the WMF a sympathetic hug and a cup of tea. Also go and examine the reason that I unprotected it. -Splash - tk 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be a busybody, but you are definitely rude and irresponsible. David.Monniaux 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If I had actually done anything irresponsible, that might be true. Three months ago, when I unprotected that article, the edifice that is now WP:BLP was just a guideline that wasn't really of any consequence. Moreover, I did not make the edits to which Bastique objects, someone else did. They made them 10 days -- ten days -- after I reversed a WP:OFFICE action taken by someone without the authority to take them. It's not my fault you don't like Fawcett5's edits. Take the matter up with him. -Splash - tk 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You unprotected an article without bothering to determine why it had been protected in the first place. Perhaps you assumed bad faith on the part of mine or Tony Sidaway's in order to do tha. Instead you might have taken the time to find out why this protection was done. You opened article up for further attack and slander, resulting in further correspondence to the Wikimedia Foundation. Furthermore, you're presently arguing that I personally objected to Fawcett5's changes, ignoring the fact that I'm acting in response to Wikimedia correspondence. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, though. My unprotecting it did nothing other than permit editing of it. 3 months later, someone decided they didn't like the edit. How is that my fault? How is not Fawcett5's fault? How is not Jimbo Wales' fault for making this a wiki that, shock horror, can be edited freely by anyone? On the contrary to aspersions of bad faith, I read the protection log, saw what the reason was, decided that the admin lacked the authority to proceed and reversed the action.

Correspondence to the Wikimedia Foundation! Oh my goodness gracious me. Might not the world quake beneath us.

How was I to know, before your spiky little note that any of it was an OTRS action and, moreover, whether or not the original protection was. I don't recall objecting to your protection or doing anything about it.

You suggest I'm interested in opening the foundation up to lawsuits. Don't be absurd.

You suggest, in armchair lawyer tones, that by unprotecting an article, by not even editing it, by never doing anything to the content of it, I might open myself up to some kind of legal proceedings. Don't be ridiculous. (Ha. You just removed it from the original version of your message. Revealing.) -Splash - tk 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don Bell (reporter) deletion attempt

Hey, you blocked a user a month ago for messing with a reporter article, Don Bell (reporter). Thought you might want to know it was nominated for speedy deletion by a newbie again... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this isn't a Spotteddogsdotorg sock, but it may be. --CFIF ☎ 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the precise pattern so I don't know how to tell the difference. Imagevio tags before his/her 20th edit followed by a single reporter {{db-bio}}? Then a useless minor edit to the same article to obscure watchlists? And then a bunch of benign looking fixes to links to dab pages. That even looks suspicious to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be....I'll keep an eye on him and hopefully Splash will too. --CFIF ☎ 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This db-bio with junk at the bottom followed by the removal of the junk in a minor edit is almost enough for me to drop the guillotine myself - but s/he is inactive so there's no hurry. Splash is more qualified with this case than I. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something not quite right about those edits being from a fresh new user. It matches Spotteddogsdotorg quite closely in terms of the edits starting with TV, particularly in New York (one of the favoured areas) and then moving on to a series of largely insubstantive edits of the same kind (the large number of dabs to "plantation") to build up a 'CV'. The stuff surrounding New England is interestingly geographically in the right part of the US, too, but slightly outside the usual stomping grounds (perhaps he's having to branch out?). The games on Don Bell (reporter) are telling, too, although there's the chance that it was a mistake (but how would that happen?). On the other hand, the editor hasn't participated in AfD or any other discussions, and that's usually the main reason for the puppetry (unless speedies are the new fashion, of course). I'm not sure enough of the sockpuppet case — yet — to block it on the spot, but it's certainly worth watching if AfDs or similar should turn up in the contribs. The other stuff is all rather suspicious looking; whether to block for that or not, I'll leave to someone else to decide. If the account stays quiet, I guess there's no need, if it gets noisy with tricks, then we should kill it. -Splash - tk 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd keep an eye on WEVZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he seems to be doing this too.... --CFIF ☎ 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about CEIF (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)? That username is awfully suspicious by itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

...and s/he has recently initiated a reporter AFD as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...he seems to be making a lot of "random" edits that have him change a word or two or disambiguate try to build up his edit count so he doesn't look suspicious. --CFIF ☎ 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of CEIF; s/he originally got blocked as a username-block as User:CFIF (eye, not ee) and got the current, CEIF account. I'm keeping a mental track of AfDs that follow patterns as they come to my attention. The username is very unfortunate, this is true, and really should have probably been blocked when it was created. -Splash - tk 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the history here? Why the obsession with reporter articles from this WP:SOCK? Just a gargantuan WP:POINT violation of some kind? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though a crazed man named Scott Brown is behind it. --CFIF ☎ 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never really been sure, and neither were those who originally identified the socketry some time ago. A "disgruntled ex-employee" was mooted, but that's just speculation. Clearly, the editor has some detailed knowledge of certain parts of the TV industry; so perhaps it started with an interest in editing those articles, but never really got under control. Wknight94: I've been wondering what to do about the username, in fact...do you think maybe we should have a chat with CEIF and see if he can be persuaded to change it? -Splash - tk 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• In defense of myself, I found the [[Don Bell (reporter) article when I hit "Random article" and felt that Don Bell (reporter) didn't meet the inclusion criteria. When it wasn't I tried the next thing, which was the nomination. After I added it, I noticed that it had been nominated before, so I followed the instructions to nominate it again. It appears that the first nomination was not a true discussion, as CFIF accused the nominator of being a sockpuppet. From what I read on CFIF's talk page, he has a history of doing this to other people in order to keep his articles, despite the fact that Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone! Isn't the whole point of the exersise that if a user finds an article that doesn't meet the established standards, they can try to obtain a consensus by having it deleted? Is CFIF's goal on Wikipedia to make it an elite clique where his articles are never deleted or to just attack the newbies?

