Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikignosis block for legal threat

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block of User:CINEGroup

CINEGroup (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just blocked him for 24 hours for WP:3RR violations on Walther P22. But as he has already accused me of being involved in the editing dispute (I am not) and wikistalking I thought I'd bring it here for review. The diffs for the 3RR violation are on his talk page. I'll be honest, this kid is getting on my last nerve. Dina 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=112994770

BTW, that post was made by an anon user, who later went by 69.132.199.100 or CineWorld. Notice anything similar? Addendum: 69.132.199.100 was blocked for 6 months by NewYorkBrad. --Ispy1981 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting the block and counting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has since made it to my user talk page somehow, for any of you who are watching, you may want to weigh in there (I'm resigning myself to a few days of my usertalk page being a public forum for this incident).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told this was here, you will see my ip address is not that ip address (69.132.199.100) or anywhere near it. Thanks though ISpy, i don't know what led you here other then the fact that you have added information to wikipedia articles before that I have reverted and it's been upheld by others. CINEGroup 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Say wha? I looked at your talk page. No one mentioned anything about this page on there. Also, which of my edits have you reverted. Or am I a sockpuppet, too?

--Ispy1981 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't know how to look at edits in wikipedia, and no, your not going to try and drag me into another edit war with you. CINEGroup 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup may be referring to Leebo's remark at User talk:CINEGroup, "I've asked for administrator assistance at WP:ANI in moving your talk page back to where it belongs." That says WP:ANI is here, though it doesn't mention this particular dispute. Note: given the accidental move of the page to Usertalk:CINEGroup, I think these may be the mistakes of a new user (account created 17 April 2007).

Apologies to CINEGroup, I have done some format-fixing on his reply above: (1) removed his full quote of Ispy1981's comment, since the original was already immediately above it; (2) removed the blank space preceding his reply, since that "coded" his text. Further indications of a new user. Please don't bite him. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re CINEGroup's comment: "Another edit war"? Ben, he is making false accusations against me. I have never edit warred with this user, only the similarly named CineWorld. Unless there is something he'd like to tell us. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it's very hard given his actions, obviously reminiscent of the anon user I previously mentioned aka CineWorld. Perhaps also, he would like to answer the lesser charge of falsifying information on his userpage. I think this might be something to look at in the aftermath of the Essjay affair. In short, there is no CINEGroup East. A google search, a Yahoo search and a webcrawler search all turn up CINEGroup's user page. Perhaps he's using his userpage as a spider trap for his business, which I doubt has been involved in the projects he has mentioned. --Ispy1981 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's Look at some quotes here:
"Ben, he is making false accusations against me."
"Perhaps also, he would like to answer the lesser charge of falsifying information on his userpage."
"In short, there is no CINEGroup East."
"I doubt has been involved in the projects he has mentioned."

Just so you can see how just blatantly wrong you are: [4] , As far as my professional resume, I really think you are now going from just really pissed off wikipedia editor to a warring stalker. I wouldn't film your wedding if you were marrying Madonna CINEGroup 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's look at the facts. I looked at the link you provided. Nice dummy page. By that, I mean there's nothing there. Nothing to click on, no TMNT or National Geographic. I would think such a prestigious organization as you tout this to be would have that among its credits, or at least something other than what's there. I can buy a domain, put stock nature footage on it and some canned nature sounds and call it a website. Doesn't make it a real organization. I also highly doubt such an organization would use Domains by Proxy, Inc, which is notorious for its use among people who, for one reason or another, don't want their identities known. Professional businesses (like Disney, for example) list their parent company as the owner of the site, along with contact information. Furthermore, why aren't there any references to CINEGroup East being involved in these films, in papers, on the net, etc. In short, there is nothing there which bolsters your claim of this being a real organization. If it is, you might be in violation of WP:U as I doubt you speak for the whole company. --Ispy1981 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ISpy1981, I don't know nor do I care what issues you have had in the past with editors here, but your trying to drag me into a fight with you and it's not going to happen. Your writing style might be good enough to make "suggestive" remarks here, but It's not something I will be playing into. CINEGroup 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The website [5] was registered the same day CINEGroup put up his userpage, April 17th. The CINEgroup east organization doesn't appear to have existed before April 17th. IrishGuy ^talk 22:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out something that might not be obvious to some of the people here. Cine Group EAST. Perhaps theres a Cine Group West as well?

