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

Wikignosis block for legal threat

Resolved

 – But question of disruption may remain DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked WikiGnosis (talk · contribs) for continuing to make legal threats. The latest was this edit which used a cutesy rhyming thing to try and get around the whole NLT issue. Specifically, the user had been repeatedly warned about legal threats (see his/her talk page, plus an item on Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk) so he/she described a behavior someone was doing as "starts with L, rhymes with bible". I've read this as a legal threat, and invite scrutiny of the block. I've counseled the user on his/her talk page to review WP:NLT and appeal once he/she is willing to commit to abiding by WP:NLT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good job. Chilling effects are bad. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the user had been going around deleting ANYTHING potentially critical claiming Jimbo Wales authorizes him to. This includes things that wouldn't even fall under the scope of WP:BLP. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For example [1] and [2]. Also, after checking some of his edits, I seem to recall having run across his name on AN/I before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, status change, the user would now like to appeal the unblock. If anyone has a chance to check it out, it's here. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You block him for making legal threats and the one edit you provide is merely him asking questions? There is no way that edit is a legal threat. I fully agree that it is a "travesty of interpretation of "legal threats" rule". Having said that you really just need to provide more links to his edits because he is obviously a trouble maker, but if you are going to ban him at least make it so it can stick because that reason is pretty much a joke considering what he posted.--Dacium 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia "real" world. I have no desire to work within such a dysfunctional community." I denied based on that sentence. John Reaves (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You really need to go back on that. The reason he made that statement was because of the way he was banned. If we agree he didn't make legal threat, then he wouldn't have been banned and he probably wouldn't have felt that way. And what does that comment have to do with the ban he was contesting anyway?--Dacium 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be the two main "legal threats":

"I'm very confused about how things work on Wikipedia. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users?" (diff)

"The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds." (diff)

I don't agree that these were legal threats, at least not as I understand the term "legal threats", any more than the Wikipedia policies against defamation or copyright violations are "legal threats", or than an admin's warning not to link to pirated "warez" or other blatant copyvios would be a "legal threat". A statement about the law, or about what actions break the law, is not a threat to sue or file charges; it says nothing about the writer's own intentions.

See also User talk:Chairboy#WikiGnosis block. -- Not trying to "wikilawyer", Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the above texts by WikiGnosis. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

View WikiGnosis's contributions. Nearly half of his entire contribution set says "Removing negative material per Jimbo Wales": misapplying the WP:BLP policy to remove ANY negative material, sometimes material that's not even negative (For instance, a person having cancer is apparently negative to him, as is a football player owning a restaurant after retiring from football). The argument that these statements are tantamount to libel, consistent with his prior accusation of libel, and disruptive editing, warrants a legal threat block. I close with a reiteration of one of his statements You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate in turn, Swatjester: "A polite, coherent complaint [...] is not a 'legal threat'". Stating that one is deleting material from an article about a living person (not oneself), because it was defamatory to the subject, is giving a reason in line with WP:BLP, a policy we have from Jimbo and the WMF legal counsel -- and citing that reason is not a "legal threat". If the concern's misplaced in a particular case, that's an error, but still not a threat. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has now accused the admin who reviewed and denied the unblock request of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point in this edit. This does not seem to be an editor operating in good faith, Ben. In regards to your concerns above, accusing someone of libel (which this user _has_ done) is a direct legal threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why it isn't clear to you that neither of those posts is a legal threat. Accusing someone of libel is not a legal threat, it is at best a personal attack. If he said he was going to take legal action, sue etc. then it would be a legal threat but what he said clearly isn't.--Dacium 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for violating WP:NLT when, as far as he (or I or some others) could see, he hadn't violated it. He has responded with comments including: "I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia 'real' world" and referring to this as "a dysfunctional community." His response has been cited back to him as the reason for declining an unblock. I think he's got a justified complaint. Following WP:BLP should not be a blockable offense, he had not violated WP:NLT (as the quoted sentence makes explicit), and to keep him blocked because he thinks the block's reasoning laughable (or Wikipedia dysfunctional) seems a bit pointy to me as well. Criticism of Wikipedia, its admins, or their actions is not good reason to keep someone blocked, and issuing blocks or declining unblocks for bad reasons seems to me capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive of the trust which is the foundation of any voluntary community. I myself find this incident terribly disappointing. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, your disappointment is secondary to our responsibility to protect editors from legal threats. You and I disagree on whether or not repeated accusations to the effect of "you are libeling" is a legal threat, but to characterize that as a capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive seems to be going a bit over the top. The block is not because he's critical, it's because he's made repeated oblique legal threats, something that is not tolerated. I believe you've constructed a straw man argument by suggesting that criticism of admins is why he was blocked, and I hope you'll reconsider. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WikiGnosis has been "polite" or "coherent", but I don't see that he's made any legal threats either. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. The post in question may have been trolling but I don't see a legal threat. Saying "these statements may be libelous" is no a de facto legal threat- particularly as you can't sue for the libel of someone else. I think we need to be a bit sharper on identifying legal threats, "I will sue you", "I am thinking of suing you", "withdraw that comment or I will sue you", "I am taking legal advice" type comments may all be legal threats. But I'm not convinced a legal threat was made here. In particular WikiGnosis seems to have valid concerns about the thread he refers to- Daniel Brandt (a real, living person, whatever Wikipedians may think of him) was described with very strong labels and had actions attributed to him that were in fact done by third parties. Advice to be cautious was appropriate. That said, I am unfamiliar with WikiGnosis- if he's generally around to cause trouble and has a history of trolling, I'm fine with the block. But I see no legal threat- covert or otherwise. WjBscribe 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll unblock. If the user is trolling, I'd prefer a separate block that reflects that, but consensus seems to be leaning towards the text in question not being a legal threat. I appreciate the feedback, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the aboe quotes are legal threats. i have seen others say things like "If you add that satemtn to the articel it is libel" and no one calls it a leagal threat. it my be uncivil, it may be impolite, and it may be disruptive. I haven't reviewed WikiGnosis's contributions in detail. From the above descriptions, a case could be made that he is editing disruptively. But I simply fot see "You are libeling person X" or even 'You are libeling me" as a legal threat, unless there is at least an implication of "and I will sue if you don't stop". Saying that soemone else might take legal action is not IMO a leagel threat, at least unless there is an implication that the parson saying (writing) this will urge the third party to do so. I think that the blocks for violation of WP:NLT should be lifted. if anyone wants to argue for a block for disruption, or other improiper actions, that will be another discussion, or perhaps an RFC might be the way to go. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see at least three editors who don't think this block is warrented, at least not for the reason given. I urge the blocking admin to undo the block, before someone else does. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already unblocked, you may have missed my 16:08 message above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did miss it, but I've seen it now. The matter is over for me, unless you want my assistance in dealing with trolling or disruption on the part of this user, which i will provide if you wish. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note another discussion below, different people, identical issue: #Legal threat from User:Kelly Martin. Do we need to hold a workshop on what does or does not constitute a legal threat? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, Wikignosis should be blocked for disruptive editing: if the legal threat block is lifted, I will lay a temp reblock for disruptive editing (indef would not be called for, though longer than normal would be appropriate given the user's history of being brought up here). By the way, I'm sure this workshop would go over the concept of a chilling effect, no? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the block was lifted by the blocking admin. And now you've blocked him again. I think this was somewhat premature; WikiGnosis hasn't been the most civil of users, but you have to remember that he was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet of JB196. I don't really see the reason for this block. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A one-week block for civility? After being blocked indefinitely? I'm afraid we are going to effectively run off WikiGnosis and, while my interaction with the editor has not been the best, I don't want that to happen. Other users are much less civil and don't get a one-week block. I don't endorse it. --Iamunknown 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, can I possibly be reading you right? You're blocking him now for issues prior to the block that was just lifted, not for anything he's done since that block? How is that preventative and not punitive? How do you know what he has or has not learned from the experience of the first block? I don't think this is how blocks are supposed to be used. It's quite possible someone could go through all our histories to find some flaw in our past behavior that we were never blocked for back then, and block us for it now, but that too would be punitive not preventative -- it wouldn't be directed at stopping present misbehavior. Neither is the block you've just imposed. You've pointed to no present misbehavior which must be stopped. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To a point where we run off WikiGnosis? It's reality check time: WikiGnosis is a classic instance of disruptive editing. I lifted an indef block on this probable JB196 sockpuppet/meatpuppet as a gesture of good faith because this editor claimed to want to participate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Instead of going there the user immediately came to my user page with a rude post, then followed up with resumption of the account's old borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation and insulted the project when another sysop reblocked. This account's main contribution to the project has been to misapply WP:BLP. New users don't behave this way. This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "JB196 sockpuppet" accusation was retracted. If you want to revisit that issue, or make a new accusation, please present new evidence. In any case, that was not the basis offered for the present block.

"borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation" -- the two passages discussed held no such threat; they made a valid point about accusations of crime ("stalker", "terrorist", "criminal") against a living person, that if false these are defamatory and in violation of WP:BLP. As WP:NLT#Legal complaints states explicitly, such a complaint is not a "legal threat". And why are we revisiting this issue, when this too was retracted?

"This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned." This may be obvious to you; it is not obvious to me. In the absence of some clear showing, let's consider this username's edits on their own merit, shall we? WP:BLP is supposed to be followed, and this user appears to be trying to do that. If he's doing it wrong, then show him where and how he's doing it wrong. Simply blocking him for trying to discourage defamation seems to me a very bad public message to send. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this through WP:RFCU. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ben: the original block was for the legal threat. There would have been an overlapping block for disruptive editing, however I chose not to issue it because of Naconkantari's block. Since the legal threat issue was nullified, that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited, and the 1 week block is preventative, to stop any more misapplications of BLP and other disruptive edits. By simply removing the legal threat block and not addressing the disruptive editing issue, you're basically giving him a free pass to continue being disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Naconkantari's block" ? The only blocks on this user were by Durova, Chairboy, and you.

  "that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited" -- Please specify, as you haven't yet done so here or on the user's talk page. Note Akhilleus's attempts below to guess what you're referring to; I have had no better luck.

  "misapplications of BLP" -- How and where has this user misapplied BLP? On his talk page he argues compellingly that in specific instances he properly applied BLP (and Jimbo's comment "This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight."). But if he's mistaken in how to apply policy, perhaps you could begin by explaining his error to him, then (if he continues) warning him, before proceeding to a block. Frankly, I'd like you to explain his error to me too, because I seem to have made the same error in reading WP:BLP and Jimbo's comments, so this user's edits not only seem good-faith to me, but also well-based in policy (and journalistic ethics). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be troublesome about this, but I'm still having trouble understanding the block. If "disruptive editing" means WikiGnosis' behavior after getting blocked on Apr. 19, it's natural to be irritated after being misidentified as a sock. If, on the other hand, the block is for his edits on Mar 31, when he deleted a bunch of material on BLP grounds, I have trouble seeing what the problem is. First of all, that was a month ago. Second, I'm not sure those edits qualify as "disruptive"--WikiGnosis' edit summaries are odd, but he is removing unsourced material, some of which is arguably negative or controversial--such as this edit, for example. At any rate, I don't see any discussion or warnings on WikiGnosis' talk page about those edits, and aside from one more edit on Apr. 19 I don't see that he's done any more BLP edits. So it's hard to say that WikiGnosis was about to go on a rampage.

Now, if you think he's a sock of a banned user here to troll us, I'd say either figure out who the sockmaster is, and block him on those grounds, or just wait for the checkuser to come in: WP:RFCU page on "MyWikiBiz". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh....what is with my system....I could SWEAR I saw a block from Naconkantari, which was why I applied the legalblock template......but now it seems to say Chairboy....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was looking at the block of Sdpate, who was on AIV. Irregardless, deleting that "xxx has cancer", when true, does not fall within the scope of BLP. Especially, when the rationale for removal is "Wikipedia should not be allowed to post people's medical histories, that is disgusting" (paraphrased, but accurate). So what, are we going to remove that Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons references? How about Ali's? That's just a single example of his misapplication of BLP, combined with throwing the alleged weight of Jimbo Wales' words around as if they supported his point in the slightest: they were completely taken out of context. (They were in fact related to the Daniel Brandt scenario: something this user seems to be VERY familiar with. And how many brand new editors come in and say "Oh hey, lets dive into one of the project's most vitriolic debates, especially one involving legal status and allegations of libel"? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"when true" -- or rather "when verifiable" (cited, attributed to a reliable source) -- is the critical point here. The material WikiGnosis deleted was not cited or attributed at all, so how do we know that it was "true" ? This is exactly the condition under which Jimbo and WP:BLP advise deletion of biographical information about living people. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Checkuser has come back "likely" ([3]), so I have indef blocked WikiGnosis as a sock of User:MyWikiBiz. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Likely" rather than "Confirmed", and with commentary that suggests an opinion rather than a finding? That doesn't seem like a high level of confidence. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Jpgordon to be sure, but when he says "likely" I take that to be a fairly high level of confidence--one step below confirmed. And it matches with my intuition and other users', so I blocked on that basis. I welcome review of the block, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict).....My WikiBiz....im not surprised. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, maybe we should have this discussion on a different page, but I have to agree with WikiGnosis on one point: Wikipedia shouldn't be giving out information on people's medical history unless it's sourced. We can say that Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's because many reliable sources have reported that information. But if we don't have a source saying that an obscure Japanese wrestler had colon cancer (or whatever it was) we shouldn't report it--first, because medical information should be presumed to be private unless it's been made public, and second, because it's possible that unsourced information might be false. (Of course, it's pretty easy to supply false information with a false citation.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

D'accord. And that one point is at the root of the dispute. WikiGnosis deleted unsourced contentious biographical information about living people. His doing so was in accordance with WP:BLP, and with Jimbo's even more strongly worded admonition, and with journalistic ethics. He stated his reasons, including the danger of libel. For this he was blocked twice, once for "legal threats" (which he had not uttered) and once for "disruptive editing" (which these deletions did not constitute, in my opinion). This seems to me a very bad public message to send, since it may tend to discourage others from making such entirely proper deletions. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that he was identified as a sockpuppet of a user who was banned from the project for making persistent legal threats, the issue is more to the effect of "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet who makes legal threats", not one regarding scaring folks away from BLP. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"he was identified as a sockpuppet": "Likely" but not "Confirmed". "Don't be an abusive sockpuppet"...: The deletions in question appear to have been in good faith and pursuant to WP:BLP. ..."who makes legal threats": He didn't make legal threats. Here's the passage in question again:

The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds.