As for my addition of Plantation (Maine) to all the Maine plantations, I not only created the Plantation (Maine) article, something that was needed, I went and added a relevant link to all of the articles, including at least one that was impoperly linked to Plantation. If this is the level of aggravation that is going to be typical of Wikipedia, then I don't think I want to be a part of it. I am definitely not this EDP named Scott Brown. Just because someone nominates some delete worthy TV reporter doesn't mean that they are part of some greater conspiracy. If anything I would say that you are all the EDPs for acting in this way. You people took something that was fun and turned it into some sort of sick and disturbed schoolyard scenario. On the schoolyard people like you had a name - bullies, who had their own sick and twisted pathology behind their behavior. And guess what? You people are acting the same way. You all would never make it as cops, since you would most likely arrest anyone without cause and do not seem to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty - something that Wikipeida incoporates in its assume good fatih doctrine. God, do you people have lives or are you all sitting at home all day dreaming up conspiracy theorys? I am not going to waste my time with this, since judging by what you have written you are all seemingly suffering from some degree of schizophrenia with unseen people out to get you or things you think you own. I have dealt with enough EDPs in my life to realize it is a loosing and fustrating battle to reason with them. This isn't what I signed up for, so you win - I QUIT! RMP 2584 19:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You do have a lot of anger there. Noone's blocked you, and you are freely able to remove the tag from your userpage. There has been no interfering with your editing and noone has stopped you from doing anything (apart from having that article deleted, but that's life). But I am intrigued: how does a new editor locate my talk page so efficiently (having never been blocked by me), and set up an RfC on CFIF? Perhaps you're just a quick learner. -Splash - tk 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, these socks have shown an inane sense of efficency and knowledge of Wikipedia policies, so much to where it becomes obvious that they are socks. No one figures out how to delete articles, read over policies, and know how to file RfCs/RfI's, etc in a matter of days. --CFIF ☎ 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just spent some time examining today's efforts from you, RMP 2584, I am on the point of blocking you as an increasingly transparent sock of Spotteddogsdotorg, or whoever that really is. You have two choices: stop editing like that, and play nicely, or be blocked very very soon. -Splash - tk 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

After considering the patters in this user's edits more lesiurely, I've concluded that he is blatantly a sock and is in existence principally (or only) to go after CFIF. He's blocked. -Splash - tk 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, take a look at WEVZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also seems VERY suspicious. --CFIF ☎ 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Seems like such a sad colossal waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This does look very sock-like, I would have to agree. But I'd like to see a slightly firmer 'CV' before handing out a block. Wknight94: if you are sufficiently convinced, however, then I'm certainly not going to resist. -Splash - tk 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at CEIF (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) as well. Even edits the same files as the previous ID: [7]. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that diff is an excellent find! Looking at the earlier contribs, I see the various aeroplane articles - specifically Boeing. This matches up with User talk:Mothperson/Litterbox to a tee. They also both turned up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dellegatto (as did User:Lost Knob, to my enduring fascination). You reckon they're both socks? I'm going to sleep on it. -Splash - tk 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them both. I was looking at their contribs thinking "this is so obviously a sock", so I did the deed. CEIF should never have been allowed that user name, either, differing as it does in a single horizontal bar on one one letter from CFIF! -Splash - tk 13:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even felt compelled to mention, "Note: I am not related to CFIF". No, not related, just happen to be running into the same articles as CFIF after a hundred or so edits.

If you go another degree of separation, I also found 54edo (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) whose only edit was in an AFD started by CEIF; Moland Spring (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) whose 17th edit was a CFIF-related delete vote followed by three edits before vanishing... then I start to think I'm getting paranoid. I once had a mini-run-in with what turned out to be the North Carolina Vandal and it's a little spooky how much time and effort some are willing to invest in something so useless. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed both of these, and they're both worth watching. Obviously, something is wrong with that redlinked user you mention, and there was another redlink in the same debate. For now, I'll leave them and give them a chance to make themselves a little more obvious. We can always strike out or revert their edits. -Splash - tk 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're keeping an eye on Moland Spring, you might also want to watch Hotspur23. I had been wondering the former was a sockpuppet of the latter, after they both attempted to move Life on Mars to another name. (The article is temporarly at Life on Mars (theory), pending closure of a Requested Move to restore it to its original location.) Freddie McPhyll also fiddled with Life on Mars within his first dozen edits, but perhaps I'm just getting paranoid. :)--Srleffler 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting patterns between those users, certainly, but the middle of the three doesn't really have the right editing patterns for me to reckon it's a Spotteddogsdotorg puppet, which means the others don't yet, either. -Splash - tk 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I feel that CFIF is the one behind the Spotteddogs sockpuppets ring, at least the more recent ones.

