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

Give us your fucking money

This long thread has been moved to a sub page to preserve the smooth functioning of this board by keeping the page size and edit frequency within reason. — Sebastian

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Give us your fucking money

This discussion is about an objectionable banner for donation on a user page. As of today, the discussion continues. Reason for this update [1] Chergles (talk)

Thread has died. For the archivebot, east.718 at 12:40, November 21, 2007 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid

This long thread has been moved to a sub page to preserve the smooth functioning of this board by keeping the page size and edit frequency within reason. — Sebastian

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User Yidisheryid

This discussion is about an editor's behavior of which the editor in question has responded. As of yesterday, the discussion continues. Reason for this update [2] Chergles (talk)

Thread has died. For the archivebot, east.718 at 12:41, November 21, 2007 12:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked User:Whig

Whig (talk · contribs)

To summarise: Community banned homeopathic POV-pusher who was unblocked as part of an attempted mediation, then disappeared for a month. Just returned, and began the same idiocy all over again. Re-banned. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with reban, the user obviously has no intentions of contributing constructively here. Qst 20:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Multiple RFCs have failed to solve the problem. This one's here only to advance his POV, at which point he and the encyclopaedia have to part company. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user should have been banned months ago. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that this is a good block - but then I thought this particular tendentious user had exhausted all of his chances last time around. I don't see a lot of value being added to the encyclopedia here. That said, Whig was unblocked on probation under the mentorship of User:Mercury last time around, so I'd be interested to hear Mercury's thoughts on the matter. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You should specify what you mean by 'began the same idiocy all over again.' what idiocy? please give the diffs. thank you Peter morrell 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to see what behavior Adam Cuerden was referring to in the form of diffs. Whig has made the same request. I think to be fair, this request should be satisfied. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no real stake in this one way or the other, but the last debate on ANI can be seen here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the reblock. As far as I can see from the logs, he has behaved appropriately for any other editor on Wikipedia since his unblocking. It appears you are reblocking him because he did not consult with Mercury when he re-appeared on Homeopathy. It also appears - from your justification given above - that the main force you cite for reblocking him is your antipathy to the topic of homeopathy. From the previous RfC it appears your behaviour, Adam, is being repeated, and needs to be addressed. Show us please why his edits since the unblock have been disruptive, conflict with Wiki policy, or (apart from not having sought an opinion before editing on the article of Homeopathy) contravened any agreements. From my reading of his edits, there are none. Justify please. docboat (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig is not "any other editor on Wikipedia"; s/he's a tendentious editor, as reinforced at his last RfC, who avoided an indefinite block and ban on the basis of agreeing to Mercury's mentorship. I think we should wait to hear from Mercury before going any further here. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I am going to refrain from commenting on the block. I am fairly confident Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) will address concerns regarding his reapplication of the block. Regards, Mercury 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig was unblocked because I and Mercury agreed that he might have some potential if he took a break and was able to get used to Wikipedia community behaviour standards, and we hoped he would learn what NPOV was as part of that. He disappeared completely for weeks, then suddenly came back, leapt into the topics that had caused so much trouble full-guns-blazing - indeed, he didn't edit anything else except to add homeopathy into Potassium dichromate - and his behaviour and language showed no signs of change. Whig is a true believer. We had hoped that he could learn to play nicely with others. Instead, we got more inane WP:OR homeopathy apologetics, and bold (and uncited) claims that, in fact, physicists and doctors support homeopathy, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=171726760 this post where he takes David's sensible suggestion and turns it into a repeat of the "no criticism whatsoever in the lead" POV-pushing that he'd been canvassing for before the block. In short, a return to the behaviour from the RFC. The objectors to this ban, User:Peter morrell (RFC where he was nearly banned, but agreed to moderate his behaviour (which he stopped doing a few months ago)) and User:BrianWalker are cut from the same cloth, and, frankly, if they hadn't cleverly decided to constantly attack me, meaning I couldn't ban them without a COI, I'd have blocked them already.

But then, I'm in a brutally honest mood tonight. And, frankly, I'm sick of the whole subject. I don't LIKE editing Homeopathy. I wish thew whole thing would go away. But I'm an admin, and that means I have to monitor articles that are prone to trouble. And so, when asked to help out there by friends, I did. And what hell it's given me. More stress than any other bloody article, and that's with me trying to avoid it as much as possible, just checking for vandalism and POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brutally honest, Adam? Right then. You have made a scurrilous attack on me now "cut from the same cloth" - how dare you, and you an admin? If this is the real, brutally honest you, and you have seen my edit history and read my own background to be able to make that ill-founded judgement, then the WHOLE of your judgements must be called into question. This will go further, I suspect. This is simply not good enough. Fail. You must do better. Quite apart from what you now decide with Whig, I want a competent admin to take a close look at your work. docboat (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we spend so much time on such users? We give these folks umpteen last chances, soak up the time of good editors in futile attempts at mentoring them, burn out admins dealing with their incessant wikilawyering protests, and on and on, in the hope that maybe, someday, perhaps, possibly, eventually, with infinitely patient nurturing and lavish attention they'll learn to push their version of The Truth^TM in a slightly less tendentious way. Are we really so desperate for contributors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. No, we aren't desperate for contributors, and much less for disruptive fringe editors who just "don't get it" and never will. Often it isn't even a matter of bad faith or ill will, it is simply that they lack the ability. They are immune to cognitive dissonance. We have the bar for acceptable behavior and attitudes set far too low here and this means we have fringe editors who get blocked, while their numerous sympathizers (whose - often fake - civility somehow protects them?) show up and reveal that they don't get it either, but they don't get blocked. In an ArbCom situation sympathizers can get blocked simply for showing too many of the same attitudes as blocked editors, IOW showing too much sympathy for them. They share their guilt because they think the same way and are also guilty of aiding and abetting them by supporting them in normal editing, in edit wars, in RfCs, and in the ArbCom proceedings themselves.

The bar needs to be raised and such sympathizers who don't get it and show signs of never getting it should also be shown the door, or at least be placed on probation. That is one advantage (possibly one of the only ones...) of RfCs. It draws all of the fringe sympathizers out of the woodwork so they show their true colors and they can be identified and the community alerted to which disruptive editors who don't understand NPOV are in need of watching. Unfortunately - because of the low bar - this occupies far too much good time that could be otherwise used on constructive editing. This situation needs to change. No more multiple and longsuffering series of warnings. Adam has several times revealed courage and resolute determination to protect Wikipedia from such time wasters and he should be commended, not interrogated by sympathizers from the flock of "birds of a feather who stick together." They should be warned together and blocked together. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time explaining common sense to those who don't understand it. I too am in a brutally honest mood this morning, but I'm sure only those who feel guilty will complain. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying these points for months. YES!!!! Why do we bother with editors like Whig who has cost us time and energy with RfC's (which, if you note, he treated most of us with rudeness), ANI's, etc. At the very minimum, the project is going to be the same with or without him. Why do we expend energy trying to rehabilitate him? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Brutally honest eh? this does not seem to be an adequate response. The honesty of it must be judged by others, Adam. A number of specific points need to be addressed.

• you have edited homeopathy more than any other single editor in the last 9 months and control it (along with a few others) on a daily basis; you rvt other folks edits and seem hostile and owning towards the article and any other editors; you have created more edit wars and disputes on that article than any other editor; you are intolerant and disputatious and refuse to back down; this is why you block people; you abuse your admin powers; now you are threatening to block many more people including myself and docboat; I see you have a very 'impressive' history for deleting articles and blocking people; do you envisage a good WP as a police state? you are a self confessed anti homeopath; thus how can you say you dislike editing this article? the data simply does not stack in your favour.

• Why do you claim that Whig 'repeated his idiocy?' it seems he merely made some useful and factual edits to potassium dichromate; he never went near the homeopathy article as far as I can tell. His comments about potassium dichromate were fair, moderate, uncontentious, factual and neutral. How was he POV pushing? how was his language and behaviour block-worthy? I just don't see it in the diffs. Please explain your reasoning.

• you have still not supplied the diffs as requested by several folks here.

• attacking others who you claim are attacking you is a distraction, a side issue, and just muddies the waters; let's focus on the current issue and what you have said and what you have declined to say about this particular block.

• please provide the diffs which illustrate your comment that Whig was 'repeating his old idiocy' and show how his language and behaviour was block-worthy. You also claim he was POV pushing; please provide specific diffs that illustrate this.

• please provide the date you became an admin and also the dated diffs that show your claim that 'some friends asked you to check' the homeopathy article with dates. otherwise we have no idea of the factual accuracy of what you state. You must be able to show that you became an admin BEFORE you started editing the homeopathy article. I find that claim somewhat suspect. As I recall, you started editing homeopathy about February 2007. On what date did you become an admin? thank you Peter morrell 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, seeing as I asked you just yesterday to tone down the rhetoric after you made a couple of attacks on Adam, you should be aware that you're skating awfully close to the edge of a block. Why on earth would Adam not be allowed to monitor an article for POV-pushing before he got his sysop bit? (Which, for the curious, he got on 2 March 2007). Why would he need to dig through nine-month-old page histories to find an invitation to edit?

Asking (civilly) for more information about a block is a reasonable practice, and an important part of making sure Wikipedia is working smoothly. Using this forum to push what has apparently become a personal vendetta against Adam is not. Please find something – anything – productive to do on Wikipedia that doesn't involve commenting on Adam. (I have warned Peter on his talk page that his current approach is unhelpful and may draw a block.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When all the points raised have been answered, we shall all be happy. Assuming that is the answers are coherent and verifiable. thank you. Peter morrell

I have just reviewed the edits to the Potassium dichromate article and its talk page, and I do not see that Whig's edits were inappropriate. I note a rather aggressive edit summary from AC to one of the edits. [3] I think my few previous edits on this subject show no bias towards homeopathy, which, to be honest about it, I personally consider a dangerous absurdity. DGG (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more his edits on Talk:Homeopathy and WP:FTN. Though the positioning of the section he added to Potassium dichromate the first time shows very little ability to judge its importance - there's a chemical with numerous applications in industry and chemistry, and he thinks that homeopathy is more important than major uses that, if I recall correctly, appear in the A-level chemistry exams in Britain (if briefly). Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Fringe notice board, I see only one November edit of his [4], a single sentence non disruptive comment. As for the Talk Homeopathy, I also see no disruptive edits--just the attempt to refine a single paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, Adam, you are a major contributor to the discussion on Homeopathy (and , as I said , I very much agree with what you say there). So why did you block someone for contributions to that subject? I would never use admin power on any one who had significantly contributed to an article on which I had also worked, especially if I were on opposite sides of the argument. (I am in no way defending Whig's earlier edits or opposing the earlier blocks.) There are 1300 other admins, and at least 1250 of them have never edited this subject. Why didn't you ask someone else to do the block for you? DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Adam wasn't the person to make this bock, but seeing that Whig was trying, once again, to push his ideas about quantum mechanics providing an explanation for how homeopathy might work eg diff and diff, the block itself seems justifiable - unless of course Whig had cleared these edits with Mercury beforehand. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the diffs that TimVickers cites are polite and reasoned contributions to the discussion in the section where they appear. If these are grounds for blocking, we might as well all be blocked and get the whole Wikiprocess shut down. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A good block, and I agree with Raymond Arritt, users who are here to make a fringe into the mainstream via wikipedia need to be shown the door when their agenda refusees to meet our policies. As for Peter Morell's post above, that's a perfect textbook example of wikilawyering. deamnding dates and times of adminship conferrence? What could that have to do with anything else? It's a distraction. The user's had numerous Procedural reviews, and continues his behavior. Let him find a new outlet. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(I have been away for a week and not following the discussion.) On reviewing it, I think two points I raised in the previous ANI discussion about Whig are still relevant. 1) I do not think Adam Cuerden qualifies as a neutral administrator in this particular case. This concern, which I made in all seriousness, was never addressed in the previous ANI discussion. 2) If an editor persists in a line of argument that other editors consider absurd, there is the option of ignoring them. In homeopathy, this option might usefully be used more than it is. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice

This very long thread has been moved to a sub page to preserve the smooth functioning of this board by keeping the page size within reason. — Sebastian

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deeceevoice

This discussion is about a proposed banning as an editor. The editor in question has written a reponse. As of today, the discussion continues. Reason for this update [5] Chergles (talk)

King James I of England

This long thread has been moved to a sub page to preserve the smooth functioning of this board by keeping the page size and edit frequency within reason. — Sebastian

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/King James I of England

This discussion is about an article semi-protection or protection. As of today, the discussion continues. One of the major editors in the dispute is blocked and cannot respond. Reason for this update [6] Chergles (talk)

I think you've put this in the wrong section? You probably want the section below - just down there <points downwards>. Carcharoth (talk)

Durova's indefinite block of an established editor

This very long thread has been moved to a sub page to preserve the smooth functioning of this board by keeping the page size within reason.