That's not a legal threat, explicit or implicit or any other kind. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the wrong sort of message to send is when editors in good standing enable this sort of abuse by granting it undue attention and stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits. I've been doing complex investigations for a long time. Contact me offline if you're still confused. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the passage quoted above was not abusive. The deletions of unsourced biographical material about living people (that I've seen, and/or that have been discussed) were not abusive. As best I understand WP:BLP, or Jimbo's rather stronger statements on the topic, or the rudiments of journalistic and biographical ethics, these were entirely proper edits. On his talk page, after being blocked a second time, WikiGnosis said some things in exasperation -- and upon calming down a bit, refactored or retracted them with an apology. That's the closest I've seen to "abuse" from that user, and frankly, in my opinion it was mild given the provocation. Aside from that and the sockpuppet allegations, just looking at this user's edits (which seem to have been not only good-faith but actually in accordance with policy), I do not see the problem. Please, show me where this editor altered encyclopedia content in any unjustifiable way. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova is quite good at complex investigations: I give a lot of deference to her/his opinion in such. For the record, Ben, my issue was that he was removing things en masse with a edit sum referring to a statement by Jimbo (appeal to authority fallacy much?) made regarding WP:BLP...but the things he was removing are not NEGATIVE information. Whether someone has cancer is not negative nor is it positive. Same with whether a person owns a restaurant or hot dog stand. I fully well understand that much of what he removed was unsourced anyway. Sofixit. But BLP was not written for just blanket removing something one disagrees with: it's for removing negative information so as not to libel someone. THAT is why I allege his edits are disruptive: he is misapplying the policy. My point appears to be enhanced by the fact that he was a sockpuppet who obviously knew what he was doing was wrong.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what matters here is that this is a returning sockpuppet of a banned editor. If he wants to make a legitimate comeback to this website he can sit on the sidelines, stop generating sockpuppets, and exert a sustained demonstration of good faith. Then after an appropriate interval he could request reinstatement. Until he does that no further discussion is necessary. Durova^Charge! 07:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis uploaded his own photo of the golf course at The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And we all know that he's trustworthy, right? Even if that were true, do you have any idea how many people from pennsylvania winter in florida? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Winter in April, after Spring Break? In a retirement community, when one is neither retired nor within a decade of the minimum age? Wow, you're crediting him with a lot of advance planning, since he posted the photo as his fourth edit, long before he encountered any dispute or accusation let alone block, and had taken it even earlier. If I'm "stretching WP:AGF beyond its reasonable limits" (to borrow from up the page), what kind of stretching is this? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, this level of advance planning is trivial, and not even clever. Take a look at the date of the photograph, anyway: the timestamp doesn't tell you very much. [4] --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if I hadn't been referring to the date of the photograph, why would I have asked "Winter in April, after Spring Break?" (He posted it in March, right before he edited The Villages.) You've looked at its date; now you're saying that two years of advance planning is trivial? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt anyone took a picture in 2004 with the intention of using it on Wikipedia in 2007. On the other hand, I'm sure that thousands of people have photos from 2004, and it might strike some of them to upload those photos. If you're really nefarious, you might even alter the timestamp. If I have a point related to your comment (I'm not sure I do), it's that the date and place of the photo don't tell us much about WikiGnosis' age, place of birth, or current residence. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) block review

I have blocked Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hours for religion based hate speech directed at other users. Initially, I had blocked him for 24 hours for his hate speech and personal attack on the talk page of another user [5]. (where he lambastes the user for his (assumed) religious beliefs ("khanzeer"=pig, and harami is another derogatory curse word in Urdu). After the block ended, the user went back to making the same type of hate speech.

Note that, Yahya01 has been vandalizing various talk pages by removing project tags (for example, removing the WP Pakistan tag from the talk page of a former Minister of Pakistan), and by making similar personal attacks/hate speech via swear-words-filled edit summaries.

I request a review of this block. Feel free to unblock the user if you feel the block is not ok, but please do look into his previous blocks ... he had been blocked several times before for the exact same behavior against users of other religions. Thanks. --Ragib 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. We cannot have such racism on Wikipedia, and think that, should it be done again, it should be a much longer block. J Milburn 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of further racist comments and hate speech by the blocked user on his talk page, I have extended the block to 1 month. Please feel free to review. Thanks. --Ragib 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by banned user

Following extension of the block, Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now evading his block by using various anonymous IPs from 89.243.*.*. See this for details. I request someone else to take appropriate action immediately. Thanks. --Ragib 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further block evasion via IPs by Yahya01:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

I request an Urgent block on the offending IP ranges, as he seems to be using dynamic IPs. --Ragib 18:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And more trolling:

• [11]
• [12]

--Ragib 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Those are all dynamic IP's from Opal Telecom's DSL network, and the range of that block is 89.241.0.0-89.243.255.255; 196,608 addresses. That's a hefty rangeblock, and may not be appropriate, even on an anon basis. -- Avi 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the user keeps returning to add his racist comments and personal attacks. I don't know how such disruption can be prevented. Here are some examples of the anon's latest venom:

• [13]
• [14]

The IP's are all from Opal Telecom, UK. --Ragib 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

• [15]
• [16]

I request others to help in resolving this disruption. --Ragib 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And more:

• [17]
• [18]

--Ragib 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And even more:

• [19] --Ragib 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I give up. The banned user is making a mockery of wikipedia by jumping IPs and vandalizing User talk:Fowler&fowler 9 times so far. --Ragib 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can some protect Lahore Resolution, and Jamaat-e-Islami. This is not amusing anymore.IP198 16:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!! Is anyone listening??? How long do we have to endure hate speech like this from this IP hopping banned user? Please take action to stop the hatred spewed by this user in various talk pages. --Ragib 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First thing first: Calm. The. Hell. Down. This is a complicated situation that requires a bit more than a "fire and forget" solution; as you've noted, he's hopping from IP to IP, so we can't just block one and toss up {{resolved}}.
I'd love to help, but I'm at work right now, and as a result, I can't get involved in something this complicated until I get a lot of other stuff done first. Keep in mind that we're all volunteers, and we do stuff when we can, not when someone else demands it of us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sprotected the two articles, for now. I'm not quite sure what else can be done right now. Disruptive POV-pushing ranters on talkpages are difficult to stop when they use dynamic IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know we are all volunteers. I've been trying to stop these throwaway IPs for the last day or so, but the user has hopped through at least 10 different IPs so far. So, after some time, it becomes very frustrating ... :( Thanks. --Ragib 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus v. No Consensus 489 U.S. 153 (2007)

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the English Wikipedia. Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the English Wikipedia, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save Jimbo Wales and this Honorable Court.

Anyway, today, I present to you a simple question, with meaningful consequences due to the high profile of the article. As you may be aware, there is controversy regarding the inclusion of a "See Also" link to the Virginia Tech massacre on the articles for Glock 19 and Walther P22 (the firearms involved in the shooting). I don't argue here the reasoning for the content: instead, I question the proper way to apply consensus, or lack thereof.

In the Glock 19 article, there is no question: consensus is to remove the information, bada bang, bada bing, end of story. However in the Walther P22 article, there is no consensus: it is split down the middle: it's about 16 editors against inclusion and 13 for inclusion. How then, to apply this lack of consensus? It is obviously not going to be changing. What then, is the correct action to take? For instance at AFD no consensus typically means the article is kept. RFA, no consensus means that the request is denied, same for RFAR.

So, in this case, what does "No consensus" mean in terms of action? (yay for forgetting to sign:) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, concensus was not achieved at the Glock 19 article, and the issue of whether the link belong applies just as much to the Glock 19 as the Walther P22 article. Will somebody please help unravel this knot? Griot 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As ridiculous as it may seem, I suggest to adjudicate the two cases separately. For the article with consensus to delete the link, delete it, and for the article with no consensus, keep it. I consider content disputes about the inclusion of a link, section etc. to be miniature AFDs, such that the rules of thumb for AFD consensus apply.

I recall a few months ago that there were two AFD debates, one about "list of menu items at McDonalds" and the other about "Burger King." McDonald's got kept and Burger King got deleted, for reasons I will never understand, and the deletion was upheld at DRV. Such is life. YechielMan 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IANAL but I guess that since the onus is on the person who wants to include information to justify it, a lack of consensus in this case means that the information stays out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Put up a content RFC and get more community input (see WP:RFC). This doesn't sound like it needs intervention. 75.62.7.22 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't an intervention request...it was a request for policy clarification. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is already the result of an RFC.

What we are dealing with is an addition of content. If there is no consensus for this addition of content, then the default is that the content is not added. The article remains at its state prior to the incident. Full disclosure: I have been arguing this already on the article talk page, but I think it's a reasonable approach for any similar situation. ··coelacan 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see that point of view. I think it may depend on how long the content has been there, but for a recent addition, a no-consensus can default to delete. I have no problem with that. YechielMan 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus to remove the data from the 2nd article, they it should remain in the see-also section. THe first should be removed as there is nothing to 'see-also' Pretty clear cut (despite the fact that both appear to be the same thing the community have spoken!)--Dacium 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacium, it would appear that coelacan's version is the correct timeline...the article started without the information. It was controversially added, and then removed. Therefore, no consensus defaults to "remove" am I right, because that was the original state before the addition. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the history of discussion at these articles, you will see that including a mention of the VT massacre at the Glock 19 and Walther P22 articles was a compromise. There was much objection to mentioning the massacre in the main article, and a compromised was reach whereby it would be mentioned in the See Also section. Now editors have attacked this compromise. Please, let's stick with the compromise as arranged in the original debate. Griot 16:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a fair assessment, considering that the new editors showed up after the RFC (their opinions were sought) and your underlying assumption seems to be that only those people who "got there first" should have a say about an article. ··coelacan 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I second coelacan's argument. While I personally believe the issue addresses a larger issue (as I elaborated in the P22 talk page), the previous status quo seems more appropriate in this case. I disagree with Dacium--there was no consensus on a compromise.--Dali-Llama 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was originally no clear consensus on whether or not to include any mention in the Walther P22 article when it was first proposed. Revert wars ran back and forth. I then started an RfC, inviting all participants that had commented in the discussion, regardless of their position previously, to weigh in, on whether or not to include information, in a formal RfC, and the end was no consensus with about a 50:50 split. To eliminate the revert war, it was then proposed that a See also mention be inserted into the article, linking to the Virginia Tech massacre. For the good of Wikipedia, I along with 3 or 4 others who were originally opposed to inclusion of a mention in the main article, agreed to this, and in my case, I agreed to this ONLY if a consensus neither way could be reached (relative to the main article). That arrangement was stable for only about a day and a half. This compromise did not stand, with users favoring inserting or deleting a full mention canvassing votes favourable to their position and sending people to the talk page. (See, for example, Griot's soliciting votes.) Personally, I believe that no mention should be made, as there is no consensus to insert this information. However, this is a very volatile subject, and there is a bigger picture to consider for the good of Wikipedia; hence, compromise seems best suited to eliminate the 3RR violations, editor blocks, and continued edit warring. Although it is not something I prefer, I could live with a see also link, in the absence of any clear consensus, just to prevent having to run the article continuously semi-protected or full-protected. However, this link should not include references, nor any commentary, and should not be anything other than being just a link. By all logic, there should be no mention. But, this issue is not about logic but is about emotion related to a criminal act that is not even in the same category of article as a firearm article, and a decision based solely on logic is not likely to stand with the emotional volatility that is evident. Hence, to avoid future problems, a simple link is probably about the best compromise. Is it right? No. But will it work? Probably. Yaf 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slow down. You guys are all completely missing the point of my question: In this case, what action does "no consensus" correlate to: Does it correlate to removing the information and leaving the article the way it was before the VT shootings, or does it correlate to leaving the material in? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I just semi-protected (and will full protect if it continues) for 2 days - The most recent edit warring was over a new topic, whether to put a POV tag on the article or not, which had no talk page discussion at all. As I have commented in-thread in the talk page and have an opinion, I invite uninvolved admin review, but I believe that this most recent dust-up qualifies as semi-sterile edit war, and that the freeze is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New sockpuppets of VinceB

I would like to ask for an administrative intervention against two new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter VinceB (talk · contribs). Odbhss (talk · contribs) and Pannonia (talk · contribs) appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test[20]) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead.[21] Since VinceB is a prolific creator of sockpuppets, I would like also to ask a more general question what is the most efficient way to deal with them. Should we post them at WP:ANI or we need an answer from CheckUser each time? Thank you in advance Tankred 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP of VinceB's range and POV has just appeared.[22]. Since all the IPs of the range 195.56. have been proven to be sockpuppets of the banned VinceB so far, I would like to ask to block 195.56.224.252 (talk · contribs) as well. Tankred 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another evasion of a ban, with the same IP range and the same POV: [23] I suggest someone blocks 195.56.207.50 too. Well, if anyone finds this requests. Tankred 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A new one: 195.56.51.196.[24] Tankred 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post here. The fact that VinceB self-identified through an IP sockpuppet at my user page and asked other editors to run a checkuser certainly raises my eyebrow. At the very least that demonstrates he's watching the situation closely. In general, when a problem editor goes out of his or her way to solicit checkuser it's because they've set up some meatpuppets that they're certain will pass that test. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning re: Homosexual agenda

This post is to complain about an administrator, User:Nandesuka. I have informed her on her talk page about this complaint.