- Fact: CFIF has run in with owner of dowmain name on tvnewstalk.net. Most likely he figured he could get some more bad mouthing of him by recreating the sockpuppet that he thought was him in order to get revenge. However, it has basically been proven that the initial sockpuppet is Scott Brown who used it as a way to get revenge on the person out of spite after having a run in with the domain onwer name on tvnewstalk.net. - Fact: CFIF wants to be an administrator. - Fact: CFIF finds the sockpuppets very quickly. Hunting sockpuppets builds a resumé up that looks good if you want to be an administrator. What better way to find sockpuppets quickly then to create them and slay them? - Theory: CFIF craves attention. By claiming that he is being attacked by a sockpuppet conspiracy it makes him look like he is the victim and he can get help and attention from others.

That's a freaking load of garbage. I don't "crave attention". I find the sockpuppets quickly because I happen to look through AfD and have some pages of my watchlist. Give me a freaking break. --CFIF ☎ 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Update 2

Oat Lock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated Adam Joseph for deletion, has all the signs of a Spotteddogs sock, editing obscure locations and such, also has edited/created a picture of a car, which is what the last socks have done. --CFIF ☎ 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this one myself. S/he doesn't exactly hide very well, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I cancelled the AfD on this (as I did the first one they tried on the same article). I did some forensics on the contribs list of the other deleters in the debate, but I don't think they are sock-like (at present). -Splash - tk 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we have Roy Leep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I seriously Roy Leep #1 Is Overly computer literate (No offense to Roy, one of America's weather pioneers) #2 Would want to have his own page deleted. Just the name could be blocked on sight for attempting to impersonate Roy. --CFIF ☎ 23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dead for either of your cited reasons, but principally that he's a sock. -Splash - tk 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Time to give Spotteddogs sockpuppet ring it's own page

Do you think we should document all this at Wikipedia:Long term abuse, the sock list is growing rapidly, and this is becoming one of the bigger sockpuppet rings in Wikipedia. --CFIF ☎ 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I don't support building shrines to people like this. There's the category of socks which is fairly compelling by itself, and I'm not really sure what benefit there is in giving them the glory of a write-up. I realise that it provides for 'documentation', but I'm not really sure that that itself is particularly useful. -Splash - tk 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like the seperate subpages were deleted, so forget I even brought it up. We'll just have to monitor these types of articles, and I may bring Paul Dellegatto up for undeletion, especially if CEIF is seen to be a sock. --CFIF ☎ 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the user as such. Maybe a one or two sentence write-up in the category itself explaining general modus operandi? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I typed something up, feel free to change. --CFIF ☎ 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Help on ATA Airlines

On ATA Airlines, where I recently put a higher-resolution public domain image that I took myself (replacing a lower-resolution GFDL image) , an anon user keeps removing it without a valid reason, I feel that this is another attempt to troll against me. --CFIF ☎ 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is tiresome. I blocked the relevant set of IPs. -Splash - tk 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There`s another IP vandalizing it too. I hope admins don`t consider it a 3RR violation, as I`m reverting vandalism. --CFIF ☎ 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop reverting the page now, though, since it's not simple vandalism. It is however, clear that it is merely done to attack you. I'll deal with the IPs and will semiprotect the page for a while. -Splash - tk 01:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In this regard, note [8], which I just dealt with. -Splash - tk 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Zongo Bongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another troll account, possibly a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ATA Airlines

I noticed that you semi-protected this page, but didn't leave a note on WP:RFPP. I've done this for you. Thanks. —Xyrael / 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's coz there's a bot wot does it for us :) Splash - tk 11:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there? I thought it just archived! Thanks. —Xyrael / 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so it has dual functions... okay, thanks :) —Xyrael / 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