Also, btw, I know SEVERAL if not HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of businesses that exist in brick but have no web presense yet. This is now turning to wikistalking and this is where it gets sad. Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media. CINEGroup 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is known to the media, it isn't unknown. If you are making a veiled threat about running to the media about your perceived abusive treatment on Wikipedia, that is something else entirely. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"If it is known to the media, it isn't unknown. If you are making a veiled threat about running to the media about your perceived abusive treatment on Wikipedia, that is something else entirely. IrishGuy ^talk 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)"
WTF are you talking about ? CINEGroup 22:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am refering to your statement: Editors come into wikipedia and sometimes they just dissapear for some unknown reason, known only to the media.. IrishGuy ^talk 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how any of this is relevant to the matter at hand, which is CINEGroup's edit warring and disruptive behavior. If he stops that, he can register as many websites as he wants as far as I'm concerned. Dina 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is only relevnat as far as CINEGroup saying Ispy1981 was wrong about the organization not existing. It appears to have only existed for 11 days. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamworks existed since 1995 but just opened up a website in 2003. CINEGroup 22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CINEGroup:With all due respect to User:Asams10, the notion of me being an "admin sock" (wha?) [6] of this editor (a self described "gun nut") is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard here. Please stop calling everyone you disagree with a sockpuppet. I would have blocked him for WP:3RR as well as you if he had violated it which he did not. (Goes off to vote for Deval Patrick again)Dina 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that saying 'It's no wonder that several wikipedia editors have been murdered over the last few years' [7] is quite clearly a veiled threat. Not to mention the various other rude statemtents in that particular edit. IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a week for a variety of things, but the last straw was striking through other people's comments on this thread twice after I warned him not to. Natalie 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm going to change my name to Cho soon and just settle this." Have we heard enough? This goes beyond new user learning curve, revert war, incivility, and veiled threat. --KSmrq^T 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel the same way. The user's response to my block was quite childish, to be quite honest. If this is how they deal with criticism and correction, I doubt they will be successful as a Wikipedia editor.

Since they're talk page was protected to prevent their harrassment of me, I'm going to disable my email for awhile. If someone wants to post the unblock mailing list address to them, please do (I can't remember it). Natalie 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Ignore me, I can't disable my email for other reasons. Natalie 23:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to this entirely unacceptable edit I have indefinitely blocked CINEGroup. No amount of good faith assuming makes that anything other than a very very thinly veiled threat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the initial one-week block, as well as the subsequent indefblock by Finlay McWalter. This user's behavior under this username was unacceptable, and he has been linked to even more troublesome behavior under prior identities. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• This user is an obvious reincarnation - he was dishing out 3RR warnings on his first day. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block. This user defines "exhausting the patience of the community" in addition to exhausting the patience of this particular user. Cheers. Dina 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! A word of caution: He will most certainly return, if he is not among us already--Ispy1981 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From Thatcher131 to Mattisse - is this a fair AGF proposal? Request feedback please!

No further good can come from this; thus, archiving. --Iamunknown 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs)

User has been continually uncivil and has been given several warnings. It's somewhat confusing as he has more than one username, although perhaps not dishonestly. See here. After I gave him several more warnings he made this comment attacking Myasuda on my archives (he thought it was my talk page:[12]). Quadzilla99 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• This whole page is kind of a disgrace — Talk:List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages. Quadzilla99 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To be clear if you look through the contribs this is not a problem between two editors but a widespread problem, didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea by looking at just the above talk page. Quadzilla99 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's one from today user was told info should be included by 3-4 editors on Talk:LeBron James yet kept reverting it here's the last revert:[13] Quadzilla99 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Continued belligerence—directly stating he will revert consensus decisions:[14] Quadzilla99 23:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Help appreciated with a new editor

User:Frjohnwhiteford, apparently the pastor at St. Jonah Orthodox Church, in Spring, Texas has got his shorts in a twist about Template:Dominionism, a perennial magnet for the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such. He's well past 3RR there and has been warned already.

The greater problem is he previously indicated a his wish to make a WP:POINT, and now has carried through with the threat: [15] This change is simple vandalism to make a WP:POINT, considering the People's Republic is avowedly atheist. Frjohnwhiteford has already been warned about violating WP:POINT [16]. Since I'm involved in the debate over content I cannot take administrative action like a firm warning, or even revert the vandalism to the template, but someone will need to. Will someone here help out please. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way wish to defend the activities of this editor, who clearly seems to have crossed the line into vandalism. However, I think there are serious BLP concerns with adding people's names to a "Dominionism" navigation box, template, or category if they do not self-identify as such. Some of the names are relatively uncontroversial — e.g. Rushdoony — but have Dobson et al. ever called themselves Dominionists? If not, the inclusion of Dobson and not of other prominent Religious Right figures (e.g. Robertson and Falwell seems arbitrary and problematic. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Feloniusmonk has not surprisingly misrepresented what occurred here. His own comments above provide evidence of his anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance: "the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such". Apparently all conservative Christians who do not favor abortion on demand, euthanasia, or any other item on the Liberal agenda are therefore advocates of "theocratic ideals."

This current flurry began for two reasons: 1). a Note which pointed out that the claims of Dobson being a "Dominionist" were those of a particular group of people, and not just a universally accepted claim was removed. 2) Dobson was added to the Dominionist Template, and that Template was added to the Dobson article.

