Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Edit warring on episodes articles

Unresolved

 – Moved long thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Edit warring on episodes articles slakr^\ talk /

22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee 3RR violations and BLP violations

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See [1] and [2] Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also asked this at AN3, could you clarify what the BLP issue is? It isn't obvious for those of us not familiar with the subject. --B (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He puts an external link on Frank Rynne which alleges illegal activity by the subject of the page. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We need User:FayssalF to look over this . He is familiar. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I should note that both users have been into this dispute for almost 2 years now. Back on 2007, i decided to deal with this issue and everybody has gone into informal dispute resolution (User:FayssalF/JK). It worked for a while but since i was the only admin left with the case, things started to get out of hand and the old behavior surfaced again. I then blocked both users (see here) for a week each. I believe those blocks had little effect. At the end i asked both parties to engange in a formal mediation process. So far, Opiumjones accepted while BKLisenbee has still had some concerns and never came back to respond to my querry for a formal mediation. I'd hope other admins take care of this alongside me. All details are found at User:FayssalF/JK.

Anyway, my usual message to both parties... A total respect of WP:BLP should be observed. Articles affected (directly or not) are Paul Bowles, Bachir Attar, William S. Burroughs, Frank Rynne and Mohammed Hamri. I have concerns about WP:COI as well since both parties have been showing a COI. They are both involved in real life disputes re the same issues. I've already informed all users involved in this that Wikipedia is not a battleground. In brief, users are advised to pursue formal mediation and if that fails, they are invited to bring it to the attention of the ArbCom. I urge some admins to take a look at this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I agree to formal mediation. How should Arb com be approached? Note Google friendly violations of BLP in above cited BKlisenbee some concerns[3]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the dispute resolution process is a prerequisite to an ArbCom case. Please give it a last chance and see if BKLisenbee would accept the mediation. If not try an RfC.

The ArbCom expects that other avenues will be attempted first:

• For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comment (RFC) process will be followed. The Committee considers community input from the RFC process both in determining whether to accept a case and also in formulating its decisions.
• For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

well we have seen that User:BKLisenbee has refused to mediate so what now? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this dispute reflects well the real life events. A problem which has been unsettled offline for years now. I am afraid it is time for an ArbCom case to sort out the mess here brought from offline disputes. Wikipedia cannot tolerate this. We've tried informal mediation and it didn't work. One party is refusing formal mediation believing it just a waste of time and would lead to nothing since they argue that you are supported here by another one's lawyer. We've tried our best and it is time for some forced peace over here. Anyone (you or BKLisenbee) can file an ArbCom case. See you there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

good . I think as a proposed tour by Bachir Attar is now cancelled that the abuse will lessen. I will also seek arb com intercession. Thank you for the advice. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones, if you are linking this dispute to real life events (tour cancellation) then i am afraid you'd be accused of a violation of WP:NOT (in particular WP:SOAP). Please do not talk about such things except to arbitrators. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in a post on the mediation page many of User:BKLisenbee's edits are related to and designed for their Google searchability. Indeed I posted his own comments re. Google.E.g. here [4] and the last sentence of his comment here[5]. The ref to current real life situation re tour was an expression of hope that his behaviour would temper as he was not currently conducting business. However he still edits.... I accept your point and will refrain in future from that course. However, it seems that by refusing to mediate or engage the user is under virtually no control or censure. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

arb com diffs added for arb com

1. 16:06, 18 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (You removed the Sub Rosa category. The link is to a verifiable letter to you, which explains facts about your involvement. What about your BLP smear against Bachir Attar?)
2. 15:48, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (User Frankrynne does not own the copyright on this recording, or its cover art work. This article is about the recording by Bachir Attar and the Pipes of Pan.)
3. 15:44, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:BKLisenbee‎ (Usernames only. Since you don't know me, you may not act as if you do. We've met, briefly, but that's it. Wikipedia rules say usernames only.)
4. 02:53, 15 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (I am awaiting word from Administration; meantime this stays as is. Period. It's about Jajouka, not your world of "Joujouka".)
5. 02:51, 15 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not.)
6. 21:48, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (Reverted POV by user who repeatedly makes this a JOUJOUKA article when it is about the MMofJajouka)
7. 21:47, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (Added new category which indicates this user has recorded Joujouka music. Nothing POV about that.)
8. 14:49, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (The Rolling Stones granted rights to Bachir Attar to re-issue this music and the album cover issue is not the main point.)
9. 14:47, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (User Frankrynne has POV as he produces CDs for an offshoot Joujouka band. What's wrong with putting these facts in Wikipedia?This is NOT vandalism. I don't want to be threatened again with la awsuit.)
10. 19:28, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (Readded references which show that user Frankrynne manages/produces a "Joujouka" band, and lWilliam S. Burroughs and James Grauerholz regard this as misguided and not the real group of MMoJajouka)

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

where should this be added for arb com Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To post a request for arbitration, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and carefully follow the instructions. Please note that it will be necessary for the filing party or other knowledgeable editors to provide background information on the dispute, which can be understood by those of us who are not familiar with this controversy either in the real world or on Wikipedia. (Note that I am not expressing any opinion on whether this request would be accepted or what the outcome should be if accepted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad and understood. I will attempt to go through process later today after some sleep. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann on User:Rokus01

To anyone unfamiliar with Rokus01: he is spending time trying to smear me not because he cares about Wikipedia. He is simply feeling vindictive because I prevented him spreading his crackpot views of Dutch crypto-nationalism, which basically holds that the Dutch people are descended from Neanderthals, and are hence a racially superior breed, the original Aryans and the wellspring of all human civilization.

There might be system in this madness, though I have the strong feeling this pattern does not reflect anything I stand for or deserve, and basically reflects the bias of someone that urgently needs temporal seclusion or a block. [6] Rokus01 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann was reminded not to use rollback. The arbitration case didn't say anything about personal attacks (at least I presume that is what you meant, and not WP:PSA). I see Dbachmann's statement that you have quoted as something that could be true, and should be seen in the context of Dbachmann needing to make clear his views on the editors he finds himself dealing with. Rather than complain about any personal attack, why not consider trying to refute his claims? First, ask him to provide diffs to back up his claims, and then take matters from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The pattern of personal attacks Dbachmann has been accused of was certainly mentioned in the final decision to his case: [7]

This whole thing is nothing but harassment by Rokus01 himself. "Someone that urgently needs temporal seclusion or a block"? Yes, very likely, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but accusations on both sides are unhelpful without diffs to back up those accusations. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus's ultra-Netherlandishness has been noted by many editors. One anonymous individual parodied him in the following edits [8]. [9]. The real Rokus added this promoting the Netherlands as the Cradle of Civilization and then edit warred over it. He created an article on the Nordic race which attempts to prove the real existence of this "race". Numerous other articles are edited to promote his claim that the Nordic race has primeval paleolothic continuities and is the source of the IE languages (ie. The Aryans). Rokus will not engage in meningful debate. 'Debates' are endless reassertions of his line by argument and OR synthesising of sources. See Talk:Kurgan hypothesis, Talk:Neanderthal, Talk:Frisians etc. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Looks like Wikipedia has got its own modern version of Johannes Goropius Becanus! --Folantin (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 forum-shopping and harassing people as usual. Unless somebody wants to look into Rokus' history of disruption (he is basically reporting himself by quoting me above), there is nothing to see here. The diffs that back up my characterization of Rokus02 are to be found here (my 2 October posting). dab (𒁳) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive are editors like you that are on probation for being disruptive: [10] Moreover, your fanatism on military Kurgan antiques is famous, since your disruptive edits have been denounced on this subject as well. Still, your practice of retorting arguments with bias seems to work out for you, even here on the incident page. You are still on the loose. Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus is the problem here. Dbachmann's characterisation of his antics and ideology is perhaps a little exaggerated, but is essentially accurate, as anyone familiar with Rokus's editing history will be only too aware. Rokus is also extremely disingenuous and this very entry in the noticeboard is clear evidence of his vindictiveness. It is nothing more than the pursuit of a vendetta and part of a campaign to get dbachmann to back away from dealing with Rokus's extreme nationalism and preoccupation with the glorious "Nordic race". Paul B (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think your use of "glorious" is as unwarranted and suggestive as the quote of your overlord. Weren't you the one negating [11] Fascism to be involved in Nazism, even after being refuted with the reliable sourced reference you asked for yourself [12]? Clearly WP:OR, I don't think Paul can be taken very seriously. Moreover, the mystery of your friend Dbachmann NOT investigating my suggestion that some obnoxious sockpuppetry trolling might have been yours [13] while being so diligent in other occasions, has never been solved.Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rockus01's statements on DBachmann's talk page were clearly made to taunt him over the recent ArbCom "reminder", and provoke a response that he could take to AN/I. Quoting from WP:TE: "Axe to grind? Try the hardware store." Ovadyah (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not "taunt", I politely advised him to take heart and not engage in soapboxing against the arbcom decision on his talkpage: [14]. I honestly think this is a bad attitude not worthy [15] of an admin that repeatedly pretends to speak in name of Wikipedia.Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"A little exaggerated"? Epecially "racially superior breed, the original Aryans" is highly suggestive and insulting. As far as I know this unwarranted claim is a personal attack, and a personal attack is a violation of wikipedia policy, and a violation of wikipedia policy of this accumulating degree (since as all of us know this behaviour is systematic and symptomatic to Dbachmann) is an incident. I would say, an issue. Rokus01 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• my observation on this situation is that Rokus01 has an agenda, and dab (primarily) stands in his way. I think Paul B's diffs show that while dab could be more polite, he's not the encyclopedia's problem in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I worry about dab for "standing in my way", as he has already difficulties in upholding his own edits? You can't blame me for improving on articles that interest me, persuing encyclopedic compliance to multiple significant views, or else you would have seen me fighting like a crazed bull against the bias of Nordic Theory and Fascism: here you'll see articles written and purified against all odds, logic, thought and sourced references by editors having an agenda. Editors, moreover, that are obviously very conscient of each other, everywhere and everytime, and consistently give each other a helping hand. Be careful with your observation, you might be wrong. And please stay on topic: "Dbachmann barely alive from arbcom and violating WP:NPA" (and WP:SOAP, of course).

By the way, please don't miss my observation above concerning this incident: "The pattern of personal attacks Dbachmann has been accused of was certainly mentioned in the final decision to his case:" [16] Rokus01 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The AN should be aware that ArbCom intended for the principle of Decorum to apply to all parties involved in the dispute, including two editors that were added as parties based on personal attacks and incivility against DBachmann. There was never a finding of fact against DBachmann for editorial misconduct. The findings concerned the use of rollback and semi-protection in Dab's capacity as an admin. Alleging otherwise amounts to fraudulent testimony and is a violation of WP:POINT. Rokus01 is the party engaging in personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system. Ovadyah (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ovadyah, your same argument "Axe to grind" was applied by you before to criticize User:Futurebird on the case. [17] She was as startled as I am now, and obviously this diff shows you are neither the neutral bypasser you want to appear NOR gifted with the capacity to choose the right side. Qoute: "It doesn't matter what I think. It's up to the committee at this point. Good luck" In this quote, the only thing sensible and that worked out was the "good luck", since the commitee proved that Futurebird was right. Maybe it would have helped Dbachmann if you had contributed or thought something instead that did matter? Please be relevant or keep this page clean from WP:GAME altogether. I am waiting for the concept of AN: be aware that giving opinions while knowing yourself they don't matter, for whatever reason, could be explained as deliberate obstruction. Rokus01 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Rokus01, I am a "neutral bypasser" when it comes to these various content disputes. I could care less about Afrocentricity, Indian nationalism, or your Nordic pretentions to greatness. I am not, however, neutral when it comes to the abuse of process, for that has the potential to affect all Wikipedians. My vexation with your remarks stems from your faux-nobility in pretending to uphold the principle of Decorum while violating its spirit. This is also evidenced by a seemingly inordinate amount of time spent on trolling the talk pages and contribution logs of other editors. Ovadyah (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Nordic pretentions to greatness", such a statement is rather part of some deliberate attempt to discredit. What greatness? You should know this wrongly suggests some alliance with nazism or fascism. Where did I make such a suggestion? It is all the contrary, I think fascism is related to bad intentions and deliberate lies. This is the kind of attacks I intend to denounce. Like other unwarranted statements above from your party, this suggestion is completely outrageous and at best a personal interpretation (or cabal subgroup policy) that you could try to evidence at an arbcom dispute BASED OF FACTS, NOT PARROTING. Be sure that poor, unverifiable accusations with bad intentions of a group won't be any match to the honest arguments from my side, that vouch for a completely different reality. To such an arbcom case I would agree, under the one condition that this will lead to a clear WP policy to have parties like this expelled indefinitely from Wikipedia, for smearing the reputation of honest editors, and for deliberately trying to quell honorable edits (by way of last resort!) that can't be refuted by way of reason, facts or acceptable standards of moral. Since this result was not my original ambition, I just continue to denounce here, I repeat, the abuse of one editor, Dbachmann, for obviously giving a wrong example in contesting the arbcom settlement by WP:SOAPboxing and for continuing in his habit of launching offtopic personal attacks. This in response to my polite inquiry "I really don't want to hurt your feelings, and nobody is going to push your recall just like this, but did you ever try to listen?" To be sure: I did not ask his recall, so there is no reason to interpret my question as "taunting", or to suggest a justified personal attack in response. I just really want to know, still, if he ever tried to listen to the arguments of others, since it appears he does not even intend to listen to the outcome of Arbcom. That such a question would be takes as "rhetoric" (Well, silly question I guess...) , rather reveals the ready availability of a negative answer than me taking such an answer for granted. I honestly think this question should be answered, one way or the other. Also, I suggest this institution should be taken serious enough to insist on compliance. Here I conform with denouncing a completely offtopic, unnecessary, unwarranted, all Wikipedia policy and arbcom agreement defying personal attack. Rokus01 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil' mouse 2 (talk · contribs) taking over articles and removing tags

Lil' mouse 2 (talk · contribs) has been editing a number of Romanian royalty related articles, which the articles in question being: Line of succession to the Romanian throne, Romanian Royal Family and Carol Lambrino. The user has been translating surnames on that basis that a royal family can translate a title (for instance, "of Hohenzollern" because they are members of the House of Hohenzollern and also princes and princesses of Hohenzollern), so someone else can do it as well. I countered that we don't have "Vincent of Gogh" in English, among other answers, although we very well could but that would be original research. I have tagged the articles for POV and OR, but the user in question keeps on removing those tags. The user is also claiming ownership (on behalf of Romanians, but also for the user's self) that only Romanians can determine if a surname should be translated[18] when in English practice no one's surname is. The point to be made is that Hohenzollern isn't a surname only, it's a house name as well, and that is why it can have "of" in English ("of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", "of Habsburg", "of Bourbon", etc). Carol Mircea was given a surname only and not a title by the Romanian government. Please warn or block the user (which ever is appropriate) for nearly inciting an edit war with his or her behaviour and also for removing tags. A literal translation of Romanian documentation does not account for English practice. The source quoted is also compromised by using the title of "Prince", which was not granted to Carol Mircea by any authority. Charles 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also for royals we sometimes don't even translate what is used for their surnames. For instance, the Prince of Prussia's legal name, and the one allowed on his birth certificate, is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen. We don't say his legal name in English is Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia, although he may be styled as such in social situations. In English his legal name is still Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen (or Preussen, allowing for transliteration of non-available letters). Charles 15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not "keep" on deleting tags: I only did so once per article, asking Charles to prove with a reference his POV that surnames cannot be translated into English for non-aristocrats, without which proof the tags appear as unwarranted and aggresive POV-pushing. Because I do have two references for my claim re: Carol Mircea's surname, I will delete the OR tag as unwarranted and leave the Neutrality one as long as there is no consensus, awaiting Charles' reference on his POV. Have a good day everybody! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil' Mouse does not have proof of a surname because the context of cited passages does not support it. Sources referring to someone as "prince of Romania" does not make their surname "of Romania". Carol Mircea's birth certificate says "al României", not "of Romania". A literal translation of a surname is erroneous. Yes, his surname means "of Romania", but that does not change it to "of Romania". Note, for example, the lead articles on the Habsburgs. We don't give them as "of Habsburg-Lorraine", we use "von Habsburg-Lothringen". Charles 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR, hence the OR tag was removed and will continue to be removed as unwarranted. For it to be warranted, either of the two conditions are necessary to be true: "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.". The definition of the former says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." There is a verifiable, published, credible source proving Carol Mircea's "of Romania" surname --the Evenimentul Zilei daily, one of the main Romanian dailies: "Carol Mircea Grigore of Romania, the first born son of Romanian King Carol II, died on Friday night in London. (...) Mircea Grigore of Romania as mentioned in his birth certificate issued in 2004 by the Bucharest City Hall following long trials, was the first born of Carol II and his wife Ioana Valentina "Zizi" Lambrino." (Source) As to the second part of the OR tag, "unverified claims," its definition is given by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Clearly, the above source fulfils the verifiability requirement as it is published and reliable. Therefore, neither of the two reasons for the OR tag are warranted. Hence, this tag will continue to be deleted. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The validity of "of Romania" exactly in English as a surname is compromised by the use of "prince". A territorial designation is different from a surname. Lil Mouse, cease your campaign of vandalism and original research. It is you who is pushing original research by saying "of Romania" is the surname on his birth certificate, taken from a literal translation of the Romanian when the Romanian form is his surname. Your behaviour and admitted point of view, which you have not addressed here, is not suitable for Wikipedia. Carol's surname is "al României", not "of Romania". Charles 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the English of Lil Mouse's source is absolutely atrocious, slightly above that of a machine translation. Perhaps this source would be reliable in Romanian, but it is not a reliable English source for individual names in English as much as it might be for facts about his death, etc. Charles 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim Carol Mircea is a "prince." My edit is not OR, as there is a verifiable, published source proving his last name is "of Romania." Read again what WP:OR means, before making again such untenable claims about my edits. Also, your behavior is not suitable for Wikipedia (e.g. you accused me repeatedly, above as well as in this edit, of "vandalism" with regards to removing the OR tags, an act which I have proven above it is not vandalism, but warranted; such an accusation violates WP:AGF). As to your aggressive POV-pushing with the repeated insertion of the OR tag, please, provide a reliable source for your POV that only the aristocrats' surnames can be translated into English, but not the non-aristocrats'. If you do that, I'll accept then that Evenimentul Zilei was not so reliable when it translated Carol Mircea's surname into English. Have a good day everybody! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said only aristocratic "surnames" are translated. I said that "of Hohenzollern", which you compared "of Romania", is not just a surname, it exists as a surname and a territorial designation, whereas Carol Mircea's does not, because he is not titled "Prince" on his birth certificate. The OR is the lack of proof on your part that the English language translates surnames. An awful translation literally from Romanian does not cut it, it is not reliable in determining English usage. Answer for your claim of ownership on behalf of Romanians, why don't you. Either Evenimentul Zilei is reliable or it isn't, it doesn't rely on me proving something that I never claimed (that aristocrats have translatable surnames). I will say it again, for the record, that using "of Hohenzollern" for the Romanian royals is not translating a surname because it exists separately as a house name and as a princely title. Even for royals, "surnames" (to use your terminology, although these were house names) are not translated. Take a look at the leading lines of this article, for instance: Charles I of Austria (von Habsburg-Lothringen, not of Habsburg-Lorraine). An identifiable "surname" (again, house name, really) which is presented as such, not translated. Charles 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall the French revolutionaries addressing Queen Marie Antoinette during her trial with a translated French version of her Austrian surname, stripped of any princely title. So the translation of a commoner's surname (she was a commoner at that time) into a foreign language can be done; whether it can be done in English also is a matter of debate. Until you prove with a reliable reference your POV (thank you for all the above details on your POV, by the way), I have a reliable source for my edit and you don't for yours. Your opinion as to why my source is not reliable on this matter relies solely on your unproven POV. Still awaiting your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you comparing present day English conventions to revolutionary France?! You are also referring to French conventions, not English ones. Your source is compromised and your comparison is faulty. You are not the arbiter of what is correct in English, indeed you have indicated that you are concerned with what Romanians think. The practice is evident in English. Think of all of the nobles with "de" and "von" in their names. We don't translate those unless there are titles. English isn't a language with an academy so conventions are governed by what is the predominant practise. All you have shown is what a Romanian would do, not a general (especially native) speaker of English. Are you going to tell everyone how the English language is supposed to be used? You took what is known to be fact, that Carol's surname on his birth certificate is "al României", and extended it with unreliable and compromised sources (do you expect an English translation mentioning "Prince al României"? "Prince" compromises the already sloppy translation) and are pushing to say that his surname IS "of Romania" when his surname is "al României" and only means "of Romania". My surname means "of X", but that is not my surname. My surname is "von X". If you think surnames are a matter of debate, you obviously have no proof on your side that surnames are always translated into English. English practice backs me up, and I hate saying "me" when what I really mean is you vs the English language. Charles 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once more for offering all of us yet again your POV, but without a reference to back it up, it remains just that: a mere POV. One that is contradicted by solid evidence: King Michael's heiress, Princess Margareta, has her first name translated into English (Margarita) according to the 2007 royal Statute. If a first name can, why can't the last name be translated also?! Moreover, if a proper noun ("Margareta") can be translated, why not even more so then a non-proper common word such as the genitive particle "al" ("of") (as in "al Romaniei" - "of Romania")?! But this is all pure speculation, on your part as well as on mine, mere POV's. The difference between them is that my POV has a reference to back it up, yours doesn't. Still waiting for your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article Romanian court recognizes Briton as Carol II's grandson uses the surname “of Romania” when mentioning Carol Mircea's name and not with any title just his surname as a result of the court ruling, so that’s two English language sources translating this particular individual’s surname. Lil' mouse 2 only seems to be going by what English languages do with regards to this individual. - dwc lr (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article uses "of Romania" in terms of a territorial designation as far as the summary shows (from the use of the title prince). Has anyone seen the full article and if so can it be quoted that the birth certificate says "of Romania" and not "al României"? Charles 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people translate not just their surnames, but also their first names into English - they translate everything! See Princess Margareta/Margarita de Hohenzollern/of Hohenzollern (in Romanian vs. English spellings). Bottom line: there is no hard and fast rule as to what sort of name is or is not translatable into English. It's up to the individual. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you Carol al României? Margarita can say her name is whatever she wants to say it is. The difference is when a newspaper without context says something or a newspaper with an awful translation says something. Also, Margarita is a Princess of Hohenzollern. That is a bona fide territorial designation of a former principality whose princely family she is a dynastic member of. It's also a house name and it is different from a surname, although Hohenzollern may exist separately as a surname if it is registered.. Surnames registered in different languages are different from literal translations of surnames which do not exist in the language to which they were translated. Charles 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More of the same POV... It's getting really, really old to see you repeat yourself. I'm waiting for a reference on the English rules for name translations. Without it, your own translation rules will remain a mere unproven POV of a non-English speaker, which doesn't change the reality that foreigners translate part or all of their names into English in whichever way they want. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to prove a convention which exists through practice. Look around you. I gave you the examples to support the English convention. Look up people like da Vinci, van Gogh, Vanderbilt, von Mises, etc. We simply don't translate those things. You, on the other hand, have no prove that it is always appropriate to translate names. You also have not provided the full context for your "references" (compromised by the title of prince and also by a sloppy translation). The convention is "what is". You, however, have not provided the written rule for translating names. Also, I am not a "non-English speaker". I am fluent in English, it is my native language. Also, the Washington Times and that Romanian paper you quoted are not foreigners, they are newspapers. Carol never had a birth certificate with "of Romania" filled in. We certainly don't say that the Italian Royal Family is surnamed "of Savoy" although they have the titles prince and princess of Savoy, their surname (they need one now) is "di Savoia". Same for Carol, he was "al României". Again, are you Carol and are you translating your name? Carol has not spoken on the matter, has he? How can you speak for him and what he wants? Again, the proof you want exists as a convention, specifically the lack of "translating" names literally into English. If someone surnamed Le Blanc wants to register their surname as White, that's fine. Until it's on the paper though it remains Le Blanc, does it not? Charles 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been shown that the surname is translated in the English Language sources cited none have been presented which uses al României for his surname. What doubt is there to the reliability? - dwc lr (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