It really needs to be sprotected. It is getting multiple edits per minute, most of them vandalism or content that has no place there.--Konstable 11:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You know that I'm usually with ya. :) But this is the rare exception. It's so crazy that we can't even really patrol the page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can. (The bots are around, right?) There's no need to panic for the sake of a few hours of vandalism. -Splash - tk 11:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It really is above the normal hype generated by a front page story. BTW, yours was the second unprotect, and the first one was just as hard to handle. The story popped many many hours ago. I havn't seen a bot get to a revert on that page yet, which shows there are many editors doing work on it of course. Its a fair call, but a tough one I must say. Ansell 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Mohammed thing from a few months back didn't cause the end of the world (even though I'm sure it lit up the CVU scroll list like a christmas tree!) and this won't either. It's easy to get panicked some when patrolling and to use protection as a means for making one's life easy at the cost of of "huh, so I can't edit the bloody thing after all". -Splash - tk 11:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say the process is working surprisingly well. The guy doesn't seem to have many enemies at all. Ansell 11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He's too much fun on TV! In any case, I'm not sure that excitable schoolkids necessarily count as enemies. That media writeup is going quite well for Wiki (vandalism removed quickly etc.) until it says "then they closed it off to anonymous editors". -Splash - tk 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The pragmatics of this case are kind of unique, a popular guy with little or no enemies... and yet we still have to close it down to cope every now and again. I hope they (the public... and news corp) understand things like that. Ansell 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The process is breaking down. I think it needs regular full protection every 5-15 minutes or so to review edits just for everyones sake. Call me anti-wiki but I think it should be able to work at least. Ansell 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Full protection? Goodness no. Take it easy. The article will still be here this time tomorrow. I am certain of it. -Splash - tk 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice non sequitur. That's not the point of protection and you know it. With your way who knows how many dozens of random people get penises shoved in their faces. --Cyde Weys 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ansell is suggesting fully protecting the article every 5 minutes. There's funny and then there's silly. Indeed, the point of full protection is to stem an edit war (none present) and the point of semi-protection is to deal with vandalism that can't be handled by other means. As evidenced by the fact that it was and is being handled by other means, a flap about protecting it just because it makes one's eyes go wide in the CVU channel is nothing more than a flap. I would reckon a small number of dozens. The penises don't stay there for more than a matter of seconds. -Splash - tk 23:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When I suggested it, just after you released all protection from the article, 5 minutes would have been roughly every 30 edits, whereas 15 minutes would have been close to 100. Face it, wikis were not built to deal with that degree of edits per minute. I agree that in hindsight, and for the future, full protection would not have fixed anyones problems, however, the tough call you made did result in a few embarrasing episodes with an extremely high profile page. Ansell 23:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash, vandalism has a very real impact in the real world. So don't pretend we're living in this utopia where "it's a wiki, so everyone can edit everything always". Letting anonymous users edit is a lot less of a priority than preventing a mention in a major media outlet that makes us look bad because we unprotected the article and then got vandalized. --Cyde Weys 23:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thats the article I mentioned below. :) — The Future 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment below about the list of people we are scared of. And I do happen to think that looking after foundation principles is more important than worrying about what one of the millions of random journos in the world writes. (Jimbo's acidic remarks to the BBC notwithstanding.) In fact, that article, if anything, is very carefully written and finishes up making the process look quite efficient; it certainly doesn't editorialise on how bad everything is. Maybe it's not so bad as the IRC channels lead people to think. Maybe, perhaps, the vandalism is the kind of thing we get day in, day out. Maybe some of the vandals will actually enjoy what they did and then come back and get an account and be productive; maybe it'll raise the project's profile (most publicity is good publicity, after all). Maybe protection remains a last resort, not the first port of call. Maybe less grandiose fears of swirling Armageddon from The Outside are needed. -Splash - tk 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you check the block of User:Aa35te?

Doesn't seem to be a good block, since there were good edits made and some messing with a sandbox template. Thoughts? \/\/slack (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like over-eager vandal fighting coupled with accidental adminning. I lifted the block. -Splash - tk 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have warned User:Aa35te with the (test) template.--1568 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Aa35te is still autoblocked Unblock user.--1568 18:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Look. Stingray and Steve Irwin are undergoing major attacks, and - with server loads being heavy - reverts are taking too long to propagage. OTRS got complaints about all the penises in the Irwin article.

Leave them both as sprotected for 24 hours. DS 21:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. OTRS will get over itself. MAJOR attacks -- like -- uncoordinated random stuff that happens anytime there's a big story? It'll be alright. It always is. What does OTRS care about people who don't like penises? -Splash - tk 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash, I respectfully disagree. Once we had the article unprotected for editing, there was at least a few occasions right after the unprotection where penises showed up. Stuff like this got us in trouble a few times already, and I frankly would not to wake up tomorrow morning with this in the papers. Because of this, I am frankly inclined to support a semi-protection for editing and a full move protection (the later I already did). Please, think about it next time before you unprotect something like this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We're afraid of 1)lawyers (hence the mooting of OTRS above; it's supposed to scare me) 2)journalists, 3)anons, 4)very new editors and 5)our own shadows. Have you noticed how penises are regularly added to the actual Featured Article in all its glory? Please don't tell me that I didn't think before I acted; it's quite hard enough to know what's happening in my head without you also not actually being in it. Can we please not be so terrified of bad edits that we turn the key and throw down the shutters too, as well as posting armed guards at the reinforced doors? "Open editing", anyone? Any takers? -Splash - tk 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Zscout to an extent. There is already a report I read posted today about Wikipedia and Steve Irwin, talking about the sprotection and some of the vandalism written on it. Article should be sprotected, if it's still not. Reading the history of the Steve Irwin article, I recall at least 50 edits in under 10-14 minutes, in which all where vandalism. — The Future 23:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet good money that no more than 50% of them were. And I read a report that said how well we were doing, until we had to lock out all the anonymous editors. Probably the same article you read. -Splash - tk 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, you were right, the other 50% was the revision of vandalism. :) The post said that that there was some vandalism that was quickly reverted and was protected; it said nothing of how bad it was that we locked out anonymous editors, if thats what your post said.. — The Future 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are stats for the all the pages edits. During half of this time the page was semiprotected. Interpret as you will.Voice-of-All 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Viewing page modification statistics (from the 2106 edits shown on this page):
User statistics for these edits:
Number of users: 942
25.88% IP/anon edits (545 edit(s))
3.13% likely new user edits (66 edit(s))
7.55% likely inexperienced user edits (159 edit(s))
47.63% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (1003 edit(s))
15.34% administrator edits (323 edit(s))
0.47% bot edits (10 edit(s))
Time range:
1281 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 4, September, 2006
Oldest edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 1, February, 2003
Current time: 23hr (UTC) -- 04, Sep , 2006
Analysis:
Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.09% (2 edit(s))
Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 3.18% (67 edit(s))
Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 29.63% (624 edit(s))
25.02% marked reverts (any) (527)
14.53% probable reverts of vandalism (306)
Unmarked edits: 42.07% (886 edit(s))
Averages:
50.76% edit summary usage
Average edits/user: 2.24
1.643 edit(s) per day (current)
1.643 edit(s) per day (since last active)
0.411 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.33 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
58.74% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (1237 edit(s))
60.91% of edits by IPs/new/inexperienced users are non-reverts/reverted (469 out of 770 edit(s))