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor

Please don't put any timestamps in this section, unless you want it to be archived. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk

Archive. Mercury

POV pushing and disruption

On the talk page of WP:PW there is a debate going on which is going close to getting completely out of hand. Lid is trying to push a POV that WP:SPOILER applies when a wrestling title belt changes hands on WWE Smackdown, and edits that reflect this should be allowed. It has been argued by myself and by The Hybrid that this is not the correct path to take - due to issues with people within WP:PW who hate spoilers, and may consider them tantamount to violating WP:NOT (by turning the wrestling section of Wikipedia into a news site). My issue with it is that Lid is trying to push the Australian transmission of Smackdown (before the US transmission by about 18 hours) as proof. He has pushed the Cit Episode Template - which as a result I sent to TfD because of the threat the usage of this template posed in this manner (explained on the TfD). Lid's conduct - in my opinion - is disrupting what until now was a consistent and reasonable course of action within the group of editors who work through WP:PW or independently as wrestling followers. Lid's questioning of the process has got to the point where I can not address him any more without violating WP:CIVIL. He isn't listening to reason or the silent majority that The Hybrid has said he represents - and I agree with him. We need admin help on this, and because Smackdown transmits weekly and we don't know when the next title change will be, mediation or RfC simply isn't an option as it would take too long. Lid has made a number of false accusations against me (which could be a WP:CIVIL violation anyway but I'm not sure - it's certainly close if it's not) including accusing me of hyperbole and excessive "attitude" (for want of a better word). I am doing my bit to protect the wrestling part of Wikipedia under the rules - certainly WP:OR and WP:V in this case. This is being ignored or at least not respected. Admin help would be very much appreciated with this. !! Justa Punk !! 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I forgot the direct link! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Consensus !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I can't quite see the problem. WP:SPOILER doesn't stop you posting spoilers, it just suggests that you post a spoiler warning. If the information is true and can be sourced - even if the source is the TV program itself - then what's the problem? it's a viable source, and we shouldn't, in my opinion, withhold content that's true and verfifable, even if it means some US viewers will have their entertainment spoiled. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it said DON'T include spoiler warnings, except in certain exceptional cases where you would not expect an article to contain spoilers (like if an unreleased movie leaks to the web, etc). <eleland/talkedits> 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WP:PW who has privately had these conversations with two different administrators (both Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Lid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) I'm going to have to say that my view point has done a complete 180 on the spoiler topic. WP:PWis not a walled garden, and is subject to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of these being WP:SPOILER. If SmackDown airs in Australia, then the results do meet WP:V, and WP:RS. Also, the Cite Episode template does not lead to WP:OR in almost any case. How else am I supposed to source information say, on a character from the television show Scrubs since no other sources but episodes of the show exist? If the "spoilers" can be verified, then we cannot exclude them just because some people "don't want to be spoiled". It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality -- from WP:SPOILER. I'm sorry, but I don't see Lid POV pushing and being disruptive, if anything, I see him looking out for the betterment of this project. Not wanting to be spoiled is not a leg to stand on in my opinion. Bmg916^Speak 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is being missed here. The Hybrid brought his point up - and it's being ignored. He said that there is a silent majority that does not want WWE spoilers. It doesn't matter what WP:SPOILER says, a silent majority doesn't want them. Lid is abusing his position as admin by pushing WP:SPOILER because the wrestling is a special case. It's outside normal spoiler procedure. I completely disagree with the assertion that the TV showing in Australia automatically passes WP:V and WP:RS. Where is the back up? What's to stop someone coming in with a spoiler after the Australian showing, and just make an edit that is completely false. And state that "It was on TV". TV by itself - in the case of pro wrestling - does not pass WP:RS, and without a third party back up WP:V also fails. I thought consensus was a cornerstone of WP policy? Right now, Lid is trying to force a change against the tide of existing consensus. If allowed this will open a massive can of worms and Lid can't see it because he is putting general policy forward without taking the unique nature of pro wrestling into account. This is a frustrating situation - WP is not a news site. Allowing spoilers will turn it into a news site. Why can't anyone see this? !! Justa Punk !! 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What silent majority? how have you measured them? why should wrestling be considered a special case? This is just another example of one of the special interest groups we have here trying to twist wikipolicy to suit their own aims. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that it's aired in Australia, it's that it's aired in Australia (or Canada, for that matter) and it's been reported by numerous internet sites. I don't want to hear about dirtsheets failing WP:V, we're not talking about some nobody's speculations on who's going to main event WrestleMania, we're talking about event reports sent to these sites by people at the taping. When it airs, and we know what's been cut or what hasn't, what's left to prove? Moreover, most of these people have no reason to lie. Occasionally, a goofball does send in a fake Smackdown report to the sheets, but it's quickly corrected by the real thing. I grant that this happening at all is sufficient cause to not rely solely on the sheets, but a very similar situation exists with the World Series of Poker. Bracelet winners are "spoiled" on wikipedia months before they air, with nothing but assorted web reports to back it up (the main event winner is announced on TV news here and there, but not the earlier events), and of course the accounts of the people at the TV tapings. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I could not reply earlier but I was performing some things in real life that needed attending to. I will now do a little breakdown of your last post on me with commentary.

• POV: Yes, I will admit I have a POV on the topic. I say this as you yourself also have a POV on the topic and that is why we are where we are right now. Your usage of POV isn't the way it is meant to be used on wikipedia and gives the idea that having a point of view on a discussion is against wikipedias rules. It is not. What is against wikipedias rules is modifying wikipedia to reflect your own biases, which I have not done, and the basis of this topic has nothing to do with bias on a topic but apparently "bias" on implementation of WP:SPOILER. I have been involved in many disputes, that's not in question, but from your interpretation AfD's are against wikipedias rules as users are planting their POV's on whether articles should be kept or deleted. I have been here for over a year now and one thing I have always tried to adhere to, and to the best of my knowledge I have, is neutrality in articles.
• Silent Majority: You keep making reference to the silent majority of WP:PW supporting your view point except that my position in the discussion is that of the more important majority, which happens to be silent in this regard, which is the majority of wikipedia that support spoilers hence why it is an agreed upon subject at WP:SPOILER. I have stated it numerous times but a wikiproject can not overrule this simply because they don't want to and don't agree with it, it is the rule that wikipedia as a whole have agreed upon and countering it with an anonynmous silent majority in a wikiproject does not work.
• Lid is abusing his position as admin by pushing WP:SPOILER because the wrestling is a special case.: Not once, until Bmg916 mentioned it in his reply here, has my admin status even come up in the course of the discussion. I have been simply a user bringing to light what I saw as a situation in opposition to wikipedias stance as a whole. In addition to which I have not used any admin tools in the course of this topic, in fact this entire topic has taken place on talk pages where my tools are worthless anyway. I have not in any way, shape or form used my adminship to take a foothold in this topic, relying on policy and guidelines to back up my positions and claiming otherwise is simply based on that I am an administrator and thus every time I involve myself in a debate it's "admin abuse" to the opposition.
• It's outside normal spoiler procedure.: No, it is not. There is absolutely no support for this position and you have yet to bring up a compelling argument as to why professional wrestling should be treated differently than either television shows or sporting events. In both cases the spoilers would still be posted, and that is even if they had not aired on television yet and had sources for the spoilers.
• TV by itself - in the case of pro wrestling - does not pass WP:RS: Actually, from your point of view TV by itself, in the case of television shows, do not pass WP:RS because anyone could make up what they saw and post it claiming that episode was the source. It's a position that is illogical and seems to be based on potential abuse rather than actual usage.
• Lid is trying to force a change against the tide of existing consensus.: You pointed me to it, although I thought I had also pointed you to it, but again - Wikipedia:Consensus can change.
• WP is not a news site. Allowing spoilers will turn it into a news site.: This is correct, wikipedia is not wikinews, it is however an encyclopedia and recent results of wrestling events are NOT news in the traditional sense. Say a mixed martial artist won heir fight and the results get posted here, is this news? Yes because it is recent. Does this make wikipedia a news site? No, it makes it an up to date article with the most recent changes to the individual in question. Claiming recent events are "news" and thus omitting them because of that is a position that is semantical in basis and has no support in policy.

In the course of this topic I mentioned that if you felt so strongly about your position that you nominate Template:Cite episode for deletion as by your rationale it is OR. I was being sarcastic and attempted to illustrate why I thought your argument was illogical, but instead you took me up on the offer and are now attempting to have a template, linked to by 2000 articles, deleted on the claim that professional wrestling is a special case which, as previously stated, it isn't. Trying to create special rules for a specific area of articles is simply walled gardening and should not be allowed. I realise this reply is quite lengthy and wordy but it is all I could think of to respond to the allegations brought up against me, the suggestion that I am an incivil POV warrior. If anyone has any question to my demeanor or more actions in this case I implore them to look through my contributions and find a case where I have fallen out of line. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate the term silent majority, as it sounds like a cop-out. I did comment on that once, though I didn't use that term, when our view was described as a minority view, but I only mentioned it in passing. I don't see consensus as relevant to the issue, as this is a dispute about interpretations of policy. My view is that spoilers damage the articles. In the past we have had several established users threaten to retire if spoilers are added to articles. The detrimental effect to the articles would be permanent, while the benefits would be short-term, as short as 4 days. However, the long-lasting effect of slowing the number of new users joining while alienating the experienced editors of this subject would cause these articles which have just recently been dragged out of the gutters to go straight to hell all over again. Adding spoilers would be against the best interests of the articles, plain and simple. The Hybrid T/C 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter where the event was broadcast first. The fact that the event was broadcast and that multiple editors can confirm that broadcast is more then enough to deal with any WP:V issues. Also, using the broadcast to tell the outcomes of matches also wouldn't violate WP:NOR.

There is no, "unverifiable until broadcast in the US", clause in WP:V with regard to TV broadcasts. Never has been one, and never will be one because it just promises systemic bias. Also, keeping information off and article because it hasn't been released in the US is also a systemic bias. And if you use the excuse that releasing the results will "spoil" US viewers, then you run into trouble with WP:SPOILER. --Farix (Talk) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there have been problems in the past with Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling (aka WP:PW) and so-called spoilers. To boil it down to basics, there are editors of the wrestling pages who appear to be opposed to any information, from any source no matter how reliable, about a wrestling bout, to appear on Wikipedia prior to some associated event (the US broadcast of a TV program, perhaps?)

As The Hybrid says, there have been expressions of extreme distress on this matter. We might well lose editors over this.

On the other hand, what these editors are demanding seems unacceptable: that they should be empowered to impose an embargo on publication of a certain type of Wikipedia content: the results of wrestling bouts that have been televised.

It seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup, to be honest. A matter of much import to a few editors, but somewhat against our policies, in that it involves the putative embargoing of information for reasons that aren't easy for outsiders to understand. We have on occasion respected academic embargoes, but the suggestion of extending such limitations to sporting events and the like seems unlikely to gain consensus. Even in the academic case, we would not continue to uphold an embargo once the news hit the mainstream press. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be a storm in a tea cup. The source is the show legally broadcasted in Australia through one of the pay TV networks, under license from WWE. How much time difference between this broadcast and its airing in the US 24-36hours maybe less? From the way I see it the addition of a spoiler is wasted editing for its redundant within a day. The reverse is true to way more programs that get aired in the US first then the rest of the world waits for a couple of days to actually see the show, in reality TV series shouldnt use the spoiler tag on episodes because its impossible to fairly assess at what point it gets removed. Gnangarra 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TV is not a published source, so it fails as a source by that definition. (by Justa Punk.

I seriously hope he doesn't truly believe that as it is completely absurd. --Farix (Talk) 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Cite episode, see also my large comment above. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was Justa Punk, not me, and I hope that my credibility isn't damaged in your eyes by that. Anyway, embargo is an exaggeration. We're talking 4 days here. We're asking to wait 4 days in order to avoid an exodus of editors, and putting a filter on new editors, thus damaging these very tender articles, which have bad dits made to them on a level that would mean semiprotection for any other article. It takes a lot of editors to keep these articles from becoming cruft-filled, so spoilers are not the main issue. The side effects of adding them are the main issue. Surely waiting 4 days is not unreasonable, or unacceptable. The Hybrid T/C 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue that arises is when something big happens at the events, not each event week by week, as all that happens is that the pages become an edit war for four days between spoiler posters and spoiler removers with edit summaries of "NO SPOILERS". This has happened repeatedly for years and there has never been a mass exodus, or anything resembling it, because they were posted. They are a fact of life and the idea that the editing of the articles will crash to a halt because of this is an extreme worst case scenerio that is pretty much unlikely to happen. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but the problems arise when the governments acknowledge it as legitimate. There hasn't been a problem because they can be removed, so there is a better chance of avoiding the spoilers than if they are simply added. Also, "edit war" is a serious exaggeration. There is maybe two edits on a few of the pages in those 4 days on average. If they are accepted, however, then articles containing spoilers will become the standard, and that's where problems will arise. The Hybrid T/C 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what your homosexuality analogy is meant to be implying. As for my "serious exaggeration" on the number of edits the pages receive in regards to spoiler edit warring I count a fair few more than two edits on those four days. Articles containing spoilers are the standard on wikipedia, not the exception. We are not an exception either and claims otherwise are simply based off, well, morals. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The homosexuality analogy was meant to imply that the general public, in this case WP:PW, only become violently upset about something they are opposed to when those who are in power over them violate what they believe in. In this case, WP:PW is willing to live with the current spoiler situation because they can do something about it. If they are told that they can't anymore, then they will become truly upset. Also, while you link to 4 histories, you know as well as I do that is actually just one example, as it was all about the same title change. Also, as anyone who edits wrestling articles knows, title changes are the exception to every rule. People go crazy when a title changes hands. The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW is not the general public, in fact if we want to consider wikipedia as a society it is WP:PW that are a minority fringe. "WP:PW is willing to live with the current spoiler situation because they can do something about it." You again speak for the 'silent majority' which ignores that the issue is not the existing consensus of WP:PW but the consensus of wikipedia as a whole, and the comments by the neutral parties here are illustrative that the current situation should not have occurred in the first place and trying to maintain a position which is wrong on its basis simply by the argument that it was the position means that we can not repair mistakes if they occur. As for your comment about the four articles the reason I linked to four instead of one was because this one event caused an edit war across FOUR pages over an issue that should not have become a "policy" of a wikiproject to overrule wikipedias own policies and guidelines. Nothing you have argued so far, when broken down, comes up again as much more than "spoilers are bad, don't you see that?" which isn't an argument at all. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

loosely calling WWE a sporting event its normal for the results of such event to be added to an article after the event has occured even though the information doesnt immediately have written sources to support it. Additionally referring to an TV series episode event, again its common to see the episode information added before there is print media information. Yes I realise that alot of this is primary sourcing something that many TV shows suffer from, but the articles are retained anyway. IMHO to removal information until its broadcast in the US is clear WP:BIAS. The use of a spoiler for the same reason is also Systemic Bias. As for the template the TfD should be allowed to run its course without venue shopping. Gnangarra 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about the spoilers for US audiences, it is about the detrimental effect they will have on the articles. Don't ignore that. The Hybrid T/C 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They won't have a detrimental effect on the articles, everyone who currently "monitors" spoilers reads them and then removes them. They've never quit wikipedia in the past for having to read a spoiler. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the only people who work to remove the spoilers are those who don't care if they see them, but do care if unverified (which they are 99% of the time) information is added to the articles under their scope. If it became the standard, then the only option for those who don't want to read them would be to stop editing the articles entirely. The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a large overlap between people who claim spoilers are "unverified information" and those who claim spoilers, in general, are bad. As previously commented upon, repeatedly by numerous editors, these are verifiable and your last line that once again implies that editors will exodus if spoilers become the norm is still baseless. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why must we wait 4 days? Why not put the information up when it is available? To wait would be to give in to the systemic bias, which isn't a good thing in the long run. Will American Whovians, or whatever the Dr. Who fans call are themselves, start make similar demands citing the "exception" that WP:PW was granted on match results? And what about the Olympics? Clearly Wikiproject Olimpics will form and demand that results should be published on Wikipedia until after NBC airs them in the US. After all, they are only asking for a few hours there.