His birth certificate, a primary source, has "al României" as his surname. The doubt as to reliability is the use of Prince... Not even the dimmest of people would say Prince Carol al României... "Prince" compromises it. Also, the summary of the Washington Times article does not provide context and no one has been able to provide the context which says that Carol's legal surname was "of Romania" and not "al României". "Of Romania" should only be used to explain the significance of the surname, it doesn't exist separately and should not be substituted for the surname. Charles 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To Charles: You claimed above that such a naming convention is "governed by what is the predominant practise." This is consistent with my proof and claim that there is no hard and fast rule for name translations. I hope you understand what "predominant" means (I say "hope" because you had invented an English word, which prompted my earlier concerns about your non-native speaker status): it allows room for minority practises. One cannot impose the majority rules on the minority, unless there is an Academia regulating the language like in France. Both majority and minority uses coexist. Thus, you have absolutely no right of imposing your (claimed) majority views banning the "of Romania" form of Carol's last name. If you, however, produce a reference with evidence to the contrary, I'll drop my case. Still waiting for your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, Lil Mouse, and I am only so sorry that my spell checker for Firefox marked that word as an error. I know what "predominant" means and thank you for your uncivil gesture. I am, you know, a native speaker of English, I tend to know what words mean. The majority rules outweigh the minority. That is why we don't have more parenthetical forms than we already have here. I am not banning "of Romania", it already shows up in the claimed name of "Prince Carol of Romania", which has always been there. When discussing Hohenzollern and Lambrino though why do we have to repeat "of Romania" as a surname when that never was his legal surname? Like I told you though and as you seemingly admit, there is a "majority" practice which opposes translation of surnames. This isn't the case of a man who registered himself as "al României" in Romania and then "de Roumanie" in France and then "von Rumänien" in German, etc, etc, including "of Romania". Any of those then could exist as surnames. Carol, however, had at various times in his life the surnames of Lambrino, Hohenzollern and al României. The "of Romania" exists as his princely style in English, not a bona fide surname. Sure, it's the meaning of the surname but it isn't his name as much as my surname isn't "of X" but rather "von X" (X used for privacy). My reference exists as the overwhelming English practise, it exists in the form of not translating. Not doing something in English has stood as an argument on Wikipedia for as long as Wikipedia has existed because it reflects natural English usage. Charles 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, your mistake of creating a new English word when editing the correct prior term proves that you do not tend to use references (e.g. a dictionary in this case) when in doubt, as any quality Wikipedia editor should. I hope you will learn from this mistake and use references at least now so as to enlighten all of us as to what the rule for name translations (if any -- I strongly doubt that there is any) is, not what your POV is. I know your POV fully well, so, please, do not reply anylonger quoting yourself unless you can quote a source. Still waiting for your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The source Lil' Mouse claims supports "of Romania" as a surname, the Washington Times article, does not do that. It speaks of what "should" and combines a dynastic name with a territorial designation, a construction not used by the Romanian royals as a surname. The "of Romania" Lil' Mouse refers to in the article is the territorial designation the writer of the article says Carol "should" have borne. The other source is Romanian in origin and is a literal translation from Romanian to English, and a sloppy one at that, and as such it is not a reliable source to describe English usage for surnames. Furthermore, Carol's birth certificate gives "al României" as a surname and doesn't give a surname for his father (as a royal, he didn't have a true surname). The comparison Lil' Mouse makes to "von/de/of Hohenzollern" does not hold because there are differences between house names, surnames and territorial designations. King Carol's "al României" is a territorial designation, those are translated. On Carol Mircea's birth certificate, "al României" is only a surname, not a house name or territorial designation. Carol described himself as HRH Prince Carol of Romania. That doesn't mention nor does it need a surname, his surname is separate from that because this is a territorial designation. It doesn't change his legal surname from anything other that "al României". The articles in question gives all of Carol's legal surnames plus his claimed style as a prince. That's standard and proper. Inventing surnames isn't. Charles 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

English sources translate it, and “of Romania” is supported by citations. I don’t think any administers are interested in this. - dwc lr (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

English sources do not translate it. Maybe when using the princely title, in which case they are using a territorial designation and not a surname. "Of Romania" is not supported by citations. The Washington Times article does not support it and the Romanian newspaper is not a reliable English source. Carol's own birth certificate doesn't use "of Romania" and doesn't even give that surname to his father (Carol didn't inherit "of Romania" from his father as a surname). Charles 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources use the Princely title when saying his surname is “of Romania” because they are talking about his name. Carol was a long British resident/citizen that’s probably why the sources translate his surname. I as far as I can see there are sources supporting “of Romania” and none for Romanian version in English sources. - dwc lr (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources say his name was "of Romania". We aren't talking about "probably" here. We aren't talking about what English sources alone say. We are talking about FACT. The FACT is that Carol's surname was "al României". Primary sources support "al României", not "of Romania". The Washington Times article predates the time when Carol was given the surname, therefore it cannot determine his surname and how it should be used. On that note, are you going to argue for "Hohenzollern of Romania"? That's what the article says, isn't it? You are making original research. Charles 17:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been waiting for DWC LR and Lil' Mouse to comment on the quality of the sources, the context and what they say but both of them have ignored my requests and continue to revert my edits. They have provided no evidence whatsoever that Carol's surname is "of Romania". That's what it means, not what it is. We don't translate someone's surname from LeBlanc to White. Both users have not separated princely territorial designations from actual surnames, like the one on Carol Mircea's birth certificate. Both users are blindly following pieces of text without reading the whole thing. Also, neither users are arguing for "Hohenzollern of Romania" which appears in the WT article which predates the time when Carol was given the surname "al României" by many, many years. The "source" they are using originates from before the time any form of "of Romania" existed as a surname. Charles 17:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is English sources use “of Romania”. You are questioning the quality of sources presumably you would accept a cite from a newsgroup like Alt Talk Royalty but you don’t accept sources which meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. People may not translate LeBlanc to White but from the English language sources translate “al României” to “of Romania”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWC LR (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph states "In 2003, after a long court case, a Romanian court recognised Prince Carol's legitimacy and his birth certificate was altered accordingly."[19]. The Washington Times article is from 1995, 8 years before Carol had that surname. It cannot be used as a source for a surname which did not exist and which is not even presented as a surname in the article. Would you argue for "Hohenzollern of Romania"? No, I don't think you would, but answer anyway. If you don't, it's to your discredit. Charles 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide some English sources that use al României for his surname. Court case has dragged due to appeals so it’s no surprise it took many years to finally get his new birth certificate issued. I have no problem adding "Hohenzollern of Romania" as well to the article the issue is whether English sources use “of Romania or “al României” and they use “of Romania“ if they don’t show some sources otherwise it looks like original research on your part. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The only source giving a verifiable, standalone surname is the birth certificate. No English sources give a surname, just invented stylings such as "Hohenzollern of Romania" before the man even had the surname and also articles started with "Prince Carol Mircea..." which kills any proof of "of Romania" alone being a surname on its own. WP:RSUE states: "Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." Errors arise in literal translations. Like I mentioned before, it's a good source for determining court dates, etc, but does not account for English usage. Convention is to not translate surnames. Charles 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The surname of his father on Carol Mircea's birth certificate is "al Romaniei." As there is no legal Royal House in the Republic of Romania where this birthcertificate is issued, the "al Romaniei" is not a Royal House surname, but a family name, which Carol Mircea inherited. Without a hard and fast rule for name translations, regardless of Charles' unreferenced POV on this matter, the family name is fully translatable into English, as the two English-language references prove it. Washington Times is reliable when quoting "Hohenzollern of Romania" as his surname, combining Carol's surname "Hohenzollern" valid in the EU countries since the Portuguese and French court decisions, with his translated surname "of Romania" valid in Romania. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol was not given a combined surname and the WT article doesn't state existing fact. Note the word "should". Won't comment further on the shabby sources here, etc, etc. Discussion is now at WT:ROYALTY, I will no longer be replying here. Fair warning. An administrator told me this is better suited for a WikiProject than the notice board. Charles 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied a last time on this matter here. Consider yourself warned: any further unreferenced edits from you on this matter will be reverted per WP:V policies. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider yourself warned. Every policy you have quoted is working against you. Charles 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial block needs review

CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

While patrolling CAT:RFU, I saw the block of CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He has a very long block log and has been indefinitely blocked by Jersey Devil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't agree or disagree with this decision, but considering the potential controversy and that this is a long-time user, I think it needs to be reviewed here. The immediate issue (straw that broke the camel's back?) seems to have been a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama‎. I'm going through diffs now. I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action. --B (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to leave the block. His block record speaks for itself. I denied the unblock request, but I would be willing to let the block be recinded based on consensus here. I am shocked and amazed this user was allowed to continue this long. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, having a long block record isn't in and of itself a reason. --B (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK.. How about, he has repeated violated Wikipedia policy and community standards beyond the point where a reasonable person would tolerate it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking at diffs ... but based on what I have seen, the Obama-related edits are over the top. If he is allowed to edit, it would need to be with the requirement that he stay away from such things. --B (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean again? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of the conditional unblock after an indef being tried and failing miserably, I'd support this block as well. Wizardman 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His problems seem to be related to Islam and that is the only topic he edits. A topic ban would seem to severely limit his editing possibilities to the point that there would be no difference between that and an indefinite ban. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

After seeing that block log and his headache-inducing one-man crusade on the Barack Obama talk page, I have to support this. This is a POV-pusher who's been here much too long. Grandmasterka 04:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well fellow Wikipedians can see my block rationale on the blocked user's talk page. The bottom line is that the user was blocked repeatedly in the past to the point where he was finally indef blocked for exhausting the community's patience. He was given a second chance on conditions set by User:William M. Connolley and then went on to be blocked 3 more times two of which were just last month. I felt it neccessary to finally act when I saw that he was trying to perpetuate a well-established political smear on the Barack Obama page. As I stated in the block rationale, the user is a net detriment to Wikipedia whose actions show that he has no intentions to change. --Jersey Devil (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question, suggestion

Folks, I clearly acknowledge that CltFn has been difficult to deal with, and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong. In the latest Obama related issue, people seem to disagree entirely with mentioning an issue which received quite a bit of coverage (the madrassa bs). On a fundamental level it does deserve to be mentioned, just probably not as extensively as this editor would like. That's a problem for dispute resolution though.

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all? I haven't had the best experiences with the arbcom, but it seems like the fairest thing to do is refer it to them (or at the very VERY least a WP:RFC/U) to discuss an indefinite block.

If not then the community is failing to extend good faith to CltFn by not assuming that there is any way to resolve the problems but through blocks or bans. (No disrespect meant to Jersey Devil who is a good admin, but people really ought not be indef blocked by admin decree as there is just too much room for error.) Anynobody 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough concern. If you would like to seek additional community input on this, feel free to open an RFC or ArbCom case or anything like that, that is your perogative. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CltFn from late 2006. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• CltFn has exhausted the good faith of the community. He has used tags as weapons to try to force his POV into the Obama article. He achieves no consensus for his additions, so he tags the article with disputed tags, NPOV-tags, whatever it takes to push his POV. He bludgeons others at talk, presenting the same discredited points over and over again, and edit wars at the main article. I'm not crazy about blocks being levied against WP editors, but this one has been richly earned. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block. I am not in any way endorcing his edits on the Obama talk page in any way, as I actually support Obama as a presidential candidate, but I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block. I think a month would be more reasonable, and maybe if he continues after that if he continues an indef. block would be more appropiate. Yahel Guhan 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's really not. Have you checked his block log? It's a mile long, and he's not been "good for over a year." In fact, looking at that block log, he was blocked 3 times during November/December, and when he came off his last block, he began his crusade at the Obama article. His is a richly-deserved indef, and should stay. -- Bellwether ^B_C 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked 3 times since the last indefinate block was lifted. This particular block was his third in less than 30 days. I would propose that, while after the last indefinite block was lifted, he was on fairly good behavior for a short while, he was apparently returned to his old ways. How much disruption is enough? He's been blocked 23 times in the past 3 years; thats an average of about once every six weeks. How often do you propose we let him disrupt Wikipedia? One week out of three? Once a month? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to focus more on what he did in the last 365 days, rather than in years before on wikipedia, as people can change over time. While he has been blocked a lot in the past, in recent times, he has only been blocked 3 times before. All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself (although if he is, it is a very weak attempt). Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point. Yahel Guhan 06:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, if an indefinite ban is too much (and I'm not saying it is), perhaps banning the editor from all topics related to Islam or from making edits related to Islam on articles not related to Islam would be an acceptable alternative. If after an indeterminate period of time the editor has proven that he is able to play well with others in other areas of Wikipedia, perhaps the ban could be lifted for an indeterminate period of parole in which the editor is allowed to edit on Islam related topics and make edits related to Islam on articles not related to Islam. If after that period they continue to be productive and have proven themselves able to make edits related to Islam, perhaps a miraculous reformation has taken place and they may be allowed to edit unfettered. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people can change over time. Three blocks in the last 30 days, all for being disruptive, all appear to be fully justified. I would say he is changing, though not for the better... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

well it seems consensus is agianst me on this one, so I give up. Yahel Guhan 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While reform is possible, it should be noted that the 4 blocks since November have been for behavior similar to what got him the indefinite block a year ago. It seems that at a minimum he is slipping back into old habits and these old habits were not dissuaded by the three blocks the preceded his indefinite block.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. I endorse this block. Lara❤Love 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Users who are constantly disruptive should be blocked. Block endorsed per Lara, Jersey, Jayron, and common sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd not come across CltFn before last week, when I nominated an article he wrote, Prophet of Doom, for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophet of Doom is overdue for closure - could someone please take care of it?) I looked at his contributions at the time and concluded that he was a classic WP:SOAPBOXer - essentially a single-purpose account being used to promote Islamophobia - not merely document it - through the systematic addition of dubiously sourced or unsourced material and articles. His editing to Barack Obama and Barack Obama media controversy (which really needs someone to review it for BLP violations, by the way) was particularly dubious. I'm totally unsurprised that it's led to a block. I think that given the past record of blocks, the warnings and the continuous SOAPBOXing of the editor, an indefinite block is justified in this case. CltFn's activities were fundamentally incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agre that an indef ban is not unwarranted. However, A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process? Perhaps a total topic ban on anything related to two topics which he feels overlap: Islam, and the 2008 Presidential election. If he agrees to the DR, participates as a model individual, and abides by the results FOREVER, then letting him back in general would be permitted. This method would give absolute credibility to any further ban attempts, as we'd be able to say that truly, everything we could do was tried, and his militant views couldn't be assuaged through reason and rational thinking, and so he had to go. I think his theory and agenda are absurd and border on bigoted, and I highly doubt he'll make it through the DR process. That said, I think that rather than have this hash out again and again, as so many indef bans seem to, we can actually either show him a better way to act here, or thoroughly impress upon him that he's never going to fit in here. If we don't take the time to get one of these two ideas into his head, I have NO doubt that he'll be back here socking up the joint, and none of us want to do another round of whack-a-mole with another sockpuppeteer. ThuranX (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit's unblock

An indefinite block is completely warranted given the track record of this user, but this discussion has been overtaken by events; namely Archtransit unblocking him. east.718 at 22:21, January 19, 2008