The bottom line for me is that when someone has just tragically died. Allowing their (now highprofile) article to be vandalised with horrible things is just, well... bad taste. --Doc 23:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the common misconception of unprotection being the same as inviting vandalism, when it wasn't me that vandalised it at all and I don't mail out invites when I unprotect something. Moan at those doing the vandalising; and if I must take the blame for all the people around the world who made bad edits, then I shall take the credit for all the good edits we got too. I trust those are not in bad taste. -Splash - tk 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And seeing as we're on the topic, the bottom line says that 60.91% of edits that would have been tossed away were it semiprotected at that time were good. -Splash - tk 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for the last 1000 edits, while this mess was going on (this page used to be quite for years), we have:

2168.675 edit(s) per day (current)
2175.227 edit(s) per day (since last active)
637.341 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.41 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
52.5% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (525 edit(s))
54.08% of edits by IPs/new/inexperienced users are non-reverts/reverted (179 out of 331 edit(s))

The revert amount is a lot higher, now that the quite times from 2003-2005 are not analyzed. Nevertheless, the 60% only drops to 54%, and the ratio increases by .1. What we seem to have here, in my experience, is a heavily edited pages, vandalized above-average (though not extremely high either) in proportion to its size. Still, the fact that so many edits and reverts are coming in can make it hard to edit. This seems like a toss up to me in the sense of "protecting to prevent disruption". Perhaps if OTRs complaints are bad enough, I don't know...I would say that as an MP linked page, and given things in proportion, that we should not leave protection on for long time periods per current policy.Voice-of-All 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The trouble with looking at the bots in IRC is that they only show the bad side of things and some people get a horribly one-sided impression of darkness sweeping insurmountably over them. I mean, that's only one revert every 2 minutes or so. Why is everyone jumping like they're on hot coals about this? OTRS got an email? They'll get more, I bet, and OTRS seems to overly-excite people. In fact, as these statistics show, most people in the world (between 54% and 60%, no less) are good and have no bad intentions. -Splash - tk 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OTRS got indeed a whole bunch of emails complaining of penises all over the place. I quote "While looking up the nutritional value of watermelon, i clicked on Watermelon and was face to face with a large picture of a penis. a couple of them, actually." This one was taxobox vandalism. David.Monniaux 07:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my question at the start of this section. Why does OTRS care if people don't like penises? Don't tell me you protected watermelon because someone got a bit sensitive. You jump too much over OTRS. -Splash - tk 11:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You did. I'm disgusted. One day, I'll send an email to OTRS saying how disgraceful the headless chicken approach to protection is and how much it damages Wikipedia's image in the media and with interested readers and users. You'll all fall over yourselves screaming around to get everything unprotected. -Splash - tk 11:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, we won't. What is your purpose with this? I don't quite understand your position. I've read somewhere as a rule of thumb that for every one person who writes to you, there are 100 people who think the same thing but haven't gone to the effort. Well, there were dozens of letters about this.

So. What are we here for? Is it to be open to editing for all first, reader experience and utility as a reference second? If so then I will agree with you unreservedly. But I don't think that is the case. Rather, I think it is more important that we are usable all the time rather than kept strictly up to the second where it is clear that vandalism is getting in the way of both editing and reading: encyclopedia first, wiki second, though the wiki method is in the vast majority of cases successful at achieving the first. (And I am a proponent of the version-flagging idea because of this; I think it is the most effective way of getting the best of both worlds.) Protection is a blunt tool, yes, not to be used thoughtlessly, but still it exists for a reason and I would say this case met it; the complaints reflected that. We are not fulfilling our purpose by having an article that people cannot use because all of the activity is either placing or removing pictures of genitalia and inane commentary.