I should add that Feloniousmonk also removed the POV tag on the Dobson article, despite the fact that the neutrality of that article clearly is in dispute, as anyone would have to conclude by reading the discussion page for that article. However, there is now a sufficient qualifier to the Dominionist section of the Dobson article that I personally can live with it. I knew that, given the nature of this Wiki, removing that section entirely because it lacks merit wasn't going to be accepted...though I don't think you will ever see such a section in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or any other scholarly encyclopedia. But fairness required that the claim not just be stated as fact.

The problem with the Template, as seems to be agreed to here by most Admins, is that it states as a fact that Dobson is an advocate, and Tom Monaghan is an financier, and there is simply no real basis for the claim, the template does not allow any qualifications to be made to the claim, and in the case of Tom Monaghan, there is not even a single source that states he has done anything other than give a lot of money to Focus on the Family and Pat Buchanan's presidential Campaign. When the attempt to remove Tom Monaghan was rebuffed, I was told that the article stating that he supported Focus on the Family was sufficent to prove he was a financier of Dominionism. I then pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party has placed Focus on the Family on all Chinese state owned Radio stations in China. This seemed sufficient proof, based on the logic of Feloniousmonk, to establish that the Chinese Communist Party was a Dominionist Organization. Feloniusmonk's only response was that since they were atheists they could not be Dominionists. But since Tom Monaghan is a Roman Catholic, he could not be a Dominionist either... but, according to Feloniousmonk, "Truth does not matter, only verifiability"... and since I had verified that the Chinese Communists support Focus on the Family, that verified it, regardless of the truth of the matter.

I would ask that some sanity be allowed to prevail here, and that either the Dominionist Template be deleted, or that it be limited to advocates of Christian Reconstructionism, who identify themselves as such. Also, I would ask that the "Generic Dominionism" section of the Dominionism article be deleted. The definition there is so sweeping that the Pope would have to be added to the Dominionism Template. In fact, many of the "Critics" of Dominionism listed on the Template would also have to be added as Advocates... such as Hal Lindsey. Frjohnwhiteford 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That template has serious NPOV and ownership issues; all I ask is that neutral parties read over the talk page and judge for themselves if all is as it should be. - Merzbow 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the series box and its talk pages, it does indeed have serious NPOV, ownership and BLP issues. It's one thing to include someone's name in an article about Dominionism - because there's the space to offer a nuanced and NPOV view - it's quite another to include them in a category or (IMO, worse) a series box when they do not self-identify with the term. A category is a simple binary option; either someone is a member of the set, or they are not; and a series box implies something even stronger, that Wikipedia has attempted to create a whole project on Dominionism, and the articles listed in the series box are intended to be read as part of a series and are parts of a single work on Dominionism. It implies editorial judgment that the articles are closely tied together.

This isn't just my opinion on this series box, but on all of them, although the more subjective the category, the more problematic it is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the concerns; templated boxes can 'sneak' people into categories that would be deleted from their article without proper sourcing, and it's not our place to label or identify, merely record what has already happened. The pastor's problematic edits are orthogonal to that concern. -- nae'blis 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Page moves for royalty

Resolved

Lacrimosus (talk · contribs · count) has moved a considerable number of biographies for monarchs from e.g. Albert II of Belgium to Albert II of the Belgians. The naming conventions appear not to have been changed to that effect. I don't have the time now to restore this; in fact I won't be back until Monday. Errabee 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely incorrect. His title is officially still "King of the Belgians" - though since the last constitutional reform that has become unclear (some say the title has become "King of Belgium"), just like it is not sure wheter his grand-daughter will be crowned King or Queen. However, this "Albert of Belgium" happens to be his official name - contrary to what a lot of people think, it is not "Coburg". I am reverting. --Pan Gerwazy 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to undo the move from Napoleon III of France to Napoleon III, Emperor of the French. All others have been moved back to the original title. Errabee 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Errabee 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Monaghan