Endorse original block, for what it's worth. We do not need this kind of POV pushing. I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also. Orderinchaos 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked the user. The clear consensus is to keep the block and the unblock was made by User:Archtransit without even discussing it here.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, Support indef block of CltFn and now support the de-sysop/recall of Archtransit. AT has now twice (at least twice) used block/unblock with no discussion. A loose cannon does not need the extra buttons. R. Baley (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I support the indef block, based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition. In other words, it's his last chance and if there's one more problem, he's gone. The risk is that there would be one more problem. The potential benefit is that he becomes a useful contributor in other areas. I don't know what the other case you are referring to is, but in this case, I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it. After looking at contributions, I'm ambivalent between indef block vs last chance/topic ban. The point is, though, that if someone is willing to keep watch over him, there's no reason not to let him. --B (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been under the watchful eye of an admin (for about a year now, afaik), and it hasn't helped. AT's other block was handed out to Jehochman (see AT's talk page -I assume the info is still there). R. Baley (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh .... that's a bad block . --B (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this admin might need to be recalled. He's only been an admin for a very short time and already he's blocked another admin and unilaterally unblocked this user.--Jersey Devil (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an 'Adopt-an-Admin' program? Or can we go back to his RfA and trout him with his own answers till he gets the fish smell point? This was an awful unblock, and I'm someone willing to yield to a 'final chance', but not without consensus. This was imperious, to be kind. ThuranX (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Jersey Devil and R. Baley, I've just spent the last couple of hours following diffs in the recent cases involving him and I'm just completely shocked by what's been going on. It needs to go to arbitration, though, he won't honor recall for a month and so any havoc wreaked in the meanwhile is our bad luck. With regard to the block, I endorse the block. Enough is enough, I think, and I'm just not seeing anything that makes me think this person is going have a major turn around. Sarah 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recalling Archtransit is as yet not possible - his recall criteria allow for the process to begin only after 30 days. This is, in fact, his 3rd bad block in the less than two weeks since his RfA passed. ^Avruchtalk 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One of many reasons why recall is a farce. This user should be desysopped and should undergo RfA at a future time when he's actually ready, IMO. Orderinchaos 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've marked this as resolved again, since there are a dozen or more users who've weighed in to support the block and only two who have raised any real objection. The unblock was incredibly bad, given the discussion here, and CltFn's past "reform and relapse" behavior. Thus the issue (as far as the block is concerned) is resolved. How Archtransit is dealt with is more what might need to be addressed now. -- Bellwether ^B_C 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some bold admins, and there are many old admins - but there are very few old and bold admins. While vexatious for some, inappropriate unblocks (not an opinion on this case, I have not followed it) are not the worst mistakes a sysop can make - it can easily be remedied, and any effect is likely minute regarding the quantity of vandalism that occurs all the time. As for questioning the judgement of another admin by reversing their action... Well, isn't that what we are now doing with the unblocking admin? Either sysop judgements can be questioned, or they can't; obviously they can, so we should try to ensure that it is done in the appropriate manner and with as little controversy as possible. Hopefully Archtransit is on a steep learning curve regarding the proper way of doing things, but please let us not stifle the independent reasoning of one admin - there should be various methods of applying the mop to get to the desired result (a better encyclopedia). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Further proposals

We have not yet given the person the chance to defend themselves, nor taken any of the opposition's opinions. I am not in support of the user but I am opposed to treating defacto banned users poorly.

If we don't want to unblock them, allow him to edit for 7 days and evaluate those 7 days, how about other options?

How about DR? How about conditional unblock to pursue DR and associated edits (contacting anyone on their talk pages to ask them to provide evidence, etc.)? The dispute would be "Review of the user's edits between 28 December and 17 January that should result in blocking of the user". The DR solution is not my idea. It was mentioned by someone else. Archtransit (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The user was previously blocked ~23 times. They have exhausted their chances. Until they provide a reason to think that future behavior will be different, I cannot support an unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. The consensus is overwhelmingly for keeping the ban. Please stop wikilawyering. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The user should have the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no interest in defending him. I am interested in allowing him to defend himself. Others have made comments which defend him or the process. Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has the opportunity to defend him/herself by posting their statement or response to their talk page and an admin will move it across for consideration. It's no reason to overturn a block. Sarah 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It also disturbs me that Archtransit didn't realize that this was the process for blocked/banned users to appeal their block/ban during the actual term of it. -- Bellwether ^B_C 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• CF's actions have exhausted (are exhausting) the patience of the other editor's here. I think that AT's actions have served as a reminder however: one of the main reasons the CSN was finally shutdown (and decisions there overturned!) was the speed at which indef blocks were implemented. If there is to be any hope that this ban sticks, I think we should not mark this thread as "resolved" for at least 3 days following the initial post. Keep it open for comment, lest it be overturned later by people who have a higher tolerance for this behavior when they're not the one dealing with it on a day to day basis. R. Baley (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My (William M. Connolley (talk)) opinion

Twas I that unblocked CltFn about a year ago on strict conditions (1/7 RR, strict civility, use of talk pages to discuss controversial edits). I cannot now remember how I got involved. Although those conditions have been by-and-large met, they have on occaision been broken, and I've had to block C for it. Worse, not every one C interacts with will be aware of the conditions - why should they be - and so other problems have gone unreported. Recently, people have been complaining again & C has definitely broken parole again, over editing the BA article. The trouble is that the edits wouldn't get a block were C not under restriction, and the problem always is that the straw that breaks the camels back is but a straw. If the community wants this to be an indef block, then I don't see any reason to complain. C's defence against block shows no ackowledgement that C was breaking his parole, which is a bad sign William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

new proposal

If you will notice, I have never commented in defence of the blocked editor's actions. I have quoted others' comments that question the block or some aspect of the situation. My desire for intervention has been because there was never a unanimous decision if one reads carefully.

Please understand that my efforts in ANI is to have positive change. It's for Wikipedia. After all, it's easier to do nothing than to do something. Given that ArbCom usually doesn't permanently ban others, may I suggest a fixed term after which I pledge to work closely with the blocked editor for a fixed period of time? This would partially satisfy those who desire a block.

After 8 weeks of blocking (the exact period doesn't have to be 8 weeks), there would be PREAPPROVAL by me of each edit for the first 7 days. I'd use constructive criticism, encouragement to harness the user's knowledge in other areas, guidance for the use of reliable sources (those of you who haven't studied my edits may not know that I was one of 2 editors to bring a major article to FA status and that a reference was used for nearly every sentence - not a shred of original research), and even censorship to veto certain edits. During next 7 days, notification and explanation of edits would be required but not preapproval (assuming satisfactory progress during the first 7 days). At the end of this period, the user would be AUTOMATICALLY BE BLOCKED. A stellar record (or a series of proposed, but vetoed edits on my own talk page) would be the result at the end of this 1-2 week period.

This is an unusual opportunity for both the user and the community. It is extremely rare that another user will devote so much time to a single editor. I might note that admin Reedy Boy did go over a difficult article that I was trying to write and needed help soon after I signed up. May we have at least a little show of support for this proposal? If support is attained, I will notify this board that unblocking will occur no sooner than 8 weeks from now. Ok, I agree to let others punish him more; unblocking will occur no sooner than April 13, that's 12 weeks, 50% longer than the originally proposed 8 weeks of blocking. This is a no risk proposition because the first 7 days would be preapproval of edits. Others have made positive comments on the quality of my article edits before so this preapproval comes at absolutely no risk to Wikipedia. The blocking period would be practically the same (indefinite minus 14 days of preapproved edits or supervision versus indefinite). Over the next 50 weeks, the user would be blocked for 48 weeks versus 50 weeks so net blocking is 98% of Jersey Devil's imposed punishment. Can't the proponents of indefinite block compromise on just 2%?

Again, in summary:
1. Indefinite block for now.
2. Unblocking on or about April 13 (that's 12 weeks, up from the originally proposed 8 weeks of blocking). 3. 7 days of unblock requiring preapproval of edits by me (unless someone else wants to volunteer), followed by 7 days of consultation when editing (if the first 7 days was satisfactory.)
4. Indefinite reblock at the end of the 14 day period. The user could petition for unblock and have a record of either vetoed edits (none of which appear in the articles) or constructive edits to show.

About 20 years ago in an unnamed Middle Eastern country, a young passer-by (who had a cast on his leg!) helped me out probably while his sister was protesting under her breath ("you can barely stand up yourself, why are you helping this bloody idiot foreigner?"). He was one of the million people of his city. CtrlFn, if you are reading this, you should appreciate this proposal. Of the more than 1 million registered users, nobody else has made this proposal for you.

These efforts are made only because a process was started. That process was to recognise that there were opinions expressed by other editors, opinions such as:
I want to stress that I do not agree or disagree with the block - I just think it needs to be discussed to ensure that there is community support for an action: B

…and may be a tad too controversial about how edits are made, but he/she isn't totally wrong.: Anynobody (referring to the blocked user)

Has CltFn been a party to any form of DR at all?: Anynobody (I think there’s been no DR)

I think an indef. block is a bit harsh, considering what he did. CltFn has, after all, been good for over a year since the last block…I am very confused as to why this disserves an indef. block.: Yahel Guhan

All I am proposing is that we give him one last chance to change before an indef. block after a month. Heck, we give repeat vandals that opportunity all the time, with 1 month, 3 month, 1 year blocks, but almost never indef. Besides, at least he remained on the talk page for the most part this time, rather than in the article, where he is less disruptive, which may mean he might be trying to improve himself: Yahel Guhan

Not that I am trying to sanction what he did, but I do think an indef. time period is excessive, at least at this point: Yahel Guhan

A suggestion for formal WP:DR has been made onthe user's page. Perhaps, given his long-term contributor status, it may be to our advantage to let him try that process?: ThuranX

I am however also happy to endorse Thuran's proposed course of action and comments above also.: Orderinchaos struck by Orderinchaos 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - see talk page

also note:

based on looking through his contributions, if an admin is willing to keep a close eye on a problem user, that's a low risk proposition: B

I don't have a problem with Archtransit's action providing tha the follows through on it. I do have a problem with the same admin who originally made the block reimplementing it.: B (being critical of JerseyDevil’s wheel warring)

In essense, I'm saying use indefinite blocks only for vandals and the most extreme misbehaviour, and use blocks of months (up to a year) for everything else. This system would be workable, and is how Wikipedia used to operate, but in the current climate it may be difficult to persuade some admins to agree to it. .... .... You might want to examine the reasons (sometimes spurious) that people give for indefinite blocking and banning. In the past, this was done as a last resort. Now, it happens all too often, usually the first time someone shows the slightest signs of not understanding how things work around here. Instead of mentoring and guidance, the response is "indef block". Carcharoth Archtransit (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not support this proposal, as Archtransit has shown a distinct lack of good judgment in the use of his tools, over multiple instances, and as such, I do not trust him to implement this solution. CltFn long ago exhausted the patience of the community, which was clearly demonstrated in the above discussion. Archtransit made not one post to the discussion before unblocking, and has continued to refuse to acknowledge that unblocking against clear consensus (which does not require unanimity), and before notifying the blocking admin, was a large mistake in judgment. To my mind, the only issue left to resolve here is how to deal with Archtransit's continued misuse of the tools. -- Bellwether ^B_C 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me point out some of the underlying asumptions here:

1. That the blocked editor will agree to these provisions and abide by them in good faith.

2. That you and he will continue to edit for the entire period proscribed.

3. That you will remain an editor and an admin for the entire period.

4. That you will be able to exercise complete control over the edits of another editor for 7 days, and nearly complete control for an additional 7 days.

5. That the community will accept this proxy as a sufficient safeguard for the brief time period it exists.

6. That after this time period has expired, the process will have made any impact on his edit pattern whatsoever.

Additionally, your advocacy of this approach makes me wonder if you believe this should be the standard in dealing with disruptive edits. We're not here to handhold disruptive editors - if they can't constructively contribute, they should be shown the door. As it stands, we gave this editor many chances to demonstrate that he can constructively contribute and he has ultimately failed to prove this. I don't know that I agree that "indefinite" blocking has become synonymous with "permanent" blocking (that is, I believe it has and that it it should not be); the idea that it is undefined until a more definite period can be agreed upon has merit. Still, I don't see that this particular editor makes an ideal test case for revising the bureaucracy upward by orders of magnitude. ^Avruchtalk 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I think this is a new standard? No. You'll never find enough admin to do it. Will the user cooperate? If not, then it's a clear cut reason for blocking, i.e. failure to cooperate with a special, labour intensive effort to help the user. Few threads on ANI become this long so resolution of it may be through novel solutions. Regarding #6, it doesn't matter if the process will have made any impact on the user's editing pattern as the suggested plan calls for reblocking after the 7+7 day period. Others may propose other solutions if you wish. Archtransit (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It does matter, because if it doesn't ultimately make a difference what is the point of going to all the effort? I think an assessment of whether it is reasonably likely to achieve any desirable outcome is appropriate here and suggests that the effort is more valuable directed somewhere else. ^Avruchtalk 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be the one doing the effort, not you or others. It's a no-risk solution, no-effort solution (except for me). I don't intend to sell the plan more. Take it or leave it or suggest modifications or an entirely different solution. Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What should be the new process to ban people?

Related to above topic but discussion is about general terms, not the user

What should be the new process to ban people? Before it was CSM. CSM was disbanded. One of the last few cases on CSM was decided in 4 days. This defacto banning has had only 15 hours of discussion when JerseyDevil reinstated his original block. Let's stop talking about this editor and develop a consensus on how to ban people. 15 hours and some opposition is not the way to do it except in a kangaroo court. Archtransit (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if an admin indef blocks some user, and you disagree, bring it here to AN/I rather than unblocking. If a clear consensus doesn't develop for the unblock, the user stays blocked. No need for a new process, just some common sense use of discussion. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's make an extremely bureaucratic process so as to make it impossible to ban anyone. That way regardless of how disruptive a user is they'll never be able to be banned and the "Never Block Anyone" crowd can be happy.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very troubling to hear such comment from you since you are the admin who blocked CltFn forever. It would have been much more honourable and ethicalless dramatic for you to say in the beginning "since the last block of 28 December, the user has done the following improper actions (diffs below). As a result, I propose ban." After a few days of discussion (perhaps 4 days or whatever the CSN board used), if agreed upon ban, it could be implemented. I would probably support this rather than having an unfair lynching of the editor. a rush to ban the editor. Archtransit (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your implication that Jersey Devil is not "honourable and ethical" and that he engaged in a "lynching" is way over the line. At first I thought you were simply an inexperienced admin who made a few mistakes, but it is beginning to appear that you lack the judgment and discretion we expect of an admin. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wording modified, sorry. Archtransit (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the process should be: if there is disagreement about an indefinite block, either turn the indefinite block into a definite block (in the range of months or a year - which ever the community of admins agrees on), or pass the matter to the arbitration committee. The arbitration committee rarely (if ever) ban for a year, and the community should be sensible enough to grade its blocks up to and including a year, before going to indefinite. In my opinion, the only reason an individual admin indefinitely blocks and then (in the face of opposition) maintains that an indefinite block is needed, is either a misplaced sense of WP:OWN about their blocks, or an unwillingness to trust that repeated behaviour after a lengthy block will be dealt with. Indefinite blocks should only remain if no admins at all disagree, either now or later. In essense, I'm saying use indefinite blocks only for vandals and the most extreme misbehaviour, and use blocks of months (up to a year) for everything else. This system would be workable, and is how Wikipedia used to operate, but in the current climate it may be difficult to persuade some admins to agree to it. The attitude of "indefinite block and routinely deny unblock requests" for first offences needs to stop. It is excessive and damaging. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I disagree with the implementation of fixed term blocks as the first response to serious disruption. The flexibility of the indefinite tariff is what is so useful, as against a pre-determined term. An unblock of an indef block can indicate that the tariff has expired rather than a reduction of a certain period. Otherwise an indif block that is never undone indicates that the community feels that the account remains disruptive. Therefore placing an account under an indef tariff does not mean that the account is banned forever, but that there are issues that require resolving before the editor can contribute again. While there is discussion then there is no reason why the indef block cannot remain, the editor being able to communicate via their talkpage or by email as required, since the appropriate tariff or conditions for unblock can be imposed once the discussion has concluded. Only in the cases of obvious vandalism or other disruption is there any suggestion that a discussion is not needed, and only in the most obvious cases of improper blocking should a block be otherwise undone. In the meanwhile an indef block should stay unblocked until a consensus is reached for the appropriate period - including indefinite - of a block or circumstances under which the account may be allowed to return to editing. I agree that indef blocking followed by a denial of any request or discussion is the worst possible solution on this thorny question. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the logic here. How can the community have a sensible opinion on whether an account "remains disruptive" when the account can't edit, and therefore can't be disruptive? I agree that an indefinite block during discussion is reasonable; but it should be replaced by a fixed block at the end of the discussion unless there is consensus that the user ought to be gone permanently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a "new process to ban people". We banned people for years before the existence of CSN and I imagine that we will do it just fine now we don't have CSN. "Let's stop talking about this editor and develop a consensus on how to ban people." Waaaa? Honestly, I can't work out what the hell has been going on in this place while I've been away. Sarah 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to examine the reasons (sometimes spurious) that people give for indefinite blocking and banning. In the past, this was done as a last resort. Now, it happens all too often, usually the first time someone shows the slightest signs of not understanding how things work around here. Instead of mentoring and guidance, the response is "indef block". Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In total agreement with Sarah on this one. Let's have some common sense here. Orderinchaos 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this not common sense? "an indefinite block during discussion is reasonable; but it should be replaced by a fixed block at the end of the discussion unless there is consensus that the user ought to be gone permanently." The point is that this does not happen. People get blocked indefinitely, and then if enough people raise strong objections to any overturn of that, there is little chance of any compromise, and reasonable people hesitate to unblock or shorten the block, while bolder people have little restraint on raising a short block to indefinite at the slightest excuse. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a bunch of indefinite blocks today. Check my logs. Tell which ones were bad. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets after checkusers? Of course that's fine. I'm talking about the cases where there has been no checkuser and little independent review. If the unblock request is denied, the editor may face months of arguing their case before they can convince someone it was excessive. And I see you blocked the puppetmaster for a week, with more to come if this continues. That is good blocking judgment. I'm talking about the cases where a long discussion ensues about an indefinite blocked editor, and people chose between unblock and indefinite, with not many people thinking of other options, such as a long, but definite block. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Broad criticism without specific examples should be avoided. At WP:BLOCK the cases where indefinite blocks are used have been enumerated. I wrote some of that text. When an account is used primarily for disruption, vandalism, of other serious policy violations, we can indefinite block. The tradition is not to indefinitely block experienced users without a community discussion. If the community discussion deadlocks, the case can go to ArbCom. Our process, while imperfect, often works well. Those who wish to improve policy, feel free to start a discussion at WT:BLOCK. If there are specific instances of bad blocks, let's discuss them here. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior (HalfShadow & VigilancePrime)

Since his recent rejection in RfA , user continues negative input to the project. Edit summaries such a[talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=185364705 this] and [for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=185364315 this] are quite uncivil.68.245.183.155 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't sooper-civil, but if anything needs to be evaluated which can be found beneath those links it is the behavior of User:VigilancePrime and others in that AfD. ^Avruchtalk 14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First point: how I summarize my edits to my own page is my business. Second point: he was having a tantrum, and I don't mince words. Never have, never will. Third point, you're the second or third random IP with no edits attached to directly comment on my talk page concerning my editing practices as their first edits, which I find awfully damn curious, especially seeing as all the IPs involved are so close to each other. This stinks of stalking. HalfShadow (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

wrong. Incivility is incivility whether it's on a Talk page, an article page, or an edit summary. Please be civil in all cases. Corvus cornix_talk 06:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that this looks like someone IP socking to avoid scrutiny. Plus, this 'complaint' was made 'several hours after the incident in question, which means he's apparently following my edits around, and that's technically stalking. HalfShadow (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I left a 3RR warning for VP on his talk page (which has the most complex design I think I've ever seen...). There is also some other warnings apparently, and a block notice, tucked beneath the dozen or so collapse boxes. ^Avruchtalk 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin TerriersFan abusing his position

Could someone please deal with this admin. TerriersFan is yet again abusing his position by excluding IP editors who don't agree with him. Please see Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the associated Talk page. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection is valid due to repeated adding of unsourced information, but as an editor, TerriersFan should have asked another admin (here or on WP:RFPP) to do so. — Edokter • Talk • 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No - a single addition of material that apparently was sourced. Problem is TerriersFan didn't rank the source, so because he seems to think he owns the article, he simply SPd it to stop those annoying IPs from contributing. This is not the first time he's done it - check his request for Admin. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On Terrier Fans request for admin! One person made reference to his alleged refusal to accept consensus, and that was quickly countered by other editors, and shown to be a reaction to a warning Terriers Fan gave. This is not a reaction to a "single edit". Indeed, it was me and not Terriers Fan who reverted the addition. This article has been plagued by vandalism and unhelpful edits by IPs, which is a serious problem in an article where WP:BLP issues have to be considered. Several instances of IP vandalism have occurred since semi-protection was removed, and this unhelpful edit (it was sourced, but quoted the source selectively) was simply the catalyst for re-instating protection. I had previously asked whether it should be reinstated in an edit summary. The user making this complaint seems to be engaged in a vendetta, hiding behind multiple IP addresses (he has already changed it since his initial post). Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't change it, my ISP changes it. No vendetta, just observing what's been going on at the article in question. There are in fact three users, of which TerriersFan is one, who own the article and implicitly require other contributors to seek permission before editing. The tactic of SP, which as pointed out above should not be used by an admin with an editing interest - is one of the methods used to force compliance. A check of the edit history will show numerous examples of semi-protection by TerriersFan on grounds which are unsound. Look also at the suggestion by another user for a timeline (start of Talk). TerriersFan invites the user to "be bold" then tells him "don't do it".