Around a week ago, I added an unsourced statement to this article. A few days ago, it was deleted, and I made 4 reverts to this article during a 2-day period. I do not wish to discuss the content dispute here as I believe this is not the appropriate place. Nevertheless, explanations of the situation can be found on the talk pages of me, her, and the article in question.

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say [25]:

Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page [26]:

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning.

I believe this warning to be improper. It violates policy at least in spirit to block over this, as it is long-established that this is not vandalism and that unilateral blocks are almost always appropriate only for simple vandalism.

Nandesuka has not meaningfully responded to my criticisms of her action.

The warning is an attack on my honor and I request that it be withdrawn. The way, the truth, and the light 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a good warning to me - from a quick skim other editors had already discussed with you in detail why that information was unsuitable. Good move by that admin to stop a possible edit war. --Fredrick day 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is not meant to be about the content dispute itself. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You readded the same unsourced information about 10 times. That is edit warring. The warning wasn't abusive. IrishGuy ^talk 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted just 4 times after it was deleted, as I said above. For my justification see User talk:Nandesuka. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Six times you added a link to Pederasty as well as the sentence It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty. The other four times you merely added the sentence. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed that it was resolved as of Apr 23. I had not received any warnings, and 3 users had endorsed the information's inclusion. That is why I started my complaint with the Apr 27 deletion, after which I made only 4 reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Who might these 3 users be? Based on the talk page, I am only seeing one, Orthologist. My point stands, 10 times you continued to add unsourced information (you even admitted that it was unsourced on the talk page) that was removed by others. How is that not edit warring? IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other users edited my statement without removing it, I was counting those in the 3. I did revert 10 times in all, but the two periods should be considered different incidents for the reason I gave above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. One added a citation tag, the other added a tag for weasel words. Neither of those actions would be termed "endorsements". IrishGuy ^talk 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify re-adding a statement you say yourself is unsourced? Complaining about an admin "attacking your honor" is not going to help you here. JuJube 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said twice now, this is not the place to discuss the disputed content. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you're wasting our time. JuJube 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of the article is at the article's talk page, where I have just made another reply. The way, the truth, and the light 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. The warning was related to the content. If we are going to discuss the warning, then we have to discuss the content that led to the warning. If we cannot discuss the content, then we cannot discuss the warning, and this thread shall be closed. ··coelacan 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for having policies is to distinguish arguments over process from arguments over content. I did describe here the actions leading up to the warning, and you are welcome to expand/comment on that. But we are not here to rehash all the argument that should be made on the article talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pedantic. Your complaint is that someone "attacked your honor" for warning you about edit warring against consensus. This could only be a valid complaint if you were not edit warring against consensus. It is already a long-established consensus on Wikipedia that if you are going to add contentious content to an article, it had better be well sourced. You added your unsourced original research and complained here about being warned for it. To investigate your complaint, we must decide whether the warning was a valid one, and the substance of the warning regards disputed content. So you can't divide the process from the content (which is why we have processes regarding content, by the way). In any case, no one here seems to agree with you that we must evaluate this on your terms. I suspect that if I haven't made myself clear to you yet, there's no point in explaining further. ··coelacan 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Edit warring' is a pejorative term and I prefer to avoid such terms if possible. I never intended to keep reverting forever, and indeed was about to stop when given the warning, as I saw that it wasn't getting anywhere at the time. As far as process versus content, Wikipedia can keep the peace only by dividing the two. It's true that we are having this discussion because of the content, but I never attempted to defend it on this thread. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, comment aimed at TW,TT,ATL) Yet it was still unsourced. You were edit warring, adding something that could be deemed to be libellous, and not providing sources. That is disruption. The warning was fair- the fact that the editor was uninvolved is a good sign they were not biased in the matter; it would not be good practice to warn someone which whom you were, at that time, in a content dispute with. J Milburn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to wonder if anybody who uses the handle "The way, the truth, and the light" could ever be anything but contentious. Corvus cornix 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now blocked TWTTATL for disruption, specifically for his repeated editing of other user's comments on the talk page. Diffs are on the block notice on his talk page. Nandesuka 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. If someone disagrees with someone else's edits on a talk page, they should rebut them, not remove them. When the edits are links regarding the editor in question's previous disruptive behavior, that's even more reason not to remove them. And then revert warring over it? Yes, if a block is what it takes to stop that, then block. ··coelacan 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove edits on the talk page, only edit them without changing the meaning. Please don't make assumptions about whay you don't know yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good block too, she's shown herself to be perfectly willing to waste admin's time on silly nonsense like protecting her honor (I suspect this person's a female... gut feeling). I really don't think anything good's going to come out of this. JuJube 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am male. I would much prefer to be left alone, rather than 'waste admins' time'. Finally, the main part of your post says that complaining about admin actions warrants a block. No comment is needed there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet enforcement requested on Barbara Schwarz's latest

Puppet User:MountainClimber of Barbara Schwarz, diff Anynobody 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this was resolved: block log. This can be archived to thin the noticeboard down a bit. Anynobody 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD overload again

Just look at the sad, sad size of the CFD category. It's starting to remain at consistently high levels for days at a time. I say we figure out who the top ten non-admin RC patrollers by edits are and give them all adminship. We are missing a huge number of CSDs that are falling through the cracks that were tagged, not acted on for awhile, and then eventually untagged by their creators. --Cyde Weys 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See overkill. x42bn6 Talk 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is possibly overkill about granting adminship to the people who need it most, and would use it to the benefit of the encyclopedia by getting rid of crap before it slips through our fingers? --Cyde Weys 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them might have bad userboxes. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So we delete their userpages first. Big deal. We still need help clearing out CAT:CSD. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They might even not be endorsed by Wikiprojects. Bad idea. --W.marsh 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This conversation makes me laugh. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, Elkman. =) I'm all for going with Cyde's suggestion. More admins is almost never a bad idea. ♠PMC♠ 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What will we use to judge their spelling if we delete their userpages? Frise 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of the backlog, I just knocked off about 50 articles. I'd encourage admins to use the Pywikipediabot framework and speedy_delete.py. It really makes quick work of CAT:CSD. alphachimp 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay, someone is using my bot! I'm happy. --Cyde Weys 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is people with image experience. The articles are being deleted at a slow rate, yes, but it's the images that are always backlogged the most because no one seems to want to touch them. Metros232 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick, and subsequently feel like shit and don't want to do anything. Clearing out a bit of backlog is about all I can do right now. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't often deal with images because a system has yet to be devised to make image deletions fast and easy. The one tool that helps with images (made by martinp23) is too slow for any long term use. alphachimp 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind doing images, except that removing them from articles is cumbersome. Not everyone does that, I guess. I'm writing a play right now and I shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but I'll get to the backlog later tonight, I guess, if it's that bad... Grandmasterka 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea of identifying people who do a diligent, accurate job on RC or RP patrol (or any of the other mundane but important tasks) and speaking to them about considering adminship is a good one. (I do emphasize accurate because when I've reviewed CSD'd pages recently, I've found myself declining about one tag in five.) Newyorkbrad 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of incorrect tagging recently, particularly with A7. Perhaps the wording on the tag or on WP:CSD needs to be clarified or strengthened. Natalie 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just speedily deleted an image that had been tagged for a day-and-a-half. I'm thinking about opening an image-coaching project, and perhaps an admin backlog contest. Hmm... Grandmasterka 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of blocking, placing on probation, desysopping, et cetera we should issue penances of backlogs. John Reaves (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL... That would be great, if we could enforce it. Anyway, I have a small thing going at User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest. Feel free to comment. Grandmasterka 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could make WP:CSD more non-sysop friendly, like encouraging non-sysops to go through the list and changing/removing incorrect tagging, to remove invalid hangons (is that allowed?), etc. x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not only allowed, that is appreciated. Go for it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let anyone know who hasn't seen it, my script makes the "Reason for Deletion" with CSD stuff much easier. Here you go. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If only it let me delete images faster. Anyone got a script that shows the license without having to scroll past 1000x1000 images? Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, a tool which automatically removes the deleted images from the articles. Or does that maybe exist? Hope, hope. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin's wonderful NPWatcher automatically orphans images while deleting them. AWB works nicely as well, albeit a bit less automatic. Sean William 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit

ResolvedNothing happened. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User is promoting hatred and violence (see here, moved later to his user talk by Petri Krohn). User Roobit has a history of improper edits and personal attacks, as can be seen from messages on his talk page. DLX 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed it. I don't see anyone promoting hatred or violence. Maybe you can quote something specific for us? I'm not going to dig through that whole essay to see where the problems you perceive are. This is the user's only edit here in quite a while; hardly an ongoing problem. Why didn't you contact the user instead of taking this complaint directly to ANI? ··coelacan 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... calling Estonians Nazis/Ethnonazis, pushing political/hatred agenda ("Don’t buy anything in Estonia. Don't do any kind of business with Estonian companies and organizations. Don't invest in Estonian stocks. Don't travel to Estonia as a tourist. If you are American, write to your representative in the House of Representatives and ask why is the government wasting your tax dollars on support of Estonian Nazis? Demand that Estonia is kicked out of NATO before it becomes a liability to America and the rest of the world."), promoting lies (pretty much everything he says about Bronze Soldier is a lie), posting inappropriate material to Wikipedia talk pages.

Why didn't I contact him? Because last time I did that (outside Wikipedia, though), I got called names and threatened with violence ("We'll kill you and your family, you Nazi pig"). So I've stopped trying to talk with them and instead will try to notify people who are responsible for enforcing Wikipedia rules. DLX 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The content has been moved off the article talk page. I'll leave a note not to put it back there. It's off-topic. But seriously, it doesn't read quite like you're making it out to read. The user is saying that there are Nazis in Estonia, not that all Estonians are Nazis. I for one am not going to block anybody over one single off-topic post that doesn't exactly make the sweeping generalizations you're suggesting it does. ··coelacan 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'll note that now that you're asked for quotes, you show nothing that "promotes violence". Honestly, this was already handled when Petri Krohn moved it off the article talk page. This is not the complaints department. Please make an effort to resolve these very minor issues with other editors before bringing them to ANI. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just strictly as a comment - try substituting "Estonians" with "Jews", "Estonia" with "Israel" etc. Would you still agree afterwards, that the message is peaceful and harmless? All nations and nationalities should be treated equally. DLX 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am partly to blame, for posting the translation of the declaration of the Army of Russian Resistance. That declaration however had a good reason for being on the page, as we were discussing the sources and reliabiliy of the Kavkaz Center article and the authenticity of the message. The authentiticity issue is again important in deciding whether to mention it on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. -- Petri Krohn 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo, Ward Churchill, Alan Cabal

Jayjg has blocked these three articles based on biased reasoning. He claims that he is only blocking these articles to prevent edit waring, but he all but admited on my talk page that he specifically disagreed with my edits. He's pretending to be neutral so that he can block the articles after my edits have been reverted by some other user. This to me is wikistalking.

Case in point the Alan Cabal article. I have been involved with that article for less than a day and have only reverted another users edits one time and after that he blocked and claimed it was because of edit waring. It is my belief that he is going to any article I contribute too an then blocking it after my edits get reverted in order t prevent me from editing the article.

In regards to the Kurt Nimmo article he refuses to lift the ban even though the issue origianlly under contention has been resolved. He won't unblock it because he doesn't want me to edit other parts of the article, which I thought I had the right to do.

I am asking the Wikipedia Admin. to undo Jayjgs blocks on these articles. annoynmous 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He refuses to unblock the Kurt Nimmo article even though the original issue under contention has been settled.

He blocked the Alan Cabal article even though I had only reverted another users edit once. How is that edit waring.

He blocked the Ward Churchill article even though there were other editors who agreed with my position.

On my talk page he admited he blocked the articles because he disagreed with me, not because of edit waring. Shouldn't there be some punishement for giving a false reason for blocking an article.