I blocked User:72.198.121.115 for blp on Template:Dominionism to prevent him again adding Tom Monaghan to the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism' without sources to support that characterization. User:FeloniousMonk unblocked him, saying I was too involved in the editing to legitimately block, and claiming there were other sources to support including Monaghan.[17] None of the sources FeloniousMonk listed mention Monaghan, except for the passing mention in Rolling Stone. I maintain that Monaghan was included without adequate citation, that my block was appropriate, and that FeloniousMonk's unblock was unwise. I would appreciate a review and determination. If the consensus is that I was wrong, I'll leave the template and the subject to FeloniousMonk and others to work on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support, of course. Morwen's recent post here says it best. The way this template is designed allows no possibility for NPOV to be maintained - no place to mention the fact that the accused do not self-identify with the term and no place to say that there are reliable sources with the opposing view that this term is being misapplied to many mainstream figures. - Merzbow 16:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom issued a block despite the fact that he had been edit-warring to remove content from the article - he used the excuse of BLP to remove well-sourced material about living people, and to remove information not related to living people. He used a block to advance an content dispute, in clear violation of the blocking policy. There are several independent sources which support the edit, so Tom's allegation that the edit violated BLP is not supported by the facts. Tom has misrepresented the sources - for example, saying "[no new sources have been provided"] despite the fact that additional sources had been provided. In addition, Tom has repeatedly abused admin tools on this issue, including the use of rollback to replace a protection template on an article which was not protected [18]. While BLP is an important policy, Tom is abusing it here to advance his position in a content dispute. 72.198.121.115 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison is doing the right thing here. That passing mention in Rolling Stone isn't adequate to add Monaghan to that template. The whole issue with him being an involved admin is irrelevant; he does not have to seek out another admin to enforce BLP. Frise 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There were two independent, reliable sources, so it wasn't a BLP issue. Tom was edit warring on the template, and used to block to further an edit war. It wasn't a BLP enforcement, it was simple edit-warring. Tom wasn't just removing living people, he was removing non-persons from the template (and justifying the removal through BLP). When someone is so involved in sterile edit-warring that they re-instate an expired page-protection template. There are two reliable sources for the information - it wasn't a BLP issue, it was Tom's attempt to suppress a POV with which he disagreed. 72.198.121.115 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a source that says Tom Monaghan gave a lot of money to Focus on the Family, and another one that says he gave a lot of money to Pat Buchanan's presidential compaign... so obviously, he is a financier of Dominionism...? I doubt that even you believe that those sources prove any such thing. Frjohnwhiteford 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is ridiculous... it's like labeling George Soros as a "Financier of Anti-Americanism" in an "Anti-Americanism" template because there was a National Review article that claimed he financed MoveOn, which The Weekly Standard claims to be anti-American. (And both of those are reliable sources in the same way that Rolling Stone, Harpers, and Salon are, but from the right instead of the left wing). It's an end-run around WP:NPOV (in general, and WP:BLP in this specific case). - Merzbow 03:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No special knowledge of this particular issue, but I can say that I've worked with Tom in articles (one in particular) where there was a huge amount of edit warring from an editor who was opposing Tom's edits — massive 3RR violations, and some confirmed sockpuppetry. This went on for several months, and throughout, Tom scrupulously refrained from anything that would give even the appearance of misuse of tools. He sometimes overlooked the multiple 3RR vios, and may have sometimes reported them, but he never acted on them. Nor did he use rollback in content disputes. I can't comment on whether he's right or wrong on sourcing in this case, as I haven't time to look it up, but I will say that unless he has completely changed his character in the last few months, it's inconceivable that he's blocking anyone to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Abusive admins generally follow a pattern of abuse; they don't just suddenly become abusive. Musical Linguist 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The way, the truth, and the light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the last week, this user has been engaging in extensive edit warring on Homosexual agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), single-handedly restoring variants of the unreferenced text

It is believed by some people that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty.

which has been removed by a number of different editors. A single user edit warring to add content being removed by a large number of users is disruptive; blocking The way, the truth, and the light may be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Note that this user has been informed of the existence of the three-revert rule [19], which states in relevant part that

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

John254 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he's being highly disruptive and annoying - we can't have people adding unsourced POV like this - but I don't think he's been warned. Moreschi ^Talk 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this user has received a plethora of warnings regarding his conduct on Homosexual agenda -- see [20] [21] [22] [23]. John254 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear they have to be aware of it. Anyway, last warning, from Nandesuk. ··coelacan 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't think to check the user-talk page history. Sorry. On the last warning, which sounds about right. I've tried to explain why his personal experience of homosexuality leading to pederasty doesn't matter. Moreschi ^Talk 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sweet Jesus. If calling everyone else socks and/or pro-gay activists is his idea of a "civil discussion", we have a major problem here...Moreschi ^Talk 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should reconsider my agreement to leave the subject of Casanova's sexuality to him then... Anyone know whether he's otherwise trustworthy? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This account was nearly blocked over the username. I can't say I'm surprised it's become a bit of a POV warrior. Is there any reason why we aren't just slapping a community indef on it? --kingboyk 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

They're moving slowly enough that, while highly offensive, it's not terrifically disruptive. If they keep it up too much longer, though... Georgewilliamherbert 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing a opinionated-sounding name which didn't follow up with similarly opinionated edits. Allowing him to keep it sent the message that this sort of approach to Wikipedia is acceptable.Proabivouac 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Support username block, sheesh. 75.62.7.22 04:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite anyone thinking of blocking to spend some more time looking at this users overall contributions. While there's an obvious issue with the one topic area, they're also doing legit cleanup edits elsewhere, undoing vandalism and leaving appropriate warnings, and otherwise being constructive. This is clearly not acting like a single-purpose account. If a consensus develops on the username, they should be asked to change it, not blocked. As long as they continue to listen to appropriate warnings and engage on talk pages, the disruption seems fairly minimal. Georgewilliamherbert 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of AfD

Following from WP:AN/I#Fancruft issue again above, I believe that Mel Etitis and Malevious are using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man for dispute resolution and some sort of "setting precedent," and with Matthew's help in canvassing it's snowballing into something ugly. See #Unnecessary, User talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Your message, User talk:Mel Etitis#Suite Life, and User talk:Malevious#Mel Etitis. In short:

• Mel Etitis redirects episode articles to episode list per suggestion here at AN/I (it would be under Archive 228, but it doesn't seem to exist...)
• Whiskey in the Jar (who attempted to get the two to talk) reverts
• Mel Etitis reverts to redirects
• Malevious reverts to episode summaries
• Mel Etitis and Malevious talk and decide to use AfD for consensus
• Mel Etitis puts articles en masse up for AfD
• Matthew links to the AfD on a dozen talk pages of television shows

I am asking for someone to stop the AfD in progress and get the original two to follow dispute resolution, because I'd hate for either side to think they've won anything if the AfD officially closes with a result. Phony Saint 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD is a legitimate forum for this discussion. Mel Etitis recommends the deletion of 20+ episode articles, but instead of deleting them, he would redirect them to a parent article. Either way, the content is removed. Such a recommendation lies within the purview of AFD.

It's true that mediation could also resolve this question, so really there are two separate avenues of action, and Mel Etitis chose one of them. AFD allows for discussion by uninterested users, and I hope that the truth will emerge from that discussion. Note that I have no opinion on the substance of the matter. YechielMan 04:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one correction to Phony Saint's accusations: I didn't discuss and decide with Malevious to put the articles up for AfD; I mentioned the possibility to Whiskey in the Jar, but it was my decision alone. Otherwise, I agree with YechielMan, obviously; this sort of question is precisely what AfDs are for. It's a real pity that Matthew and others have used dubious canvassing tactics, but that's also not unusual at AfDs I'm afraid, and not a reason to close them before they reach consensus. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:EPISODE, Mel Etitis is acting entirely correctly - if episodes don't have secondary sources they can be redirected without the requirement of going to AfD. Addhoc 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you of anything, Mel Etitis. You originally chose to use AfD, and then Malevious decided that would be a good idea to settle the matter.

What was recommended by WP:EPISODE and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Advice on set of articles was to redirect/merge them. The original parties involved couldn't decide (in the space of a day or so) whether to redirect or not, so it ended up in AfD. I don't see how that follows deletion policy at all, specifically #Merging and #Deletion discussion; since when does anyone delete an article to make it a redirect? If "merge"/"redirect" and "keep" were the only two outcomes desired, why involve "delete" at all? Phony Saint 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) block review

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

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

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

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

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

Block evasion by banned user

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

Further block evasion via IPs by Yahya01:

• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

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

Sandbox abuse?

I know a sandbox is for tests and all... but does this guy take it a bit too far. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes - offensive content can and should be removed from the sandbox but in fairness to that user they did remove it themselves. Will (aka Wimt) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have seen worse, and I rarely look at the sandbox. Just revert it, and politely request to keep the sandbox worksafe if possible if the user continues. Better in the sandbox than anywhere else, and, as Wimt says, they removed it themselves, so a warning at this stage is not needed. J Milburn 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

*2 edit conflicts* Should using the sandbox to bypass WP:SPAM be undone as well? Funpika 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The sandbox is the sandbox- do what you like. If you don't like it, revert it. Spam, personal attacks, whatever- remove them, but don't get worked up on warning the users. Perhaps place a message at the top when you edit it, saying something like 'No spam please!' J Milburn 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's silly, isn't it? Why put stuff like that in the sandbox. Surely that guy is trying to get aroudn the rules or something? Shadow master66 11:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What rules is he getting around? The spam will be removed every 12 hours by a bot. No follow tags apply so it doesn't increase hi page rank, therefore it's harmless. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is on the page he can get hits from people who follow the link from the sandbox. That is most likely his intention. Funpika 12:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbot automatically reverts edits like that, in this case within 2 minutes of the original edit, it would be a wild fluke it google just happened to cache the sandbox during that 2 minute period. This is what google's current cache of the sandbox looks like--VectorPotential^Talk 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Question: Are sandbox edits kept in history as well? i.e. If there was a situation where personal information about a minor was given out on the sandbox, would it need to be oversighted, or is that part of the auto-clearing of the sandbox, that all edit histories are removed too? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the sandbox has a permanent edit history. You need oversight as deleting the sandbox will lag the hell out of the servers due to the sheer amount of revisions. MER-C 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image description pages