This is a long shot, but there is a slight possibility of sockpuppetry here - and it is only slight. The users in question are TerriersFan, Harry was a white dog with black spots and The Rambling Man. Checkuser might be worth trying. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a baseless acussation, two of those users are admin who work on separate areas of the project outside of this article, there is no evidence suggesting sockpuppetry, and a request will most likely be declined because checkuser is not for phising. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That these users are sockpuppets of each other is patently rediculous. Even insinuating so does not do your position any benefits on this. I will review the protection and see if it was appropriate, however don't go throwing around baseless accusations of sockpupettry; these are three long standing Wikipedia members with long histories of positive contributions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here he goes again, making ludicrous accusations from behind an IP address. He has been rumbled on his ludicrous misrepresentation of Terriers Fan's request for admin debate, so now he is changing tack. And again, he misrepresents Terriers Fan above. He did indeed tell the editor to be bold, but he didn't then tell him "not to do it" - he said, don't put an incomplete timeline in the article. Do it in the sandbox and add it when it is finished. That is quite different to the implication above, This user is not to be taken seriously if he can't even get his facts straight. The grounds are certainly sound in this case, and as I have said before, when WP:BLP is concerned, urgent action is sometimes required. In future, if Terriers Fan feels the need to semi-protect this article urgently, I hope he will then confirm his decision with other admins. But he certainly has done nothing wrong, as has already been pointed out. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Yes, you're probably correct. I am not making an accusation. I did say there was only a slight possibility, and so there is. Personally I doubt it, but you never know. I mention it only because the three "owners" of the article have very similar views, which verge on the obsessive, as to how the article should develop. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent). I have removed protection in the interest of starting dialogue and achiving harmony on this article. See the article talk page for more details. Conditions have been placed on this protection removal, and if the conditions cannot be met by the parties involved, the article will be reprotected. I hope this compromise is acceptable to all parties involved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the protection. I hope it stays unprotected. Harry, you clearly don't like IP editors - big time! Have you ever considered going to an alternative Wiki where they aren't allowed? Alternatively you could start a debate, or go to the current one (which I assume exists) to make Wikipedia a "logged-on user only" project. There are merits in having Wikipedia as such, and I wonder if it might be good thing. My complaint is that since Wikipedia does allow IP editing, you try to undermine the policy. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with IP editors. I only have problems with them (and any editor) when they vandalise and make unhelpful edits, and I definitely do object to IPs like you who hide behind IP addresses to make ludicrous accusations and disparage people without the accountability that you demand of others. Please stop it. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor who edits using their IP address is "hiding" a lot less than one who chooses a pseudonym. —Random832 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RightGot

RightGot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His style of adding "obvious" but implausible redirects, changing redirects to disambiguations with improbable alternative articles, etc., looks familiar but I can't quite place it. As I don't recall whether the editor I'm recalling was blocked, this really isn't appropriate for WP:SSP, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved manned mission to Mars to human mission to Mars claiming that having "manned" in the title was sexist and User:Andyjsmith reverted it and calls me a troll because I did that. There are many high schools listed on dab pages for three letter acronyms. I've started a discussion about it here Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms_that_can_refer_to_names_of_schools. I think we should either include them on a separate dab page, or removed from the dab pages altogether with a note on the dab pages not to add high schools, but they shouldn't be cluttering up the main dab pages if we include them. RightGot (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He reminds me of LukeHoC (talk · contribs), who created 450+ redirects back in December, in the form of 2 October 2008 to redirect to October 2? He was told they were unnecessary and left Wikipedia because of that. It took me days to delete all those redirects. — Edokter • Talk • 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor appeared out of nowhere a few days ago and has done nothing apart from creating utterly pointless redirects and lists disguised as dabs. I find it hard to believe that he has no previous history on WP. Anyway I can't find more than a couple of his edits that can't be described as disruptive. andy (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'm inclined to delete the redirects as CSD R3 and the dab pages as CSD A1. — Edokter • Talk • 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried that but some admins disagreed as they're superficially plausible, so a lot of these articles are now in AFDs. andy (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a tool for tagging the nineteen oh one redirects? I tried AWB on a similar set, and it follows the redirects. (And AWB doesn't work here for me as the IE engine hits a redirect bug of some sort, not specific to Wikipedia, but I can't use it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects like Nineteen ninety-eight "superficially plausible"? They must be joking... Also, pages like 01, 02, 03 etcetera; they just contain "dab" links to Madden and NFL games. No, they need to go. — Edokter • Talk • 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, redirects are cheap. I'd just leave em alone. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is MHS before the list of high schools was spun out; [20]. I hope we can agree that the current incarnation is better. Taemyr (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambiguate MHS (high schools)? They're not ambiguous in the first place. And if they are, then we need a major project to disambiguate all the other three and four letter acronym high schools - that is, every high school on the planet. Help all those poor people out there who are scratching their heads wondering which school in their neighbourhood could possibly be meant by MHS, NHS or OHS... Come to think of it my daughter goes to an OHS school. We need lots and lots and lots of lists headed AAA (high schools), AAB (high schools), AAC (high schools)... I make that 17,576 so-called dab pages for the three-letter acronyms and 456,976 for the four letter acronyms. Just under half a million dab pages for high schools. But hey, let's do it!

I can imagine someone being puzzled by a reference to MHS in a medical text and wanting to know it means Malignant hyperthermia syndrome, but schools? Who on earth is likely to confuse Mainland High School, Daytona Beach, Florida with Malacca High School, Malacca, Malaysia? On the other hand if you Google MHS and find yourself trawling through this rubbish are you going to be happy with the performance of WP? I doubt it. andy (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy, if you're going debate RightGot's behavior then do it here. If you're going to debate the dab pages themselves, do it over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms that can refer to names of schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I was gonna come back here and do that... silly bot...-- RoninBK _{T C} 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I allowed myself to get irritated with RightGot's behaviour. Don't Feed The Trolls - if he wasn't so prolific it wouldn't be worth talking about blocking, but he is so it is. The only thing that seems to have slowed him down is this debate. I know that WP is a big place but someone who deliberately sets out to clutter it with trivia for whatever reason has to be stopped. Gresham's Law - the bad drives out the good. andy (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that before RightGot spun out the schools to separate pages they where already on the dab. RightGot then created a seperate page for them, rightly seeing this as a better alternative. And took the question of whether they should be disambiguated at all to WP:DAB. Taemyr (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(Followup on my original comment.) Actually, I was thinking of Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Voortle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I don't think they're quite the same. The question of whether he should be blocked for disruption, though, is still open. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I spoke too soon - he's at it again, this time with a raft of spurious AFDs. No question about good faith - this is deliberate vandalism. I gave a level 3 warning but that was silly of me. An immediate block is necessary. andy (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

nooooooooooooooooo, he has made some good edits such as [21] and [22] [23]- block for a week and advise him to lurker more maybe, but give him a chance, you can't say he hasn't put a lot of time and energy into wiki in a very short time.:) And he has genuinely tried to discuss the acronyms. This is a very young user I think, he wrote an article about a middle school. I think we should be careful not to WP:BITE. Maybe offer him mentoring? He clearly has enthusiasm. Merkinsmum 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually those are extremely bad edits and help to show that there is no good faith in what he does. The pointless "Pizza deliverer" redirect was one of only two that survived out of "pizza guy", "pizza girl" and a host of other pizza redirects, all of which were rapidly speedied. The "Pluto" edit flew in the face of all recent activity on that article, as did the "Heck" edit. Look at the crazy set of year redirects he's done. Almost every single one of his edits has been immediately reverted or deleted and he's racked up two full pages of complaints and warnings in almost as many days. Read User talk:RightGot and User talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and look at the spurious AFDs he's started. andy (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Andy I hope you don't mind me saying, and I agree a lot of his edits are wrong looking, but you really seem to have a 'thing' against Rightgot. You tried to remove his pizza deliverer to pizza delivery redirect, when that's an obviously good redirect, and another user kept it. I'm not saying you're a bad'un or not well meaning, just that we all get annoyed at people sometimes. This is a very young user, you personally may not want to, but I think wikipedia should give him a chance, and block for a while and mentor/adopt. You can't say he isn't putting a lot of energy into wiki lol. This is annoying and random, but it's not obvious vandalism like putting the c*** word in articles. Merkinsmum 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: #User:Andyjsmith x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, we don't indef block or something people just for making edits we consider "bad" edits. Otherwise a lot of us, especially youngsters or those who don't have Englsh as their first language perhaps, would be blocked:) What I mean is the redirects may be stupid and dubious, but he has also made some good faith edits to the pluto and so on pages. Just because some people consider them rubbish, isn't a reason to indef block him or something. Merkinsmum 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree if it wasn't for the fact that he's been receiving warnings and reversions from the moment he started editing. To continue in the face of such criticism tends to imply bad faith. Some edits, such as the Pluto one, ran directly counter to recent activity in that article. He's sufficiently experienced to know about redirections and afds. You wouldn't block someone for a few bad edits but we're not talking about a few. We're talking about 90% of all of his edits, and the remaining 10% aren't very good either - and he pays no attention at all to what people say. andy (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Need Trekkie assistance re User:Gabby the kitty

New editor Gabby the kitty (talk · contribs) made multiple edits to List of Star Trek: Voyager cast members, then added a bogus movie article. Flagged the bogus movie article, but need to have a Trekkie review the Star Trek related edits; I can't tell if they're valid. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the bogus movie article. The list of cast members looks accurate, but it serves no purpose IMO. — Edokter • Talk • 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a first warning on the editor's talk page. It now looks like a new user learning Wikipedia, not a vandalism-only account. Unless something else happens, we're done here, I think. --John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about some edits from this user, such as this edit [24], where it is stated that a living person despises one living person, and thinks another living person is the "worst human being who ever lived", and another edit [25] which adds a large quote to a television show character that I am sure never happened in the show. Q0 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's starting to look like a vandalism only account, but it's a newbie. Q0 should put the appropriate notices on the user's talk page; maybe this new editor can be salvaged rather than blocked. --John Nagle (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions and image rescue - good faith efforts to help being obstructed?

I'm asking for comments on an issue to do with image deletions (hence asking admins and others dealing with images). The background to this is that there is a backlog of tagged images to be assessed for deletion following two tagging runs by Betacommandbot. See Template:DailyDeletionCategories. There are (or were) 4032 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 and there are 1699 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008. There are very few images in the date categories in between (ie. the image tagging is not being spread out over the dates). Since the first run of tagging, there have been efforts at Wikipedia:Task of the Day to get people involved in adding rationales to images that need them, and various specific lists (of book covers, album covers, logos, and so on) have been produced. I'm not sure how successful those have been, but one of the points made early on was to notify the admins who clear out backlogs like this at bot-like speed, so that they would hold off for a while to allow some work to be done.

Timeline

Selected quotes and comments organised into a timeline regarding the 2 January 2007 backlog (which was at one point over 11,000 images).

• 13:40, 5 January 2008 - "To be honest, I've been inspecting the categories daily, and removing some images. I'm ready to run TWINKLE on it. Just give me a timeline on how much to hold off, and I can do the deleting part very easily." - User:Maxim
• 16:04, 13 January 2008 - "Work on this category has kinda slowed down. Would there be objections if I cleared it out (ie delete)?" - User:Maxim
• 20:46, 13 January 2008"I would object to deletion of the images in this category. There are still images in there that are perfectly justifiable fair-use images. This indicates to me that the category has not yet been properly screened and cleaned out. This is hardly surprising give the volume. How about allowing people one more week before starting work on those images?" - User:Carcharoth
• Today (19 January 2007), I (Carcharoth) start work on grabbing lists from the categories, dumping them into my gallery page (with the gallery turned off) and then previewing them. There are about 5 subcategories to go through. See the page history at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. Some of the images I fixed straight away (I was mainly looking through for the non-album covers and other images of interest to me or where I thought a reasonable rationale could be written). Some I added to a list. See User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. I missed the bits pointed out in the next two bullet points.
• Two people comment at the WP:Task of the Day thread, saying that they had finished with the category.[26] [27]
• 14:49, 19 January 2008"I'm probably going to do it at around midnight (00:00 20 January 2008). I'm probably starting to inspect the categories in maybe 10 minutes." - User:Maxim
• About half an hour ago (17:45 19 January 2007), I noticed that one of the images in my preview screen had been deleted since I hit the preview button (some hours ago). I then found that User:Maxim had already started his deletion run. Regardless of whether he thought 00:01 on Sunday morning, or 23:59 on Sunday night (I meant the latter, giving myself the whole weekend to help out), he appears to have started early and I'm left unable to complete the visual scanning of the categories.

I've asked Maxim on his talk page what is going on, and commented at Wikipedia talk:Task of the Day as well. What should be done? I accepted in good faith his statement that he would hold off until midnight on Sunday. If he can delete at bot-like speeds with TWINKLE (see Maxim's deletion log), surely he can undelete at the same speeds? I could visually scan the categories, and then the images could be re-deleted. My volume of image work is not immense (mainly because I don't use scripts), but I would appreciate it if the work I am trying to do is not obstructed in this way. Even if we can't sort out what happened this time, can we sort out something better for the 15 January backlog? Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

While I would personally hold off for more time, to be honest, the work on these categories has slowed down to almost nothing. There was an initial rush of images being fixed that tapered off, then one user - Blathnaid - was generous enough to fix all the images in many of my trackers. Since then, nothing's been happening. east.718 at 19:19, January 19, 2008

That will be because I'm selecting only 20 or so images from batches of 400. I've provided you with the evidence of the work I'm trying to do, and the 'agreement' that I'd have this weekend to do it in. Can you please not ignore that with "nothings' been happening". Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being dismissive of your work - rather I'm commenting that 20 images a day is but a drop in the proverbial ocean. What we do need are more editors like you and Blathnaid who care enough to work on unglamorous backlogs like this. east.718 at 19:29, January 19, 2008

Thank you. Would you mind commenting on the specific statement Maxim said that he would wait until a certain time - the idea being to give me the weekend to do some work on this - and then him seemingly completely reneging on this? I will, of course, apologise in full if he can come up with a good explanation. Looking specifically at what you said about nothing being done - have a look at this list from your trackers. I fixed three of the blue links scattered among the redlinks. I'm now going to fix the other ones (where needed), and try and calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Maxim should hold off. It's not like the backlog is running away. east.718 at 19:40, January 19, 2008

Do you think you could say that on his talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The depressing thing is cases like this. A perfectly good image. Lots of work done. Permissions obtained (though that wasn't strictly necessary). But the response was "rv - still has no use rationale". If someone hadn't removed that category, I'd be undeleting the image, instead of just adding the rationale. No, sorry, I forgot, Maxim would have taken that one off his deletion list in the six seconds he would have taken to check it. I appreciate the "you are doing good work here" stuff, but what I want to see is some admin action based on what I've reported here - or at least (until Maxim turns up) opinions on what should happen about the 1111 images already deleted? How can I review these images? My work depends on being able to visually scan the categories - a list of redlinks is next to useless. I was relying on being able to carry out my visual checks this weekend, and Maxim's deletions have pulled the rug from under my feet. What is wrong with undeleting at bot-like speed, allowing me the agreed time to do a visual spotcheck, and then redeleting? Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record 1111 images - TWINKLE deletion run took 53 minutes. From the timeline above, about 1 hour and 50 minutes spent checking those images before doing the TWINKLE run. That is around 20 images a minute during the TWINKLE run and about 10 images a minute during the pre-TWINKLE checking phase. My rate is a bit slower... :-) Over about 4 hours I scanned around 490 images in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 2, and fixed around 15 images and noted another 6 for more detailed rescue work (ie. needing to write detailed rationales). 20 images fixed (or tried to fix), over 1000 deleted. Please can we arrange things so someone neutral organises the workflow rate, rather than spurts of thousands of images tagged whenever the bot-operators feel like it? Getting the balance between deletion and fixing rates shouldn't be that difficult, as long as both sides communicate and don't work sporadically and in large batches. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been a long-standing problem and it's largely due to communication problems between the people who are willing to screen the category and the admin who deletes the images. I think that's fairly clear from this episode. Is it usually possible to sort through the categories before their time is due? I realize it's hard when Betacommand does a tagging spree, but his work is necessary due to the massive assload of copyrighted material here in violation of policy. I think the best solution is to propose a communication process for active categories screeners to use when a category is ready to be nuked. Maybe we can just place an "in-work" template at the top of the category when a screener is actively sorting through it and adding rationales? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An "in-work" tag sounds like a great idea! (Though sometimes image backlog clearers work from slightly out-of-date lists). But can we please not lose sight of the fact that Maxim was told that the category was "in-work" and still went ahead and deleted anyway? What can be done about the 1111 images that I was intending to screen this weekend? Normally, when someone makes a mistake like this, we just ask them to revert it. Is there a good reason why Maxim (or someone else) can't undelete them, allow me to screen them, and then (by a set time - preferably with some time added to make up for the 'confusion') redelete them? Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would hate to comment on Maxim's action before we get a response from him. Unfortunately I can also say that I don't know of any way to undelete images as fast as they can be deleted with TWINKLE. The only thing I can offer is what I have done in the past. One time an admin deleted about 3000+ images from a category and many of them were in error. I and two other admins had to make a list on a subpage and just click through each one, look to see if the deletion was proper, and restore if necessary. Giant pain in the ass, took several days. Let's see if Maxim is willing to help resolve the situation. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait until Maxim turns up. Hopefully he will be amenable to helping to fix things. Someone mentioned that the backlog is not going anywhere. Similarly, the deletion logs aren't going anywhere. Going through and previewing and then undeleting and fixing images may be a pain, but if that's what is needed, that is what's needed. In general though, it is a bad idea to carry out actions faster than they can be undone. Using automated tools is fine, but they should work both ways. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Rettetast is also deleting images, faster than my bot can track and sort them. :O east.718 at 20:57, January 19, 2008

Well, I've changed the notice at the top of Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 to try and stop that happening again. I'll drop a note off to Rettetast. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making it more prominent. Could you put that same warning on the large 15 January backlog, and put some suitable date, such as 23:59 Sunday 3rd February? Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

At the beginning of the day, there were 4032 images left in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008, from about 11,000 when the category was initially populated. There are now about 2400. I had been under the impression that I had the weekend to do a visual check of these images (Maxim definitely agreed to this). I was in the middle of doing this work when Maxim and Rettetast (and maybe others) starting clearing out the backlog. Hopefully the prominent notice will prevent this sort of breakdown in communications. Any ideas on what to do about the images that I could have checked? I know there are others I can check instead, but it doesn't feel like a collaborative working environment when this sort of thing happens. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And others are also asking for more time. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication breakdown?