He convientely blocks the articles just after my version of the article has been reverted. He never perserves my version. If this truly was about edit waring don't you think he'd perserve my version once in a while. This feels like a covert way of preventing me from contribting. annoynmous 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note to whoever looks at this, but "he" is referring to Jayjg ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: What do these articles have in common? Have you tried a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP? Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? ··coelacan 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Annonymous was edit-warring on them. You guessed, didn't you? Guy (Help!) 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, okay, but I was trying to squeeze something a little more substantial out of annoynmous. ··coelacan 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Jayjg was using the false pretense of edit warring when he was really blocking them because of a bias he had against me. Under these circunstances I think the articles should be unblocked.annoynmous 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does the Alan Cabal article count as edit warring when I only reverted one edit. Doesn't that need to go along for a little longer before it's called edit warring. annoynmous 07:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we don't usually do unblocking here. There's a place for it. WP:RFPP has a section about unblocking. Why don't you go there and try to make a neutrally-worded request that doesn't involve a complaint about Jayjg, and you might get what you want. BUT! As I asked before: Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? If there aren't substantive answers to these questions, the articles won't be unblocked. ··coelacan 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, it has already been rejected at WP:RFPP, there is no discussion on the Talk: pages, and there does not appear to be any sort of consensus that I can ascertain. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wait, you're telling me that there IS a cabal? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eleven accounts created 15 months ago

Resolved

Background

On January 19, 2006, 11 new user accounts were created in relative quick succession. They are listed below, preceded by the time of the accounts' creation.

• 09:53 Fallingred (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Presidentkennedy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Lilpixie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Katz* (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:53 Charlenecumberbatch (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:54 Wardie (talk · contribs · logs)
• 09:55 Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:03 Kirank (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:08 Aranshoker (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Kirandhesi1 (talk · contribs · logs)
• 10:09 Harpzbrahm (talk · contribs · logs)

Commonalities

1. All 11 accounts were created within 17 minutes of each other between 09:53 and 10:09.
2. All 11 accounts were listed as participants in WikiProject PKPhilosophy by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) at 10:40 (see diff).
3. All 11 accounts were welcomed by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) within 6 minutes of each other between 10:44 and 10:49.
4. 10 of the 11 accounts have 0 or 1 preserved edits, made on January 19, 2006. The only exception is Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs), who has 8 preserved edits, of which 7 were made on January 19 (to the userpage).

Comments

Now, the manner in which I have presented the information above should make it quite clear that I suspect the 11 accounts to have been created by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs), especially in light of the fact presented in point 2. However, the creation of the accounts does not seem to fall under any of the "forbidden uses of sock puppets" listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Judging from the preserved edit history only, the 11 accounts made no votes, were not used to "avoid scrutiny", did not create disruption, and were not used to circumvent policy. That said, the creation of the accounts also does not fall under any of the 5 "legitimate uses of multiple accounts" listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The only purpose for the accounts that I can see is to create the impression that Wikipedia:WikiProject PKPhilosophy is an active WikiProject; what end that serves, I'm not sure.

Note: I have tagged the various user pages for proposed deletion and have started a deletion discussion for the WikiProject (see here).

Since Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) is mostly inactive since December 2006 (see here), I see no point in requesting a clarification on his talk page. So, in short, I bring this to the community's attention so that a proper course of action may be chosen. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably should post this on WP:RFCU, for confirmation. Anynobody 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Davidkinnen said he was a teacher, and the Wikiproject is connected to what he said was his school, this may well have been a case of a teacher inviting some of his students to sign up for some (not terribly well thought out) scheme of on-wiki classwork. The edits by the Biggsy accounts do look like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Looks like a school project of some sort. Frise 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh ... that makes sense. Given the harmless nature of the accounts, I don't think submitting a checkuser request is needed. I guess this turned out to be a non-issue after all. Thanks for your clarifications everyone. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser data for activity that old is long gone. 75.62.7.22 07:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers ownership issues

There are some serious ownership issues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit (suggestions for an alternative forum to raise such ownership issues welcome). Andy Mabbett 10:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I rather thought that the point' of WikiProjects was to provide some sort of "officially-sanctioned ownership" of articles in order to keep a sense of order and continuity? Maybe you can direct me to where I am mistaken? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This does not require admin intervention. Moreschi ^Talk 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone holding a strong opinion in that debate, you have a vested interest. Andy Mabbett 11:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this may well be more about the attempt by Wikiproject biographies to WP:OWN every bio in existence - and stick hideous ugly standard boxes on them. But then, I could be wrong.--Doc^g 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. Moreschi ^Talk 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As indeed, you are. Regardless of the merits or problems with infoboxes, referring to another editor as a "guest" on a set of pages is unacceptable; as are other comments of a similar nature in that debate. Andy Mabbett 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That much is true; there is a definite WP:OWN violation here. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the debate, and the language was certainly infelicitous, but Andy Mabbett's comments were inadvisable and needlessly contentious in the context of a project page that caters to editors with a common interest in writing about composers. Righteously bandying policy around and making accusations against other editors, impugning their motives, etc..., (many of whom have put in an extraordinary amount of effort on the various composer pages) was bound to elicit a reaction of frustration. The editors at the composer project certainly know they don't own composer articles. In its context, the comment was clearly borne out of exasperation. Taking this to ANI is somewhat inflammatory in the context of the discussion. A break from involvement in the debate might be a good idea. Eusebeus 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with Kleinzach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he has exhibited WP:OWN issues in spades before. Not least was his repeated ad nauseum claim that WikiProject Biography shouldn't tag opera-related articles, one reason for this was that it encourages rock fans to edit them! :) I believe that a thorough examination of this editor's contribs (particularly at WIkipedia talk and user talk) would show it wasn't an isolated incident or as innocent as you think. The editor in question plainly believes that his WikiProject should have sole scope over these articles. --kingboyk 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is the sole instance of WP:OWN being referenced here, I take back my comment and offer an apology. My suspicion is that the accusation is intended to address the general tenor of the debate, which impugns the intent of many other editors and that is not acceptable. Eusebeus 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please rephrase. --kingboyk 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeing your initial report beyond the statement: There are some serious ownership issues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit. That is the comment to which my reaction was directed. Eusebeus 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought my initial report (about which you, Eusebeus, failed to AGF), was perfectly clear - there are multiple breaches of OWN, including but not limited to the one I cited. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with Eusebeus, but may I point out that no adminstrative action is, as of yet, required to address the actions of anyone, and that this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion? Doubtless Kleinzach is not perfect, but then no one is, but he is a very valuable contributor who has done a huge amount of good for Wikipedia,so AGF. This is a bit of a blind alley from the real issues at hand. Moreschi ^Talk 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone might be able to explain to me whether I am to consider myself a "guest" or whether I may edit in these topic areas? Is one invited to do so or must one have an established presence in the subject? If so, then what policies are to be followed and what are not? How does one stop being a guest? Is there a test to pass or something? Must I follow the policies of the composers project when aditing articles about classical composers and related subjects? Or should I follow sitewide policy. This is very confusing and I'm not at all sure what to do now. I wrote a new article today about an Offenbach Opera that no one had done before, but I wasn't sure what to do and whether what I had done was right. Gretab 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification for you: there is no sitewide policy concerning these infoboxes. They are entirely voluntary and not mandated by anything or anyone. Moreschi ^Talk 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is none. His accusation was unacceptable in my eyes (as a normal editor anyway). You're within your rights to contribute -- productively -- to the discussion and make any edits you see fit provided they follow policy (and if they happen to go against consensus, should be reverted with a note as such). As for User:Kleinzach, I don't know him, but in light of the words, I am not surprised to find that he is indeed the same one who made this edit (with the resultant talk here ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the discussion has become unfocused here a bit. If Andy Mabbett's complaint is that Kleinzach referred to editors as "guests" of a body of articles, then I, and probably most others, would agree with him without reservation about ownership issues. As I understand it, though, the larger point was that a group of editors, regularly involved in Composer's bio pages, discussed the value of the boilerplate infobox that the bio group likes to put on pages and found it generally wanting with respect to specific issues pertinent to composers. The subsequent debate leans overwhelmingly in favour of not using such boxes. Because that debate largely involves people who are connected to the composer's project and because the consensus against infoboxes was formed within that community, they were accused of "owning" composer articles. That is simply not true; to bandy accusations of ownership around is disingenuous. Obviously a group of people who are actively involved in a specific area are going to have issues and viewpoints that exist simply as a function of that involvement. The slap-happy infobox taggers at the bio project should be sensitive to that. Eusebeus 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed a stronger case of WP:OWN might be lodged at the door of Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Wikipedia. Might we hear his thoughts on that particular aspect of this matter? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Go look at the contribs as I suggested. The editor in question feels he has the right to prevent others from editing "his" WikiProject's articles or talk pages. That's OWNership. WikiProject Biography doesn't do that so you're way off the mark there. --kingboyk 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what Eusebeus and Phil have said. WP:OWN is a much wider issue and I strongly object to projects like WP:WPBIO trying to force their poorly-designed infoboxes everywhere indiscriminately. The composer bioboxes were particularly bad as they caused basic distortions of fact. Factual accuracy is essential for an encyclopaedia, infoboxes are not. --Folantin 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, while perhaps not the original intention of this report, it does bring to light what Folatin, Eusebeus, and Phil have said in relation to WP:OWN and wikiprojects. This is something I've been noticing more of lately; members of wikiprojects at least insinuating on talkpages that they somehow have more right to edit their project topics than non-project editors or using their project numbers to stuff AfDs. It is not a helpful trend.--Isotope23 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Mabbett and his pals at WikiProject Biography who have decided to assert "ownership" over every single biographical article on Wikipedia.". Your accusations are unfounded (if not, cite evidence) and yorur tone unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, you totally misrepresent the complaint raised here. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? Are you stating that your problem is limited to Kleinzach's comment about guests? In which case, you will get no argument here. Or do you have a wider issue? In which case, could you link to the specific comments you find objectionable and iterate your reasons for finding them unacceptable? Eusebeus 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The fightback starts here.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect that's not a very helpful statement. The issue is perceived statements of WP:OWNership. It's fine to debate and reject infoboxes, it's not fine to say "you're not editing because I don't like your edits" or, even worse, "we don't want pimply pop music fans editing our articles". If they feel that way (and I can provide a diff to show this was said (minus the "pimply" bit), they can go to another wiki! --kingboyk 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, project perceived ownership is the issue here; not infoboxes.--Isotope23 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this a WP:OWN problem? Show of hands: who hasn't seen stuff five times worse than that diff on an average page? "The box wars are hot" is an understatement. "We should finish the template box debate" would be nice. "People get worked up about this" is a truism. "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported. "You are a guest" is the "own" thing? Ok, so that's one person with an opinion. Other people have other opinions. Geogre 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"How is this a WP:OWN problem?" - read WP:OWN, and the cited diff.

" "This particular page shows WP:OWN violations from one person" doesn't seem supported" Hence "exemplified by (but not limited to) this edit".

Andy Mabbett 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so this is about boxes? Good grief! Boxes are imminently foolish when they're applied by fools or when they are designed by fools. They are wholly inappropriate as a "must" on anything. The only truly consistent people are the dead, and I would argue that they're not consistent, either. In fact, a standardized anything works only when we are absolutely sure that all elements of the series have absolutely defined common points of importance. It's fair to have a blanket rejection of boxes for biographies (as I do), because it's fair to believe (as I do) that no two lives are alike and no two people can be reduced to any common points of importance. It's fair to tell the templateers to go away, as what they're doing is not editing the article but dressing it. Putting a decal on your bumper does not make you an automotive engineer. Geogre 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Oh, so this is about boxes? " No; it's about ownership. Andy Mabbett 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, it's about conflicting OWNership, then. That's the problem. Boxes are not good or bad: they're GIGO. However, when WikiProjectX asserts control of all articles written under a particular subject matter, that is an assertion of OWNership, too. If two WP:OWN violations meet, we have problems. I think the impulse behind "we have a project that claims this article, so you must now have the following qualities placed here" causes conflicts across the project, and, of course, "I wrote it, so it's mine" does, too. The problem is that I see the edge going to the people who have worked on the content, and I regard boxes and templates as non-content contributions. Therefore, even if the content folks were ill humored and acid tongued, we're not really at the level of a WP:OWN violation -- just regular boorishness in the face of a conflict. Geogre 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"it's about conflicting OWNership, then." No. Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Geogre. Bioboxes were an ill-conceived disaster from the start. Take Philidor, for instance, who was equally famous as a chess champion and a composer. Somebody has put him in the chess master biobox. Does someone now come along and add a composer biobox below? Or Ignacy Paderewski, still mercifully free from the box straitjacket. He was a composer, a concert pianist and a prime minister of Poland. Do we fill his page with three infoboxes? Or do we create a special, one-off Composer/Pianist/Premier version? Yet some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier. --Folantin 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They also seem rather ill-disposed to discussion to boot. (The Paderewski example is judicious). Eusebeus 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, per Who OWNS what?, talk of "organised resistance" and "trolling" are certainly not helpful, and do not indicate a willingness to work towards consensus. Nor does talk of "BOX fascists". Andy Mabbett 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"some of the people complaining about WP:OWN here apparently want to make bioboxes obligatory on all biographical articles to make automated data-parsing easier": Do you have any evidence to support that remarkable allegation, or is it just another failure to mention breach of WP:AGF ? Andy Mabbett 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this discussion [27] between you and another user entitled "Why is persondata separate to infobox" isn't entirely irrelevant. You answer the other editor's objection "This would require every biography to have an infobox, which many editors are opposed to" by saying "I would question why they're opposed, and whether they're perhaps putting personal (aesthetic?) preferences before the convenience of users. That said, perhaps, one day, it might be possible for user preferences to include a 'do not display infoboxes" option, like the current "do not show TOCs' option". That's rather propietorial (although you do generously admit that one day it might just be possible to have a page without an obligatory biobox). Also, it's worth remembering some editors have personal preferences for things like factual accuracy. --Folantin 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by those comments, which neither prove your earlier claim, nor your new allegation of being "propietorial". Andy Mabbett 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think planning to impose infoboxes on every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not conflicts with WP:OWN then? OK. --Folantin 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think yet another false insinuation is unhelpful - nobody is "planning to impose infoboxes" on anything, much less on "every single biographical article whether other editors want them or not". Perhaps you might kindly refrain from inventing such things? Andy Mabbett 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Woot hoot, this is actually quite funny. It doesn't matter who ownes what. Nobody is really explicitly claiming to own anything. The point is that these boxes are a joke. Again and again they have promoted inaccurate information, and such a simplified view of matters that the aura they project is misleading. I mean, check out this monster. His "associated act" was apparently the Pittsburgh Symphony. Right. This is not, by far, the only example: there are plenty worse.