This "editors will live if spoilers are posted" line also doesn't hold up under scrutiny. As Lid already stated, editors who regularly edit the articles are going to see the "spoilers" regardless, so you are really not "protecting" them at all. --Farix (Talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lid was wrong; those who don't want to see spoilers are able to actively avoid them if they make a effort; there was something that I didn't want spoiled a couple weeks back, and I was able to pull it off. If it had been made the standard for wrestling articles, then that would have been impossible. The reason this is a big deal, which is what I'm trying to get across to you as I admit it doesn't sound like one, is because people are threatening to retire over it, and it will also place a filter on the new users that join. Wrestling fans are just about neurotic when it comes to spoilers if they don't want to read them, far more so than Who fans. This will be incredibly detrimental in the long run do to the simply massive amount of cruft added to wrestling articles on a daily basis. I don't think that you understand just how large the scale is we're talking about. Neither Dr. Who, nor the Olympics can even come close to this. For a visual comparison, those would be measured in millimeters, while wrestling articles would be measured in kilometers. That is not, I repeat not an exaggeration. The wrestling articles being of any quality whatsoever, and not completely consumed with unverified and irrelevant information is a very recent development, and if the experienced users, who are looked to as the de facto leaders of the project begin retiring, then things will probably revert back to the way they were before within a few months, as the remnant won't be able to keep that many articles clean. The Hybrid T/C 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does updating wrestlers' pages when they win titles on taped shows mean kilometers of useless cruft will be added and we will be powerless to stop it? Even if it did, correlation does not imply causation. The issues would be, and are, entirely distinct. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The only person I see threatening to retire over it re yourself and some other editors that perceive spoilers as bad, this may seem shocking but when spoilers were accepted as part of wikipedia some users retired in protest. The policy remained Why? Because it was the policy and the small number of editors against it can not stonewall a policy they don't like by threatening departure if consensus does not go their way. This is the same situation as to what is happening here, except it has taken a lot longer for it to be brought up that when this was passed it was simply ignored by a group then called "consensus". You stated that I was wrong but have yet to entertain the idea that maybe the original decision reached by WP:PW was entirely wrong from its start and that longevity is not an argument for maintaining the status quo if the status quo is fundamentally incorrect.

Every television show on wikipedia includes spoilers, has that caused their articles to suffer from a lack of editors refusing to edit the articles because they contained spoilers? No. The articles continue to be edited every single day by hundreds of people who may or may not like spoilers but it is irreverent, they are allowed.

Your line of "de facto leaders" is especially troublesome as it implies that both the WP:PW has a power brokering system between a select few, and also glosses over the fact I am an experienced editor in professional wrestling, not some admin who blew in on a high horse on a little fringe topic I know nothing about to plant my views upon. I have watched, editted and commented for a long time on professional wrestling on wikipedia and then to claim that the "leaders" of WP:PW will depart if spoilers are finally allowed into the garden is truly ridiculous. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I think this is missing the point spoilers serve a purpose in that they warn others that information they may not want to know has been included in the article. This works well for things like books and movies.
For TV shows I think this isnt warranted because at what point do they get removed, and what audience is the spoiler for hence if its because the show hasnt be aired in the US then thats Bias, as it would be if the show hasnt been aired in Australia, or Europe. We are building an encyclopedia that contains information about a subject when that information alters then the article should be also be altered, as wiki that means that when an editor is able to provide a source and do the edit, we shouldnt be waiting days for a show to be aired everywhere. Also we work by developing consensus not by stonewalling until your POV is the result, these comments make it difficult for editors to assume good faith and it also creates bad feelings in discussions making people reluctant to even consider your POV. Gnangarra 05:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) And just to clarify I have, not once, stated that spoilers are to be used for "week by week" article cruft. Non-notable incidents are still non-notable incidents and would be, in all likelihood, still removed as such by editors keeping the articles clean. The idea the articles will explode in cruft if spoilers are allowed is truly groundless and a complete misinterpretation of what this debate is about. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be time to open up an RFC on the matter and bring in a wider range of opinion, or it may just demonstrate that a minority opinion is a minority opinion. But I don't think we should get bent out of shape or make changes to policies to appease editors who threaten to leave if they don't get their way. We are and encyclopedia and not a fansite. --Farix (Talk) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that a RFC is the way forward - let's put this one to bed or it's going to go around and around and around. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Farix (Talk) 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you think it's appropriate to announce the RfC at the Village Pump, WP:RS, and other high traffic areas, then go ahead. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ROHA 's anti-Semitism again

Once again, an editor calling himself Hans Rosenthal - ROHA - is posting insulting and offensive comments. Please see this recent discussion, in particular the comments by User: Nemissimo. Strill asking for a range block - or do we just keep accepting his years of harassment? Tvoz |talk 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of spewing anti-semitic vitriol and general disruption. Unfortunately he is coming in from a broad range of IPs (see here). To catch them all we'd need to block 84.148.0.0/17, which is not likely to fly. Instead I propose that we put a de facto ban on ROHA such that any editor may revert him on sight. Such reversions would be treated like any other reversions of a banned editor; namely, the person reverting would not need to take into account 3RR or other restrictions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried contacting his ISP? --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle that could work, but in practice we may as well beat our monitors with colored pencils. Especially in this case, where the ISP is Sprint. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What about what Nemissimo says about how .de handles him: here? And has anyone talked to Foundation legal-types about situations like this? Tvoz |talk 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Range block. Anti-Semitism, or anti-any religion is a great way to invite a smack on Wikipedia's face in court. We should nip prejudice in the bud.Bakaman 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, it's a big range. It's a /17, which works out to over 32,000 IP addresses. I'd rather semi-protect the articles until he gets bored and slinks away. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to try that approach, but note that he's been at it here since at least 2005. Tvoz |talk 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ROHA attempted to post to this thread. I deleted it. He's deliberately using an IP so we can't block him, so I'm taking a novel approach of declaring a "virtual indef block": his edits should be deleted on sight by any editor who encounters them. This "virtual block" may of course be challenged or undone by another admin, just like normal blocks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible privacy issue

First, some background. The London Gazette recently re-vamped it's website, breaking all existing references to it as they've completely changed the url construction. I've been working my way through this list User:Rich Farmbrough/Article lists/Gazette of articles which contain London Gazette urls and converting them to use {{LondonGazette}} which should make it easier to deal with such changes in future. The latest article I updated, Bez was using the Gazette to reference the fact that the article subject was at one point declared bankrupt. I have updated the reference, but it then occured to me that since the notices (published by order of the court) list the full address of the article subject, this might be considered a privacy violation. I don't know whether this is actually a current address, and anyone could find the info via the website anyway, but obviously linking directly to it in a Wikipedia article gives it much wider currency, so I thought I would seek some wider input as to whether it is actually appropriate to use these references in these particular circumstances. David Underdown (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not much we can do about that, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The address has been published in the London Gazette, which is officially a newspaper. Claiming that a living person has been made bankrupt is certainly a controversial claim per WP:BLP but the London Gazette is the ultimate reliable source for such matters. If it is reasonable to mention the bankruptcy (in other words, if it is significant in the life or career of the subject) then the source should be mentioned; and remember anyone reasonably familiar with the London Gazette will be able to search the full online archive and find it themselves. I can, though, see some circumstances in which the bankruptcy of a living person is not a significant matter and should be removed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, a celebrity bankruptcy is generally a notable event, especially as apparently winning the Big Brother television series took care of that problem for him. • Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • If a court of law has ordered the address to be made public, can it now be considered a "privacy issue"? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem will come if the person has since discharged the bankruptcy, or if osme conviction is now spent under the Rehabilitaiton Of Offenders Act. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• In a roundabout way, I'm curious how we should handle otherwise fine sources that also include private information that was ordered public--would the source be no longer acceptable for us after the fact? Or before? • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The address isn't in the article. If it becomes a privacy issue, it is an issue for the site hosting the info, not every site linking to it. Mr.Z-man 05:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Still, I smell the possibility of a very intense OTRS ticket, with issues of this nature. I think I agree with that position, but it's something we should try and handle delicately. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input folks, I'm glad no-one thinks it a huge issue, though I'm not quite sure if Sam is advocating not putting a direct link to the Gazette in the article? David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Karl Maier

After taking a look at Special:Contributions/Karl_Meier, almost all of Karl Maier's edits for the past 30 month (from October 19 to now) have basically been reverts, and most of them revert my edits.

What's more disturbing is that when Karl Maier reverts me he/she does not attempts to use the talk page to discuss reverts.

I would not have posted here, if Karl Maier had discussed the issue instead of removing my comments from his/her talk page.[7] Clearly he/she is not interested in discussing the issue.

I request that Karl Maier be told to use talk pages to discuss reversions and changes.Bless sins (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier has been instrumental in removing huge amounts of POV from contentious pages. He should be praised not censured or his efforts.Bakaman 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl was subject to a now expired ArbComm probation - but it is now expired. And I know of ArbComm cases where the committee has explicitly said that discussions in edit summaries while reverting is not sufficient discussion, the talk page also needs to be used. Karl is only editing about every other week, it will be very hard to actually have a conversation with him about anything. Is there anyone he is known to respect who can say "discuss, don't just revert?" GRBerry (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting case. 'Probation' seems to imply that the year ending August 2007 was some kind of test period; we are left with the possibility that once that test period expired the user's returned to disruptive editing. It seems that there's a lacuna in the way that decision was handed down.

Perhaps a request for clarification, asking whether once KM's period has expired, he automatically has his slate 'wiped clean', as it were, might be in order. It certainly seems to imply that the original slap on the wrist was insufficient.

(In terms of KM receiving some sympathy in terms of removing huge amounts of POV, well, he does; he might also introduce a great deal. We can't be certain one way or another unless talk page conversation is available.) Relata refero (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

When probation has expired, it has expired. The only way to reinstate it is by application to the Arbitration Committee, by email or by posting to the "Requests for clarification" section of the main RFAR page. Thatcher131 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If he is editing every other week then there really isn't a problem with his editing. He is not a drive-by vandal that detracts from the pedia. He is a knowledgeable user editing in his field of interest that is loath to take abuse lying down. There is no reason to penalize an eager editor such as him. Also I see in his recent contributions that a number of them have been discussion style edits, so bless sins contentions of "revert-warrior" and such must be invalidated when viewing this situation.Bakaman 01:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I;ve just looked through KM's contribs, and without reference to the merits of your argument that the complainant has similar problems, KM appears the very definition of "drive-by reverter." Since that was what he was censured for in the original case, I think a request for clarification is in order. Relata refero (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you really shouldn't talk; most of your contributions are basicly reverts of my edits, often for unjustified or poorly justified reasons and strict censorship, even when sources say otherwise, yet you revert away anyway. Just look at your contribs. It is almost a complete revrt log of my edits. It's not like you don't make heavily POV edits, then revert when people try to neutralize them. Yahel Guhan 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• As above, Bless sins is a POV warrior diametrically opposed to Karl Meier and this should be taken into account when s/he makes such reports. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If Bless Sins has similar trouble with drive-by reverting, he should definitely be similarly censured. But we'll get nowhere by judging people by the quality of their opposition; so I think its irrelevant at this point.Relata refero (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get to the point: some admin should, please, ask Karl Maier to engage in discussion, as opposed to simply reverting. Bakasuprman, do you honestly beleive that Karl should be "praised" for reverting without engaging in discussion (like he/she has been doing)?Bless sins (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reminded him that he needs to also use the talk page. I make no predictions. GRBerry 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I need help

Resolved

 – No admin intervention required. east.718 at 02:21, November 20, 2007

I am trying to understand Why certain info in Texas Transportation Museum is bieing called "unencyclopedic". After the Below content was added the info was deleted again.

Article cleanup Several editors have removed the unencyclopedic opening hours, ticket prices etc. info from the article per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:IINFO (As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.). Museum of Modern Art is a good example of an article to emulate in building a good museum article. feydey 06:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact only two people have commented or edited the article for the purpose of deleting "unencyclopedic" info User:Feydey And User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson.

I deleted the Ticket prices. On the others I belive it is a mater of opinion because nither of the WPs you sited say anything more than: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.".

Amreatsf4620 07:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Texas_Transportation_Museum"

So again I would like some admin help with this.