Just noting here, for the record, that there has been no response from Maxim, despite me leaving several messages on his talk page. I've finished going through what was left of the image categories after the initial sets of deletions, and will be working on my list of images over the next few days. I may have to undelete some images and fix them and restore links that have been removed, but I don't mind doing that. I'm less happy about Maxim's response to this. I can't force him to talk to me, but he has been editing several times since I left those messages, including adding something to the blurb on the category in question. I'm not sure what to think now. Is it acceptable for Maxim to just stay silent like that? Would there be any reason to think he wasn't getting the talk page messages? Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And Maxim has started clearing the backlog in that category, which was not unexpected and I'm happy to support now that the time he stated he would start at has passed. I'm still disappointed he chose not to respond to my posts and questions. I don't get that very often on Wikipedia, and it is very dispiriting. I'm always happy to discuss things, but when one side doesn't seem to want to talk, it gets very difficult. Can anyone advise on how to handle things like this in future? Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I will try pinging him to see if he responds. We'll have to assume for now that he agrees with this action since he didn't make any objection. Hopefully he will be a little more communicative so we can make sure everyone is on the same page. The situation could go in lots of different directions here. If someone doesn't want to discuss their actions, the advise I would give greatly depends on whether their actions are "normal", "against consensus", "against policy", etc. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Sensevivid

He is vandalizing the encylopedia by removing all placeholders on deceasead people. This is not a policy nor should he be in the right to do such a thing. He believes Wikipedia:Fromowner should permit fair-use to be more aligned with WP, and he is probably right. But no placeholder = No push for submission, and that means no image for a long period of time. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use actually contradicts with the goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide free content. Fair use content is not free, and cannot generally be reused in a commercial setting (depending on the context). The license Wikipedia uses requires that our content be freely reusable in any context. I don't actually know what 'placeholders on deceased people' means so now I'll go look. ^Avruchtalk 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There has never been a discussion on whether adding placeholders to deceased individuals is appropriate. Perhaps now is the time to start one? Wizardman 01:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm not against the discussion, but I think removing editorial perms. for said user to maintain the status-quo is needed. I think a better discussion would be whether or not we want fair-use, and if we do why aren't we permitting it in the /Replace this image*/. Maybe User:Sensevivid could parallel his effort to the bureaucracy to get his agenda passed rather than enforcing it without mandate. EvanCarroll (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user has been blocked for 3 hours by User:Chris G. BLACKKITE 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems sort of a strange thing to get upset about, myself: in essense, he's replacing a picture that says 'We have no picture' with nothing... HalfShadow (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He's replacing a picture that says "we have no picture, please upload a free one" with nothing. And he's doing so in mass quantity even when people have objected. And he's doing so because he thinks saying "don't upload what you claim is fair use" is a bad message. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account created for the purpose of removing the placeholders. This says to me that Sensevivid knew he would run into opposition, and created the account to shield his main account (whoever that might be) from the backlash of these actions.

Further, he has joined #wikipedia, where he is being rather uncooperative and intentionally obtuse.

Wikipedia exists to make a freely-licensed encyclopedia. Placeholder images attempt to encourage that. If you think they're ugly, that's a style issue that can be solved with a better placeholder. And if there is to be a mass removal of the placeholders, it should not be performed by an unknown person who ignores objections to his actions.

In my opinion, this person is not interested in working with others. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I was worried that members of the Wikipedia community would react angrily over how the edits were done, and not what the edits actually were. I was disappointed when some did. The placeholder doesn't say "we have no picture, please upload a free one", it says "we have no picture, you can only upload a free one" and only in select cases (deceased persons, defunct bands, companies etc.) Whereas conversely, you seem oblivious to what an edit actually does as long as it upholds the status quo, reverting en-masse, inserting free-use only placeholders into articles such as Ted Hughes, Clarence Williams, Luther Vandross, Gummo Marx, Gregory Hines... Sensevivid (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Sensevivid was, in all fairness, acting in good faith. However, deceased persons DO have images available for a free license out there, and I also think once objections were raised they should have stopped; I've contacted many at Flickr who have been kind enough in the past to relicense a photo just so that it would appear here on Wikipedia. I also think that Wikipedia should limit "fair use" rationales as much as possible. A free license helps ensure Wikipedia's legal status, and allows for as much reuse as is possible down the line. I like talking with photographers, being honest about the pros of cons of licensing their work under a free license—and then having them contact me saying they will relicense the photo so that it can appear on Wikipedia. Sometimes a family member has a picture of their famous grandpa or grandma—the idea that one cannot obtain a free license for photos of the deceased is a preposterous one.(Mind meal (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

That's not the issue, it is possible to obtain a free-use image of a deceased person. But that doesn't mean we should insert a free-use only placeholder into the article. Images in Jayne Mansfield, Jimi Hendrix, and The Beatles should not be replaced with placeholders in case we can squeeze a free-use image out of their estate. A free-use image would be acceptable in an article such as Ted Hughes, the article will tell new users though, that it isn't acceptable. Sensevivid (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is a last resort, not an option of equal preference. You are arguing against a straw man. The placeholders and upload forms do not say you cannot claim fair use. They ask for freely licensed materials and attempt to discourage those who do not understand fair use from trying to claim it. This is necessary based on past experience with large numbers of spurious fair use claims. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on block

I'd appreciate another admin or two dropping by User talk:VigilancePrime to review a recent block I've issued against this user. I've found him to be insistent on disruptive and incivil behavior as a result of a heated debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)‎, where several editors have ventured into personal attacks. Despite repeated warnings and requests to cool off, he's continued to act aggressively, so I issued a 24 hour block ([28]).

Please do not add to this thread unless you are an admin reviewing this block; I'm not interested in bringing additional drama over here. Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I regret that I do not consider these blocks to be well formed, if only that you appear to be a party to one opinion (the opposing one to VigilancePrime) in the dispute. I thought the original block to be unsound, as I fail to understand the premise of removing VigilancePrime's reasons - supported by diffs - for their vote, and then blocking for disruption when they attempted to return them to the page, but did not comment as the tariff was for 3 hours. As a party to the AfD you should have then requested an uninvolved admin for their input. Whatever subsequent disruption, which I shall now review, I believe devolves from a misjudged action previously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I am not involved in the AfD, despite accusations to the contrary. A quick search for my name and look through edit histories will confirm that. I've just been monitoring it to try and keep a lid on the incivil conduct there; VP's page is one of several which I visited asking editors to cool off. In other words, I was the uninvolved admin which people have been clamoring for - it's just that when some saw the decision turn in a way they didn't like, they began looking for hidden reasons. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I have been checking the contribs and counts, etc. and withdraw the incorrect suggestion that you have a previous history with the AfD or the subject - I have thus struck through those comments. :::I still don't understand the removal of VigilancePrime's reason for vote change, since WP:Point (the only reason I can see) was not cited and there was supporting diffs for his contention. Paedophile related AfD's (or anything else regarding the subject) are never going to be civil affairs, and it is my experience that some of those who believe they are acting on the side of the angels certainly do not conduct themselves as if they are of that company. Removing VigilancePrime's comments, and subsequently blocking for re-instating them, while not addressing the incivility of those opposing VP's (original) vote and... er... standing on the matter seems a little unevenhanded. VP should not, of course, react as he has - but I can see where the frustration comes from.

Of course, I acknowledge the sensitivity that surrounds this subject - and have a history for blathering my liberal viewpoint as regards it - so I suggest that this response is simply considered as being a different take on the same matter, and allow some other uninvolved sysops take a considered view of the block and preceding events. Cheers LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I have addressed other editors engaged in aggressive behavior - it's just that this particular one continued in his actions whereas the others toned it down. Regarding the removal of content, if you'll look over it (along with my accompanying explanation at his talk page), you'll notice that very little has to do with the actual AfD; it's mostly attacks upon other users. Of course, it's unreasonable to expect one admin to remove all of the nasty remarks from this AfD (even if it was appropriate to go on that kind of anti-incivility campaign, which it's not), but that one crossed the line. AfDs are not the place for taking shots at other editors or requesting de-adminships.

I agree wholeheartedly about what you've said concerning the emotions circling the AfD, which is exactly why I've spent time lately monitoring it to try and keep it cool. Thanks for taking some time to look over this. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have been watching the VP drama unfold, and frankly I am growing weary of it. Does VP have some valid complaints about the behavior of others? Quite possibly yes. Does it excuse his bad behavior? Not at all. I have reviewed his earlier blocks, and have denied them in the past; they have seemed justified given his behavior. If others are being disruptive, their behavior should be dealt with as well; however VPs cries of unfairness are a red herring. He has deserved his blocks, and just because others may deserve them as well (and I only say that as a hypothetical; not as a fact), does not give him the right to act like a jerk. As I told him at an earlier unblock request. Behavior can trump rightness; if you want people to see your side and listen to you, it needs to be presented in a civil manner. Being disruptive will cause others to ignore you, and if he doesn't want that, he should act more civilly.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[29] She called edits 'canvassing' which those allegedly canvassed disagreed were such, both myself and User:Rray appreciated being alerted to an MfD of an article of User:VigilancePrime's which Tijuana herself nominated. Obviously whether the block is appropriate is a different matter but I think she shouldn't have done it herself as she's so involved in the issuues, if necessary (with which some people disagree) another, less involved admin should have done it. Merkinsmum 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs)

Despite Tijuana's comments above, he (sorry I got your gender wrong before, T) said on VigilenceP's talkpage that the block was for canvassing on the MfD Tijuana started, not anything to do with the other issues.Merkinsmum 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the gender. Concerning the block, it was for canvassing as a part of continued disruptive behavior. Read it for yourself. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, regardless, I'd like to express my concern that the block of VigilancePrime may have been a tad oversized for the size of the problem. The purported canvassing messages appeared to have been neutrally done, and I'm not sure whether the block was entirely warranted as a strictly preventative measure. That's my concern, which I'd like addressed. However, I'll leave this to y'all to sort out. But, Tijuana Brass, didn't you disband a long time ago? Sorry, I couldn't resist making a Herb Alpert reference --SSBohio 03:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; just from looking over his talk page, it seems that any admin who posts on his page is automatically a member of The Cabal. Which, of course, does not exist. Everyone knows there is no cabal. HalfShadow (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm all about HA references, baby. ...anyway, I hardly think language like "The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack" is neutral ([30]). Note that WP:CANVAS requires "notices" to be limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open to be considered acceptable. He failed three of these and continued to canvass after a warning, which is problematic even if you don't consider the other issues of disruption. Oh, and HalfShadow, the first rule of the cabal is that you don't talk about the cabal. Loose lips sink ships. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a solid reason to me. In deference to VP, however, I have to admit that he says things I only wish I could say. Sometimes it's hard to see the non-existence of the cabal from this close to the ground.  :-) As to the HA reference, when I saw your name, I swear I could hear that horn section playing. Thanks for being responsive to me. I've been fobbed off by others and this is much better. --SSBohio 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice T. strangely doesn't mention his 'canvassing' reason at first while asking for a review of this block.

I imagine VP is a bit vociferous though, but on the deletion debate I was involved in about Adult-child sex, he didn't stand out as particularly vociferous, maybe that's not saying much on that AfD though lol. Merkinsmum 13:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's right there in the block log. Please make sure you actually review the situation before making accusations; you've already been mistaken twice. In any case, if you think the block was solely due to canvassing, you're missing the bigger picture - which is why this review was a request for the input of experienced admins who've dealt with problems like these before. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am away from home, sorry to join back in late. Some others may consider this resolved but to me it's partly not, due to the Tijuana rather than the Vigilance Prime issues (for my differing views on VP's canvassing anyone can message me direct, suffice it to say I disagree, but don't want to make my post even more looong lol) I know he is unblocked now but what I'm saying is in future, if you are involved partially in what you are blocking someone for (I know you weren't for the AfD of Adult-child sex)- but for instance you nominated an MfD and then blocked the person who wrote the article, partly over his conduct surrounding the MfD- could you please contact another admin to consider doing such a block or write on ANI asking for intervention about it? You see it would slightly remove the possibility (because we all have biases in life, some of them subconscious) or the possible appearance of an unfair block. I am writing this here on ANI rather than directly to you because I want other admins to be aware of editor's concerns, (but thought it would be unnecessary to start a separate thread, though I put one here in the first place) and to be aware that this suggestion has already been made to you, should such a situation arise again, that you block someone with whom you are currently engaged in an argument, whether over the same subject or not. As even over a different subject, (and no matter how evil other editor's comments) if you have another currently active dispute, to the editor concerned it could easily appear vindictive (even if that's not true.) Merkinsmum 13:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read Merkinsmum's statement above, I'm annulling my previous acceptance of this block. I now see where LessHeard vanU was concerned about the propriety of Tijuana Brass making the block, then withdrew the concern because TB wasn't involved in the AfD. However, Tijuana Brass also brought a page created by VigilancePrime up to MfD, and while that was pending, blocked VigilancePrime for "canvassing" with regard to that MfD. To me, there is an appearance of impropriety in the block, which, in light of all the facts, seems more punitive than preventative. I'm also concerned that the full circumstances surrounding this block hadn't been laid out here by the blocking admin. Again, it gives the appearence of impropriety. --SSBohio 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users

Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a blocking admin against me in the past and has just posted a very cryptic comment on his user page about me. I asked him if this was a threat here. I don't like the implication that the wheels of justice are turning behind closed doors, and I especially am offended that this comment was made to a particularly problematic editor who has a history of POV-pushing and promoting fringe theories. This feels to me like an abuse of power. What do others think? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse and I were talking in IRC about the complaints and counter-complaints at WP:AE, and I asked an arbitrator for an opinion on a possible remedy. This should not be blown out of proportion. The fact that he previously blocked you for edit warring is not an issue; blocking once does not disqualify an admin from taking future action, if appropriate. Thatcher 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just scared, that's all. Rlevse scares me. He's quite authoritarian and rarely as engaging as other clerks I've known in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to clear up one possible misunderstanding: The Arbitration clerks have no special role in Arbitration enforcement. It is perhaps natural that admins with an interest in Arbitration gravitate to both areas, but enforcement is open to all uninvolved admins. More help at WP:AE is always appreciated. Thatcher 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry SA, I quit wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Random POOF! I... don't get it. ^Avruchtalk 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaat? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, you/this thread really pissed him off and he left. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope that doesn't win me a whole new batch of enemies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Wizardman 04:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the above. I think wikipedia's getting to me today. I should probably log off :) Wizardman 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist take a chill pill. If I would get upset each time an admin swang their authority stick I would be in a hospital talking to a shrink! Igor Berger (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I'm not doing that right now? ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to press the panic button, but User:Rlevse actually went & quit. Two in one day. Sigh. --SSBohio 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I'm pretty sure Rlevse was Rudget's admin coach. How strange.   jj137 ^♠ 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And neither particularly justified. Let's hope both cool off and come back. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame. Nothing about Rlevse's statement was remotely a threat. Given the number of arbcom requests in this topic area recently, I should hope arbcom is looking at it and Rlevse's statement was simply a statement of fact. --B (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe for a minute that Rlevse's statement was a threat. On the other hand, anyone who's been following this little drama is aware that Rlevse has no love for SA (to put it as tactfully as I can). Thus it wasn't unreasonable for SA to perceive the remark as a threat. Not having the wisdom of Solomon, I can't think of anything more imaginative than simply to recommend that the two of them stay away from each other. Perhaps someone more articulate and diplomatic than me can suggest something better. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

i thinkt aht rvelse's decision to leave was a smart one. ITS clear that theset wo users have so much hostility and hatred for each otehr that they cannot coexist on the same website at the same time. one of them had to leave and it was honorable for User:Relevse to volunter to sacrifice his adminship as well as this work here on wikiepdia to preserve the peace. Its' always a good idea to try to mediate these disputes befrore they get out of hadn but since these two users loathed each toehr so deeply that they could not kep from arguing Rlevse's departure is probalby for the best. the only thing that i can recomend is to block rvelse's account so that he or she wont be tempted to come abck later on and end up resuming the current conflict. Smith Jones (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? --B (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of my past experiences with this user, I must sadly report that I don't think he's joking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raymond, Smith Jones does tend to take extreme positions, usually with poorly-written justifications. Corvus cornix_talk 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be assuming bad faith, but your comment carries the insinuation that SA is selfish. And no, we will not block his account just to keep him away from here so "he or she wont [sic] be tempted to come abck [sic] later on and end up resuming the current conflict." That is just absurd. —Kurykh 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And what may I say are the Mediators,arbitrators and check-users doing about this issue?..2 in 1 day is a laugh and both being admin, just shows how wikipedia is not moving forward. As mentioned before Wikipedia's democracy is no longer working..someone should do something about this 2 issues, no matter how minor it seems cause its these minor issues which can bring wikipedia to its knees...--Cometstyles 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved Party Comment

Losing a good editor is always a bad thing for Wikipedia, and one who takes on the onerous task of clerking ArbComs especially so. I sincerely hope that Rlevse, after some consideration, decides to return to the encyclopedia - and even takes up again the role of clerk. Sometimes, often even, an authoritarian approach is required to cut through the various passions and off topic rhetoric that can occur at ArbCom - although my own experience was that Rlevse was not oppressive.

I also have some sympathy with ScienceApologist, whose unerring campaign to keep science related subjects clear from non-scientific sentiment and improper application of NPOV is both admirable and likely extremely frustrating. As said somewhere else (I paraphrase), "What other point of view other than a scientific one should be used in a science related article?"

It is unfortunate that two good, and committed in their own ways, contributors to Wikipedia are unable to co-operate with each other. However, there is no reason why they should not be able to co-exist - Wikipedia is very, very, very big (that's a scientific term, folks!) and there should be enough room for the both of them. Obviously it would be up to both parties to limit the areas where they may conflict, given the area of expertise of one editor and the interests of the other, and to avoid direct interaction in those spaces. In that way the encyclopedia is served by having both individuals involved, and disruption reduced.