This isn't about ownership. This is about inaccurate and oversimplified information being removed. Anyone can do that, WikiProject or no. I've tried to help out GretaB, so if there was any bad fallout from Kleinzach's remark, I've believe that's been dealt with. At any rate, these infoboxes, where they are inaccurate, are being removed and will continue to be removed. That is supported by consensus and, more importantly, the fact that Wikipedia must be accurate at all costs, regardless of whether the boxen make data-parsing easier or whatever. For future reference, it's not a good idea to apply boxen intended for those working within the tradition of more popular music to "classical" composers, and vice versa. Like applying a country infobox to a philosopher. You will have problems with accuracy and lack of NPOV definition. Moreschi ^Talk 20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I believe that issue has been dealt with. I've tried to clarify matters to GretaB, and Isotope23 has left a message on Kleinzach's talk. Fair enough. It may be worth noting that he was probably referring to GretaB not quite getting the fairly deep-seated issues at hand: I've also tried to clarify that. Incidentally, several people here have expressed a distaste for the lack of consideration in the mass application of infoboxes. Is there anything else you want done? If not, I can go back to removing more misleading and useless boxes. Moreschi ^Talk 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Andy Mabbett's response strikes me as galling hubris. A group of editors who have committed a lot of time to improving composer and composer-related articles have concluded after open debate that the bio-project infoboxes are ineffective for composers. Andy aired his view in their forum. They disagreed, expansively explaining why. In lieu of accepting the issues raised, he instead bring the issue up - very inappropriately - as an administrative matter. Ridiculous. Eusebeus 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you completely misrepresent me. You also ignore the other, uninvolved, editors who agree that that there have been "ownership" issues; and the fact that one of the editors concerned has acknowledged, and rightly apologised for, his inappropriate behaviour. Andy Mabbett 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, so time to move on now I think. As Moreschi notes, the issue has been settled. Eusebeus 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'll leave the difficult task of interpreting Andy's comments and behaviour "correctly" to others if they are so inclined. There's nothing more to be said here. --Folantin 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice also that no one seems to have even informed Kleinzach that this discussion was going on. It's completely inappropriate to start talking ill of a user without telling him or her that the discussion is going on. Heimstern Läufer 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good morning (I'm on a different timezone here). I have written to Gretab directly (also on the Composers Project page) to say that my comment about her being a "guest" was inappropriate. I've withdrawn what I said. The last thing I wanted to do was to personalize a difficult issue - not just of the problematic infoboxes - but about the way the different projects relate to each other. I had intended to avoid getting involved in the increasingly ill-tempered tail end of the Composers Project discussion, and I should have trusted my better instincts. --Kleinzach 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the note and the invitation to join the Opera project. However, in exploring the project further, I came across this comment concerning naming a category of opera in German. Could you please explain what the word "interlopers" means in this context? Who are the "interlopers" here? Gretab 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've already explained to you directly, I didn't make this comment and I don't have anything to say about it. --Kleinzach 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from the context that "interlopers" refers to operas rather than editors. "German Romantic opera" is a very specific category. Some well-meaning users might be tempted to add items to the category which don't belong there (merely because they are German and involve romantic love, say). GuillaumeTell, the editor who made the remark, is suggesting that calling the category "Romantischen Opern" will prevent this confusion and stop people mistakenly adding the wrong operas ("interlopers") to the category. --Folantin 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, GT, is clearly referring to operas being added to silly cateogries rather than people. Moreschi ^Talk 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What a lot of ink and ire spilled over box/not-box. Can't we leave it up to the editors of the individual articles to decide whether they need a box or not? Boxes work in some situations (cricketer biographies, for example, are almost always improved by a box, as it moves the stats into one place, neatly) but not others, particularly people whose "facts" are not well established or disputed. It is just as bad to insist that no article should have a box as to insist that they all must. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again: The issue was ownership. This isn't the forum to debate the merits or otherwise of infoboxes; much less to once again conflate specific issues of accuracy with generic infobox matters. Andy Mabbett 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not really the forum to discuss the ownership issue either, but as you brought it up, yes, you do seem to be trying to own the articles on composers by insisting that they must have an infobox, contrary to the consensus that the other editors involved in the WikiProject seem to have reached a consensus that they should not. I understand their frustration when you insist that there is "no consensus" because you hold an opposite opinion. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

USERS GNEVIN AND PADRAIC3UK VANDALISM

The above-referenced users (User:Gnevin and User:Padraic3uk) have deleted my valid edits and markers indicating POV and unsubstantiated/unreferenced text from Thomas Begley, GAA and Brendan Hughes pages without providing any explanation or justification. 216.194.3.116 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When outright lies are added to a page i consider that edit to be vandlism . IP user adding "although there is no record of any non-Catholic playing for the GAA [28] which is a lie many have played and one it most important cups is name after a non-Catholic see Sam Maguire and Sam Maguire Cup (Gnevin 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

(after edit conflict) Looks like a content dispute to me. See WP:DR. Also, please don't post in ALL CAPS, be certain something is vandalism before you call it that - to accuse other editors of vandalism can be a failure to assume good faith - remember we are all here to write an encyclopedia, and try to work with other editors to find the best solution for any content disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding POV tags without giving any justification either in the edit summary or in the talk pages of either article for doing so is meaningless to other editors, as we are not mind readers and are unable to determine wether you object to the whole article or one word or sentance as POV.--padraig3uk 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my posts invisible here? This is a content dispute. Dispute resolution is ---> thataway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please not that I believe that that IP address is a blocked editor see here.--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now 100% sure - please add this IP to the blocked list!--Vintagekits 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, except a clear sockpuppet of banned editor Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's RMS up to his usual tricks again. Blocked 1 week - Alison ☺ 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot needs to be stopped

Don't know the right way to request this, but I believe that ToePeu.bot needs to be stopped. I have left a note, to no effect yet. It is adding interwiki links to Template pages, but not checking for a "noinclude", so the interwikis are being inherited by the pages where the templates are used (unless noinclude was in effect). Example: Template:Lowercase‎. Notinasnaid 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot so that things can be cleaned up. I'll try my best to mass revert, but I'll notify the bot's operator of the issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, check out the interwiki list at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources! The bot only seemed to be adding the Korean ones just now, did it add the Russian ones too, or is there another bot to stop? --ais523 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Yurikbot was doing this stuff. Am I hopelessly behind the times? There shouldn't be two bots doing the same or closely related things. If Yurik got tired of running his bot maybe he could let someone else run it instead, since it seemed pretty well debugged. 75.62.7.22 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

warning level?

user:Moironen moved Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? to DOMINATION BLACK. I moved it back. What level warning should be used for this? RJFJR 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:mp2}} seems about right. --ais523 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the fast reply. RJFJR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh... personally, I think that {{Vandalblock}} is entirely appropriate... pretty obvious to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, some other admin has come along and killed the account. Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugrat Characters Vandalism

Resolved

 – Page protected, vandalism reverted Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rugrats Characters section has been vandalized several times recently, probably by members of the Barney Bunch.--Hailey 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to List of Rugrats characters. I will request semi-protection. YechielMan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assume it is the Barney Bunch, because most of it wa targeted at Drew, plus there were a lot of racist comments about Susie and her family and Didi's parents.--Hailey 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barney Bunch? Targets? Rascism? Do we have children's cartoons-affiliated gangs on the 'pedia? -M^ask? 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the choice of words, the vandalism was rather bad: check out [29]. As the page is now, however, semi-protected, I shall tag this section with {{resolved}}. --Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by ShandraShazam

ShandraShazam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) currently has the {{unblock-auto}} template on her talk page. Since this appears to be a generally productive contributer who was trying to edit from a school IP, I was prepared to reset to a soft block. But when I looked at the block log for the IP listed in the unblock request, I see anon-only is already set. Could someone shed some light on this situation? —dgies^t_c 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry by User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2

As most of you guys know, I filed a community ban request for Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs) on the grounds of gross incivility, massive copyvios, and what appeared to be blatant sockpuppetry by way of Kd lvr (talk · contribs). I apologize for being a bit overzealous and bypassing normal process, but a sanity check of the affair after User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki saw them working in tandem on several editing disputes and AfD discussions revealed what appeared to be pretty blatant sock activity:

• Voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Smith in a timeframe that would theoretically allow one to post, sign out, sign in as someone else and post again [30],[31]
• Kd lvr votes to keep Ken Rice, followed one minute later by a "keep" vote from Kdkatpir2. [32]

The last one what clinched it for me ... it seemed EXTREMELY unlikely that two users could post within a minute of each other if they were two different people. Based on my previous experience as a moderator on political sims, I thought this was a case at first where process could be bypassed--and again, I apologize for being a bit overzealous. I'm hoping to be an admin someday myself, and one of my priorities if I become one will be zero tolerance for sockfarming.

Well, today, after a checkuser turned up negative, I mentioned to TREYWiki that they were clearly meatpuppets, based on this post by Kd lvr. Kd lvr responds later, "Congrats on finally figuring that out!"

To my mind, this is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:MEAT. Kd lvr created his account only a few hours after Kdkatpir2 created his, and both have worked on the same articles. From my sanity check of this, I can't see how this is appropriate, and would ask one of you guys to give these two a warning. Also, could someone close the community ban request? Thanks ... Blueboy96 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart redux

Dsmart-3000ad (talk · contribs) has made pretty explicit legal threats against some folks and was blocked for it. His page has quite a collection of denied unblock requests, and each of them appear to be (more and more) soap boxes which make more threats against an editor here he's involved in some dispute with. I just know the guy from seeing his name around here semi-regularly, and I know he's made some nice games, but considering the rhetoric flying over on yon talk page, figured I'd drop a mention here in case anyone is interested. I'm considering protecting the talk page, but if anyone else has any ideas, let 'em fly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the situation and while he made a legal threat, his "retraction" sounded sort of like "I won't sue you now, but will if my attorney suggests it", and the blocking admin wasn't really impressed either. Per the ArbCom case, Supreme Cmdr is still under ban, but friends of Smart can make suggestions on the talk page, though that still doesn't permit legal threats. —dgies^t_c 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about his quite litigious history, suing websites and magazines for publishing negative press and the like. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs · block log)-2 things that can be done.

Resolved

I have been keeping an eye on User talk:Kkrouni and looking at some of the discussion on that page and I think there are only 2 things that can be done about this user.

1. Unblock- Frankly the best evidence I have seen to prove Kkrouni is a sock of Cowboy Rocco is a Checkuser. I would like to know if there is any evidence that I missed if there is any however. I don't think the possibility of a shared IP (Cowboy Rocco and Kkrouni being different people but using the same IP) was considered. This makes me think that there is a possibility of Kkrouni not being one of Cowboy Rocco's sockpuppets (I won't deny Cowboy Rocco is a Sock Puppeteer).