Thanks, John "Amreatsf4620 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"

This is a content dispute, and you should seek dispute resolution. This does not require admin attention; indeed, admins are not in any way special in this respect. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know it wouldn't have hurt you just to point out to this user, that they are in fact mistaken, the things they are adding (opening times/schedules) aren't disputable, they are clear policy violations, per NOT#DIR. Just because this board isn't meant for dispute resolution, doesn't mean you can't correct a mistaken belief, which is always a lot more concrete coming from an admin--Jac16888 (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe admins have any special position to be correcting people's beliefs on content issues, nor do I believe I should comment on content disputes which I have not taken the time to review properly. I also don't want to encourage people to treat this board as some kind of forum for "authoritative" or "concrete" opinions on content disputes and I believe letting people use it instead of dispute resolution does exactly that. --Haemo (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

USER:Arnabdas

• User:Arnabdas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After receiving multiple NPOV warnings on his talk page regarding repeatedly making POV edits (see some examples here, here, here, here) this user has now applied warning templates to my page in complete bad faith (diffs here and here). Several other editors have noted that this was wholly improper and in bad faith (examples here and here). I have issued a third NPOV warning for continued POV-pushing, and I have instructed the editor that additional POV pushing and/or bad-faith actions will result in a formal RFC on his conduct. I thought it would be best if I kept ANI up on the situation before it goes to all that (as suggested by other editors). Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And what administrative action needs to be taken here? east.718 at 09:12, November 20, 2007

I'm not sure if/that any is needed at all. I figured it'd be wise to go ahead and mention it for a few reasons... one, I'm not an administrator and don't presume to know what actions are appropriate. Two, I recognize that I'm not infallable, and despite other editors' support (referenced above) I figured it's always wiser to ask for help or review from ANI than it is to barrel forward without seeking counsel. Finally, if my interpretation is correct and my actions thus far are proper then perhaps words from an uninvolved administrator would help quell this before it has to go to RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you want WP:WQA. Relata refero (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I want to say I did not put the warning tag on his page in bad faith. I tried to have a discussion with him on the talk pages, but unfortunately have not heard any response from him. Because I didn't hear a response, I just removed what he said. He then proceded to issue me a 2nd tag. That is when I issued him a tag because I felt that he was POV pushing in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page. I have officially given reason why I felt his editing of the article was wrong. Hopefully this time he will adress the issue so we can make the article a good and accurate one. Arnabdas (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unapproved bot

User:AxwynBot. It doesn't look like it's an approved bot, it doesn't look like JoanneB has edited recently, and its edits are a bit odd. I went ahead an blocked it. I'm not missing something glaringly obvious, am I? -- RG² 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, that doesn't look like anybody up to any good. Since JoanneB didn't tag it as their bot, I don't think we can rely on that as an identifier. Somebody with a grudge, maybe? Clearly they have at least some experience on wiki(s). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

JoanneB has confirmed that the bot is not hers. [8]. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that my name is still known and used by those vandals, I think I'll simply take it as a 'compliment'. Thanks to all who acted upon this and the previous occurences! Rule of thumb: if any bot claims to be me or acting on my behalf, it isn't. --JoanneB 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:E104421 and VartanM

Edit warring on multiple articles

Shusha

• Reverts the article to a previous contested version with edit summary:(added a new section on cultural life.)[9]
• reverts again with edit summary:(rv.: please, do not remove the sourced information. the new section on cultural life is informative. you deleted the cited refereces in other sections, too.)[10]
• When I added just the sourced stuff he was adding [11] he reverts again [12]

Turko-Persian tradition O talkpage posts to go along with the 3 reverts on this article.

• Reverts the article claiming that the Ip address is User:Tajik[13]
• When asked to use the talkpage to explain his edit he reverts again[14]
• When explained that the information his adding is already there he reverts again [15]

Now I understand that he did not violate the 3RR, but his being disruptive by adding controversial material and refusing to understand why the information was removed in the first place. We have been discussing the Shusha article for about a week now. 3 users are currently being checkusered[16]. Most of the users editing the article are limited to 1RR per Arbcom restrictions. His actions and uncompromisable reverts are just adding fuel to the fire and are not helpful at all. --VartanM (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I should alsow mention that he was previously(8 months ago) indef blocked for edit warring by Dmcdevit[17] VartanM (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • For the Shusha article, i provided the direct quotations into the talk page [18]. For the Turko-Persian tradition article, the necessary explanation done in the edit summary [19], since the removed paragraph is not related with the article, more important, the cited references of that paragraph is not related neither with the article nor with the paragraph at all. They are totally irrelevant. These are also explained in the edit summary. On the other hand, i reverted User:Tajik, per Dmcdevit's comments:[20] and [21].

Note: See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik

• VartanM, on the other hand, deleted Encyclopædia Britannica's Qajar Dynasty and Azerbaijan references [22]. I reverted just because of the deletion of cited references as i pointed out in the edit summary. I'm not interested in his conflicts with other users, but the deletion of cited references do not seem to be an acceptable manner. In addition, i did my first edit to the article in my wiki-life today. At first, i was planning to create a new article on Sileh rug, for this reason, i checked the Shusha article, since ... Those sileh from the Caucasus may have been woven in the vicinity of Shusha (from "sileh rug", Encyclopædia Britannica, Academic Online Edition, 2007. That's it. I'm so surprised for the impolite behaviour of VartanM who even accused me of disruption after my first edit to the article. I'm wondering how he describes the deletion of cited references. He does not warned me about the previous issues, or his conflicts with other users, but just accused me of disruption here in the WP:AN/I. He could post a message to my talk page on his objections. If he would do so, i would discuss/re-consider my edits as well. That would be more simple than carring the case here. Actually, that's the procedure adviced at the top of the WP:AN/I page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." Anyways, i'm ready to answer if more explanation is needed. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert of POV edits by E104421 was perfectly justified. He only removed deletion of sourced info from the article and addition of controversial claims by a group of users. It is no more disruptive than all the edit warring that was done by certain users (VartanM included) to keep the POV claims in the article. Grandmaster (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, VartanM provides inaccurate info that editors involved in edit warring in that article are restricted by parole. Most of them are not, i.e. VartanM, Verjakette and Bassenius, and they are clearly taking advantage of that. Grandmaster (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this the sort of issue that should be handled at dispute resolution? What admin action is being requested here - synopsis version this time, please. Natalie (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP address E104421 reverted as banned user Tajik is - surprise - banned user Tajik. He's certainly been edit-warring, and will be blocked if he keeps it up, but reverting banned users doesn't count. Picaroon (t)

This report was not about the content, it was about a previously indefinatly banned user(edit warring) simultaneously edit warring on 2 different articles. Thanks anyway. VartanM (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• In the Shusha article, there is a content dispute, in the Turko-Persian relation article, there were blind reverts by Tajik and Beh-nam, since both of the users did not checked the paragraph with its cited references. If they were, they would remove that paragraph. The cited references were not related with that paragraph. That's clearly explained in the edit summary. There were no edit-war at all. VartanM tries to exaggerate issue by introducing artificial reasons and skipping the steps of my unblock and the decision of ArbCom. He's trying to overshadow his deletion of the referenced material by my blog-log. Yes, i was blocked many times because of my conflicts with Tajik, but ArbCom, at the end, closed the case without giving me any extra ban. On the other hand, after Tajik's block, i never get blocked (since 1 April 2007), since the conflicts automatically ended up with the decision of ArbCom. Humans make mistakes, but judging people all the time with their mistakes in the past is not fair. VartanM does not answers the points i suggested above but tries to change the topic to my previous conflicts with Tajik. That case (E104421-Tajik) was closed by ArbCom. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM has been edit warring at Shusha and Khachen prior to that, pushing POV, removing sources [23], [24], [25], and even removing fully explained POV and dispute tags [26], [27] when there is an obvious dispute on the talk page for months, without providing proper explanations or achieving consensus. Just take a look at this one revert over me, see how much sourced material User:VartanM removes ([28]) inserting POV and one source instead. Because of User:VartanM, User:MarshallBagramyan, User:Andranikpasha, User:Fedayee, User:Eupator teamed up at Khachen, Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh War, and several other pages, it's impossible to add any reference or have any neutrality whatsoever. VartanM and Andranikpasha remove even references to Oxford scholar and expert in the topic arguing about neutrality. I hope someone will again take a neutral look into these two pages, Shusha and Khachen, because it seems like User:VartanM, a prior ArbCom participant, can violate Wikipedia NPOV policy, assume bad faith, become assigned as a guide to another User:Andranikpasha in doing the same without any restriction. And now, of course, VartanM feels free to report anyone even trying to edit these pages, ignoring WP:OWN. If anyone for any reason felt offended by anything I said above, please, accept my apologies. Atabek (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW you still haven't let that go. How old are those diffs? Lighten up a bit and AGF VartanM (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, poor E104421's block log is also old, but you keep on accusing him for his past conflicts with Tajik (especially, on nomadic empires related topics). Here the content dispute is on Shusha (Cultural life of the city) article. Best. E104421 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you speaking in a third person? Are you not the E104421? VartanM (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry :) I'm not a native speaker. I tried to joke but my poor English... E104421 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to bring humor into this, but this was probable cause to request a checkuser. VartanM (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

E104421 violated 3RR on Shusha.

• 1st Reversion as of 00:45, November 20, 2007 [29]
• 2nd Reversion as of 01:15, November 20, 2007 [30]
• 3rd Reversion as of 02:24, November 20, 2007 [31]
• 4th Reversion as of 12:43, November 20, 2007 [32]

4 reversions within 12 hours. VartanM (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's not correct. Check my contributions again: Here is my first edit to the Shusha article in my wiki-life: [33] and its spell-check [34] immediately after the first.

• 1st revert: [35] 09:15, 20 November 2007
• 2nd revert: [36] 10:24, 20 November 2007
• So-called 3rd revert: [37] 20:43, 20 November 2007

I already wrote rv in edit summaries for my reverts. I'm wondering where you're trying to get with all these claims. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please, note that in my edits, i restored the deleted sourced information and cited references as can be clearly seen here [38]. I still do not understand why VartanM ignores these cited references. Basically, a source is valid unless its falsified. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The first edit you made was a revert disguised as an addition of material. Revert doesn't have to be reverting to your own version. VartanM (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, the edits before and in-between the above were your reverts removing referenced material added by the above mentioned user. So clearly instead of engaging in constructive discussion, you're engaged in disruptive edit warring and POV pushing as was the case at Khachen. I shall remind you that you were a party to recent ArbCom [39], which specifically states that:

• Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Now please, assume good faith rather than targeting contributors and removing sourced material, and remind yourself of the associated remedy in this ArbCom case: [40]

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I was very active in the talkpage of the said article requesting justification for the reverts. He mostly ignored the talkpage and is yet to address the points raised. VartanM (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I provided the quotations from Encyclopedia Britannica into the talk page [41], but you are just interested in the removal of sourced information [42]. In addition, you never explained in detail why you removed the sourced material. Regards. E104421 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is still a content dispute, and ANI is not the appropriate place to settle content disputes. Please try one of the suggestions listed in Wikipedia: Dispute resolution. If you wish to report people for edit warring, please use the 3RR noticeboard. If you want to keep hashing this out, I suggest doing so on one of your talk pages, not here. Natalie (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Natalie, I think this dispute will occasionally end up on this page, simply because every time User:VartanM violations are brought up, it's someone else who gets blocked or paroled, and User:VartanM continues edit warring, pushing POV and targeting any other user involved in article against his POV. Ignoring such disruptive behavior is empowering one contributor against others, and essentially violating neutrality of Wikipedia. VartanM participated in the most recent ArbCom, as one of the main participants, continued edit warring in articles afterwards, was warned twice, and yet as opposed to many other users with similar or lesser violations is not placed under parole but continues using his 3RR advantage and warring on the articles. Will this ever come to an end, by moving this discussion away from ANI to talk pages? Atabek (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected again