I hope the matter can be, if not resolved, brought to as reasonable a conclusion as is possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughly concur. The loss of either of these two editors would be a serious blow to all of Wikipedia's efforts. Both are skilled and extremely knowledgeable contributors. SA's Herculean efforts to maintain Scientific pages which don't cater to the tinfoil hat brigade are as valued here as RLevse's clearking and constant efforts throughout the project. That they need WP:DR or just a gentleman's agreement ot keep a distance is clear, but neither should go. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Return

He has returned, if you didn't know already. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about venue

Where do I go to report a threat? Anthon01 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the best place for threats and attacks. Give the users name, and perhaps some diffs of the attacks to make it easier for admins to take action if necessary.--Jac16888 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am relatively new to wikipedia. This incident follows an editor who was moving the location of my comments into a new section on the Bleep talk page. I reverted his edit several times, and left a warning for him, on his talk page, that he was edit warring. I have no idea what he means by this edit summary,[31] but I take it as a threat. Anthon01 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI for anyone interested, this appears to be related to the Rlevse thread above. --B (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is a separate incident. If you consider them related, that's fine, but Rlevse was not involved when this happened. Anthon01 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not a threat. For Zeus's sake, can everybody involved just lay off all this "threats" stuff? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not obvious to me. I'm sorry but "If you ... again ... I'm going to take it personally," I have no way to know what his meaning or intent is. Anthon01 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Lots of people take things personally. In fact that's one of the major failings of Wikipedia -- people all too often take it personally when someone disagrees with their edits. It's not a threat until someone follows "taking it personally" with "...and I'm going to do (bad thing) to you." By the way, someone who has been around for several months and has a couple thousand edits isn't usually considered "new to wikipedia." Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. Regarding new, I wasn't sure where to post this or whether it should be taken as a threat. In that regard, I am new. Anthon01 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The359

The359 has repeatedly vandalized Saleen S7 despite warnings to stop. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism and you were giving templated warnings to established users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake, I had thought he was adding a piece of vandalism, but he was instead removing it. My reverts of his edits were therefore wrong and it is understandable that he thought I was vandalizing. My warnings to him were therefore incorrect as well. The359 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think one of you two have broken 3RR on the article. D.M.N. (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably so, but I'm disinclined to enforce it in this case -- 359 earnestly believed he was reverting a bad line out, I think. This diff in particular draws my attention (both the text being taken out and the response from the anon). An unfortunate misunderstanding, but one we can probably walk away from without too much trouble, I hope. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the page that you linked. 3RR does not necessarily apply to "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism." 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If repeatedly adding "Fastest car in the world this year in 2008." in the middle of an article is not vandalism, then what is it? 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He mistakenly believed you were adding it, which is why he was reverting you to begin with. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He should have looked at the diff before blindly reverting, and then making threats against me. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then so should have you -- we can spend all night arguing, or we can admit a few mistakes were made, make up, and move on with lessons for the future. Which would you prefer? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the second myself - I do not wish to see a third user walk away from Wikipedia in the space of 24 hours. D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw this. If you all are going to gang up on the newcomer who tried to help, I'm leaving. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You already got an apology. Shame you removed it claiming it was vandalism. For what it's worth, this is far from the ideal treatment, but I don't see what more there is to explore, here. Isn't it best to just move on? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryūlóng

He or she removed legitimate warnings from User talk:The359 but added illegitimate ones to my talk page. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...and now your trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. Why start a new topic instead of carrying on from the last one. Its on the same subject matter. Just drop it. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the IP had removed every single edit to its talk page, restored everything, which were legitimate, and gave a warning of my own. I've semiprotected the IP's talk page for this reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with the user removing legitimate warnings from the past under the false claim that they are vandalism. The359 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[32] [33] Yep, your right. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it is generally seen as OK for people with usernames to remove their own warnings, as we know they are one person, and the act of removing them indicates that they have seen them. With IP addresses, there is no indication that a single IP address = a single person. Thus, many believe it is important that warnings remain on IP address pages to, for example, show if the level and types of vandalism from an IP address indicates that it may be from a school or from a dynamically assigned system. Warnings on IP address pages are for all to see, not just the recepient. There is a legitimate reason to leave warnings at IP address talk pages.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, IP userpages are not associated with a person like user userpages are. Tomorrow it could be someone elses IP, it would be like letting a guest move all the furniture in a hotel room. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IP reversion at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008

Could an uninvolved editor or admin please look at this edit? It reverted a change made by me and east718. Details and links to discussions are here. This needs to be reverted quickly before someone uses it as an excuse to start deleting the images again before there has been time to work on them (there was an agreement to wait until midnight tonight). Again, it is purely the volume. If the thousands of images had been spread out over the 30 days in the month, no problem. But I can't scan thousands of pictures in seven days for the ones that I think can be kept and fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the backlog tag that the IP added. For the record, I support the compromise that has been worked out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Game review spammer

Resolved.

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

Has been adding external links to game reviews on an unreliable website, which I believe was made by him. All the content is hosted on gooforum.com and mysite.orange.co.uk, both are services that allow you to create free websites. Besides that, the links don't belong in any external link sections, much of the content on the site had poor grammar and were very short, and the website seemed a mess.--Seriousspender (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If he is spamming, as you suggest, then he should be blocked for a short period of time. D.M.N. (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cautioned by MER-C. If this user continues adding spam, report the account to WP:AIV. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by Peter morrell

At My RFC Talk page, Peter has just said the following. I quote the whole below, but lines like "In truth, you belong back in the days of the Inquisition. Is that a little clearer?" can't be appropriate.

What, you still don't get it, Adam? You think it is an OK use of your admin powers to silence your critics with blocks, often on the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. Whig, Debbe, Lee Hunter, Homeopathic, Homy, et al);

I've never blocked Lee Hunter], I've never blocked [[34]], nor Homeopathic, nor [35]. Of the people listed, I have only ever blocked Whig (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig)

to engage in a relentless purge of WP of homeopathy related content, usually by stealth in the dead of night;

By nominations for AfD, for the record. Peter viciously attacks me for AfDs elsewhere on that RfC.

to lend support and succour to other zealots who wish to do the same as you but who lack the admin powers to do it; to tinker with and revert, as per your whim, the good faith edits of others; to find nit-picky ways to invalidate perfectly reasonable points and sources in articles just because you don't agree with them; to pursue with your drones a hardline, Dawkins-esque pro-science jihad against subjects like homeopathy which are not sciences in the modern sense anyway; then yes I do think you have abused your admin powers across a range of articles. However, I think to be fair you probably acquired your purging zeal in editing Intelligent design and Creationism during 2006 while also editing Evolution related articles. As a fellow biologist I would probably have supported your views there but never the missionary zeal with which you attacked good folks on the basis of your misguided views on science. And you did all this knowing full well that the American continent is packed with your allies who also wish to repel the 'vile Creationist invader' in their midst. You should take your battle into the southern states like Dawkins is about to do; WP is not really the place for such a strong whiff of brimstone. In truth, you belong back in the days of the Inquisition. Is that a little clearer? And you then transferred those attitudes and that sense of mission to subjects like Homeopathy probably as a direct result of my own short-lived edit to Natural selection in late Feb 2007 when I said NS is only a theory and it is just that. I even emailed you about this at the time very cordially but was rebuffed. All the diffs are there in our user pages. Surely you can see the bigger picture.Peter morrell 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's the meat of the Incivility. Peter's belief that everything is an attack on him is a major problem. (I think I first edited Homeopathy on February 2nd, [36] for the record, well before whatever edit in "late 2007" Peter thinks drew me over there.) And this isn't the first time - he's been up on RfC about it before Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell and promised to reform. How many times do I have to be attacked by him before someone does something? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is a tenacious proponent of fringe/pseudoscience views. As the perceived underdog, he's allowed to be uncivil. The rest of us have to follow Wikipedia policy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect/hope that you were being sarcastic there, Raymond. — Coren ^(talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Peter for 48 hours. See [37]. Please review. – Steel 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, i've never edited the pages in the content dispute, and i'm only involved because i've endorsed a couple of statements in the RFC. But ARBCom demanded the RFC. They wanted to hear the opinions of the community. And the statement (unless there's more then what was quoted) Seems like something that should be rebutted in the rfc talk, not a block. Just my opinion for what it's worth.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The post quoted above is the latest in a series of attacks from Peter morrell against Adam Cuerden going back several months. It was made as part of general chatter on the RfC talk page and was not anybody's official 'outside view' for the RfC, assuming that distinction is even relevant. – Steel 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it somewhat difficult to read a comment littered with words and phrases like "relentless purge...by stealth in the dead of night", "zealots", "drones", "jihad", "you belong back in the days of the Inquisition" as anything other than an abusive screed. While raising concerns about the conduct of other editors is a legitimate practice on Wikipedia – and doubly so in the context of an RfC – we do not and should not take that as license to couch that 'criticism' in the nastiest, most inflammatory way possible. Recall that an RfC is intended to be a step towards dispute resolution. It is vehemently not to be treated as just another battleground, nor is it a soapbox.

What sort of rebuttal, Cube lurker, would you contemplate to such comments? How does one provide diffs to prove that one is not a zealot or Inquisitor; that one is not part of a jihad engaged in relentless nighttime purges? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that by it's nature an RFC on admin conduct called by ArbCom is by it's nature an area of controversy. Both sides will make and have made strong comments, and in the end ArbCom will sort through. There was no profanity, no threats leagal or physical, just a heated dispute in an area designed for such heat.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that RfCs often deal with contentious and controversial issues; if there were no issues in dispute, then there would be no need for a dispute resolution process. Nor is there any question that 'strong' comments may be made. There is an unfortunate tendency, sometimes, to confuse and conflate 'honesty and directness' with 'rudeness and aggressiveness'. The former are both useful and productive, while the latter are unhelpful and inflammatory. It is possible – as demonstrated clearly by Peter morrell here – for an editor to be extremely incivil and to launch personal attacks without employing profanity or legal or physical threats. A constructive and useful criticism is of the form

I believe JoeAdmin has misused/abused his admin privileges when he deleted article [foo] and protected article [bar], and when he blocked User:JohnEditor. Joe and John had an extensive history of prior interpersonal conflict ([diff], [diff], [diff]) that made it inappropriate for Joe to block John. As well, Joe has identified himself as an employee of [bar] ([diff]), a competitor of [foo] in the widget marketplace. This strikes me as a conflict of interest, and Joe shouldn't have taken admin actions with respect to those two articles.

is clear and direct and pulls no punches. It concisely and efficiently points a reader to the relevant evidence, and identifies explicitly the problematic conduct. In contrast, a criticism of the following form

I believe JoeAdmin abuses his adminship because he's a zealot on a jihad. He comes stealthily in the dark of night to purge relentlessly those who do not cleave to the one true faith. He acts like a member of the Spanish Inquisition, and he must be stopped!

would be needlessly inflammatory and vitriolic namecalling, and is useless for the purposes of the RfC because it provides no evidence or specific criticism. An RfC does not suspect Wikipedia's rules for conduct. Cube lurker, do you now understand how one can criticize another editor's conduct without resorting to incivility and personal attacks? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned for that kind of thing time and time again. Here's one where he was blocked: [38] for comments very similar to the above: [39]

He had been warned on the RfC talk page once already today. [40]

And he's been warned repeatedly before over the last few months: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] (I believe there are also several others; I remember Cool Hand Luke cautioned him a few times, for instance)

He has also had an RfC where he promised to reform: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter morrell

This is a pattern of behaviour and warning, not a one off. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've said my peace. It doesn't pass the smell test with me, but it's not my call.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Adam Cuerden is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this in his RfC.[46] Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Adam_Cuerden.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to look at Adam's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Adam is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is usually a constructive and civil editor, but this unfortunate outburst is unacceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of both Peter and Adam. Both of them contribute a lot to Wikipedia, and I am more willing to cut productive editors some slack on the civility front than I am unproductive trolls and POV pushers. And some of those on the homeopathy pages really are not as productive and cooperative as Peter, although they hold his same viewpoint. I find it regrettable that Peter stepped over the line, but I would still vouch for him since in the net, he contributes in a positive way to Wikipedia, contrary to many others. Adam I have never seen be particularly uncivil, although there is some argument that he might not have interpreted the admin rules correctly. On the other hand, Adam has been tremendously productive and valuable for Wikipedia. --Filll (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two households, both alike in dignity,

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nynexman4464

• Nynexman4464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a voting account / inappropriate alternate account,
• 1. 01:52, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎ (top)
• 2. 01:51, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozilla Corporation software rebranded in Debian‎ (→Merge)
• 3. 18:28, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote‎ (→Option 3)
• 4. 22:23, 19 March 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:In-joke‎
• 5. 06:47, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) User:Nynexman4464‎
• 6. 06:45, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym‎
• 7. 06:39, 12 October 2004 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym

3 of 4 edits are used for voting since 2004, discussion on [47], now for WP:SSP hard evidence is needed which might be in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stackronym (or not), so what to do ? Mion (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying Checkuser first, which may come up with hard evidence. If the request is rejected, bring it back here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been here for a while, I just never think to login, except for the occasional vote perhaps. The last thing is a topic I know a fair bit about (copyright, trademarks, the DFSG, that sort of thing), hence the vote. I contributed to that stupid Stackronym article way back, and I know I've done a few reverts of vandalized pages, and a few minor edits here and there. I use this username everywhere, and I'm at a school so my IP address is static (though it changes each year I think), so I'm sure you can figure out who I am through that. Nynexman4464 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, aren't the wikipedia and wikimedia commons accounts linked? You can see my contributions there Commons:Special:Contributions/Nynexman4464 Nynexman4464 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In response on User talk:Nynexman4464, seems plausible to me, case closed i think Mion (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV pushing on Numerous U.S. Political figures articles.

User:Anappealtoheaven Seems to be having a serious problem with writing in an NPOV style. Despite warnings [48], [49], independently given from two editors recently, and more in the past, one example, see User talk:Anappealtoheaven for more, his only responses are screeds [50] about how Wikipedia needs to be free of outside influences [link]. Some examples of his problematic editing are seen: At Mitt Romney, where he injects POV[51], gets reverted[52](this would be a third editor recently identifying POV). At Mike Huckabee, he edits again to show purported hypocrisy [53], and is again reverted for POV [54],[55]. He edits Ron Paul to a pro-Paul POV. One is seen here: [56]. Although the fact is cited, his edit and summary imply, at least, that something special about Paul other than the online presence can explain the fact, although he only cites 'time', an indication of POV editing. There are numerous examples more. One last egregious example - [57], he smears McCain and Graham as 'lockstepping' with "liberal democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's heated legislation ". The only intent to his wording is that he seeks to disparage their 'conservative street cred' by tying them to a 'liberal democrat'. It's partisan game playing of the worst sort.

Please note that between reverts and notes about his edits, there are at least five editors noting POV, as well as previous warnings on his talk and article talk pages. Should anyone doubt he has an agenda here, please read his User Page essay about his Ron Paul support. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Alicia Miguel" cabal

CathyJoyce (talk · contribs), Dababe (talk · contribs), MonicaCabaski (talk · contribs) and Danielmiguel (talk · contribs) all seem to be either the same person, or a group of meat puppets conspiring to create hoax articles at Alicia Miguel and Alicia Miguel Schull. Corvus cornix_talk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This started way back in 2006 with Daniel Miguel creating Alicia Miguel as an apparent joke. At that time she was a high-living billionaire, having made her substantial worth from small businesses. Fast forward to December 2007, when Alicia became an internationally renowned supermodel. Multiple accounts began uploading copyvio'd pics of random models and inserting them in articles like supermodel and sex symbol. Although these photographs all featured different women, they were purportedly free-license depictions of Miguel. The article itself was a direct copy of the Alessandra Ambrosio entry. An AfD helped form a consensus to delete salt Alicia Miguel, so enter Alicia Miguel Schüll. That one was created by MonicaCabaski, who another sockpuppet attempted to nominate for both adminship and bureaucrat bits. After the Schull version of the hoax made it to DRV, I decided to pull the plug and block all Miguel-related accounts. FWIW, these appear to be the efforts of a middleschool student from North Carolina. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

They apparently continued the hoax over on the French Wikipedia, but it got deleted over there, too. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oui, aucun s'inquiète. I doubt this is anything to trouble other wikis about. Thanks, btw, for reviewing the sock activity. I was wondering whether to post a warning about the hoax somewhere, AN/I will do. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone is breaking rules here

User ColdFusion650 and I have gotten into a bit of an edit war and after I asked him to take this to his talk page, he started posting out conversation on the articles' talk page and posting what I already posted on his talk page.

Also, he's using his PPOV to revert what he feels is not relevant. I would like the assistance of an admin in order to settle this.

Duhman0009 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A little bit more could help. Rgoodermote  22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I read the discussion, cold did not break any of the "Guidelines" he suggested that you talk on the article talk page and was very civil in explaining everything. By the way edit wars only take place when editing the article and they involve multiple reverts (3 reverts max) of the article the breach is called a 3RR breach. Neither of you breached 3RR when editing the article. Rgoodermote  22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not for him to move my sayings to another page. If he would have asked, I would have done so myself, but he has NO right to do this himself. Also, as for the topic itself, I never said anything about the 3 revert rules. Duhman0009 (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No 3RR breaches are needed for it to be an edit war. An edit war is any back-and-forth editing/reverting in the context of a dispute that reaches a level of disruption. They can be quite "slow", actually. - Revolving Bugbear 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be different for everyone, the edits did not seem disruptive and Cold seemed very civil and as seen here requesting the user talk it out on the article talk page. Rgoodermote  23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you an admin? Duhman0009 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate the user has every right to move your comments to a different page. It helps other users understand a situation. Because the conversation spilled to the talk page of the article the comments left on your and his talk page should be included at the talk page of the article. By the way no but I am an experienced user. I do know that it was taken from an edit summery but the talk page was the best I could think of. Rgoodermote  23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm going to wait for an admin's opinion on the matter. Duhman0009 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

None taken, but I need you to know that the admin are just experienced users who are given mops. Rgoodermote  00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but if they give me the wrong info, at lease I can just say "Well, an admin told me it was OK". Duhman0009 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have super powers of authority, we're just like you and every other user except with a few extra buttons. Or we're supposed to be. Yeah, moving the comments was probably ok, although I would have left the originals (copied, rather than moved). It's no big deal. Neıl ☎ 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So I can quote you on that if I ever decide to do something similar in the future? Now for the topic itself, keep your eye open on that one, if my experience thought me anything, might get ugly. Duhman0009 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... moving a discussion from one's own user talk page to a more appropriate venue, such as the talk page of the relevant article, is perfectly acceptable under our talk page guidelines, provided that no misrepresentation occurs. The only fault I can find in this case is that ColdFusion650 should perhaps have made it even clearer that he, not you, was the one who copied the comment to the article talk page. Since that fact has already become clear from your subsequent comments in the discussion (which you could've made just as well without accusations of malice), I see no further need to do anything about it except to advise you to calm down and, in the future, make more effort to assume good faith. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a link the the rule itself, this will come in handy. As for "Good Faith" comment, remember, that works both ways, I could easily say that you have no good faith by saying that I have no good faith. But then, you could say that I don't have good faith by accusing you of not having good faith. It's a matter of opinion which I would suggest not getting into since it's also a vicious circle. Duhman0009 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If continuity is not broken, moving the discussion is just as harmless as linking to it - it's all public. the_undertow ^talk 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the diffs to see if anyone's broken 3RR, but ColdFusion650 does seem to be getting pretty aggressive on the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles article. Looking through some past edits, he seems to be cutting down the sourcing and length of critical reviews. I'd like more eyes on this. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't want to say anything, but since someone brought it up, I do feel like ColdFusion650 thinks that this page belongs to him. Duhman0009 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added some sourced content to the article he didn't like and ColdFusion is attempting to revert-war with me. Very WP:OWNy. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also was deeply unimpressed by the behaviour of ColdFusion650 who is trigger happy with the delete button. No request for citation or rephrase was made. My contribution was knee-jerk deleted. This kind of unhelpful behaviour turns people off from contributing. -- Horkana (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe

Calling a female editor 'hormonally deranged' is a blockable offense in my opinion. I've given him a warning and won't block because I've dealt with the guy so it's a COI. I would also appreciate a look into him admitting he has two accounts, both used for editing the same Elvis talk page. Unless users know that, his discussions are meatpuppeteering. Thanks. the_undertow ^talk 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block on next offense. —Kurykh 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lara❤Love 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still would like clarification on why the user contributes to the same discussions using two different accounts. Is this an acceptable use of a sock? the_undertow ^talk 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the other account name? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Very rude! Second account is User:BomberJoe.I agree with Kurykh and will assist. That said an apology should be offered by User:Hoserjoe.--VS ^talk 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Detailed history from LaraLove