For several months now, Timeshifter has been creating image description pages for Commons media not on Wikipedia, it seems for the express purpose of categorising layers of categories that he has created here. The motives are of secondary concern, since the action seemed to reverse the intent and effect of transwikiing media. I pursued clarification and received agreeable responses in multiple venues (User_talk:Tewfik#CSD, User_talk:Tewfik#Categories, Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Commons_media_categorisation). I still wanted to be very sure, and so I tried to clarify the specific CSD that seemed to already say the same thing, but in an indirect manner. My recommendation for emendation was discussed and accepted. I waited more than nine days after rephrasing the criteria before taking any action, which saw no change in the consensus. Unfortunately, Timeshifter chose to respond by attacking me for what he perceives my nationality to be, as well as declaring that there was no discussion and that I "unilaterally" rephrased the criteria, which is demonstrably false, as the discussion is present on that very page. He then went ahead to revert the CSD criteria without any consensus, and systematically removed the speedy tags from the image description pages. I have no idea as to how to proceed at this point, and would appreciate input. Tewfik^Talk 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is he an administrator? (I can't tell from his user page). If not, he shouldn't be reverting CSD tags unless they're blatantly and obviously incorrect (for instance, a CSDA7 on Microsoft Windows XP) or changing it to an AFD nomination for further discussion. That's just my viewpoint though, I don't believe it is reflected in policy, but I can't see a great reason, other than the aforementioned, that a non-admin would have need to remove a CSD template, since they don't have deletion ability anyway ( except as mentioned above on AFD). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can insert or remove templates as appropriate. Only admins can do actual deletions. Whether these particular removals are appropriate is a separate issue. 75.62.7.22 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone also can blank an article, or leave pornography on someone's talk page. Doesn't mean that it is at all acceptable behavior. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik changed policy on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without getting a single reply on the talk page there first. That is against the rules there. I was the first person to reply, and I opposed his policy change. See: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation. His policy change was for the purpose of seeking speedy deletion of map categories and map image description pages that he did not like. He was trying to depopulate map categories with the names (among others) "Palestinian territories" and "Golan Heights" in them. He has tried to depopulate those categories in several ways since March 7, 2007. See his user contributions in the image namespace. The only legitimate way to delete those map categories is if they are empty. Thus, he has been trying to depopulate them of maps. They also have to be depopulated of subcategories, too. So he has more work to do. I noted all this in detail on some of the map category pages. See: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. The speedy-delete template said it could be removed if the reason listed on it did not apply. It did not, so I deleted it. Tewfik needs to get consensus for his proposed speedy-delete policy change before trying to use it. He is currently reinserting his policy change even after I reverted it and pointed him to the talk page. He is approaching a 3RR violation. --Timeshifter 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is totally false. I linked to the discussion about the emendation/rephrase above. Tewfik^Talk 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was correct about the talk section I was referring to. I see now though that there is another related talk section farther down that CSD talk page. You seemed to ignore what User:Grm_wnr wrote about image description pages (IDPs). Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

"As the one who originally wrote section I8 back in the day, ...

• IDPs are considered to be basically inseperable from the image.
• No information must be lost in a speedy move to Commons.
• However, there is information on IDPs that may be redundant or, even worse, contradictory to the kind of information Commons needs. Mostly Featured status, and I can't think of any others right now, but there may be more.
• Commons IDPs are subject to the editorial rules of Commons, which may differ from the en ones, which may theoretically be a problem.
• If there is a local IDP, both are displayed, so it's no basic problem in having a local one, apart from the fact that it's another page to take care of.
• So, it's a good idea to keep a local IDP if there is a good reason for it, but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier."

The reasons for local IDPs are for the English wikipedia categorization reasons I explained much more thoroughly at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation and Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. This is a longstanding tradition. --Timeshifter 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't selectively quote, especially when accusing me of doing it. Here is his conclusion which accepts my version, and whose only objection is that it should be obvious (I also added to the bolding of the statements above). Tewfik^Talk 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

People should read all of both talk sections. Otherwise it is easy to get confused. Here is the link to the second talk section in question:

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification of I8

You did not include his suggested changes in your version of the policy rewrite. In the above excerpt from User:Grm_wnr you bolded "but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier." The whole point of all the discussions was to point out that one should not delete local English wikipedia image description pages if they had information on them that could not be transferred to the commons image description pages. One can not visit wikipedia image categorization pages from the commons image description pages. So local English wikipedia image description pages with category links can not be deleted. --Timeshifter 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous wording is incomprehensible, and the motivation for all these categorizations seems clearly to be to do an end-run around trans-wikied media. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The motivation is to keep the category links on English wikipedia image description pages. The trans-wiki process occurs in all cases, and the commons image remains stored on commons servers in all cases. --Timeshifter 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The actions above are being used to justify the creation of IDPs for Commons media and their categorisation on WP, seemingly ad infinitum, which is disruptive to the project and decreases the utility of categorisation as well as transwikiing, as well as being implicitly disallowed under the current CSD. The most recent examples (of dozens [30][31][32]). Tewfik^Talk 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Local English IDPs (image description pages) for images stored on the commons are created whenever the images used in wikipedia articles are clicked. This is done through the trans-wiki process. When categories are added to those local English IDPs, that info is saved at wikipedia. The trans-wiki process combines the commons info with the wikipedia info to create the local English IDPs. It is all completely normal or the programmers would not have set it up that way. Each different-language wikipedia has the same setup. That way each wikipedia in each language can categorize and easily find the images labeled in its language. That is how it works. --Timeshifter 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Codeplowed sockpuppets