I see that WJBscribe (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on this board with IPs (apparently over criticism of a protection action of his regarding Durova's ArbCom candidacy question page) and has semi-protected this noticeboard, shutting down all IPs from posting here. Once again, this gives the appearance of using admin tools in a dispute. Rather than continually edit-warring and protecting the page, wouldn't it better to answer the concern (if it has any basis) or simply ignore it (if it doesn't)? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Any troll who seeks to disrupt Wikipedia can attack the administrator who seeks to prevent disruption. We do not provide trolls a blanket excuse that they are in dispute with the administrators who seek to limit their disruption. There is no dispute between WJBscribe and this IP. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And removing comments from an editor using IP sockpuppets to circumvent a block is not "edit-warring". That is a loaded characterization. — Satori Son 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't remove contributions of blocked editors, only banned editors. But I haven't seen any information to indicate this person is either, other than the unspecified softblock below. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is common practice to revert the sockpuppet edits of a blocked editor while the block is in effect. Otherwise, our blocks would be useless. — Satori Son 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting phrasing of the situation. Block evasion using open proxies is unacceptable. Full stop. I have pointed out two means of redress for the person in question - the unblock mailing list, or ArbCom. They have not chosen to take up either of those options, instead they are making use of open proxies to disrupt Wikipedia. As a consequence I have had to protect this board from IP editing for a while. My fault of course, not that of the person using IPs to evade a block and troll various pages... WjBscribe 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this particular blocked user - who are they, and what type of block are they evading? Anyway, wouldn't it be better to simply answer their question on this board and end the drama, rather than lock out all of the "good" IPs who may have a need to post here? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually few IPs post here. But if we accepted your suggestion, how many posts should we allow a blocked user to make using proxies - 1, 2, 3... ? At what point should I draw the line? You will see that I have discussed the matters with this IP on my talkpage. I have blocked 12 separate proxies used by this person today alone. Given our policies against block evasion and use of proxies - is that acceptable. We have a mailing list where a large number of admins deal with unblock requests. We have an elected Arbitration Committee where the misconduct of administrators can be investigated. I actually had some concerns about the original block here - but this is not the way for the user to have their block investigated. WjBscribe 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What was this person's blocked user account? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They have not revealed their account - it is not blocked. Their complaint is about the softblock of the (non-proxy) IP they presently edit from - 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs). WjBscribe 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the IP is not a proxy, why is softblocked? Vandalism? Who blocked it? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you could check its block log for that information... But if you're very interested, some archived discussion of the matter can be found here. WjBscribe 15:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now unprotected this page and the IP's talkpage as a goodwill gesture following discussion with several involved parties. I hope to be able to discuss a mutually acceptable compromise. WjBscribe 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - WJBscribe, you should probably also unprotect Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Durova/Questions for the candidate. Anon editors have an equal right to ask questions, so far as I know, and by shutting that off you are likely causing damage to Durova's candidacy by calling into question the fairness/equality of the process re anon vs. registered accounts. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend that protection to last forever. It will be lifted in due course. WjBscribe 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The thread you linked is about as clear as mud, but it looks to me like we generated hours of drama because of a Durova block of an IP based on another sockpuppet "sleuthing" job. It appears (at least based on this commment by Jehochman, that the block was bogus to begin with. When the person is understandably irate about being blocked, their talk page is protected and they are accused of "disruption". Soon the accusation morphs into them being a "banned" editor whose complaints must be removed rather than answered. This could all be avoided by using some freaking common sense - don't block accounts that are not damaging the encyclopedia!. The initial block was apparently another blunder resulting from this dumb sockpuppet witchhunting, and the whole situation was made infinitely worse by trying to a) shut the person up and b) cover up the whole error. Just unblock the IP and leave them alone already, unless they damage the encyclopedia. And no, complaining about dumb admin mistakes and seeking redress for them is not "damage". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can be slightly more supportive of our colleagues than that. Even if legitimately aggrieved the user has made a number of disruptive posts across Wikipedia and made extensive use of open proxies. They have also been harassing Durova by email. Ultimately we need something everyone can agree to as apparently the IP is unhappy with the matter simply being refered to ArbCom for review. I am attempting to find such a compromise but various actions then and since have made that pretty difficult. Lets not treat this matter as too black and white - I think some finesse is needed if a satisfactory resolution is to be reached. WjBscribe 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that any "disruptive posts" that took place were an incredibly tenacious attempt to overturn a wrongful block (correct me if I'm wrong). The IP apparently was forced into using proxies because their unblock request was denied and their talk page protected. If e-mail to the blocking admin was the only avenue left open to them, then e-mailing that admin is not "harrassment" if the block was wrongful. You know as well as I do that referring an anon editor to the ArbCom for a block review is just a roundabout way of telling them to 'get bent' if the block was done by a longtime editor like Durova.

I see that the block has not been overturned yet and the block log still states that the person is a sock of a banned editor, despite the fact that there seems to be widespread doubt that this is the case. Perhaps Durova could explain exactly why she felt this IP is MyWikiBiz. Also, WJBscribe, you seem to be demanding on the IPs talk page that they reveal their identity - we don't do that here, people are allowed to edit anonymously if they so choose. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking them to reveal their identity - I am pointing out that for contact between them and Durova/Jehochman to end someone is going to have know the indentity of their Wikipedia account. Durova has not been recieving unblock requests, she has been receiving harassment. And feeling you were wrongly blocked is not an excuse for the use of open proxies to evade the block. If everyone did that we'd have chaos.Now please back off Videmus Omnia. I have been very patient with you but frankly your involvement here isn't helping. Lets see what happens when the IP comments and we find out what terms are acceptable to them. WjBscribe 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The person is obviously editing with an IP because they don't want to reveal their login to Durova or Jehochman. The Wikimedia privacy policy allows them to do this, and some random admin doesn't have the right to demand they reveal their account information. You should take it to Checkuser if you believe some policy is being violated by the IP, but you, or Jehochman, or Durova, don't have any right to ask that person to divulge any details to you in order to be unblocked, when they apparently shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its up to them what they will or won't do. They can't ask people to avoid them if those people don't know who to avoid. Please another party in this matter is not helpful. Let them make their own case for what is or isn't acceptable to them. Look I've been working on this all day - please have faith that I understand more about the issues here than you do. This person's conduct has been quite unacceptable. They may feel aggrieved but that doesn't justify it. However a compromise is needed to end the stalemate. Please let this work itself out. Your involvement is heavy handed and is only making it less likely this situation can be resolved. WjBscribe 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, your efforts have hardly been the epitome of diplomacy; as a matter of fact, your main effort earlier seemed to be an attempt to shut this person up by reverting their complaints here and semi-protecting this page. You didn't unprotect the IP's talk page until that issue was raised at this noticeboard. "Heavy-handed" is a good description of your, Jehochman's, and Durova's conduct in regards to this anon user. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't simply revert an unblock request without an edit summary - I'm restoring that, by the way. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you only see part of the puzzle. I reverted edits using open proxies per policy. Block evasion using proxies is not acceptable whatever one thinks of your block. In the meantime I discussed the matter with Jehochman and gained his agreement to my unblocking the IP if a mutual acceptable agreement could be reached. I then began discussion with the IP. Perhaps you should let those pan out before passing judgment. WjBscribe 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy that states edits from open proxies are to be reverted? And if Jehochman precipitated the whole confrontation by a screwup, he's not really entitled to anything anyway. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing from open proxies is not allowed at the meta policy level. We would not be preventing that editing if we didn't revert the edits made by such proxies. WjBscribe 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I fear your argument seeks to prove too much. Meta policy is inherited by projects that do not have corresponding local policy. Here on en.wiki we do have an overriding local policy, and editing from open proxies is not prohibited per se. What is prohibited is circumvention of blocks, by any means whatsoever. The discussion of proxies is irrelevant and distracts from the situation at issue: the user in question is acting abusively toward other users and circumventing the blocks to do so. If I may rework your statement: circumvention of blocks is not allowed, and we would not be preventing that editing if we didn't revert the edits made by block circumventing editors. Furthermore, reverting any user who's acting abusively is always justified. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we should not build mountains of bureaucracy to climb. The fact that WP:BAN explicitly calls for reversion of banned editors does not mean other abusive editors cannot be reverted. ··coelacan 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A note of clarification: the static IP was so disruptive that four different administrators blocked it in the space of two days and a fifth protected the IP's talk page. I was one of the four blocking administrators, yet for some unknown reason that individual chose to single me out for retribution. This individual has been fully informed of the proper recourses. Failure to pursue legitimate options is not an excuse to circumvent policy. Responsibility for the effects of semiprotection must rest with the abuse of policy that necessitated it, not with the administrator who took action to restore order. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Durova, you're misrepresenting. Here is the block log. Daniel's block was a 1-second block to correct the block log following an unblock action, and Bishonen's was only a short block pending checkuser (which apparently revealed nothing). That leaves the only 'real' blocks as yours and Jehochman's. Jehochman has already said he is mistaken, and you have yet to explain why you believe this is a sock of MyWikiBiz. Would you please do so now? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't speak on my behalf. I said I was willing to assume good faith and accept trusted editors at face value who said that this was not who I thought it was. I am not 100% sure of the true identity of the person, nor do I know if they were posting on behalf of somebody else. I do know that they have been highly disruptive since then. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider unjustified blocks as "highly disruptive"? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

← http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=172708532 - 89.106.244.90 wants to sign as 24.19.33.82. % Checking TOR status for '89.106.244.90'... ACK % This is a TOR EXIT node (details below). % IP: 89.106.244.90 % Name: AFriendlyBelgianTOR % Ports: 9001 9030 % Flags: Exit Fast Guard Running Stable V2Dir Valid

No further questions, your honor. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Resolved

Rush Limbaugh is under substantial editing from IP users with some degree of edit warring. Some makes sense, but the article is fairly unstable. I suggest semi-protection for a while. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied to WP:RFPP; user notified on talk page. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected by The-G-Unit-Boss. Hut 8.5 20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For once and all, please make it loud and clear.

1. How many days, weeks, months we should allow to provide reliable sources for article like Operation Hush which is not even tagged as unreferenced? 2. And if anybody can remove even SD, PROD tag, then what is the use of new page patrollers? Why should we waste time in placing tags like unreferenced, notability etc? One admin just advised me to take article to AFD. But here I saw that a new user who has no contributions at all voted to 'keep' it. Why should I waste time to take to AFD where anybody can vote using sockpuppets? Thanks. sharara 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Being unsourced is not a reason for speedy deletion. If an article remains unsourced for a significant amount of time, and especially if cleanup / PROD tags bring no improvement, the article should be submitted to AfD. Since AfD is not a vote, the closing admin will disregard spurious contributions. Sandstein (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that many articles have 'external links' that are actually references, for instance Operation Hush. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the duration of 'significant amount of time'? And how would you know which article is unsourced if 'unreferenced, cleanup, PROD' tags are removed? Anybody can remove it. I can go on showing unsourced articles dating back to 2003 and even before it. Is it responsibility of new page patrollers and admin to search sources and add to the articles? Thanks.sharara 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ideally when someone creates an article, they would include sources. Obviously this doesn't always happen though. Any article that has no sources cited or relevant external links that verify the subject can be considered unsourced and probably should be tagged as such. If someone is removing "unsourced" or "cleanup" tags without actually addressing the problem or explaining the removal, I'd say you'd be fairly justified in adding them back. PROD is different; if someone removes it, that is it. At that point the article needs to go to Articles for Deletion if you still wish to pursue deletion. As for who's responsibility it is to source something, generally it is the creator's responsibility. Before simply nominating something for deletion though, it is always a good idea to do some due dilligence and look to see if it can be verified. If it can, contact the creator and request that they source their article, or just source it yourself. If it can't be sourced or notability can't be established, then deletion may be the correct next step.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The question isn't so much "is it sourced" as "can it be sourced"? The article in questions appears to be on a verifiable subject. It may not be notable, and might be deleted at AFD, but it at least can be sourced (and I added a source to the article).--Isotope23 ^talk 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sharara, you seem to have some confusion regarding the deletion process. Just keep in mind the following:

• Please do not reinstate a prod tag after a user has removed it from an article. If you still feel an article should be deleted, use the AfD process instead.
• Please do not issue vandalism warnings to users who remove prod tags. Prod removal is an acceptable Wikipedia procedure, and the author who removes a prod tag is not obligated to improve the article in any way. Again, once a prod tag has been removed, if you feel the article should be deleted, use the AfD process instead.
• Please do not place db (speedy deletion) tags in article with personal motivations, such as "the author has removed a prod tag", or "this article is unreferenced", or "the subject of this article is not notable". These are not valid speedy deletion criteria. For a list of acceptable speedy deletion criteria, see WP:CSD.
• Please note that AfD debates are not votes. This is a fundamental misconception that seems to make you want to avoid AfD at all costs, thereby resorting to inappropriate use of speedy and prod. If an AfD comment is recognised as spurious (for example, because it comes from a single-purpose account), it will just be ignored by a hopefully wise admin.

Thanks! --Nehwyn (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a cleanup procedure. Submitting an article for deletion because it's been around with no sources is liable to engender a great deal of drama. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question, "Is it responsibility of new page patrollers and admin to search sources and add to the articles?", is no. I might decide that the subject interests me and look for sources but on the other hand it might be so obscure that I have no idea where to begin looking for them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and other types of incivility on talk page

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
EliasAlucard has posted many personal insults, uncivil comments (including swearing), has used all-caps (yelling), and sometimes made his signatures appear as if he had a different username (making it look like someone else was posting the comment). I posted a warning about personal attacks on his talk page quite awhile ago, but it has had no effect. He also seems to reject the whole basis of Wikipedia, which is presentng facts supported by reliable sources. Here are just a few recent examples (although the problem goes back much further:

1. Swearing and personal insults
2. Rejecting reliable references in favour of POV-pushing
3. Uncivil comment
4. Rejecting reliable references in favour of POV-pushing
5. Rejecting reliable references in favour of POV-pushing
6. Signing a different name, so it looks like someone else was agreeing
7. Unjustified personal insult
8. Uncivil comments signed under a different name
9. Uncivil comment
10. Uncivil comment and all-caps yelling (Note: EliasAlucard's comment is the lower one)

There are several more examples, which can be seen by viewing EliasAlucard's edit history. Also, just to clarify, I have not noticed other editors making similar uncivil comments or personal insults towards EliasAlucard. Their comments have been based on content, not the individual.Spylab (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which has gotten a little bit hot. There isn't much to do here, beyond giving him a brief note about civility. I'd do it, but he's been rather upset with me since I blocked him for 3RR a while back. --Haemo (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give him a short note. He's skirting a bit of the civility edge, but it's nothing but a rather fervent content dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If he's getting this upset, disengaging for awhile might be the best idea. Natalie (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to block (i.e. "disengage") me for this. I have been trying to explain something very basic to User:Spylab for over two weeks now. I've provided several reliable sources, yet he refuses to understand what I'm saying. Frankly, I am beginning to lose my patience. It seems like Spylab is more like trying to have it his way rather than understanding reasonable arguments based on scholarly sources. Even though I've presented numerous sources, corroborating several valid points I've made, he keeps pretending like I haven't brought any sources to the talk page and completely ignores these sources. This is very disingenuous of the guy. He's acting like a defiant child when he's refusing to accept the sources, rather than a professional editor. As for my signture, I wasn't trying to fool anyone. Anyone can see that it's me since it has the same style and everything. And I've even changed my signature on my own talk page. Don't run to WP:ANI every single time you can't have it your way on the talk pages. Christ man, what is this, the third or forth time you've been here complaining about me? You are abusing the purpose of WP:ANI, it is not for content disputes. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for the record, Natalie is a very beautiful name ;) — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't suggesting a block - I was merely suggesting that you step away from whatever is frustrating you so much and do something else for a time. I've found that it's hard to make a good point when angry. Natalie (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a bad idea. — Aššur-bāni-apli II (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone's trying to get his own way it is EliasAlucard. As the quotes above show, he has been using bullying tactics in his campaign to promote original research and to to keep well-referenced material off of Wikipedia. He refuses to understand that on Wikipedia, his personal opinions do not trump the views of multiple reliable sources. Also, as you can see above, it is very confusing to the average Wikipedia reader when someone signs his comments with a different name; making it appear as if a different person wrote those comments.Spylab (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus

On United Kingdom there is the re-emergance of and edit war over the inclusion of the Ulster Banner on the Symbols section of the article. Consensus was reached last month to include the flag as the most appropriate symbol of Northern Ireland. A footnote explains the use of the flag.