This is not the first instance from this user. Here's a full history:

• August 17, he added the Christian singles to {{Elvis Presley}}. It was a poor addition not only in that it was unnecessary and overly long, but the links were duplicated in instances, and many did not lead to the song they were meant to.
• August 19, User:Rikstar brings the change to the attention of those working on the Elvis article with a talk page thread that ran until archived in late October.
• November 3, User:Crazysuit posted this discussion on the talk page suggesting "to separate the list of Christion songs into a separate article," expanding with a rationale.
• November 11, User:DePiep replied to the talk page message agreeing with Crazysuit, who then removed the then cleaned up addition per the talk page discussion.
• November 18, Hoserjoe responded here and then re-added the section.
• November 19, DePiep reverted the re-addition. This is also the day Hoserjoe initiated a discussion on Talk:Elvis about the content of the article, as seen in full here, running until November 24. He used his other account, BomberJoe, in this conversation as well, as seen here. User:Rodhullandemu called him out here. User:Jeffpw agreed here. Onefortyone also agreed here. Hoserjoe admitted it here then clarified. I then tagged both accounts.
• December 25, Hoserjoe re-added the section once again. He also removed an entire section and a sourced sentence from the article despite the ongoing conversation on the talk page. And also questioned that he's actually referred to as "The King of Rock'n'roll" and "The King". I reverted and posted to his talk page.
• December 26, I reverted his addition to the template, and he responds to my talk page message from the day before on my talk page, to which I reply.
• January 16, Hoserjoe posts to Talk:Elvis (in the middle of someone else's comment) stating that "Most of the article is simply an exercise in editorial vanity by a few (one in particular) self-centred and obsessive editors. ..." [sic] I'm not clear if he is referring to me or User:Onefortyone. Then he posts to my talk page asking "Is there some reason why you deleted the entire Elvis discography template?". Considering I'd not deleted it, only reverted his additions, I reply with this, pointing out that this has already been discussed.
• January 17, he replies with "Thanks for your reply, Lara. The answer to your question is that Elvis was primarily a Christian/Gospel/church singer. He wasn't a "Blues" singer for the simple reason that he disliked the blues, but he'd do it if he had to. Those of us old enough to have attended his concerts know this. You, being a young girl, do not know this. It's the ignorance of youth. Not necessarily a bad thing unless it's accompanied by a closed mind. And it's most unpleasant when ignorant youth try to make a new "truth" out of cobbled-up fiction. The entire Elvis article has become a nightmare of fiction, but you're doing an excellent job of defending it. Soon you all will have remade Elvis into a repressed, gay, punk blues, atheistic, draft-dodging, womanizing biker. Well done!". This is where he has confused me with Onefortyone, as I've not written any of the Elvis article, I only formatted the 237 references and footnotes, created Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley and have been attempting, on the talk page, to reach a consensus for trimming some of the info out of this article. It's currently halted for Arbitration. But that's an aside. I reverted the message. the_undertow saw this message and dropped a line on Hoserjoe's talk page. He apparently didn't get it.
• January 20, he posts this mess on my talk page. the_undertow reverts and warns.

Hoserjoe's accusations of my contributions to the article are unfounded. He ignores consensus and causes disruption. I request uninvolved parties review this history, please. Regards, Lara❤Love 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A user RFC would be appropriate here (as a precursor to arbcom or a community imposed ban, if he doesn't improve). MER-C 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tedickey persistently removing links to 'Cloverfield'

Hi,

User:Tedickey is persistently removing links to Cloverfield from numerous Wikipedia articles such as Brooklyn Bridge, Star Trek (film), Empire State Building, and Statue of Liberty. User:Scjessey and myself wrote comments on User talk:Tedickey asking for an explanation, and I added a vandalism tag. Our comments and the tag were quickly deleted with no explanation other than them being 'trash'. I'm not sure what to do about this, hence the message here, as this seems to be quite unusual behaviour. Tedickey has embarked on an inexplicable crusade to remove links to Cloverfield from Wikipedia. Could an administrator please advise or intervene? Thanks. Mikesc86 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest a link to a movie in the "see also" section of the Statue of Liberty's article isn't really appropiate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While that may be true, surely it would have been more appropriate to move it to a more relevant section of the article, rather than deleting it altogether? Other edits by this user are not so easy to dismiss: the first screenings of the trailer for the upcoming Star Trek movie preceded Cloverfield. The user removed this fact from the article. Mikesc86 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really up to Tedickey to determine better placement of a single link, it's really up to the people that feel the link should be included. In the general scheme of things, Cloverfield is not that important to many of the articles it has been added to. Many of these links amount to little more than "And Cloverfield had this too" (Monster, Alternative reality game), relying upon unsourced speculation to get it included (Shub-Niggurath), or "Cloverfield filmed a scene here" (Coney Island). Granted, the layout of some articles seems to invite spamming (Brooklyn Bridge has a whole section that is just a link of movies, television shows, and other media the bridge has appeared in).--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The tie-in to Star Trek is unsourced, and unnecessary. The change which Mikesc86 reverted introduced a garbled content to the article. Rather than discuss this in a calm manner (as did two other editors), Mikesc86 is repeating his accusations of vandalism. (I repaired the Brooklyn article, by the way). Tedickey (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I did try and discuss the matter as did another editor, as you pointed out. However, instead of engaging in the discussion, you deleted and ignored our comments. I found it strange how you specifically targeted articles linking to Cloverfield as if you held some sort of personal grudge, and stranger how you deleted comments when confronted about this.

Again, rather than deleting content that lacks citations, it would have been better to mark it with an appropriate tag than remove it altogether. A quick search on Google would have confirmed the claim.

Further, the content was not 'garbled' into the article: it existed neatly in the 'Marketing' section. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted it, I read the comments, and there was nothing to respond to. You don't have any new information to convey, but have time to spend repeating your remarks. Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. I was not trying to convey any new information, I was simply replacing the information you deleted. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

good (that's something that you should source in on the topic) Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not the person who put it there in the first place! Mikesc86 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the edit for the Star Trek (film) article and it turns out that it was actually a sourced claim, which means its removal was completely unnecessary. Mikesc86 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see (just curious - are you part of the viral marketing strategy for the movie?) Tedickey (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Please read a user's edit history before making such claims. Or alleging them. Corvus cornix_talk 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As User:Corvus cornix points out, if you checked my edit history you would quickly figure out that the answer to your question is a definite 'no'. You do not seem to understand that linking to a Wikipedia article about the film is entirely different to spamvertising links to the film's official website. The links you removed from Wikipedia were entirely relevant: the Star Trek trailer was shown before Cloverfield, The Statue of Liberty was seen in Cloverfield's trailer, etc. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No - for example the addition to Shub-Niggurath was completely original research, and the other editor was quite right to remove it, yet you reverted him with an edit summary of "rv vandalism". Linking articles together on flimsy pretexts is generally frowned upon. BLACKKITE 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no additions to Shub-Niggurath. If you take a look at the previous edits you will find that it was already there and User:Tedickey deleted it - I merely restored it. If original research was the problem then the section of the article in question should have been appropriately tagged, or Tedickey should have stated this as the reason for removal in his edit summary. "rm spam" is hardly descriptive. To me, it just seemed like yet another one of his deletions of links to Cloverfield. You have to ask why, of all the films ever released, he has deliberately singled out this one. Mikesc86 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Only if one also questions why there is such determination to include mention of the movie in a wide range of articles that are only incidental to the movie itself. We don't list every movie set in Tokyo or San Francisco or Lisbon in those articles and Cloverfield shouldn't be treated any differently just because it opened recently. Undue weight and all that. Pairadox (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You are probably right in that Tedickey's edit summary could have been a little more descriptive, but it was clear that that particular addition to the article was spectacularly OR - you would have done better to have inspected his edits rather than blindly reverting them all. He was right on most of the ones I can see. BLACKKITE 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He was certainly wrong on the Star Trek wrong and he was certainly wrong to delete the comments made by myself and the other editor rather than reply to us. Had he replied, then I would have never had the need to bring the situation to this noticeboard. Mikesc86 (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just think about why he's removing it. He did the right thing. Wikipedia isn't about maximized cross-linking of our articles, but about carefully thought out and reasonable cross-links. Perhaps you could have brought up the inclusion of the link on the relevant talk pages, where a number of editors would've explained to you why the article in question doesn't need the link, agreeing it does belong, thus forming consensus. If he's removing it from numerous pages, even those you didn't add it to, perhaps you should have looked at the bigger picture. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Current WP:TRIVIA policy discourages "In popular culture" sections, so removal is appropriate. And, regardless of editor intent, inserting all those links during the initial release of a movie is effectively advertising. There are already about 50 links to the movie's entry. Most of them should be removed. --John Nagle (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thoughts to this discussion, as I was the one who originally posted on the user's talk page about the problem (although the user subsequently removed my comment). I don't have an issue with the removal of the Cloverfield links (although I thought the one in the Star Trek (film) article was appropriate, so I restored it). The problem I had was that he was removing the links with the simple edit summary of "rv spam", which I felt to be inappropriate and inaccurate. I'm not entirely convinced it was such a big deal that it needed to be discussed here, either. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference removal

I am having an issue with another user, who keeps removing reference sections that I add to articles. The user claims that the references are “un-encyclopedic”, claiming that they do not belong on Wikipedia. The references are in fact a script to a video game, which is solely being used to verify information. In-line citations would accomplish the same thing, but also take up too much space and what not. Furthermore, the user is failing to even read the content, as it also contained other types of third-party references.

Articles where I have encountered these problems include: Chris Redfield, Billy Coen, Jill Valentine, and Rebecca Chambers. Here is an example of typical exchange of edits, [58] I’d like to add that I have tried to made sure that these references comply with WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:Verify, and clearly pointed this out on the user's talk page. The user has politely responded, but only backed up their argument on the grounds that they feel the content does not belong. What is the best solution to this problem? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement: I have removed the sections that as I have clearly stated (User talk:ShadowJester07#Your_edits_to_Resident_Evil_character_articles), contain links that do not verify any information within the articles, besides to show several games story/scrips that (in several cases, indirectly if at all) feature the character of the articles.  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I fail to see how the ReHorror reference fails to verfiy information, when it contains an official in-game transcript that summarizes all the Resident Evil video games. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this, one on one! But as I state, the reference is for all Resident Evil games, and doesn't aid the singular character articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ShadowJester07

Is there ayway to stop this user blindly reverting edits, they are not only re-adding the removed links, but are also removing formatting, and spelling corrections made to the articles (See history of Jill Valentine for details)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be both past WP:3RR, but the edit war is almost 10 hours stale on that article so I'm not going to do any blocks. —Random832 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of passing the WP:3RR rules (though if I did, it was unintentional, and I am thankful for your mercy), I think we both may have gotten upto three but not beyond! If he again reverts the articles to include his content, what should the correct course of action/complaint be? I do not believe that I am doing anything wrong by removing it, but it is not my intention to be involved in a edit war! And it is not my intention to have fellow wikipedian blocked from editing, just because of a few good faith edits that are in error!  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to leave the articles alone for a while and take it to a talk page. Edit summaries are a poor substitute for actual discussion. As a sidenote, how is it that you think character articles don't need to be sourced? —Random832 15:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed, on our personal talk pages (User_talk:ShadowJester07#Your_edits_to_Resident_Evil_character_articles & User_talk:Doktor_Wilhelm#Resident_Evil_articles), but they wouldn't listen and just treatened me with being blocked if I did not allow them to keep the information within the articles, with out any attempt to use it to reference the actual content. the links that User:ShadowJester07 added were not sources of information to the article its self or references to the content of the articles, it was more as: "here's the whole plot to all the Resident Evil games, this chracter was in one of them" and it was the exact same links in each article. I kept adding reference/citation tags for the articles in question (though they keep being removed when User:ShadowJester07 blindly reverts the edits). I wouldn't argue if they were worked into the article (with any breach of copywrite sorted out), but I don't see how they can be?  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-operation and communication on Wikipedia

Posting down here in the hope that someone will notice it. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Update, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Communication breakdown?. I've made one final effort to get in touch with Maxim. See here. The work I've been doing this weekend and this evening can be seen at User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and my image namespace contributions. From the 2400 images left in that category at the beginning of Sunday (there were originally 11,000 when the category was populated), I scanned through them visually (where possible during the ongoing deletions - at one stage the script-assisted backlog clearers overtook me in the middle of a category) and I came up with that list of about 257 images. Some of those are clearcut cases for fixing (some are even public domain pictures that had been wrongly labelled), though some are only used in articles that should probably go to WP:AfD. Maxim has been churning through the category clearing the backlog (which is a valuable role, and while watching all this, I've noticed lots of helpful improvements he and others have made to the process), and I'm happy now to work on those images for the next few days (undeleting where necessary), but I'm still unhappy with how things developed here. My questions are:

• (1) What is the right thing to do when you are having difficulty communicating with someone who is editing but not responding to talk page messages? Is it possible that he can't see talk page messages while the script is running?
• (2) What can people at ANI do about it? Is there anywhere to go to address this sort of behaviour? I'd much prefer it if Maxim joined the discussion, and something got sorted out, but failing that, what can I do?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest these users stop deleting images at ridiculously high speeds, and do something more productive. There'll always be something to delete, and I'm concerned at the obsession with the delete delete delete attitude. Something I read once: those who can, write. Those who can't, delete. Majorly (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it fair to characterize those handling this backlog as not writing. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Maxim does a lot of excellent work, both in writing and admin work. He says he checks the images before setting the script running, and I believe him. It is his lack of response that concerns me here, plus the still unexplained early start on image deletion backlog clearing after an agreed upon time and date. I will be the first to admit that there are (and will be, over the next few months) very large image deletion backlogs to clear. All I'm asking for is that those doing the clearing communicate a bit more (well, a lot more, really). User:East718 (who also does this type of backlog clearing) found the time to communicate in the earlier threads. This is in stark contrast to Maxim's absence except for a brief edit to the category instructions. I'm still hoping that Maxim will be able to explain his lack of response, but each time he fails to respond, my hopes dwindle. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A basic requirement of any editor, especially an admin, is the ability to communicate effectively. If this is not done, all sort of problems occur, as we see here. Majorly (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In his defense he has not edited sense this thread was started, give him some time to respond. Tiptoety ^talk 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor any of the other threads Carcharoth started? Majorly (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Point well made. Tiptoety ^talk 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And another point is that the timing of the contributions log don't tell the full story. You need to look at the timing of his logs as well (in this case the deletion log). Those logs show activity even when his contributions log stops. I'm hoping that he isn't running unsupervised scripts. It is important that editors and admins can see and respond to talk page messages even while they are running scripts. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh.....dear........yea.......someone might want to send him an email. Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaw, I hate to see this in a productive editor whom I respect, but the circumstances don't look great. I hope he answers some queries soon... - Philippe | Talk 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note - Email sent, lets hope we hear a response. Tiptoety ^talk 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to put in my two cents. First off i agree with marjorly in the fact that as a administrator it is very important to maintain strong communication with all editors on the project, vandals or not especially if they are at a conflict with another user standing in good faith. I also think it is overall frowned upon to say you are going to do one thing, and do the other, such as stating that you will allow a user to scan through image deletion candidates and not delete them, and turn around and delete them. But I know that Maxim is meaning to do no harm, and i think we should all assume good faith and allow him adequate time to form a rebuttle for his questionable actions, we all make mistakes and must be held accountable for them, but we must also treat them as a learning experience and move on. If Maxim continues to not respond, then we have a much larger problem. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't mind waiting. I'll carry on fixing images in the meantime. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An update. A complaint landed on Maxim's talk page. I think I've dealt with it. It happened to be about one of the images I had on my cleanup list, so I undeleted. The unfortunate thing is that the image had already been fixed, but it seems that Maxim's script failed to detect this (the image rationale was added after the script started running at 00:20, and before the script finished at 02:24). But luckily no harm done in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If deletions resume and there's still no attention paid to talk page messages or email asking the deleter to throttle it down or stop, a judiciously short block (say, 10 minutes) may be necessary - this doesnt just apply to this case, but in general. Presuming the user isn't using an unauthorised deletion bot, that would make them stop and take notice, at least. This assumes admins cannot delete content whilst blocked - or can they? Neıl ☎ 14:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

They can't. One would hope that if a deletion bot were being used, it would grind to a halt if blocked, rather than picking up again with no further human intervention after the block expires. —Random832 15:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be what Maxim calls a "very high-speed script". See here. To reiterate myself, I have no problem with that per se, as long as Maxim can respond while it is running. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely deletions will resume until the 15 January backlog needs clearing. It is possible people will try and clear (ie. delete) that backlog on the day they think they can (which is 7 days later - after 22 January - ie. 23:59 tomorrow), but hopefully people will notice the big notice placed on the page asking people to hold off until 3rd February. The periodic upsurge in backlogs due to Betacommandbot tagging can be seen at this tracker. The backlog for 15 January has changed from 1838 when it was initially populated, and is now at 1561. It is unclear whether the decrease is due to image deletions or image fixings (ie. adding and fixing of rationales) - probably the latter. The next big backlog after that is the 21 January category, which currently stands at 4109 images, though judging by the current activity at Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot, that figure will be larger by the end of the day. Note that I'm not worried about the mass tagging - that was expected and has been planned for some time. It is the sporadic communication, or lack of communication, between those doing the tagging, those doing the fixing and those doing the clearing of the image deletion backlogs. This needs to be addressed now, before the next deadline rolls around. I've unilaterally put a 3rd February deadline on the 15 January backlog of 1561 pictures. I think that is a reasonable extension of the normal 7-day deadline, and I would hope anyone objecting to that would actually come here and discuss that. I was considering putting a similar notice on the 21 January backlog, but don't want to do that until some of the people that take on the task of clearing those backlogs show up here. The trouble is that if you talk with one, sometimes another editor starts clearing the backlog, or even (as yesterday) an IP tries to disrupt things. I think a reasonable date for clearing a particular backlog is seven days after the next batch of Betacommandbot tagging. Betacommand seems to be (so far) doing runs about a week apart, of a few thousand. This should work out OK, as long as those clearing and fixing the backlogs agree to well-advertised extended deadlines and stick to them, with the proviso that undeletion of individual images after deletion is always possible if requested. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention. I don't think any blocks will be needed. Just more communication. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely - the short block should only be considered if there was no response whatsoever and deletions weren't stopping. Neıl ☎ 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, TWINKLE now has a "delete pages found in this category" function so he may be clicking that and walking away. That would be fast but not a deletion bot. I left another message on his Talk page for whatever it's worth. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does TWINKLE grab a list and then start deleting, or does it run in real-time? One of the cases here involved a page being removed from the category during the run, but still being deleted. Which is not surprising when the run takes just over two hours. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question, don't know the answer. I am afraid of that button. But from what you've said, I'm betting the script parses the list of images and then starts deleting them at a controlled rate. So if you removed the image from the category while it was running, it would still delete the image. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Maxim has not replied to my email. Tiptoety ^talk 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler

Alison Wheeler, who to my understanding is (or was) on the Wikimedia chair, threatened to delete sixty five of my then-seventy subpages for no reason except for "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a personal site". To a point, I believe this is true. However, my user page was made entirely of template transclusions (which her decision forced me to not do). As you can imagine, many users that transclude templates on their pages must have many subpages. I discussed with her the possibility of only coercing me to delete half of the subpages, which I believe is more reasonable. She was coercing me into deleting important subpages and was being hostile, to be frank, although she denies this claim. Personally, I don't agree with having administrators to coerce users to delete their own subpages, as I feel that is a misuse of their power. She put my "various" pages on Miscellany for Deletion, and the community consensus was to keep them. I know that you guys probably can't do anything about Alison's behavior, but I just feel that she should be less coercive and more compromising. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the MfD discussion was "Keep". (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/user:Cuyler91093/various) — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 05:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page and the MfD I don't see any evidence at all that Alison was hostile or that she "coerced" you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they're hostile or acting in bad faith. (Some of the others who commented on the MfD are another story.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just sorta felt stressed because she was speaking as if I only had a few days before she'd delete it. It's like she was saying "Delete 90% of your pages in two days or else an admin will delete them for you." It doesn't feel good. Maybe she wasn't hostile, but it felt a little disrespectful. Perhaps I'm only overreacting. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a frequent participant at MfD and I, too, found the tone of this nomination rather coercive and failing to assume good faith. I received this response, but it was semi-cryptic. I read her responses to inquires to contain some animosity rather than assistance. I do not know if this had some relation to the recent RfA, but to an outside user, it was rather unbecoming to see an established user treated this way by a WP "suit".--12 Noon ^2¢ 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently unblocked after being indefinitely blocked, apparently for a combination of edit warring, incivility and harassment. In responding to an 3RR report today, I found that he has been edit warring again: [59], [60], [61], [62]. This is contrary to the terms of his unblock: [63]. I don't know this situation well enough to be sure if it's time to reinstate the former block, so for the time being, I've blocked for two weeks. Inviting comments from those who are a bit more aware of this situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is trying to get the IP user in question to come to the talk page to discuss further. While possibly a 3RR violation, I am willing to extend good faith here, as he is atleast TRYING to do it the right way. Maybe reverting while making the requests isn't quite right. If the problem extended more to just this one incident, I would think he was violating his block parole, however, this seems like a small problem right now. Perhaps you could remind him that even reverting BAD, but not vandalous, edits is still 3RR, and that he should try other means of getting the user to the talk page, but this seems like a small issue right now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you simply don't go wholesale reverting and then hypocritically say in the edit summary to use the talk page. That's the opposite of what's supposed to happen. I agree with Heimstern Läufer's block, and would propose blocking him indefinitely again. Given the beyond numerous warnings and blocks, this seems appropriate. Unblocking his original indefinite block was indeed most generous of Haemo, but to then ignore that generosity, the forewarnings, and even his own promises is simply outrageous. There's no reason to tolerate his behavior any longer. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber's on the right track, but Let's let the block stand until Haemo is both notified and actually responds here. CMB's his responsibility, since he unblocked, let him find out what was going on. Until then, CallMeBC can cool his jets and relax. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've informed Haemo about this thread. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the block, but for the love of all things holy, can we quit with "fortnight" in block logs? Nobody knows what that means and it just confuses users about how long they have been blocked. --B (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block, and I concur with B's anti-fortnight initiative also. I know that a fortnight is two weeks, but I came across either a block or a page protection a few days ago (I can't remember which, but I think it was a page) that was something like 8.3482 fortnights. Who has the time to figure _that_ out? I wish I could remember where it was and who did it. I don't know whether to worship them for their massive brain power or slap them with a fish. KrakatoaKatie 08:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Four months. Easy enough to guess--it's the standard block length closest to (8 * 14) == 112 days. It *is* a bit ridiculous, though; what's next, measuring speed in furlongs per fortnight? Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Let's not start saying that unblocking admins are responsible for the conduct of the editors they unblock. The unblocked editors are the ones responsible for their own conduct (and CallMeBC made a statement to that effect). The unblocking admin is only (partly) responsible if they have agreed to mentor the editor being unblocked, and I see no sign Haemo agreed to that. In the absence of any mentorship (and even in that case) an unblocked editor is free to be blocked by any admin if there are grounds to do so and the editor has been warned, and it is then that admin who now has the responsibility for the block. No passing the buck around please. Take previous blocks and unblocks into account, but don't block and then ask the previous blocking or unblocking admins to deal with it. Take responsibility for your own blocks. PS. The block looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson

I disgrace what claim by Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs) that some sections in 2006 Asian Games is not notable. See the differences: [64] and [65]. He claim that the section with dead link is not notable. According to WP:NOTE #General notability guideline, a fact must include with reliable sources, so i don't know what he claim about dis-notability in an article. Also, according to WP:REF, a dead link should be fix rather than remove. His claim is way out of line, because as i refer to most Olympic page, the similar section existing without any problem. So, what all in this?

I have state for various time in article talk page, but he didn't take care of this and claim he is right in all of this, so i need the help to solve this matter. Thank you. --Aleenf1 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have left an idea on the article's talk page which might provide a solution. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 07:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems he didn't care at all, and just keep reverting, anyway can solve this problem? --Aleenf1 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Advice re third opinion & preserving the status quo left on user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect No consensus closure of an Afd

Admin User:Jerry has incorrectly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff‎ as no consensus where in actual fact only one user User:Welshleprechaun, the article creator, was opposed to deletion/renaming against 3 other users, myself included. The article was only created by Welshleprechaun with the aim of supporting the addition of Cardiff to List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom in his relentless pushing of all things Cardiff on WP. As a result of this incorrect closure of this Afd Welshleprechaun has indeed now added it to the list and made a number of other related edits, making the list article contradict itself. Discussion has been ongoing regarding the actual content, before and during the Afd, on Talk:List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom, with no consensus (in fact no interest from anyone else at all), so I have no reason to believe Jerry's suggestion that Afd is not the place to settle content disputes as being revelant in this case, as merely surviving Afd achieves WL's aim. MickMacNee (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to contact the closing admin first and hear the response. In any case, you can always file a report at WP:DRV. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The closing admin is correct in that AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. However, he was probably not familiar with the relentless lame "Cardiff v Swansea" edit war that this article appears to be part of. If you believe the AfD result was wrong, try WP:DRV, or simply be bold - if this article has incorrect content, explain on the talk page that you are considering redirecting the article to a suitable target (Cardiff Bus or Transport in Cardiff) and merging the useful information there - and explain why. Then discuss it to achieve some sort of consensus. Edit warring is always A Bad Thing, even if you are sure you are in the right. BLACKKITE 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally placed a request for explanantion on his talk page, questioning his comment about no valid arguments were made on either side, but when I realised it has been called no consensus when the result is 3-1 I felt it was an ANI matter. Being bold won't work because Welshleprechaun will simply revert using this Afd result as justification for his POV, as he has already done in subsequent edits. Discussion of content has been unproductive so far. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think allowing the closing admin more than 11 minutes to respond to your query would have been more courteous than to rush this problem to AN/I. As per the other two editors here, I suggest you take this to WP:DRV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to comment is irrelevant in my opinion as I don't think he is going to change his mind on the basis of asking him to on his talk page is he? MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point is it? It would have been courteous to have waited for a response, there's no rush on this is there? He may be prepared to expand on his closing comments at the AFD. I'd take this to DRV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a time factor when you see that Welshleprechaun is using this result as the basis for further edits. I'm listing it on DRV anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing done here that can't be undone... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in my experience sadly. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plenty. This is definitely not the place though. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just point out that User:Welshleprechaun should not be using the result of that AfD for anything at all, as all the closing admin said was "this isn't the place for this discussion". It certainly wasn't closed as "Keep". BLACKKITE 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please page-move Autosodomy practise to just plain old Autosodomy for us

For some reason I wasn't able to do this myself .. something about undoing a WP:SALT. Someone with the right tools can do so. It's evident and uncontroversial. Thanking you in advance, SelfAloneRequired (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted since it is a recreation of a deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autosodomy). The article as created also lacked proper sources. Best, Gwernol 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Aomen

Hi, I have recently come to realise that the user Aomen has been tagging everything furiously with WPCHINA. And I mean furiously. Like everything. Usually this is a good thing, as he seems to catergorize correctly. But at times he also does it to articles that are barely related to china like the invasion of Hong Kong. Then I looked at his contibutions. It's like....wow!! I dunno how he does it, but it's quite crazy.....he seems to tag articles in a matter of seconds, then move on. Is he a bot or something? I sorta told him to stop on his talk page....but looking at previous comments on it, he hasn't replied to any of them. So.....can someone check him up? Personally I had enough of reverting his edits ^^". Sorry if this post sounds weird, I'm newbie afterall. Dengero (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Aomen (talk · contribs) has never made any edits to Wikipedia articles - his only contributions have been the mass adding of {{WPMacau}} (first hundred edits) and {{WPCHINA}} (the subsequent 5500 edits, at very high rates - see [66] or [67], for example). Only two edits that were not high speed category tagging - one move ([68]), and one edit to put "Aomen" on User:Aomen. No response has ever been made to the numerous talk page messages complaining about his repeated mistagging of article talk pages or asking him to stop. Looks like an unauthorised bot to me. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe...iunno, it could be one of those unresponsive editors who often edit China-Taiwan articles (but they're often anons.)...but the bot conclusion might be more plausible. nat.utoronto 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If he's not a bot, I really doubt his physical ability in tagging articles alphabetically in such a short amount of times. Heck, just going ctrl+c and ctrl+v at that rate will cause a cramp. If he's a bot, then I must admire the person who created him ^^ cause generally, he's quite correct in his tagging I must admit......Dengero (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If a user is editing exactly like a bot, making thousands of identical high speed edits, then for all intents and purposes, it can be considered a bot. The response should be the same. If it continues to mistag (even at the 20% or so error rate the account seems to currently be running at), it will be blocked, and I will warn Aomen as such now (we shall assume good faith and treat the account like it's a real person, on the chance that it is. Further mistagging will result in blocking, as either it's a bot or it's a user refusing to communicate despite numerous entreaties to do so. Neıl ☎ 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So...how many more times do I need to revert his edits until it becomes a 20%+ mistag? I'm not going to do it intentionally of course, but I've been reverting quite a few tbh.....eg. One day, he tagged a heap of hk artists. The ones who sing, act, whatever. Took me like....ages to revert them all >.> Dengero (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If he/she/it makes one more bad edit, let us know here and we'll block the account. Waggers (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrabulous/User talk:59.93.240.43

Hi! This is a bit of a strange situation. On Scrabulous, that user had twice removed the mention of the Scrabble origins of the game which I undid. After the second time, and because I didn't want to get into an edit war, I posted a discussion on the Talk page and notified the IP that I'd done so to invite discussion. Now my comment to the talk page has been undone by another user and I'm totally confused at what's going on. I've been editing on Wikipedia for a bit but only recently have moved to issues beyond edit/creation. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• ETA: The reverter of the comment on the IP page now states he doesn't know what I'm talking about and that he's hunting vandalism, however in the mean time he's being warned right and left re: potential vandalism. I didn't think this was vandalism when I posted here at first, but now I'm not so sure. In the mean time, other changes being made to Scrabulous seem to be unrelated and clean changes. Thanks Travellingcari (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and move on. He does seem to be new to monobook.js; I'd give him some leeway. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Signshare personal "battle list"

Resolved

 – Offending material deleted, and user seems to have decided against re-inserting it.

This section on User:Signshare's page does not look to be in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Referring to these other editors using gratuitous epithets seems tasteless and in violation of WP:ATTACK. Thoughts on what should be done? (For one, removing the offending content, of course...) --Kinu ^t/_c 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2¢

1. We should ask him nicely to delete the WP:ATTACK violations

   If he doesn't comply

2. We MfD it
3. If he recreates or becomes distruptive → Block

   --nat.utoronto 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending material (I did so before seeing Nat's comments, but I still think that doing so was the right move). I'm about to leave a friendly notice on his talk page explaining my actions. Here's a link to my deletion: [69]. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he's been very disruptive in the past and has already been blocked (by you, actually), so I would suggest, if he is disruptive after the second block 9after it happens), an indef seems to me to be appropriate. I suspect possible sockpuppets in some of his "battled" people. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He's re-inserted the material, which I've deleted again (although I certainly plan on remaining below WP:3RR on this. It appears that he was unaware of WP:USER, to which I've directed his attention, so hopefully that will convince him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have done the trick. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One would hope, but he still seems a little irritated about it, per this. "Bitter feud"... lol? --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor tends towards hyperbole as shown by this sentence on his user page, "I am sort of like LL Cool J, when you beef with me, I end you thats all there is to it." I've looked over his edits and they seem pretty decent but could use some more sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin category and User:Falcofire

Resolved

 – user removed from admin cat

The issue here is relatively trivial (and therefore hopefully easy to resolve), but I was not sure where else to bring it up. I happened by the user page of User:Falcofire recently and noticed that he had placed himself in the category "Wikipedia administrators." He'd dropped a note on my talk page months ago and I knew he was a relatively inexperienced user and was thus surprised he was an admin, which he was in fact not. I'm certainly not a dictator about user space, but I'm assuming we don't want editors to willfully misrepresent themselves as admins on their user pages in any fashion (even with the use of the admin category, which obviously contains inaccuracies). I dropped a friendly note on Falcofire's talk page about this which was removed without comment several days later. I tried again but this was likewise removed without explanation. Removing talk page comments on your own page is fine of course, but the lack of communication was troubling, and Falcofire then posted a note on his user page which reads "Now that I am fairly experienced in Wikipedia policy and such, I realize that this is a user page and therefore is not subject to authenticity as it is not a source of legitimate information. This is my space (not to be confused with my myspace) and therefore I will determine the look/feel of it and what is on it." The "Wikipedia administrator" category is still present on his user page.

I don't know why Falcofire wants to pretend that he is an admin (if that's what he's doing) but to my mind that's not really kosher. Aside from the fact that he is wrong to assert that user space is "my space" (it's still Wikipedia's space), I would think one of a few things we would not want editor's to do in their user space is claim admin status when they do not have it. I don't want to pester Falcofire about this anymore and certainly don't want any actions taken against him since I think this can probably be chalked up to misunderstanding. However since I was not getting through I was hoping an admin could drop him a note about this issue and/or remove the category from his user page--that is assuming that I'm correct and feigning adminship in user space is unacceptable. If that kind of misrepresentation is acceptable then obviously I'll drop the whole thing, but I guess that would surprise me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the situation as such: Some users will consult Category:Administrators in times when they may need help and if he is not an Administrator it can annoy users. For this reason, I think that non-Administrators should not put themselves in this category. After all, the user space is not really "my home page and my home page only, emphasis my", it's a page "donated" by the Wikimedia Foundation so that users can give information about themselves in order to help collaboration, and misrepresentation does not help. At least how I see it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed him from the category, also he had the admin icon at the topic right of his userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed a logo, I'd already deleted the cat :) I've put the logo back. BLACKKITE 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• (e/c) Removed the template, left a note. BLACKKITE 18:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...your right, oops. Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of policy deletion of talk subpage

Resolved

 – Page contents e-mailed to user.

I hate to bring this up, because it's in a contentious area. A user subpage of mine was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs): 19:56, 16 January 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Nagle/Jayjg disciplinary record (Per ArbCom rulings, laundry lists of grudges are not tolerated. RfC or STFU are the only options, I'm afraid.)". This was a list of links to ArbCom decisions involving a controversial editor, made for my own use during the most recent arbitration in that area. (There's no easy way to search ArbCom decisions by party.) The page wasn't linked from anywhere, not even my own talk page, so it wasn't particularly visible. No request was made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for this deletion, and I was not notified, so it was an out of policy deletion. I'd like it undeleted for a few days, so I can copy the information off line. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: According to the talk page of JzG (talk · contribs), that user has retired from Wikipedia due to a family illness. --John Nagle (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't retired; he's just busy in real life. As for the page, do you need the whole thing? I don't see any problem with the links to the arbcomm cases for accessibility purposes, but I tend to agree that their combination with the quote makes it look something like a grudge page (note that I haven't read the arbcomm rulings to which JzG refers). In any event, I'd be happy to e-mail you the full contents if you enable the e-mail option). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail is fine. I was just using that page as a scratch workspace; it was never intended to be seen by others. My account is already enabled for e-mail. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

199.212.26.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – user blocked, next time report to AIV, thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

199.212.26.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continues to vandalize Centennial College (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GreenJoe (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. Nakon 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator posting personal information on WP:RFARB

At 12:13 UTC today, administrator User:JzG posted personal information (a real name) on WP:RFARB. [70] This, in my opinion, is unacceptable behavior for an admin, and I was tempted to block. However, as JzG is having personal issues at the moment and is an admin in good standing, I have brought the issue here for consensus on action to take. I would support a "warning block", especially as a "normal" (non-admin) user who did such a thing would most likely be blocked. I will email oversight-L with the diff for oversighting, if the community feels it necessary. I feel that such divulging of personal information is unacceptable, and cannot be tolerated. Thank you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he is referencing a guess rather than any actual knowledge although the distinction may not be relevant. What are the restrictions he is referring to? If he is correct that an editor would be affected by those restrictions then at least he would be justified in communicating his belief to ArbCom, albeit by e-mail. ^Avruchtalk 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Divulging a name, even speculatively, is unacceptable. Dreadstar † 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This prior discussion is what Guy was certainly alluding to. I don't see how such an allusion would merit a block (I'm not an admin fwiw), though an inline link would have helped avoid bad appearances. Antelan ^talk 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no need for a block. This is not some confidential information dug out via massive amounts of sleuthing or non-standard channels like checkuser, but simply the reflection of an informed guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)He says other people bleieve it to be the case, as a comparative to how much the editors' CoI may be obvious to editors who regularly edit the disputed pages. If those editors have already brought up their suspicions, and had them ignored, dismissed, or other conflicts relevant to the CoI, it may be relevant enough to necessitate posting. There might be better ways to deal with this stuff, but blatant POV pushing by interested parties ought to be quashed with an iron hand here. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Outing someone is not good, even if speculative. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Rlevse. An "informed guess" about a user's identity (even if the user is disruptive, and I don't know the back story here) should never be acceptable. I believe posting what is supposedly a user's real name would generally result in a block for the user who did that, correct? At the very, very least JzG should be strongly warned but a block would seem reasonable to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy did the same thing on the WP:AE on January 19th at 22.24 (UTC).[71]This is not about POV pushing. It is about attempting to revealing personal information. Divulging personal information puts me and my family in jeopardy. You guys figure out what to do with Guy. The policy is A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). He is repeatedly harassing me with his attempts to reveal personal information. This user needs to blocked. Anthon01 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like it when personal information is divulged without a user's consent. It could put him and his family in danger, and that isn't right. I'm prepared to block for at least a couple of days, if the community thinks it just. That is my personal opinion on the subject. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that we block an editor who has made no indication that he is going to repost anything for something that happened almost 8 hours ago? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I see this is Guy told an editor that he felt in real life, he was someone who had a serious COI with the article. It’s his opinion that this is the case. If someone who has an outside connection with the article, and it’s important that we get some context be revealing the persons name, I don’t see what’s wrong with it in the slighted. It’s not as if Guy found out through some secret searching and back channel communication – he’s based this off editing patterns. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Partially agree with Rayan, although it probably would have been preferable to email the arbitrators with this evidence. Addhoc (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be covered by Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information, and unless it's so plainly obvious or revealed by the person directly, generally shouldn't be done. But I can't see how a "warning block" (whatever that maybe) would help. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a superficially similar case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which a person who was meat-puppeting on behalf of Jonathan Sarfatti was associated with a private individual. I think this case is distinct.

JzG's speculation is related to suspected meatpuppetry on behalf of a user (Ilena Rosenthal) who is under arbitration committee-imposed restraint, but this time the person in question is a public individual. Zaffuto is a published author and the founder of the Humantics Foundation [72], whose current director is Ilena Rosenthal, so speculation that a person who edits the QuackWatch article in a manner similar to Rosenthal's might be Zaffuto is reasonable and germane. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My earlier post

I call people's attention to an earlier ANI post which I had, and no one looked at it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#User:198.99.32.5. Please handle this, as it appears to be an abusive sockpuppetry address, and it shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference, 198.99.32.5 (talk · contribs). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)