An RFCU for Codeplowed has been completed and three sockpuppets confirmed. Those sockpuppets have been recently used on the very-heated Talk page of the DeVry University‎. You may recall seeing this Talk page discussed in various fora recently, including RFPP and the COI Noticeboard. I assert that the Codeplowed's use of sockpuppets to confuse the issues and "stack the deck" against other editors is unethical. I request that his or her sockpuppets be banned. I'd be happy to supply further evidence but I think even a quick glance at the contribution history of the confirmed sockpuppets makes my case quite strongly. --ElKevbo 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur, except for the request that he apologises which you put into the talk page - it would be nice but isn't required. x42bn6 Talk 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone going to do anything about these abusive sockpuppets? Is there a more appropriate venue to discuss this or request action? --ElKevbo 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not so much of an incident but more long-term, you might want to consider WP:CN instead or something. Or just wait. x42bn6 Talk 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CN's a waste of time. I guess those of us interested in the article will simply need to ensure that we take into account's Codeplowed's behavior and ensure new editors are made aware when Codeplowed abuses others using his or her sockpuppets (like yesterday and the day before. --ElKevbo 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done This was a straightforward case of confirmed sockpuppetry; I'm not sure why no-one acted on it before now. I have blocked the puppeteer and his IP for a month, and indefblocked his socks. Hesperian 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is already the result of an RFC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

New sockpuppets of VinceB

I would like to ask for an administrative intervention against two new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter VinceB (talk · contribs). Odbhss (talk · contribs) and Pannonia (talk · contribs) appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test[33]) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead.[34] Since VinceB is a prolific creator of sockpuppets, I would like also to ask a more general question what is the most efficient way to deal with them. Should we post them at WP:ANI or we need an answer from CheckUser each time? Thank you in advance Tankred 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP of VinceB's range and POV has just appeared.[35]. Since all the IPs of the range 195.56. have been proven to be sockpuppets of the banned VinceB so far, I would like to ask to block 195.56.224.252 (talk · contribs) as well. Tankred 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another evasion of a ban, with the same IP range and the same POV: [36] I suggest someone blocks 195.56.207.50 too. Well, if anyone finds this requests. Tankred 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits abusing vandal technology

Accusing me of vandalsisng my own user page abnd insisting on readding personal attacks is not acceptable. Can an admin please ask vintagekitys to leave nme alone and stop his harrassment campaign. This editor is causing a lot of unpleasantness at the moment, see above complaints, SqueakBox 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - this editor has accused me of being a racist and also "editing is based on hatred of British people or British culture" - I find this dusgusting and he refuses to either back his claim up with diss or writdraw it.--Vintagekits 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See here for admins take on him calling me a racist. I will not stand for this. How would you react if another editor constantly accuses you of being racist and motivated by hate - you cant get away with this!--Vintagekits 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vintagekits is looking more and more like a POV pusher. Every edit seems to further an anti-British agenda. This [37] looks very WP:POINTy, since the conflict is not;; commonly known as the Malvinas War as far as I can tell (and I worked hard to ensure that the extreme pro-brits did not remove the word Malvinas from the lead of Falkland Islands). I believe it may be time for an RfC. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll go one further. [38] is MORE pointed and edit than the previous, as, having lost the presence of the 'malvinas' in the lede, he goes and removes all other names.ThuranX 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• ThuranX, actually if you had checked properly you would have seen that that was my second edit in a row and I had added references to back up my claim but had dupilcate the section was refering to the other names in the lead - so I didnt remove it they were in there twice. Additionally I would like to turn your argument on its head and ask - WHY IS IT that these British edits ONLY remove the reference to Malvinas War 58,000 ghits but not South Atlantic War 600 hits or the Falklands Conflict 85,000 ghits or the Falklands Crisis 15,000 ghits. Now you tell me why is that?--Vintagekits 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, At a glance, that argument looks like the sort of content dispute conversation you should've started with, but this AN/I's about your edit warring and POV, not about the content dispute. Assuming I looked at no facts, and just my own biased opinion is also more than mildly insulting. Focus on the issues at hand in the future, thank you. ThuranX 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you will have to forgive me but after reading your assessment of the situation it would have been easy to summise that you didnt look at the facts hard enough. I am not trying to replace the term Malvinas with the term Falklands - however Malvinas is a significant minority term for the islands and for the War and this should be reflected in the article. If you look at the Irish war of Independence article you will see that the main name for the war is listed as the title - Irish war of Independence and then the common Irish name (Tan War) is listed and also the British term for it (Anglo-Irish war) is listed.--Vintagekits 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lede? Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, no... I meant the OTHER lede! (oops.) ThuranX 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I diagnose a case of Editor On A Mission. This is rarely much fun for any of those concerned. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Over 50,000 ghits say that British editors need to realise the world doesnt revolve around them. I am not anti-British but too many articles possibly wiki itself) are set up with an inherent British POV and any thought of introducing another perspective is obviously bang out of order!--Vintagekits 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