Recently users have taken to removing it again. User:John who was one of the achitects of the consensus last time has asked me to report the incident here. I hope you can help. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not designed to assist editors in content disputes. Please pursue dispute resolution if you cannot find common ground with fellow editors in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an admin more familiar with the dispute can apply this cluestick? east.718 at 20:31, November 20, 2007

Morningside Clio (talk · contribs)

This user is involved in continuous heavy POV pushing on certain articles related to Israeli Palestinians, most notably Joseph Massad, Nadia Abu El Haj and Elias Chacour.

He uses weasel words and substantiation of biased statements, usually inserting them into Controversy sections of articles. In Joseph Massad for example, he uses direct quotes to substantiate claims of controversy, quoting blogs that call Massad "a bigoted nutcase" and "crackpot". These have been removed earlier but the user reinserts them shortly thereafter. The references provided to substantiate these quotes are mostly from sources that are not neutral on the Israel-Palestine issue (eg. here). References inserted by this user are never formatted properly, the user simply inserts the text of the link into the article. At times, such as revision 172643890 on Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, these links are not accurate even if properly formatted. In addition, the Joseph Massad article is already tagged as having too many quotes for an encyclopedic article yet this user adds more quotes on most of his edits.

Another instance of what can be classified as POV is his repeated removal of a publication of the American pro-Israel neoconservative think tank Middle East Forum being placed after a link to the Middle East Quarterly in the Massad article, calling it inapropriate and highly political in the respective edit summaries. Yet, in Nadia Abu El Haj, after the name of Elia Zuriek, he inserts a sociologist who advocated boycotting all Israeli universities.

Trying to stay objective and neutral, I am of the opinion that his contributions are intended to promote a point of view rather that improve a particular Wikipedia article. A quick look at the formating and the aesthetic value of Joseph Massad, especially the Controversial views section, can attest to the disregard towards Wikipedia:Manual of Style in favour of expressing opinion. While the user is not guilty of explicit vandalism, it is becoming harder for other editors to contribute to any of the previously mentioned articles without getting involved in an edit/revert war with Morningside Clio.

P.S. I do realize the irony of criticizing somebody for not properly formating reference links in the same sentence in which I did not know how to link to a specific past revision. Thanks for understanding. SWik78 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I left some notes in his talk page. Hopefully he will learn to be a useful contributor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So have I. Relata refero (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:StrengthOfNations and "friends"

Resolved

 – Sockpuppets blocked indef, puppetmaster User:StrengthOfNations blocked 24h. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2

Hey there. I'm itching to block Stayman Apple (talk · contribs) and Control Hazard (talk · contribs) as obvious sock/meatpuppets of StrengthOfNations (talk · contribs).

Stayman Apple has been editing a very unlikely set of articles in common with StrengthOfNations, and in order to bolster "support" for his position. (Health Ranger, History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States, The Yakyuken Special as well as a number of talk pages).

Control Hazard is a recent SPA created to shore up the AfD of Health Ranger. Also, by some "strange" coincidence, intersects with StrengthOfNations in NTFS. Both socks are obviously familiar with WP process and terminology from the start, so are not newbies.

It's about as clear-cut as it gets so I don't believe it useful to add to the SSP backlog, but I did not want to act in the dark since I have been involved in the Health Ranger AfD. I haven't yet blocked the puppeteer, or his socks. — Coren ^(talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They're very obviously the same person. I've indef blocked User:Control Hazard since it was used to game an AfD. Non-abusive sockpuppets are tolerated so I haven't blocked User:Stayman Apple -- yet. If you can clarify how this account was used abusively, it'll share the fate of a Thanksgiving turkey at the hands of a novice cook. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2

User:Stayman Apple has done reverts to versions of his article written by his puppeteer (History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States is the obvious case), and obviously intended to be seen as two different persons in the Health Ranger Afd— even though he didn't !vote twice. — Coren ^(talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we are constantly reminded that AfD is not a vote, participating in an AfD discussion with sockpuppets is abuse, whether or not they put Keep or Delete in bold before their comments. --barneca (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Zot. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered feels muzzled

Folks - back in August this year, the now discredited CSN board required me to find a mentor (I'd finally been trapped into the only offensive edit it's generally agreed I've ever made). I have such a mentor - the harassment of him started within 2 days, but he's now lasted a month without being driven off the way the three previous mentors were. (Details available if you've missed them). We've worked together very well (the only open issue is recent and nothing to do with Palestine).

However, there is someone else on my case insisting that he's my mentor (as well? instead?) and attempting to tell me there is still something wrong with my edits. His demand of me runs like this: "PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: [43][44][45][46]) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive."

If this editor is finding something problematical, then he's going an odd way about drawing anyones attention to it, because each of the actions of mine he's challenged is handily covered by my summaries. I'd be the first edit-warrior in history to clarify everything carefully in both Talk and summary - and I don't edit-war anyway. As one of my mentor-harassers noted in the interesting tirades I documented here: "... PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one)".

So what is going on with this interesting collection of interesting accusations - or is this just the final move to muzzle me?

I should add that it's possible I've crossed some red-line, perhaps it's wrong of me to quote Arial Sharon as if he were a notorious punisher of civilian populations (I've not actually said as much about him ever, but you know what I mean). Perhaps Wikipedia is simply not allowed to document what is/was happening to the Palestinians and I'll have to begrudgingly accept it. Perhaps this single purpose account was always doomed to be muzzled, and I should be grateful to the community for allowing me to make just a few corrections and improvements to articles. PR^talk 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The CSN board was not discredited. Its function was re-merged back to this board. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you mentioned this to Ryan at all, unless it was through email. Perhaps the best first step would be to talk to him about the situation. No offense, but it seems like you are overreacting to this. Another editor saw something problematic in your edits, so they brought it to your attention, which is the preferred first step in this community. If you disagree, open a dialogue with him and discuss your disagreement. If you disagree with him as to whether or not he is your mentor, discuss that issue with him first. Ryan's a reasonable guy - I'm sure this is a misunderstanding at most. Natalie (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'll give you a piece of advice. The purpose of mentorship is to pair you up with one or more experienced editors who understand how to edit here responsibly. The expectation is that you will talk things over with them, get feedback from them, and learn from them. Unless there is significant non-transparent and off-wiki communication, coming here was not a great idea, especially not as your first contribution after receiving a piece of feedback. As Ryan has previously told you "I would just check your edits from time to time and make sure there isn't any disruption from you, and like wise, you aren't bein bullied by other editors". The appropriate reaction to a comment from him is to talk it over with Ryan. Please go do that. GRBerry 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PR, I wish you'd attempted to discuss this with me first rather than take this to the admin board. My concern with the diffs I cited was quite simple, I believe that you were edit warring to put your own personal view across, you don't have to break 3RR to revert war and many of your reverts have taken articles back to your own personal point of view. Whilst I see a lot of talk page discussion, I don't always see you using the consensus on the talk pages when applying your edits. As your mentor, it's my job to steer you in the right direction and if there are legitimate concerns about your editing, to make you aware of them. I'm more than happy to dicuss your editing with you, and why I said what I said - this just isn't the most productive place for that discussion to occur however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

His issue seems to be that his understanding is that someone else is his mentor, and he is taking offense at you saying you are. Any chance of a clarification on where he was assigned a mentor, who he thinks is his mentor, etc?—Random832 14:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan politely took you aside, suggested that you need to calm down and edit in a manner that does not push your POV and did it in the relative privacy of your talk page. He's acted as a mentor should, instructing you and trying to get you to learn to edit in a way that follows the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. There is no problem here, beyond the thinly veiled attempt to slur Ryan's reputation, sometimes we all need a little muzzling when our POV takes over our reason. I look forward to the day when you "graduate" from mentorship, but based on this outburst, I don't think it is any time soon. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PR again - I'm used to laughable allegations against my edits (which are usually good) and my style (which may be irritating, but cannot be all that problematical). But this case (the most glaring yet seen) is about top-down interference in a "Content Dispute", as if some kind of red-line has been crossed.

Do you want details? I promise you, the inclusion of this paragraph is only objectionable to died-in-the-wool defenders of Israel. Ariel Sharon really did threaten to hit and hurt civilians - Israeli-supporting RSs treat his threats as the run-up to a massive military operation (UN says 497 Palestinians killed) with wanton other destruction. It's pretty shocking those words should be removed with a claim that they're a "bogus quote". That's denial of quite a high order.

I wasn't planning to ask any questions to the candidates for the Arbitration Committee, perhaps I should. Nobody here has ever seen me insert falsehoods into articles (except rather rare mistakes I've apologised for). Nobody has seen me remove good information (other than BLP, obviously) - and despite the bald accusations appearing on my TalkPage, nobody has ever seen me edit-war. Perhaps my question should be along the lines of "How important to being an editor is personal integrity?". PR^talk 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that PalestineRemembered claims that, someone else [is] insisting that he's my mentor" [47] because it was quite clear in the last discussion on AN that the community supports Ryan's mentorship for him. [48] In fact, PR was about to be banned from Palestine/Israel related topics, if not indef blocked, but was given the !choice between being community banned or taking up mentorship as a last chance [49]. Since then he has continued editing in the exact same problematic way - for example, he repeatedly claims that his "mentors are under attack" (though he's been told to stop doing this this many times) and soapboxing about "defenders of Israel love/hate to..." in ways very similar to his previous "commentary" about Zionists (e.g. "the Zionist ethnic cleansers", "intentions of murderous racism" [50]), and basically edit-warring in extreme POV that doesn't conform with either WP:V or WP:NPOV. Now, when his mentor finally (and quite mildly) points out issues with his editing, he suddenly decides to reject his community appointed mentor. I suggest that User:Avi, is correct, that his behavior "leads me to believe that mentorship may no longer be capable of serving its intended function." [51]

I suggest a topical ban until such time as a PR commits to accepting the mentorship of a non-partisan mentor (and that would rule out Kendrick7, who shares his POV, which is why PR was so eager to seek him out as a mentor in the first place). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I suggest you stop distorting things and interjecting yourself here - you aren't helping. We already know that PR did not seek Kendrick as a mentor, Kendrick volunteered. We already know that Ryan is a mentor. Let the mentors mentor and stop arguing for bans at every opportunity. Your continual interjections are themselves disruptive, and if you don't start attempting to work with PR I will block you on that basis. GRBerry 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, i'm not distorting anything. i feel you have been assuming a bit too much good faith for PR for a bit of time now.

p.s. i find your threat here most concerning - you can request me to take a step back, but bullying me away from commenting, considering PR has been harassing articles i've been involved in (drive by reverts, soapbox, calling me a war criminal), seems like you're saying i can't even give my 2 cents on how this mentorship process is going... nowhere slowly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a sometime viewer of these threads, my comment is that until Jaakobou is restricted from interaction with PR or his mentors this disruption will continue. Are we serious about an encyclopedia? or are we interested in certian points of view being highlighted on certain subjects? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rocksanddirt, so you're saying stuff like Hated Google Test, repeated attempts to portray Israelis/Zionists as mass killers [52] and false edit summaries [53] are all my fault? ... and i thought this is an encyclopedia rather than a WP:SOAP WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, orany other concerned editor, should be allowed to civilly and occasionally discuss PR's edits with the mentors - unless/until the mentor(s) ask them to go away because of their own behavior. At this time, in Jaakobou's case, it would be better if those discussions were separate from the mentor's discussions with PR. Jaakobou, or any other concerned editor, should expect that by doing so he is also asking the mentor to review his own related editing. Most of the really problematic disputes at Wikipedia involve poor conduct on all parties, so reviewing the behaviour of all parties is necessary. GRBerry 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Funnyboy240

Resolved

This user should probably be banned, he has been vandalizing the SpongeBob SquarePants since March. He has already been warned many times, see his talk page, and see some of his edits: 1, 2 and 3 and take a look at his offensive user page. Because of this he seems to be just a bored kid at school, altough not all of his edits are vandalism only the ones in the spongebob article. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He deserves a block, since he is only on the SpongeBob article to prove that it sucks, it doesn't belong here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Offensive userpage deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki police involvement?