1. Fully protect User talk:Kkrouni- Technically Kkrouni has abused Template:Unblock 2 times by requesting an unblock again even though the decline template says not to do so. If Kkrouni is without a doubt a sockpuppet then I fell that his user talk page should be fully protected. Funpika 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Khrouni and Cowboy Rocco edit from the same IP and use the same signature (as do many, many other sock accounts I caught). I do not see any reasonable way to explain this other than them being sockpuppets or real life associates. Raul654 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw plenty of similarities in their contribs but won't list them here so as to not give suggestions for hiding in the future. I would have protected the talk page but it seemed like kind of a dick move for me to do it after declining an unblock. —dgies^t_c 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

*edit conflict* In this diff he claims he does know Cowboy Rocco. Does that mean "real life associate"? Funpika 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Kkrouni wants to discuss this on this user talk page. He has made comments there. Funpika 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting copyvio of a print source

Resolved

Is there a template used to report direct copying of Wikipedia articles from print sources? {{copyvio}} seems to assume a Web source. The article on Daniel Dancer is taken directly from p. 216 of Facts & Fallacies (1988), a Reader's Digest compilation. It should be deleted since there is no version in the history to revert to. *** Crotalus *** 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is such a template. My recommendation is to list the article at WP:AFD. YechielMan 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD is to slow - copyvios should be deleted immediately. Perhaps one could use the blank db template. Natalie 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked for warring on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I really see nothing else coming of this discussion now. Whatever has happened has been undone from what I can tell.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I have blocked Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three hours for continued bickering on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4. Since the page has since been deleted, I would like this reviewed as there may now no longer be reason to keep the blocks active. Naconkantari 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the blocks. And why was the talk page deleted in the first place? El_C 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8 (talk page of deleted article). --Iamunknown 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

G8, as in imperialist countries? I've deleted countless RfCs and always left the talk pages intact. El_C 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been deleted - CSD G8 doesn't apply to talkpages that contain discussions about the deletion of the page they relate to... WjBscribe 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the deleting admin may have intended merely to calm the forest fire. --Iamunknown 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if it has that effect it may be valid under WP:IAR, but it isn't a G8. WjBscribe 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then let it be IAR. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you treated everyone equally, and I think I understand your intentions here, but I submit that these blocks are not at all likely to reduce the drama level. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Ugh, what an utter travesty. Can we unblock them and tell them to leave each other alone? Grandmasterka 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Should all have been warned to stop before blocks were issued. WjBscribe 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock, the page has gone now anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the talk page has been deleted you might as well unblock regardless of the reason for the original block. CMummert · talk 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x5, argh) I would support the immediate unblock of Friday; his role in the bickering was minimal. Sean William 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Naconkantari was fair in blocking them all; I just don't think any of them should have been blocked and I don't see how it helps the matter. --Iamunknown 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, i don't see how it helps; it wasn't a content dispute, it wasn't a wheel war, it was a dispute over who had the right to get in the last word at the Kelly RfC. --Iamunknown 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Support unblocking them all. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Naconkantari for submitting the blocks for review here. There obviously isn't consensus for them. I think we can release the blocks now. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to support unblocking all of them, so the blocking admins should act accordingly and let us never speak of this again. And undelete the talk page, please. Thanks in advance. El_C 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about undelete and indefinitely protect, I fear that it will only attract trolling. --Iamunknown 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks, endorse unblocks ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Removed bold for emphasis. I guess no one thought of protection instead of block-delete... El_C 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked the lot of them. – Steel 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page can also be UNdeleted. I don't think anybody is going to be edit warring there again soon. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(ecx13)I have no objections to removing the blocks. I felt that this was the best course of action to stop the fighting, as fully protecting the page would have brought cries of protecting the wrong version and deleting the page would bring cries of cover-up and would muck up DRV for another week. Naconkantari 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy here the only two edits that I made to the page in question. You tell me how I was "edit warring".

• Yeah, nobody can honestly claim that they didn't see it coming. If you disagree with it, try to change the RFC process ... but this deletion was on solid ground.
• "Incontinent"? I do not think that word means what you seem to think it means.

Nacontankari, you owe me one hell of an explanation. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The discussion page should be undeleted, as this has relevant discussion on it. Or shall I bring this to WP:DRV? DES ^(talk) 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is right, he wasn't edit warring. Neither was Friday. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I restored the talk page with the following edit summary: As the admin who deleted the RfC, I think I should have been consulted. Especially since I outline my reasons for deletion here and the discussion was ongoing. I hope that's okay. Thanks again. El_C 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this boils down to this. Giano posts trolling calling another user "a powerless spent force" "incontinent and impotent" and "too old". When it is removed as an unhelpful personal attack, he repeatedly reinserts the trolling. But because Giano has the famous 'free-pass' on personal attacks, he can't be disciplined for this. So, in frustration at his immunity, an admin comes up with the wheeze of blocking both Giano and the person removing the trolling. "See that's fair." Yes, it is. In the same world where we equally punish the good and the bad! I don't blame Naconkantari here - I blame the intolerable mess that led us to this. (And before someone says I was edit warring - yes I was - justifiably, I'd say - but I'd already told Naconkantari that I would not remove the trolling again - so this block was not preventative.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

if you must quote me Doc, please do it correctly and in context otherwise peole may think you are deliberatly misleading them, anyone wanting to know what I said precisely please check history or wherever it hes been removed to. Giano 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the only editor on this project that has a "free pass" is Giano. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but this is the free pass that's relevant to these blockings.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari quits

Aaaannnddd ... he's gone. --Cyde Weys 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Annnd? Too bad I was editing the encyclopedia; had I seen it, I would have just protected the page. Then no one would have had to quit and everyone could have just blamed myself. El_C 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That's a pity. He was wrong in his blocks of at least Cyde and Friday, but errors are made in situations which seem to be spiraling out of control, and he certainly did the right thing in bringing it here for review. I hope he will be able to take a break and come back with less stress. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Errors happen. Then we pick up where we left off. --Iamunknown 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really get this. I've no real beef with his blocks, they were Bold, IAR, and good faith - even if wrong-headed. he doesn't come out of this too badly IMO. But what's problem now? He didn't need to get involved at all. If the situation stressed him, he should have just given it a wide berth.--Doc^g 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking with him on IRC and it appears that he didn't do any research into the blocks at all. Once he looked back at what he did, especially to Friday and I, who were in no way deserving of it, he probably felt ashamed and thought that this was his best way out. --Cyde Weys 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has been jumping to quick conclusions this whole thread and in the lead-up to it. Let's see if Naconkantari stays gone - I suspect not. Grandmasterka 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As is becoming all too frequent I expect Cyde is correct, anyhow hopefully he will learn by his mistakes and it will be a valuable lesson for him. No doubt he will be back soon a better person for the experience Giano 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Without trying to cause a conflict on the above dispute, the above page is still fully protected on grounds of a dispute, with the discussion here now closed, where are people supposed to discuss? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion is over? --Cyde Weys 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any further issues can be resolved on the user talk pages, or an application for unprotection can be made. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss my deletion of the RfC on my talk page. El_C 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully support deletion, but what's the point in keeping it undeleted if it's protected? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I've always kept the talk pages of deleted RfCs intact and I see no compelling reason to change that practice now. El_C 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well might I suggest removing the disputed template from the top? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that. El_C 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is this dispute settled? Don't say in userspace because that's not what the tag suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just how the tag is designed. I can modify it if it's really important to you. Anyway, the point of having it undeleted even if it is protected (which happned after undeletion) is that it can still be read by non-admins. El_C 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm really not that bothered to be honest, but it just seams a bit stupid to have a template on the page saying it's disputed with no-where to go to settle the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified it to read something more generic. Hope that helps. El_C 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for clarifying the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to post to that page as well, but I realised my comment was more about RfCs in general, so I posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Incidentially, while reading up on all this, I came across this, which seems to raise an important point. Where is the dividing line between blocking vandals and biting newcomers who carry out test edits? The issues of cool-off blocks (bad) and blocking test-edit 'vandals' (bad) should be made clearer, or rather it should be made clearer that those who disagree with those assessments shouldn't carry out such blocks regardeless. Having said that, it did seem to cool the situation down, and I applaud those who were blocked but didn't get upset. One day, not having a block on your block log will be seen as a sign of not having been around long enough to get an unfair block or two! :-) Carcharoth 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments. The former is the talk page I meant to link above (I've now corrected it), and the latter is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Peer review. Seems confusing and might be to do with an earlier page move. Should the pural "requests" talk page redirect be pointed back to the singular "request" talk page? Carcharoth 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullies in a Barrel, or "Delete/Undelete/Call Names/Block"

Incivility

User:89.100.195.42 already warned, and blocked three days ago [34], has added another abusive rant ("You are all a shower of murdering, denigrating bastards who make it all so much worse by denying it to educated "Paddies" like this writer in 2007. Go fuck yourself") [35] not once, but twice [36]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Blocked by User:Nick. WODUP 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently shared account

Someone want to look into this. I am at work. Viridae^Talk 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Indef blocked. See block log DES ^(talk) 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 6 minutes after I posted - quick work. 131.172.4.45 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison block and subsequent unblock by Guettarda

This has all the makings of a Wheel War that should be nipped in the bud. See here for the exchange. User:Tom harrison blocked a few users/IPs for BLP violations on Template:Dominionism. It appears to be the same user making numerous edits with same content. User:Guettarda unblocked them without discussion. He left less than kind remarks on Tom harrisons page. .[37][[38]. From the discussion page, it appears that these are legitimate BLP violations. It is unclear to me whether reverting BLP violations is considered being involved in an "edit war" and therefore requires a different admin. It appears that other admins believe this to be the case however. This seems to be a grey area as reverting vandalism is not considered being involved in an edit war. My thoughts:

• Since multiple admins consider the blocks to be inappropriate, Tom harrison should refrain from BLP blocks on this article.
• Admins should not undue blocks even if they consider them inappropriate without discussion.
• The comments left by admins when they undue another admins blocks should not be inflammatory since that doesn't help to achieve consensus but rather creates admin confrontation as we seem to have now.

Informal remedy:

• User:Tom harrison doesn't block people for BLP violations to Template:Dominionism. He can continue to revert under BLP policy and report to BLP noticeboard.
• User:Guettarda removes himself from any further action with regard to Tom Harrison's conduct. He certainly has other avenues to influence Tom's behavior without direct, escalating conflict.

--Tbeatty 01:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I had protected that page earlier this month. It certainly has BLP implications, since its point is to associate various people or their pet organizations with whatever "dominionism" is (I have only the slightest idea). Unfortunately it is impossible to tell what is reliably sourced in a template that has no references, and the edit wars keep going on. Because of the relationship to BLP it's hard to block people for edit warring. If I thought that it would get deleted I would nominate it for deletion at TfD. CMummert · talk 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Tom Harrison should not issue blocks for that page, since he has been actively reverting there. CMummert · talk 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let one of the hundreds of uninvolved admins make the call. Milto LOL pia 01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are responding to Tbeatty or to me. I am quite uninvolved in any content dispute in this template. CMummert · talk 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No one in particular, just adding what's probably the best idea... I know from experience that persons using sysop toolz in pages they are editing for content is highly time-wasteful. If you're uninvolved and want to handle it, I think that's a good idea. Milto LOL pia 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the template not be deleted at this point, because I think it can be useful. There will be no wheel war, because I will not undo another admin's actions. Our policy on biographies of living people says, in part, "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." I appreciate Tbeatty's suggestions, but I plan to keep following our policy as I have been. I will remove unsourced controversial material, and block users or protect the template as necessary. I appreciate comments. If there is a consensus that I am wrong, I will leave the template and related pages for someone else to deal with. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made bold something that people seem to be ignoring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one haven't been ignoring that, but I don't think it is so clear cut here, since some users claim they have presented sources. In any case, I will be watching the page very closely for a week or so, and I set up a workshop page to make these claimed sources easier to evaluate. CMummert · talk 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not a given. I've argued that the sources support the content in the template and that's there's no BLP issues, but I'm amenable to changing my opinion given the right evidence from the right contributors; that just hasn't happened yet. To that end I've pinged several arbcom members for their personal opinions, and once I have those, I'l abide with their say. In the meantime, Tom shouldn't be blocking anyone he's engaged a direct content conflict with. FeloniousMonk 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you reference the conflict? The only contributions that I saw were Tom's reverts of what he considered BLP violations. I don't think that qualifies as a "direct conflict" otherwise no admin would be able to fix a BLP issue and then blcok the offender. That definition of conflict would also apply to vandalism reverts and it's simply not the standard. I would think that disagreements regarding BLP would error on the side of caution with goal of consensus. Not the standard of "inclusion until proven wrong." I thought Guettarda was heavy handed and incivil in his comments and threats and it looked like we were headed for a wheel war. Everyone seems to be working in good faith towards improving the encyclopedia but disparaging other admins actions were uncalled for. Tom may be mistaken about BLP applying here, but there is no justification for the editor to continue to add the information. The editor was clearly edit warring and Guettarda unblocked him to make a WP:POINT. --Tbeatty 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created Template talk:Dominionism/Workshop to faciliate the evaluation of references for inclusion of names in the template. If editors repeatedly add material to the article without posting references there, I reserve the right to block them under WP:EW and following User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts. When reliable sources are provided there, however, it will no longer be acceptable to remove material citing the BLP policy. I hope this brings some measure of objectivity to the discussion. CMummert · talk 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such blocks from you are any less problematic than those of Tom or would withstand scrutiny considering your past activity and statements there. I suggest admins there need to chill on the blocks. FeloniousMonk 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My only previous activity there was to warn everyone about 3RR and protect the page for a week. I originally thought that BLP was most relevant to the names of individuals, but someone since them pointed out to me that BLP might also apply to names of pet organizations that are strongly associated with an individual. I have never had any stake in the content; my goal was, and is, for the edit warring to stop. CMummert · talk 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if Tom's only edits are reverts, he can block for BLP. Since admins disagree that these are BLP violations, we are in a grey area. For purposes of civility, I think the blocks needs to end lest overzealous admins block Tom. I didn't see any content edits by Tom, only reverts of BLP violations and whence this wasn't an "edit war." I did not think the messages left by Guettarda were appropriate or civil nor was the unblock without discussion. --Tbeatty 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this initially but Tom previously posted his block here. I think this shows tom has acted appropriatley throughout. --Tbeatty 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that might be the case were it not for Tom arguing over a simple content dispute for the last 2 weeks on the talk page and offering very partisan personal opinions on the topic of Dominionism at the Dominionism article and its talkpage. That places him squarely in the realm of an involved party, far from being a neutral broker on the issue. He'd be well advised to cease blocking those he's argued with in the past; he's in a very compromised position. FeloniousMonk 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dominionism article is one thing, but a template has inherent POV problems, since it presents a black-and-white view of the subject with no room for discussion or included citations. This is similar to the situation with categories, and there have been similar problems with categories. If Tom is in a compromised position, I would argue it is because BLP policy says he should. It might still be better to get second opinions before blocking, just to keep things neater, but I think Tom is on fairly solid ground here so far. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The key issue regarding blocking is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Tom has been actively arguing, and has edit-warred on the template on matters totally unrelated to BLP. Having looked at his edits over the articles related to dominionism, it's pretty clear to me that he's an actively involved editor, with strong opinions, and what look to be WP:POINT violations. The content that was re-added was supported by sources, and if you read the wider context, the two individuals are major financiers of the dominionism/Christian reconstructionism/Christian nationalism movement. It appears to me that the additions were legitimate. As an active editor on the topic with what appears to be a strong POV and a willingness to threaten blocks even for edits unrelated to living people, Tom should not be issuing blocks on the topic. It would be like me threatening blocks for content-related edits to the Jonathan Wells article. I would not do it, even if I felt strongly that I was right, simply because there would be the appearance of impropriety. I undid the block both because I felt it was unwarranted, and because I felt that Tom was violating the blocking policy. If one of the other thousand-odd admins (other than FeloniousMonk, who is also involved) had issued the block, I might have registered my disagreement, but I would never have undone the block. But when someone uses blocks and threats of blocks to win edit wars, undoing the block is the correct course of action - allowing admins to use blocks to win edit wars undermines the credibility of all admins. Guettarda 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly mean no insult as I find this argument between a few admins I respect very highly to be distressing, however, I looked things over and see Tom was enforcing the BLP policy, and is allowed to block users in order to enforce it. If he was incorrect in seeing this as a valid BLP issue, then it's simply a mistake, not an abuse. FeloniousMonk unblocked an IP whom Tom had blocked for adding Tom Monaghan [39] But before unblocking the IP, FeloniousMonk had clearly shown that he was personally involved in the template. He had numerous edits to the talk page, and had reverted the template several times. FM commented on the template talk page [40] and argued against Tom's POV and in favour of the anon's. Guettarda unblocked an IP whom Tom had blocked for adding Rich DeVos and Tom Monaghan, [41] Yet Guettarda had himself added those two names on 11 April, [42]. I have to agree with Morven. If there is an issue of BLP, then that takes priority. But I also think it is important that admins discuss unblocking with the blocking admin, and if the blocking admin is not available, consensus for an unblock should be reached here or at AN. And, in all cases of blocking editors for edits made to any articles or templates one is involved with, it is best to get a neutral third party to do so. Tom did post his actions for review, and I doubt he would have done so if he was really trying to gain an advantage in an editing dispute.--MONGO 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not and have not edit-warred; I think Guettarda knows this but is using the accusation as an insincere rhetorical device to justify his actions. Even if I had been as actively involved in editing the template as FeloniousMonk, our blp policy would still urge me to remove unsourced controversial material. And make no mistake, there are no sources to support the addition of the two 'Financiers of Dominionism' beyond the one mention in Rolling Stone. The reply to this is always, "there are plenty of sources," but never "the sources are..." Our policy demands we get sources first, then add controversial material. In an extended article where it could be presented in context, that one article in Rolling Stone might support "Rolling Stone says ...", subject to due weight and balance. It does not support tagging someone as a 'Financier of Dominionism. 'I have consistently posted here and/or at the blp noticeboard inviting review. I welcome scrutiny of all admin actions related to this: mine, Guettarda's, and FeloniousMonk's. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