I should make this clear: e-mailed complaints do not justify action that would otherwise not be allowable. But they definitely do open our eyes to what people outside the insular heavily-active editing community are seeing and thinking, and wake us up to what should be done. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean my purpose with the comment(s) on OTRS? Well, that it was used further up in this section as a blatant attempt at intimidation, is regularly used that way (see even further up this page where it was concluded that I must be wishing lawsuits on the WMF in a hastily redacted message) and the reaction to an OTRS missive seems generally to be "how high, Sir?". Without any actual proportionality. It's not healthy. The flip side of your statistic is that 99% of people don't actually mind so much, and we/you only beholden to the most difficult 1%. (And you're right: whoever heard of OTRS unprotecting or undeleting anything?)

I'm never particularly fond of the division between wiki- and -pedia, and I don't think that generally it is needed: this is an encyclopedia built using wiki technology and (importantly) philosophy. You'd not have the former without the latter under the particular model that got chosen upon-a-time. The (important) philosophy I needn't deliver a lecture on, but I do actually happen to think that when someone comes across that page, and they'd like to be helpful (as 54% of edits were, give or take, according to the stats above) that we shouldn't say "no, you're probably a vandal", when the fact is that they probably aren't. If that's the article they most want to edit, then let them edit it, and rollback those that aren't so good (that's less than half of them). I don't really think that the pensises, or whatever else, seriously disrupt reading; they're only there for a second or five at a time, and if it was a serious issue, then the nature of the daily FA would certainly be in jeopardy. Presumably the same people who get antsy now lived through the period before I (possibly foolishly) wrote WP:SEMI and before you got OTRS. It's just an overreaction to seeing only the bad edits in the CVU IRC channel (someone should write a good-edit-catching bot) and only seeing the bad stuff in OTRS. There's no counterweight. -Splash - tk 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cease and desist unprotecting Steve Irwin at once. It is constantly being vandalized by vandals as soon as you unprotect it, and now that we've gone the rounds at least twice, it is obvious that further unprotection at this point is effectively aiding and abetting vandalism, and will have consequences. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

<quiver /> -Splash - tk 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree - the moment article was unprotected it started to get vandalized a lot. Semiprotection would be the best and lots of ppl coming and seeing garbige instead of article, what is no good at all. TestPilot 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash, you are displaying reckless disregard for the integrity and repute of Wikipedia in your use of the unprotection tool. I've already linked you to an article in a major newspaper that specifically talks about Wikipedia vandalism to the Steve Irwin article. You had already previously unprotected the article and it was subject to a rash of anon IP vandalism at an incredible rate and had to be quickly reprotected. So why in the world did you come back again, unprotect it, and walk away?! In the thirty minutes after your second unprotection the article was vandalized by anonymous users over a dozen times. If an article has previously been heavily vandalized once protection was lifted, you don't just lift protection again and walk away. You have to stick around and make sure that what you did was correct. Looking over the article history, I don't even see any evidence of you making any effort to fight the vandalism that was directly caused by your lifting of the semi-protection. You just stepped in, opened the floodgates to the vandals, and stepped out. If you continue your reckless and dangerous abuse of your administrator tools you will soon find that you will no longer have access to them. --Cyde Weys 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused. I haven't used my unprotect button since your last visit here. You're also confused on the fact that if I didn't edit the article it is extraordinarily hard for me to have caused anyone else to. One vandal edit every 2 minutes is really not so exciting as you're making out, and if you'd breathe in, you'd realise that. Start making dark threats at the editors in the meantime. e.g. "If you continue to make dangerous and reckless abuse of your editing tools you will soon find that you no longer have access to them". Oh, wait. Again, though, I'll take the credit for the 54% of good edits we received during the unprotected times if I must take the blame for the bad edits too. You can take the blame for the 100% rejection of the good edits at the other times. -Splash - tk 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Though this page did warant having protection for longer than 15-30 minutes, I'd say that a couple hours at a time would be best, though perhaps it could have been locked for the whole first day just because it got so hard to get any edits through. That would have at least given it a chance, and it can always be re-protected. Though the stats script cannot get the exact number of non-autoconfirmed uesrs, it can for IPs. Looking at the numbers (from here) and having reveiwed them with popups, I'd say about 40-45% of the IP edits where non-vandalism. So most of them seem to be bad, though not the vast majority, including edits like [9] [10] [11][12].Voice-of-All 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NaZ1022

I blocked the account because at the time we were getting an abundance of HEIL HITLER HEIL HITLER... / Swastika vandalism, and it seemed to me that this was the same guy being funny with Nazi. I apologise as it seems I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know. - Glen 01:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Incoming RFAR

Per your continuing lack of any cognizance of having done anything wrong, I have filed for arbitration on you here. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash. The table reeks of sewage. Stick it. You're not going down. ~ PseudoSudo 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On threading

Hi, I'm sympathetic to your wish to engage in a "small amount" of threaded discourse. I'm quasi-recused in your application in any case. I think it's usually acceptable if you clearly demarcate your comment using a subsection header, which enables a natural reading order to be maintained without unduly encouraging threaded discussions.