Does this require it? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this is relatively minor (if blockable) vandalism activity. I'm going to go do a short block on the IP and remind them not to do that again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some IP from Michigan. Best reverted and ignored. Kids stuff (one hopes) Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with George, I don't see why we'd need to call the police; giving the vandal the attention they want is never a good idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think the kind of attention the vandal wants is the cops knocking on his door to talk to his parents about death threats. We should make it abudantly clear at all times that threatening violence or engaging in intimidation using Wikipedia is more than a blockable offense: it is a crime. If it is not a threat of violence against someone else, but a suicide threat, same thing: this is not acceptable at Wikipedia or elsewhere, and authorities should be notified. I have notified Mike Godwin and Sue Gardner with the recommendation that the authorities be notified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Talked briefly with the big guy over email; he's aware of it, and has told the people who need to know. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see Jimbo's point, in this day an age of people being aware of Wikipedia the publicity element must be considered. But we need to balance this against giving too much weight to petty vandalism and sensationalising it. If this thread is anything to show to the media, then at least it evidences a community who responds quickly, firmly and calmly to the darkest elements of human nature, (who use abuse of this work) and that we can quickly nullify it. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see the upside in that a headline "Wikipedia vandal rapped for wasting police time" might deter other pranksters; OTOH, would the media see it like that? It seems some are looking for a big stick with which to beat us and are seeking any excuse to NOT speak softly in the process. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My read was that this was sufficiently non-credible to worry about, but if Jimmy wants to go to the authorities that works too. Nobody should ever be afraid of reporting anything that they think in their judgement is a valid or credible threat of some sort, here or to authorities. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The discussion here reflects my own internal debate. Better safe than sorry. What persuaded me to report was the mental image of the newspaper article headlines prominently displaying my username as the RCPatroller that reverted, warned, and went no further. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you were right to bring it here. We had a similar incident only recently. Forget your personal reputation as long as you act within policy here, which is WP:SUICIDE, although WP:ATTACK and WP:HOAX spring to mind. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Dlohcierekim was right, Jimmy endorsed, problem is moved over to the foundation. Best to move on. The community and individual editors have acted exactly as it/they should have done, and there's no need to expand this thread. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my scary/silly walk through that park; to my knowledge, no one ever did anything and nothing ever came of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I disagree that this is over with. For one, WP:SUICIDE is not policy, it is simply an essay. I for one have no clear answer for cases like this going forward. Send them all to the Foundation? If that's the answer, fine by me. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my attitude would be different if we had a set procedure for dealing with this sort of thing. Personally, I think it's sensationalizing it, but if we should be getting the Foundation involved, I'd be all for it if that's the first step. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the Foundation functions 24/7, fine. Otherwise? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can the foundation therefore provide a set process? (rhetorical question) It's tricky, per my initial comment, as there's too much of a WP:DFTT issue as well. Which is why I think this thread should be ended, in light of possible media interest, and we can discuss a process if needed to deal with particularly difficult issues involving death threats (to one's self or others). We are a responsible community and I believe this individual case has proved as such. If we need more defined guidance or process for the future let us do as we should, and gain consensus alongside foundation needs and requirements. But let's not do it here right now. Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have dropped a note to Jimbo raising this very point. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked people from the Foundation (Sandra Ordonez) before about situations like this. Currently the process is basically like what happened here. Contact User:Mike Godwin or User:Cary Bass about it. If they are not available and someone deems it urgent, we may contact the authorities on our own initiative. Mr.Z-man 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• At the risk of getting further media attention and possible in-depth scrutiny, is it not better to discuss these things off-wiki rather than on-wiki due to the sensitivity of the matter?? This kind of thing we wouldn't want to see in the Midweek Visiter, Liverpool Echo or any other newspaper, so let's try and handle this off-wiki to avoid further repercussions that could happen if it's further discussed on-wiki. Remember the raucus that the User:PatPeter controversy caused?? - although it didn't get discussed in the press, it did get discussion off-wiki and had real-world consequences.

I hope that we can deal with this in the proper manner, and whether it is a troll or not is not important right now. What is important, is how we deal with it, and trying to avoid causing harm to the project. --Solumeiras ^talk 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At the the risk of extending this thread beyond its natural longevity, is it not preferable that these things were discussed openly so that the media can not therefore accuse Wikipedia of acting behind closed doors? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, Rodhullandemu. However, this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation - and it's a tough one to decide what to do. We need a community policy for things like this, and consensus is needed for such a policy. My 0.02 cents. --Solumeiras ^talk 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the tendency of the media not so much as to print lies but invent the truth, but in this type of case I would rather WP was portrayed as acting responsibly, and having its policy-making process open to scrutiny. In this way we are seen to be both accessible and accountable to ourselves and others, without heading down the slippery road of plausible deniability, This is why I have raised the matter with Jimbo. What will result there is moot, but at least now the issue is live. And I hope whatever solution ensues, it will be as a result of consensus and fully supported by, and accessible to, the WP community. (PS I am not running for office anywhere) --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have a community consensus here. If you think it's credible, report it (here, to police, etc). With suicidal threats, we have a community essay WP:SUICIDE (non-policy per se, but documenting what's been done and why). With assault / death threats, we don't, but everyone's done similar things if it was seen as credible. I think reasonable people may disagree on what's credible, but I for one won't complain for anyone who reports something that was in the grey area. Police generally prefer to be told and determine it's not a problem, than find out the hard way that it was and that people blew it off.

I also asked Jimbo to clarify where he would like to see the line drawn. We can practically put it anywhere, but it would be good if it were well known and consistent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong namespace - Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

Hi, Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story was in the Wikipedia name space for its entire existence at Wikipedia:Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, apparently from the talk comments there to "incubate" or grow. It seems like its probably notable enough to stand on its own, and it seemed wrong to isolate it from article space scrutiny there for notability and possible AfD. I moved it to where it seems like it should be. Posting here just to make sure this was correct, and to give the article a little scrutiny in case it isn't up to notability snuff. Was moving it to article space correct? I'll reverse if there is some special dispensation for this article...? • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - actually, I just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story. Should this be deleted, then? Or DRV? • Lawrence Cohen 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like WP:CSD#G4 material to me at this time. If you think it still merits deletion, I recommend AFD. GRBerry 21:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't, myself, want to AfD it. I just stumbled across that article and wanted to make sure the move between name spaces was fine, and to give the article a little exposure in case anyone else thought it merited AfD or DRV. • Lawrence Cohen 21:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Update I'm a bit confused by this. Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved the article on this independent film back to Wikipedia:Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story and deleted the main article space page for the third time. I'm not quite understanding what reason this independent film article has to be in the Wikipedia space. • Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue has also undergone a deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13, with the general expectation to wait until the film released. The main issues are notability (not enough interest generated yet; it is not; like, a forthcoming Steven Spielberg film) and wikipedia:Verifiability. The current article in its form cannot be in the main space yet. You may try and write a short text basing strictly what is published in sources acceptable for wikipedia (notice that blogs and wikis are not valid sources for wikipedia). `'Míkka>t 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the name space since I didn't understand why an article about an indy film was living in Wikipedia space; I wasn't endorsing it. I posted here for others to take a look since I wasn't sure if that move was a right call on my part. That deletion review endorsed it being deleted. Was there somewhere else that the community endorsed storing the article in the Wikipedia: name space instead of deleting it? • Lawrence Cohen 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need any endorsement. It is not part of encyclopedia: it is an internal wikipedia document about wikipedia-related affairs. There is plenty of such stuff in Category:Wikipedia history. `'Míkka>t 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story. I really don't think its a good idea to host a page about an independent film in the Wikipedia name space. It should either go in the main article space with all the other articles on films, or nowhere. And it appears its a recreation of a validly deleted and endorsed deletion. Please let me know if this is the wrong way to address this. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyes on User:V-Dash

Could we get some more eyes on V-Dash (talk · contribs)'s userpage and the users whon edit it? It's been under attack recently by a group of users who are apparantly trying to get his 3RR block extended by impersonating him. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Funeral

Resolved

 – Navnløs given 48 block after a related 24 hour block on the 6th. Funeral given 3RR warning. TigerShark (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has engaged in an edit war on Judas Priest, Megadeth and other pages. I have warned the user, though the user erased the comment, but the user has continued. Both of these pages originally had line breaks between genres in the music infobox and more recently some people have tried to change it to comma breaks. They had no valid reason but to cite the music infobox template, but the user has been warned that the issue has not been decided and is currently taking place at:Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Standardizing genre delimiters. I have told him and other that if it is not broken then there is no reason to fix it but this user and others have persisted. Navnløs (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor who raised this incident was recently blocked for a related 3RR violation, and has violated again on Megadeth today. I have blocked them for 48 hours. The editor that this incident was raised about, and who seems to have a contribution history outside of these edit wars, has been given a 3RR warning. A substantial amount of edit warring has been taking place regarding a trivial formatting item. TigerShark (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved. I would guess that Funeral is now employing a sock or meatputtet to continue editing past 3RR. Would require a check user to be sure, though. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead with an rfcu if you want, I'm not using socks. And who am I supposed to be a sockpuppet of? Funeral 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic userpage

Resolved

 – All is calm... since he's gone... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NouvusOrdoSeclorum. Is this a personal attack, since it isn't directed at anybody in person, and if not, what are the guidelines applying to userpages? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now they've posted this on my talkpage diff. Indef block? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Silent block... Holy block... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Been getting into the holiday spirits, have we? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd've tried to twist Overnight Celebrity, but it's impossible to type in a way that signifies 150 words per minute. Besides, he corrupted Rudolph, so why not corrupt Silent Night? -Jéské ^{(Blah v-_^v)} 02:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for that. No need for second chances after that sort of behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Durzmaniac

Resolved

 – Spammmer squashed SirFozzie (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what these edits by Durzmaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) do, but intuition tells me it's not nice. Could someone experienced please investigate. Thanks. 151.197.121.141 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like spam. Warned. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like more than spam, considering the attempts to run a java script on the pages, but I don't read java, so I don't know what the edits would have done. They should be warned about trying to hijack article pages, regardless of whether it's to spam or for any other purpose. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't read java either, but I think it's supposed to get whoever opens the page to the URL at the bottom of the script.02:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

He's stopped, but I left a fairly blunt warning on his talk page. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a script designed to increase apparent visits to a click-through ad banner every time the page was visited. Basically it was a failed attempt to generate revenue on the back of WP. FYI php_ads is a banner ad rotation script. --WebHamster 02:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool-- for him. I should have recognized that. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely. Only edits are that? Spammers should be given a thousand cuts, dipped in lemon juice.. and from there we get UNPLEASANT... SirFozzie (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Emails

Resolved

 – Submitted for oversight TigerShark (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if one or more admins could cast a glance over these deleted contributions. Given the possibility of this being personally identifiable information relating to a real case, I have deleted the edits from the articles. Does anybody think that further action is required? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oversee 'em. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Oversight required. Just email them the deleted contribs above and later leave a message on the talk page of the blocked IP, indicating that oversight has happened (to explain the block without even deleted edits!) - Alison ^❤ 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought so too, but thanks for the input. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

David Howell (chess player)

Somebody with a username bearing resemblance to David Howell (chess player)'s father seems intent on continually removing the ban David Howell received from all Irish Chess Union events. They do not respond to any attempts to contact them. They do not edit any other articles. What to do?--ZincBelief (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him indefinitely as a disruptive single-purpose account. Feel free to criticize if you think the block is bad. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO You cannot block indefinitely over an edit disagreement and a couple of deletions of a nonnotable piece. Unblocked.

Are we going to add all traffic violations by public persons and all red cards to hockey players in wikipedia? Isn't it too cruel to add this info about a teenager into wikipedia to sit there forever? I failed to find any info about the reason of the ban besides the official notice. Therefore I doubt that this ban merits to be stored in an encyclopedia forever. `'Míkka>t 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Had he at least discussed why he was doing it, I wouldn't have blocked. However, he has not discussed anything. It's alright; I understand the unblock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the block as well. But a revert once or a month is hardly a burden for wikipedia. There is no reason to alienate a potential wikipedia contributor (he already knows how to delete, may be he will learn how to add :-) `'Míkka>t 01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The unblock was inappropriate without discussion here first. Corvus cornix_talk 03:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mikkalai, you should have discussed the block before overruling blatantly. GlassCobra 05:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock. The account had made 5 contributions over a period of just over a month. All the contributions were to one article, but that doesn't make it a single-purpose account. Take a look at the first 5 edits most accounts make and see if that makes them a single-purpose account under this definition. The point is that for any account like this, there is potential for the user to reform, to learn, and to expand into other areas. The immediate jump to indefinite block was not appropriate here. Please, try shorter blocks first and trust later admins to impose longer blocks if the behaviour continues. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal information posted by anon 207.119.1.223

Resolved

 – Submitted for oversight

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When looking at the Help Desk I found that this anon had posted some persoanl information about a nonwikipedian as seen here, the personal information also contains what appears to be a legal threat against this nonwikipedian. Leebo removed the p-info but it's still in history. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please submit this information to WP:RFO. east.718 at 02:55, November 21, 2007

Nothing but spam by 68.36.126.50

Hello, 68.36.126.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made around 20 edits since September, every one of them spam. He waits for a few days to evade his warnings, I would like to suggest a block, but I want someone else to provide an opinion. Thanks. 05:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, with a note asking them to read and respond on their talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:68.83.73.119

I have blocked this IP address for 1 week for repeatedly introducing unverified information into biographies of living people. This appears to be a static IP, as the edit pattern stretches back over a year. If this user resumes their editing pattern after the block ends, we may need to file an RfC.

Let me know if there are any concerns about this block. Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A full week might be a bit heavy for the first block (open to other opinions), but given their behavior and repeatedly ignoring warnings over time, I'd agree some administrative action was apparently in order. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued reversions by known sockpuppeteer

User:131.216.41.16 was previously confirmed as having used multiple accounts to contravene 3RR, including User:Bremskraft, User:IronAngelAlice, and User:Justine4all (see Checkuser request for User:IronAngelAlice; Archive 280, "Possible Sock Puppet"; Archive 304, "Confirmed sockpuppetry by User:IronAngelAlice). User:131.216.41.16 has since returned to making the same type of edits as before, violating 3RR once, and coming close to violating 3RR another time:

• David Reardon: Reverted the same change to the introduction four times against two separate editors (User:LCP and User:Strider12) within a period of 24 hours. [54][55][56][57]

• Post-abortion syndrome: Inserted the same off-topic, editorialistic comment ("Abortion is illegal in Spain") 3 times in a period of slightly over 24 hours.[58][59][60]

I also suspect that User:70.173.47.6 is the same user due to their history of having made edits to the same narrow range of articles as 131.216.41.16's other accounts (including Harry Reid. Jon Porter, Feminazi, Post-abortion syndrome, and David Reardon). 70.173.47.6 also once signed a reply as Bremskraft [61] and has recently replied to comments directed at 131.216.41.16.[62] -Severa (!!!) 08:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation. The David Reardon links occur over a period of more than 24 hours. The user is engaged in talk page discussion, while one of the reverters, LCP, is not. All three users will be cautioned to slow down, but strictly there is no policy violation and I am averse to blocking for not-yet-3RR while the user is taking it to the talk page. As for the Spain mention, I can see how it's on-topic. You haven't taken the discussion to the user's talk page, so it's a bit premature to complain about it here.