New User, New Vandal

I am a liar hasn't been with us for long, but (s)he's beginning what might become a vandalism-only account. Best to nip it in the bud. C1k3 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I gave him a final warning. If he persists, take it to WP:AIV. YechielMan 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support block as inappropriate username. 75.62.7.22 07:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain if this is a big deal, but...

I was reading on Digg.com a story about some HD-DVD protection key thing that got leaked, and surprise surprise, one of the comments revealed that the number is now a Wikipedia article, created earlier today. Not being well versed in the ways of the DMCA, i'm not really certain if this is legal or not to be on Wikipedia, (Might want to remove the number from my comment if it isn't legal) but it seems....questionable the way i'm reading this issue. Supposedly its a growing sort of leak now that's spreading around all over the place, so if this article does get deleted, I have a feeling it might get resubmitted in some other form as an article, and therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to notify people here in case something weird starts happening. Homestarmy 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The page was redirected, but the number's still there as a redirect.... Homestarmy 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the redirect was deleted. Homestarmy 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It might or might not belong in an article about copy protection or HD-DVD. It certainly doesn't belong as an article, and its a ridiculous redirect (potential liability aside). Thatcher131 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of the de-css case, the DMCA was interpreted to not only make hosting of infringing content illegal, but hyperlinks to it illegal as well. For that reason, it should not at all be on wikipedia, other than maybe a brief mention in the HD-DVD that it was cracked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Xodexx

Would somebody please delete and salt Xodexx? Lots of anons making personal attacks on the page. Corvus cornix 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now salinated. Geogre 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles, plz? --Iamunknown 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threats

Resolved

User:72.199.45.205 threatened to murder anyone who reverted his edits. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)!

Blocked. Only 2 edits were extremely gross vandalism, and the threat. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate link was reverted by a bot

The article Age_of_Conan:_Hyborian_Adventures has an out-of-date link to a guild website (guild is "The Hand of Set"). I updated the link, creating this article version. Then the well-meaning User:Shadowbot thought it was spam and reverted it, creating this article version. I received a message telling me the link was removed because it matched a rule "invisionfree\.com" but that site is hosting the bona fide, current, active website for the guild, a guild that has been listed in & linked from the article since September 2006. Thank you for your time. 67.165.120.204 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is spam, and none of those sites are notable or worthy of mention. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the game is not even in open beta....signups just went out less than a month ago. There is no need for a listing of "guilds"....every game has them, few if any are nearly a sliver of the notability threshold for inclusion. And certainly not before the game is even released, or even in beta. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woodwinder (talk · contribs)

• Someone needs to help me with this guy before I lose my cool with him even more than I have already. He created the article Rex Liu which was deleted as a db-bio, and then recreated it. I tagged it and it was erased, and since then, he has vandalized Rancho Verde High School (an article I created) and incessantly whined on my talk page about how I'm "indiscriminately deleting" his articles, even though I've told him repeatedly that I'm not an admin, have no power to delete, and I only tagged one of his articles that had already been deleeted. It's gotten to the point where I've told him "Since I cannot do anything to help you get what you want, I'm ignoring your messages". But he continues to repost his rants on my talk page. Can someone tell him what's what so he can leave me alone? JuJube 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Clarification: Jujube initiated contact with me regarding my postings, and despite the fact that I repeatedly made it clear to him that I am a new contributer and so am not familiar with how the system works, his attitude was rude and intolerant. He did not tell me "repeatedly that [he is] not an admin, [has] no power to delete" (see what seems to be my talk page for verification). He stated, for example, that he hated "having to explain the same thing twice" despite mentioning finally and for the very first time several things that significantly clarified things for me. He mentioned my reposting the article after it had been erased. I had thought that I deleted it, which I intended to do once by clearing the article and rewriting it. I did not know whether or not this counted as deleting an article. I am willing to provide a transcript of all our communications. As I do not know of any other way of communicating with him, I posted my messages to him on his "talk" page. However, he has repeatedly deleted these postings as well (a copy of these are available as well). This dispute could have been averted if he has explained things clearly from the start, and in a much more pleasant tone, instead of assuming that I knew he was not admin and what privileges he does or does not have. I have to say his approach and attitude does not seem very conducive to the growth of the wikipedia community. Woodwinder
    • He did tell you that repeatedly, from the start, and in a very civil manner, right on your talk page. This doesn't make much sense. Grandmasterka 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only partly true. The following information was only made clear in his final communication on my talk page: 1) he only marked the page and did not delete it (that is the marker is not the same person that deletes it) 2) he is not an admin 3) he is not able to delete the page 4) he did not delete my other posting

The only things that were repeated were: 1) his instructions for me not to repost deleted pages 2) wikipedia criteria for article deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodwinder (talk • contribs)

This seems to be a good example of why we have policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. I think it would do well for both of you to just forget about this situation and head your separate ways until you feel cool enough to open a civil dialogue. --Chris (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) Reread your own talk page. That's far from the truth. Do we have a troll on our hands? Grandmasterka 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit I don't see where JuJube said that he didn't delete the page himself, or where he said he's not an admin prior to the last remark. Can you paste the diff for when he did? --Chris (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, he did say "I only marked Rex Liu for deletion", but I can see where confusion might have arisen from that. Still, Woodwinder was harrassing JuJube even after he explained everything, and even after JuJube told him to stop. That's the greater concern. Grandmasterka 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I admit it wasn't clear before I said so. I should probably have a big stamp on my user page and user talk page saying "I'M NOT AN ADMIN", because people are quick to assume I am one for some reason. JuJube 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • While it's obvious I messed up at being civil, can it be clarified at what point I messed up policy-wise before I snapped at his hounding of my user talk page? I followed procedure up to the point where Rex Liu got deleted and Woodwinder started to vandalize Rancho Verde High School. JuJube 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to your concern, Grandmasterka, I believe I reposted on my three replies on JuJube 's talk page once after they had all been removed. Seeing that they had been removed again, I reposted with the note that I was going to lodge a complaint. Since then I have made no additional posts on his page. As a new person, I naturally assumed that the person who marks a page for deletion is the same person who eventually deletes it. I can also see how a more experienced person might not realize this, knowing how things really work. I'm willing to move pass this as an unfortunate case of mutual misunderstanding. Woodwinder
    • Yeah, this was pretty dumb all around. Grandmasterka 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

His communications with me are not on my talk page anymore, but are easily available on my history page. I also haven't erased anything from Woodwinder's talk page. JuJube 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, read my talk page. Those details were only communicated to me in JuJube's final comment.-Woodwinder

I've read all of the dialogue here and the only thing that seems obvious to me is that you've both violated WP:CIVIL and neither of you are following WP:AGF. Again I advise both of you to go your separate ways and forget about this, or it could turn into a bigger deal than either of you want it to be. --Chris (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4 again

After we talk about procedural problems with this RFC lets solve about the original problem. Kelly trolls of RFAs that is disruptive for one of our major processes. It should be stopped. I would rather not to do this job as I have a history with disagreements with Kelly. Any volunteers for the job? Alex Bakharev 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... huh? JuJube 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What action do you propose we take, Alex? --Hemlock Martinis 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best course of action be to just ignore it? Hard for it to be really disruptive when nobody pays this whole wikiproject idea any attention. MichaelLinnear 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one's going to block or ban her anytime soon, which is the only conceivable way I know to stop it. Please, let's drop this until something else happens and it goes to ArbCom. Grandmasterka 07:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just ask any of her friends to talk about her disruptive behavior. If disruption will continue I am going to block her that I would rather avoid Alex Bakharev 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, please remember to assume good faith. It isn't acceptable to attempt to sabotage a person's participation in RFA by misrepresenting their behavior. Kelly has said that she'll support candidates for RFA if they get a Wikiproject endorsement. She's entitled to make that promise, even if you think it's unlikely to be fulfillable by the candidate, because the candidate is free to refrain from trying to obtain her support. --Tony Sidaway 07:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly knows pretty well that no mechanism for enforcing of admin candidates via wikiprojects exists and morover all non trivial discussion of a candidate will be seen as violations of WP:CANVASS. I am usually good in applying AGF but here I fail Alex Bakharev 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Canvassing guideline that would preclude a WikiProject nominating candidates for administrator, and if any such thing did exist in that guideline it would be an error and should be removed. This sounds like a terribly contrived reason to describe Kelly's reasonable offer as disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 09:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's three discussion about, relatively, the same user. This seems to be a serious matter so could the discussion be kept to only one topic of discussion, as it gets extremely confusing? --Kzrulzuall 07:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, a block would cause way more disruption than we're already having, for heavens' sakes. Sheesh. 75.62.7.22 08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know of another "troll" who somehow managed to force edit counts into RFA in the same way, and look where that left us! Brrr, scary times. --Kim Bruning 08:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

However it's no different to one editor who used to religeously oppose for no image experience, or another for 1FA.