The reason why threaded discussions are discouraged is that they tend to be high in noise and low in quality. This isn't a reflection on you, it's just a general observation about that style. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add a header, though I wonder that those tend to add clutter, but if you think it's the lesser of the two evils. (The point about threaded discussions applies too widely, I fear). -Splash - tk 22:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go, but I'm not sure that 5th level subheadings are particularly an improvement. I don't want my reply moved way back up top with my 'statement' though. -Splash - tk 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When I have my clerking hat on, the subheading is useful because it encapsulates one person's comment. It's usually preferable to incorporate everything into your own statement but I can understand why you wanted to add your comment where you did. As an experienced and generally well behaved Wikipedian you respond better to suggestions than some arbitration parties. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Spotteddogsdotorg

United Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a sockpuppet of Spotteddogsdotorg, with the db-bios, afds, and more. —Whomp t/c 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good find. Dead. I just noticed someone pointed out some stuff further up, too. -Splash - tk 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CFIE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-explanitory. —Whomp t/c 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is f!@#ing ridiculous. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I just cancelled a series of AfDs. Not much forensics in them unfortunately. -Splash - tk 23:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sqlash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I love the new user log. —Whomp t/c 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Adn CEIE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Splash - tk 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You also might want to keep an eye on Flashdashgash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No edits yet, but he registered a minute after Sqlash got blocked. —Whomp t/c 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting the ATA Airlines, the image, SNN News 6, and my user page get semi-protected. This is ridiculous. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be too much, really, unless he gets really bad. ATA Airlines possibly, as I did before. But my boredom threshold is probably longer than his. -Splash - tk 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob, though I would like my user page permanently semi-protected.... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already done. -Splash - tk 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks....also, in an interesting twist, the owner of the domain name ("nyviewer"), told me (rather nicely) that he was going to try to come back to Wikipedia after leaving a while back. He doesn't run this sockpuppet ring, however. It's the crazy Mr. Scott Brown (talk · contribs). --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the guy who basically had to shut down their domain name because of this whole bloody mess, something basically about exchaning a copy of one old newscast for another. I had something he wanted, and he offered nothing that I wanted in return and then it escalated from that point with him making enemies wherever he went.

FYI: Upon my cursory review of some of the sockpuppets, I noticed that there are several images that were placed on Wikipedia that came either from my website or tvnewstalk.net. I can tell you one thing, Scott Brown does not give up and will keep going and going and going until he gets what he wants and you have to be firm and not let him take one inch. TBTA 07:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail Lebedev

This year, I was trolling the page Mikhail Lebedev. I meant it to be a bad joke but it is now ruining the scientist's reputation. Can you please delete the slander on the pages (Afd, talk page, and page itself) for me? You can delete the page if it is necessary. Thanks a lot. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey there - just wanted to say thanks (and while I'm here, Hi to a fellow south westerner!) for the sprotecting to UK cabinet members - that ip <beeeep> was getting rather obnoxious. Cheers! --Mnemeson 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Splash - tk 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

sprotect

Thank you for sprotecting Charles Clarke et al. What page does one go to to request sprotection? And I'd like to propose sprotecting John Prescott for a short period as well (history). TransUtopian 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and explanation. And yeah, I didn't notice John Prescott had already been sprotected an hour before I asked. TransUtopian 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible problem with a deletion vote

I think the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ousmane Zongo vote may be a bit skewed, since someone left a comment on the popular Gothamist blog contribution page [13] with the text "10-13, 10-13! The NYPD haters want to have their pack of lies on Wikipedia. This the 10-20 of the offending article. Lets all go Giuliani Time on this thing!" The poster of the message on Gothamist is unknown, but they do use NYPD "10 code" with "10-13" meaning officer needs assistance and "10-20" meaning location. Two users on the article for deletion page use 10 code, but only one after the Gothamist post. User:Belly Flop Patrol uses "10-64V" which is the code for vandalism (apparently in the context of calling the original article vandalism) and "10-98"which means "available"- something that is used after officers are finished with a call. There may be votes on both sides that could be influenced by this. TBTA 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Princess Akishino

I have unprotected the page now, I have you maybe right. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers on "Loser"

I've kept Loser on my watchlist just to revert "Joey Thomas is a loser" types of exits (note: I know of noone named Joey Thomas). The redirect is a wonderful idea. Cheers. Sirmob 00:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I cut it back substantially a while ago, noone squeaked and it was still terrible with the vast majority of edits being vandalism or reverts. Probably worth adding pejorative to watchlists now I guess! -Splash - tk 12:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We've got another one.