It would be nice if you noted, when you implied ongoing sockpuppetry, that (as noted in archive 325) this user is not banned and is not evading blocks. The IronAngelAlice account's block has expired and the user is welcome to edit. They have access to two IPs (probably home and work), but I don't see the IPs being used to circumvent policy. ··coelacan 15:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton and Ignacio Ramos edit war

Resolved

EliminatorJR has protected the pages. Caknuck (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone would be nice enough to page protect both of these pages, as both are involved in ongoing edit wars involving the same parties. Thanks Brimba (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You should take that to Requests for page protection. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do that in future, I have protected both pages for a week, though, in an attempt to calm down the edit-warring, sockpuppetry and incivility. ELIMINATORJR 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:Blackworm

After I left a note to remind User:Blackworm of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, he responded with more personal attacks, accusing me of "malice", "outright lying, insincere rationalization, or pathological denial", "doublethink", "fractured logic and transparent rationalization". Most recently, he claims that I am "completely intellectually ill-equipped to discuss this subject in logical and rational terms".

I am, quite simply, stunned that anybody would consider this appropriate behaviour. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin would intervene. Please see User talk:Blackworm#NPA. Jakew (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should both just avoid one another for a while; that might be better than chiding him over something I'm sure he's aware of. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I neglected to provide diffs for the above. In reverse chronological order, these are [63], [64], and [65]. Jakew (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pollack

Resolved

 – For now. User blocked for 2 days

I'd like some other admin to take a look at a situation... I've got prior ties to the situation and am reluctant to act further because I can be accused of bias.

There is a revert war occurring at Henry Pollack over the inclusion of a chunk of text that details a conviction he had for health care fraud. Said text has two sources, one of them being the FBI and the other being an archived press release from the US attorney. We have an anon IP (74.229.15.76) who is removing it and myself and another user (Callelinea) who is restoring it. Now I see on the anon IP page this edit where the subject of the page is requesting that the page be removed completely "or I will sue Wikipedia and Callelinea who is using this site for defamation of character and no other reason". Said legal threat was quickly removed but just the same...

The conflict of interest in this case is that at one point I had adopted Callelinea as a user. Note that I withdrew the adoption some time later after I felt he wasn't following some advice I had given him.

Can I get a neutral set of eyes to look at the situation? Tabercil (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours for making legal threats. I am well aware that he's likely on a dynamic ip address but perhaps this will send a string message. Obviously indef will not work. I am also leaving a note there about OTRS. JodyB _talk 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, string 'em up! It's the only language they understand.--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I think this'll require some monitoring for a while... see this edit which I pulled out on pure WP:BLP grounds, with a warning for the IP that left it (probably the same person behind the IP as the first one I listed)... Tabercil (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong personal attack by Nergaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – user warned ··coelacan 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nergaal thinks my POV is "a POV formed after a long brainwash by soviet propaganda" and that I have a "severe impedement of [my] rational thougt(sic!) process" diff. Is this kind of language accepted on wikipedia?Anonimu (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has been warned for personal attacks. Hopefully that will be the end of it. ··coelacan 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Protected titles requests

I have created this fork of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection so that admins can specifically deal with protected titles.

It will hopefully take the load off WP:RFPP and ensure that requests are split between the two.

Feel free to fix it as much as you want or need; it's just been created! Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a side note, I've found a lot of people rush to this solution when really it's just one person recreating the page over and over... it seems more practical to just block the person who's recreating the page. If they actually do evade the block to recreate the page, and they rarely care that much... then you should deny recreation of the page. --W.marsh 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• If this process does survive, I have created a clearer redirect. I would have done something witty such as WP:SALTSHAKER but I think WP:REQSALT suffices. To all Americans, have a great holiday weekend. To everyone else around the world, well, good luck getting ahold of any American based business tomorrow :) spryde | talk 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• I am not sure this is necessary. Protected titles requests make up a tiny fraction of the total traffic at WP:RFPP and to me it doesn't seem helpful to split things up onto multiple pages when so far one page is proving more than sufficient. I would like to speedy this with the minimum amount of fuss. – Steel 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur. Not another page for admins' watchlists please. Most salting is done without any request, and the tiny proportion that is requested can be handled at RFPP where it represents a tiny proportion. There will be no fuss from me if it is deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I see little-to-no requests to antigenesis the area compared to Featured-Article-of-the-Day prot requests (I've asked for a new RFPP template tag specifically for those at Template talk:RFPP). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Several hours on ANI with less than ringing endorsement is good enough for me. Consider it gone. – Steel 23:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV also processes some requests for unsalting. Admittedly, this is usually in the form of declining a request for undeletion of a salted page while permitting recreation. I'll defer to the WP:RFPP regulars as to whether this is needed. GRBerry 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Liars and Abuse of Power at Johnny Sutton

Resolved

 – No evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in regard to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Sutton

You have a number of abusive administrators who are perfectly willing to break your own COI and NPOV standards to try to whitewash this article. One of our members has actually tracked one of the IP addresses editing there back to Sutton's office, and your administrators are trying to actively help them, including lying claims about people being so-called "sockpuppets" and removal of linked sources and attempts to deal with your liars on the page talk page.

This shall not stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorderGuard3022 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Solid evidence, please. —Kurykh 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked into this. It seems like the poster is the source of disruption. He's been given a warning not to do that any more. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Davkal socks to evade ban

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged by Guy

User:Davkal has created two socks: User:Jamon y cheso and User:LutherFlint to evade his ban. It is clear, first of all, that these to accounts are being operated by the same puppeteer from this difference where Luther Flint accidentally responds to accusations at Jamon y cheso before realizing his error and reverting it. Secondly, Luther flint arrived at the very time Davkal was banned and has adopted the confrontational and disruptive style of Davkal at precisely the same articles. Recommend banning these two socks. I've cross-posted this to allegations of sockpuppetry as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like LutherFlint is indeed a sockpuppet of Jamon y cheso, but there isn't enough evidence to prove that these are both Davkal socks--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're now acting in consort to edit Electronic voice phenomenon. I don't have the time right now to file a checkuser, but the evidence that these two are Davkal from the timing of Luther Flint's arrival to his use of the rather strange term "armchair" in denigration of skepticism is overwhelming. I know you haven't been involved in editing these things, but there is no question that this is the same person come back to haunt us again (excuse the pun). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Jamon y cheso as an obvious sock of Davkal. LutherFlint isn't quite as clear on the surface, but I haven't dug into his contribs that closely. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Passes the duck test - those articles are the last Davkal edited before his ban and have been a focus of obsessive interest with him since forever. Raymond Arritt blocked Jamon y chaso, I blocked LutherFlint; we both came to the same conclusion separately here, not having discussed it at all.

• Also per CheckUser:
• Missing Presumed Hungry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Ice Cream for Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This one troubles me deeply, as it takes in vain the work of one of my very favorite musicians. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vyacheslav Grinko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reverend Dunkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GregoryPeckery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ElectricSoup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SmallGrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Longsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dinnaeken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Guy (Help!) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One of these socks started an ugly thread accusing James Randi of pedophilia. This may need deletion and/or oversight. Skinwalker (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Drive by redirects

One of the pages on my watchlist today was myseriously redirected by TTN so I checked out what he's been doing [66]. His entire activity on Wikipedia appears to be adding or merging articles in a fashion I can only describe by as "drive by redirection". I understand his desire to enforce FICT, but honestly, could someone please step up and ask him to discuss such bold actions especially when it occurs on so many pages at a time? This is very suspicious, but probably good intentioned. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any problem with his boldness unless people object to it, and he refuses to enter into a discussion. WP:BRD is a good process. --Haemo (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there has been. See for example: Frank West (Dead Rising), the user's talk page, Hanzo Hattori's talk page where TTN has gone far beyond uncivil and possibly driven off another editor. I'm going to my wikiprojects and warning them to watch out for this behaviour. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And based on where I have seen him reverted, he's ignored any discussion and reverted back to a redirect. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is apparently an arbitration case on this: WP:RFAr#Episode_and_character_articles --W.marsh 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good. Could we maybe have a cease fire called in the meantime while the case is underway? Arbcom cases take a long time and by the time it is over, the damage may be too severe to overturn. I'm sorry, he's suggested we merge Sailor Jupiter, Sailor Mercury and the other GOOD ARTICLE level sailor senshi articles into a list.... I'm a bit more than concerned here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The case should open soon... you can ask for an injunction once that happens, which stop with the redirects. --W.marsh 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked yet again

I've blocked BetacommandBot, specifically for this edit, and more generally, because Betacommand isn't taking responsibility for making his bot work properly: [67].

There is an obvious fix for the reported problem, but please don't implement it unless Betacommand requests it. I'm hoping he'll realize that he needs to take responsibility for his bot's actions. --Carnildo (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While the bot's tagging of that image with that tag doesn't seem to make much sense, doesn't blocking the bot because the owner doesn't agree with you seem vindictive? —Kurykh 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sort of, yes, but... if this results in the attitude readjustment Carnildo seems to be hoping for — which I doubt, as such measures often only serve to escalate the dispute, but I'm willing to be proven wrong — then I'm all for it. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly see where Betacommand is coming from here, and I can understand that doing such a thankless task as he and his bot are performing can easily lead one to find ways, such as passing on the buck, to minimize the effort needed to deal with complaints. Even so, I do believe that it is the responsibility of every bot operator to do their best to adapt their bot to any circumstances it might encounter, so as to minimize cases where the bot will act contrary to common sense as most humans would interpret it. I also believe Betacommand would do well to notice that there are situations where "I'm just implementing policy" is not the right response, especially when the specific policy in question ("All images in Category:All non-free media need a fair use rationale.") does not actually seem to be written down anywhere and essentially appears to be Betacommand's own invention.

I realize that this comes across rather harsh, and I hope Betacommand will not take this more personally than I've intended. In the past, I have encountered several cases where BetacommandBot has malfunctioned in this very same way for similar reasons. In all cases, Betacommand has been quite polite and helpful in getting the issue straightened out and the mistagged images fixed, for which I thank him. It's just that the same problem keeps coming up again and again, and I haven't seen any sign of Betacommand acknowledging that there might be anything he, as the bot operator, could or should do to actually prevent it from reoccurring. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps let us know what the 'obvious' fix is, and describe the problem in a bit more detail? It's not nice to make everyone else on the board play detective. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand's got at least three options: he can have his bot notice that the image is tagged with a free license and ignore it, he can have the bot notice that the image is not tagged with a fair-use tag and ignore it, or he can request that {{Non-free media}} be removed from {{Fairusereview}}. --Carnildo (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And this required the bot to be blocked because for what legitimate reason? —Kurykh 21:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the bot is not doing the right thing, and the operator is declining to fix the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Kurykh, plus, the edit the bot is being blocked for was days ago. Also, if there's something broken that you can fix, just fix it. SQL^{Query me!} 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit was days ago, but this is a task that the bot performs on a regular basis. I don't know when the bot will do it next, but I do know it's buggy, so I've blocked the bot until it's fixed. I could fix it myself, but what about the next time the bot malfunctions? And the next? And the next? I don't want to spend my time chasing around after BetacommandBot when the bot's operator is better-positioned to do so. --Carnildo (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carnildo - Betacommand is a negligent bot-runner who refuses to accept that s/he may have made programming mistakes. I was given two image-deletion notices "...you have uploaded this image..." for images I'd not uploaded. I pointed this out, got some rude reply, asked for an apology and was given the excuse: "You did edit those images". I was ignored when I noted that reverting vandalism on an image page is hardly the same as uploading the image. I think the bot-permission should be rescinded; I took a glance at the blocklog and it runs to more than 50. That's absurd, guys! It certainly needs very careful scrutiny by someone who understands coding.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)What the obvious fix was wasn't obvious to me. It is obvious that the bot should not have applied that tag, as the issue for which review was requested is not one of disputed fair use, and in combination with prior reports it is clear that there are not adequate controls in the bot's code to prevent false positives. It is fairly basic that the bot operator is responsible for all operations of the bot. I think it is time to test whether there is actually community consensus for the bot to operate in this area at all. The bot policy clearly places the burden of proof of demonstrating this on the bot operator, and there have been far more administrators objectioning to the bot running than there were total participants in the original bot approval discussion. If I remember that discussion properly, there was only 1 participant other than BetaCommand in it.

The bot policy also says that "Administrators should block bots if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously." Tagging images incorrectly is ultimately messing up articles, and thus administrators should block this bot until it is fixed.GRBerry 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Relisted from two days ago; it was archived with no response, probably got overlooked in that mess!! that we don't mention :-)

Following the indef-block of Christian07TARDIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see here and here) who was a sockpuppeteer with I think 10+ socks, a new user account was created with, if memory serves, 27 minutes' interval. This new user, It takes ages to find a free username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems absurdly well-up on policy, having used the phrase 'non-notable' in an edit summary in his/her first 60 or so edits. Conversance with policy, however, doesn't seem to be one of Dwrules' strong points, however, so it may be just be on that side of things. The account's definitely a bit too knowledgeable, though.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

College IP vandalism & defamation

• 134.117.254.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Non current. 100% of todays edits are vandalism. One WP:BLP violation - [68]. Some subtle vandalism of facts, difficult to disprove. Thanks. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)