Plenty of people make impossible demands at RFA, just live with it. There was someone who decided that they would make their support conditional upon a candidate writing a featured article. I don't recall anybody trying to muzzle them, even though it was pretty much agreed that such a condition would be hard-to-impossible to fulfil for many otherwise-perfectly-good candidates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are plenty of people who has written FAs. There are nothing impossible about it (though may be difficult). Obtaining Wikiproject Endorsement is impossible because we simply have no process for it. It is not different from the demand to obtain endorsement from Santa Claus or from President of the United States. Impossible demands are trolling and possibly WP:POINT. Continuus disruption is bad and should be stopped Alex Bakharev 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  "We have no process for it" is a pathetic excuse. Pop a notice on a wikiproject of which you're an active member, saying you plan to run for admin, and would they hold a discussion and decide whether they want to endorse your application. If you're lucky, they hold the discussion and agree to do it. It's a lot easier than writing a featured article by yourself. --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  We don't need a process for it... just submit an RFA and wait for Wikipedia:WikiProject Endorsements to come along and endorse it. I will happily endorse any serious RFA candidate on their behalf.--Isotope23 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Patheric exceuse or not, how many editors would come out of the woodwork screaming canvassing. With pile on votes would certainly taint an RfA. I've seen RfA criticised for this very thing, or for putting a notice on their talk page, for even mentioning it to another editor. Same as the 1FA criteria, and the editor who used to oppose religiously for lack of image experience, I'm sure the closing 'crat will give it the level of scrutiny these opposes deserve. ^Khukri 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You people "don't remember" anyone trying to "put a muzzle" on the person wanting an FA? Good Lord, are you serious? We may have found a person to replace Roberto Gonzales. In fact, when we have had ceremonial oppose/support votes, we have had those votes discounted, and we have had people blocked for it and RFAR's over the matter, or simple blocks. This would not occur in this case because of the Super Friends who would prevent or tie up any such moves, but don't pretend that it's not different treatment for Snowball. I was aghast at one of the Super Friends saying that hopefully we won't get any more admins who believe in following the rules soon. All I can say is that such persons might have gotten confused and thought World of Wikipedia was World of Warcraft, as they sure are trying to make a faction of trolls. Geogre 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Has the screeching stopped yet? Kelly Martin (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual quote is, "Well, Clarice - have the lambs stopped screaming?" You'd have to ask Jodie Foster for that answer. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we move this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4? --BigDT 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Murphy on a pogo stick. I'm inclined to agree with BigDT, why are we still having this discussion, in yet another place? -- nae'blis 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reqest for blocking: Jacob Peters, again

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

68.121.85.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the latest incarnation of banned user Jacob Peters. Please block. This is definitely him: LA IP, general pro-Communist trolling, etc. Moreschi ^Talk 09:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring observation

I have noticed that AnonMoos (talk · contribs) and Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs) are continually reverting Rafida, User talk:AnonMoos, User:Dreamz rosez, and User talk:Dreamz rosez. Each one claiming to be 3RR warning a vandal...while subsequently reverting their own 3RR warnings as harassment by a vandal...and all the while bouncing the article (even though it went to semi-protection). Someone may want to point out to both editors that they need to stay WP:COOL. 24.218.222.86 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreamz rosez is the latest morph of the "Iraqi Dinar" vandal whose activities are documented in painstaking in detail on page Talk:Rafida -- he's the reason the article went to semi-protection in the first place (though I had to lobby multiple times for it). He's continuing his past harassment activities (which have included sockpuppetry, and stalking along behind me to revert my edits on unrelated articles). AnonMoos 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's as clear cut as that, then you should have no problem having their account blocked at WP:AIV. Edit warring with a vandal is not useful and destroys page histories. 24.218.222.86 10:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If his edits fell neatly under any one particular predefined category of disruptive behavior, then I would have reported him in the appropriate place, but they didn't seem to (since last night he was using a single account only). AnonMoos 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You should also look into how to use the Template:Sockpuppet and stop using an article talk page (Talk:Rafida) as a documentation site for sockpuppets. 24.218.222.86 10:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Free toast

Some vandal keeps creating articles such as Free toast and Free toast. along with a few other variations, utilizing about a dozen sockpuppets so far. When one gets blocked, he comes back with a new IP and recreates the article. I'm not sure what to do other than keep blocking. I'd like to list it on WP:RFCU, but it says to try other things first, without specifying what of course. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens all the time. I've deleted these articles several times, blocked a few of the socks, and protected some of the recreated pages. The smarter vandals soon realize the pointlessness of what they are doing - for the idiots, like this one apparently, it takes a bit longer. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that blocking the users who recreate the articles and salting the recreated articles themselves is the best bet. CMummert · talk 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Salt on toast? That doesn't sound appetizing. How about butter or jam? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hallenrm and Energy

Resolved

 – No immediate action needed, see below.

This message is to request a reversion of all the edits, splits, and moves made on the energy article by User:Hallenrm in the past 24 hours. User:Hallenrm appears to be a good faith editor who has become protective of the energy article to the point of disallowing other editors' modifications of his contributions, and who has become obsessive about making changes to the article. His recent changes were large, contentious, and performed without discussion. I am unable to move his Energy(Physics) back to the original Energy spot, which he has turned into a second disambigation page for the set of topics. It would be helpful if one or more administrators evaluated this problem. Thanks much, Robert K S 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A side effect of this users poorly-implemented actions is that Energy (disambiguation) is no longer linked into these pages. I need some time to figure out everything that has been done. CMummert · talk 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the situation. The Energy article was very long, so an editor unilaterally decided to split it into pieces. The split probably would have eventually happened anyway, but it was done with minimal discussion. I sprinkled some comments around to try to start discussion on the final disposition of the content. CMummert · talk 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Urgent - a banned user on a crusade

Resolved

 – IP blocked

Could anyone block 195.56.51.196 (talk · contribs), an IP abused by a banned User:VinceB? He even admits who he is[43][44] and he is currently vandalizing articles[45] and attacking other users.[46] Tankred 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

14:43, 1 May 2007 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs) blocked "195.56.51.196 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (block evasion) --OnoremDil 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Codeplowed evading block

TemplarMission (talk • contribs) and WarAgainstTerror (talk • contribs) (see contributions and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed). x42bn6 Talk 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely quacking. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick one - request block of sockpuppets confirmed by Checkuser

Resolved

 – Sock drawer closed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello - pursuant to this checkuser case, which turned up a number of sockpuppets of the ArbCom-banned user Billy Ego (talk · contribs), I was wondering if I could ask an admin to block the sockpuppet accounts. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good times. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hazem22: persistent vandalism, after warnings

Resolved

 – No immediate action needed

I was wondering whether someone could give User:Hazem22 a short block, or a harsher warning, as they have continued vandalising articles after warnings by two seperate users. Cheers, aLii 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to give a few more warnings first ({{uw-test3}} and {{uw-test4}}). And in the future, you can use WP:AIV. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

I'd like to have a second pair of eyes on how to deal with R9tgokunks (talk · contribs). According to what he says himself on his userpage, this seems to be a young editor who may be suffering from some mental condition affecting his interactions on Wiki (he mentions Asperger's syndrome and depression). Several editors have found a lot of his editing behaviour erratic and uncooperative, and he's been subjected to a series of blocks for edit-warring. His reactions have shown that he feels increasingly upset, very seriously so – just look at the present state of his user talk, filled with allcaps shouting after the latest block (by me, one month). Today I caught him block-evading through an IP (165.234.104.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). This time the reaction was nothing but incoherent disturbed shouting. Given that this was not a vandal but a good-faith (though misguided) editor, I'm a bit concerned about the way things have been going downhill here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are appropriate. If s/he apologizes for the edit-warring and promises not to continue, then perhaps you could unblock. (Though he's been blocked for 3RR so many times that he is unlikely to stop.) But this user seems pretty unstable. If he can't communicate rationally, there's nothing more you can do. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have observed R9tgokunks' behaviour over the past few weeks, and had been thinking that a community ban discussion might be appropriate at this point. I realize that there are probably good faith intentions in his contributions, but his actions are clearly disruptive, and that is not acceptable on a collaborative project. Recently, we banned User:SndrAndrss for less offensive behaviour than that; he/she had very clear good faith intentions, and never attacked other editors, but was rather clueless about how to work well with other editors, and was therefore disruptive, causing several of us lots of cleanup work. I think R9tgokunks' aggressive provocations are more harmful than that. If you want to proceed with a community ban proposal, I would support you and I could help with the gathering of evidence. Andrwsc 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing and edit warring

Two new sockpuppets of a banned User:VinceB are vandalizing articles[47] and help of an admin is desperately needed. One of them has already eight (!) reverts in the same article on his account today.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] User:Odbhss and User:Pannonia appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. They share the same nationalistic POV[56] and engage in revert wars in the same articles as VinceB did.[57] They have also absolutely the same style of communication.[58] They immediately attacked those users who were the most frequent target of VinceB's abuse, using VinceB's words.[59][60][61] The name of User:Pannonia may also refer to the name of User:PANONIAN - the main victim of VinceB in the past. These new sockpuppets have removed vandalism warning templates from their talk pages as VinceB used to do before his ban.[62] They also work together with another, already blocked sockpuppet of VinceB (compare [63] and [64]). User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test[65]) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead.[66] Therefore, I would like to ask to block indef the following sockpuppets:

• Odbhss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pannonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you. Tankred 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible death threat

I reverted User:219.95.37.175 twice today at Womanizer. 219.95.37.175 then made an edit which included "Remove will die" [67] as a wikilink. I also reverted that edit. There is no article and only a single unrelated Google hit on "Remove will die". PrimeHunter 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a death threat, it's just adding nonsense into the article, I'll warn the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you live in Malaysia... and I agree with Ryan, this is just silly vandalism.--Isotope23 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would wanr, but he's been blocked.... I'll speak to the blocking admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since their vandalism kept getting removed and then they added it, I interpreted it as a threat and blocked 31 hours. —dgies^t_c 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not assume our editors dont live in Malaysia but I agree that such an edit should be ignored/treated as simple vandalism, SqueakBox 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think a warning would have been more than sufficient. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I treated it as a (admittedly improbable) threat because they kept making the same vandalism and having it removed, so it was clearly directed at the person removing vandalism. I was under the impression threats are to be treated very seriously. If you think it was overly harsh you can unblock/warn. —dgies^t_c 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the block was fine; I'm not a big fan of warning for the sake of having warned a user. It's obvious they had vandalism on their mind, and so AGF goes right out the window. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that we should have a zero tolerance toward death threats. This may not be a clear threat but we should be sending a message that says death threats (however they are stated) will not be tolerated. It's s little funny and editor can get blocked faster for making a legal threat then by making a death threat. RxS 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree, we don't just block IP address's for vandalism when they haven't been warned, especially when it was simple nonsense that was being added, not a threat. I'm not unblocking, but I'm not happy about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks like a poor-English version of "If you remove this again I will kill you". —dgies^t_c 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how you got that from; Victor the Great (Remove will die) - somebody must have some really bad english problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not everyone speaks English, SqueakBox 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in Malaysia and I'm not worried about my safety. More details: I reverted two additions [68][69] of "[[Victor]] (''[[ Victor the Great ]]'')". My second edit summary was "Listings should have an article". The user then added "[[Victor the Great]] (''[[Remove will die]]'')" instead.[70] It seems impossible to me that the user thinks there is or should be such an article on a non-existant phrase, so it looked like a (strangely formatted) threat to me. A 31-hour block is OK for me. PrimeHunter 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I still see no death threat, I'm not going to be on the computer for a while so I guess I'll be getting shot down for my stance! The guy was adding nonsense into the article and that was it, something which most probably a warning would have dealt with, but I notice that despite 4 revisions throughout the day, not a single warning was given. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking I don't think we should be forced to warn people about death threats before a block (or threats that could be interpreted as death threats). That goes beyond simple vandalism. If, after getting blocked, the editor wants to clarify his remarks then fine. But death threats should never ever be accepted (just as legal threats are not accepted). I agree that a warning sequence needs to be followed in the case of simple vandalism. RxS 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that death threats shouldn't result in an immediate block, I agree they should, what I'm saying is, this wasn't a death threat, it was simple vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I put in "threats that could be interpreted as death threats". This seems to qualify as several editors saw it as a possible death threat. If his less than perfect command of English got in the way of his real message, he can explain himself more fully on his talk page. I'm not trying to focus only on this block, I'm trying to make a more general point about these kinds of threats...this just happened to catch my eye. In general, I think we need a zero tolerance policy toward someone threatening an editor. You make what could be interpreted as a death threat, you get blocked. You can explain on your talk page if you'd like, and the blocking admin can bring it here for discussion...but we shouldn't accept any threats of this kind. RxS 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Move war in progress

At Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare or Jeffrey Archer depending on where it happens to be at this precise moment in time. Kittybrewster has moved it four times in just over 24 hours which could be seen as system gaming. Move protection might be a good idea. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Move protected. I can't really take time to check on the behavior of the parties (am currently at work); if someone else wants to, awesome. Heimstern Läufer 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic behavior from an editor

I have always vowed to never filed a complaint here (editorial comment), but I need to do it now. In all of my edits, I use G_d as the form to use. Please see Names of God in Judaism#In English. I have had two discussions about this topic on my user talk page User talk:Orangemarlin#Spellings and User talk:Orangemarlin/Religion 2#Personal editing with the Name. It's a personal belief that many Jews follow, even though there is a technical point about using the name on a computer screen.

Today I was informed by dave souza that a mass change had occurred with the use of my name by r b-j. We both informed him of this situation here and [71]. r b-j has a significant history of uncivil remarks (which can be documented, but that isn't the point for this notice) towards me and others. I'm sure you can find a few diffs where I did not respond nicely to his comments, but once again, that's not the point. I believe that this editor needs to be reprimanded for what I consider to be borderline anti-semitism. Orangemarlin 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)