SAB 911 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), notice the SAB initials (Scott Allen Brown). --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Make that two

SABTPC (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), has the SAB initials, reverted some articles, spurious delete nomination, and apparently he is stalking me as well. TBTA 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everybody. I must try to sleep at less inconvenient times! -Splash - tk 12:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

More to watch out for

• Belly Flop Patrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kevlar 42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AC Ginger Ale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They all are redlinked, new users that voted delete in the aforementioned Ousamane Zong AfD. Especially intriguing is Belly Flop Patrol, who voted delete on a TV personality article. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's all sorts in that AfD, as pointed out a section or so up from here. I have my concerns about some of the editors, and am fairly sure that some socks are currently re-awakening. If they put a hair of a toe wrong, I will block them. As for that AfD, well, hopefully whichever poor admin decides to close it will do the necessary duties. -Splash - tk 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Something is not kosher with that. deletion discussion. Someone added an anonymous note to the popular NYC websote Gothamist that the article should be deleted and then there were comments like "Ï love sockpuppets" added. It may be a totally seperate thing, since apparently NYPD related articles seem to be a sore point of contention and also seem to be a bit biased against the NYPD. One of the main proponents for deletion User:Spring3100 seems to have the same name as an NYPD publication [{Spring 3100]] and the nominator [[User::Giuliani Time]], that was what Abner Louima claimed one of the officers who he claimed abused him said "It's Giuliani time!" As for Zongo, the case went through the typical news cycle and picked up during the Conroy trial, and was quickly forgotten. Sadly it appears there is no middle ground with a lot of the NYPD related articles and if you look at Talk:New York City Police Department there is a claim that the NYPD is attempting to censor some of the bad things about it. This is most likely another can of worms. TBTA 13:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

link to Bosnia

Hello, when you want to link to the article about Bosnia, please do not link to Bosnia, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Bosnia (region) or Bosnia and Herzegovina by writing out [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Errr....wot? -Splash - tk 01:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

G'day

Guildford G vandaliser had stuff in history which I thought can be blocked from normal readers view - is that possible? SatuSuro 04:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy

Hi, I'm just glad someone actually responded to the concerns that I raised! To quickly summarise my response from the relevant talk page, my problem at the moment is that whilst the protection policy says something about 'main-page-linked-articles', the semi-protection policy says nothing on them. This creates an inherent confusion which results in pages being repeatedly protected/unprotected, even with no wheel-warring occuring.

I do not hold a paticularly strong view on what ought to be decided on the matter, but I do feel that something should be decided - at the moment, this is a bit of an annomaly. --Robdurbar 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I did see it when you posted it, meant to reply, forgot, carried on and then only got reminded when it actually appeared on the project page. One of those things, I guess. I'll try to write a response over there later today. -Splash - tk 21:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, how fitting

• 22:16, 9 September 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) m (moved Splash (disambiguation) to Splash: per request (based on Splash (film)]] not being the overwhelmingly common use of the word))

I laughed when I saw that. Hbdragon88 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:) I couldn't resist! -Splash - tk 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet another

• VGOG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Same sort of behavior pattersns as the others. TBTA 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dead. Borderline for a Spotteddog, though. I think it's probably the image speedies that do it. -Splash - tk 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Anotherone bites the dust! I had some initial suspision about User:Tecmobowl due to some reverts, but they don't seem to meet the full sock pattern. TBTA 01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure why TBTA likes to argue, but until he does a better job of adding content i will continue to remove his edits. Cheers.Tecmobowl 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseball related vandal

Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be removing content from various baseball related articles incuding international content from Baseball card citing entries that he had made on it which no others commented on. He has ignored several vandalism warnings and continues to revert the article Baseball card. He also claims that links are commercial when they are not. He seems to be in violation of WP:OWN on [[WP:N{OV]] with regard to his edits on several articles. TBTA 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that this is vandalism. However, Tecmobowl, you have already reverted 4 times in 24 hours which is a violation of the three-revert-rule and I could block you for 24 hours as a result. I won't, because you haven't been warned of it before. TBTA, the same applies to you. You are 40 minutes outside 24 hours, but that's enough to earn a block usually. If either of you reverts the page again inside 24 hours of your most recent revert, I will block you.

In the meantime, use the talk page graciously and don't call each other vandals when they are not vandalising. Thank you. -Splash - tk 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do and thanks, just for the record ... i never called him a vandal. I simply asked that if he wanted to add a small section on foreign cards that was fine. I also made a post on that articles talk page to discuss it. Tecmobowl 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Mechanics

As per WP:BRD, let's discuss this. I'm very curious to hear how you defend your edit, since I think I made a pretty much airtight case for mine. :-)

Kim Bruning 09:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that you are indeed correct in your edit summary on one point. Your last edit did not reference a guideline page, it actually referenced a *non* guideline page, while there are clear guidelines on how to structure processes on wikipedia. Kim Bruning 09:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the energy or the inclination to unjerk knees. The mysterious thing the page 'referenced' is what is known in the jargon as an 'article', as I recall. -Splash - tk 18:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it did. It did not reference the existing & relevant guideline, which it should have done. Kim Bruning 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotections

I was wondering what you thought of this idea. I think it would be a good solution to situations like Steve Irwin, so that you can unprotect the article but make sure someone is watching it if you don't have the time or inclination to do it yourself. --Cyde Weys 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, and I've put my initial thoughts on the talk page. This said, articles in a confluence of pressure-points like Steve Irwin was are generally so widely watched/patrolled at that time that an additional listing of them somewhere probably won't appreciably increase the vigilance ratio for the article. Nevertheless, the idea fits into a surprising niche as I said on the talk page. -Splash - tk 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)