58,300, actually, you are being too generous in this. It presents a major problem to WP, this GB view of the world. I could name 12 articles, but would only distract from the substantive issue. 86.42.180.78 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But most of the first page is Socialist websites, which all have inherent agendas and biases. That somewhat undermines your 'it's all Pro-british' assertions, as we can all say 'Using Malvinas is pushing a pro-socialism agenda'. ThuranX 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely nothing - both of you jumped in on a band wagon to put the boot into me without checking the facts. If you wish to ignore that the Malvinas is a commonly used terms 1. in non UK/British English language circles and 2. in British left wing circles (thats quite a lot of circles!) and choose to ignore that other British editors are trying to censor the term but the same editors do dont try and remove less significant alternate names then you go ahead if that suits you. But this is looking at lot more like others how have the agenda and I am the one trying to add a little balance into the article.--Vintagekits 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we used to mock the Soviets for "airbrushing", or for even compiling pseudo-history. Let's call a spade a spade and get on with making an encyclopedia. Here's an other example of avoiding the facts, and fail to get to the main article page [39]. I have no "agenda" here, and I avoid argument on WP with an intensity, and that's why I use my IP here. -86.42.180.78 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (4th nomination)

I closed this nomination as invalid; however, I think there's something very pointy going on with the nominator: Mattgladney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Someone want to take a look into it? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious single purpose account. All he is doing it putting up articles for AfD that he believes are related to John Bambeck [40] [41] with extremely rude AfD reasoning that have nothing to do with guidelines. IrishGuy ^talk 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, WTF. Looks like the goal is to associate Bambeck's name with some rather nasty allegations. Can someone nip this in the bud? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked and rolled back, "AfD"s (including one for a redlink article) deleted. --kingboyk 19:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Games people play

Would some administrator look at this[42] and see if they can figure out what is going on? There is a group of articles about newscasters for a Pittsburg station up for deletion (check User:TREYWiki's Wikipedia contributions for more). However the AfDs seem to be guided by a group of children playing some Wikipedia weekend game, and they've branched out to other areas of Wikipedias. I don't have the time or the resources to look into this, but would appreciate if no more Wikipedia resources were spent by editors dealing with this. This probably requires one administrator with an hour to spare and the will to do whatever he/she thinks best. Thanks. KP Botany 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fffffffff

Resolved

 – Sock blocked —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This user repeatedly vandalized Turkey, I am requesting for him/her to be blocked.--Lemonflash 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. Vandalism reports should go to WP:AIV. Trebor 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock of User:Ararat arev and blocked by Zzuuzz. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Ryulong. JuJube 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on contributions, Cansaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer Danny Daniel. One of the user's hoaxes included an article called Cartoon Idol (pun of Fairy Idol. Some of Danny Daniel's confirmed sockpuppets edited that page along with "The Fairly OddParents"), though it was deleted as non-notable web content. See User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for information about Danny Daniel and his sockpuppets, which includes editing style/patterns, what articles his sockpuppets usually edit, and a list of sockpuppets. Squirepants101 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, he's definitely Danny Daniel. He added his signature "Kiyowood" crap to the Zatch Bell! article here. JuJube 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names - requesting an admin to look in

I am not a prior editor of this article, and have no personal interest in the outcome of this AFD, other than to speak up for fairness in the process. I came across this AFD and see that although the tag regarding the deletion nomination was placed on the page, there was no edit summary attached to it. So people who have this article on their watchlists would not have had any idea that there was a nomination for deletion, and therefore would not know that comments on it were possible. Furthermore, although there are a scattered few requests for citations in the article, there was no prior overall tagging as is suggested by WP:AFD ("Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead"). I would agree that the article needs work - more citations, cleanup, removal of some POV commentary - but the fair thing would be for editors to be given a chance to do so as is usual procedure. I made these points at the AFD, but I think it's something that an administrator might want to look into. Tvoz |talk 20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the claim here is correct. The period of the AFD should be timed from the time of the edit which has the summary mentioning the AFD, not the placement of the AFD tag. Od Mishehu 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late gn

Too late gn seems to be a single purpose account. He adds non-consensus information to Gene R. Nichol as well as blanks out talk pages, sections of College of William & Mary, and all warnings on his own talk page. This has been brought up before on the BLP noticeboard and at that time the page was protected. He has garnered enough warnings that if he does it again, it is blockable...but based on his single purpose it is obvious that he will continue. Should it be a 24 hour block, a one week block...indef? Any input would be appreciated. IrishGuy ^talk 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that Irish Guy holds himself to no standard and is quick to judge without facts. My contributions are documentable with citations. Irish Guy is unwilling to investigate my reports

Gene Nichol

Gene Nichol is not sufficiently noteworthy to have any material devoted to his name. I have posted true materials with citations and had the administration of the College of William & Mary vandalize the additions on a repeated basis. Do you have a double standard?

- Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree in 1976 from the University of Texas, graduating Order of the Coif. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995, after which the ABA threatened to remove the school's ABA accredidation.[1] Both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Law Schools suffered a major drop in their US News and World Report ratings while Nichol served as dean and neither have recovered to where they were when he arrived {http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__1987_1999/edit + Nichol attended Oklahoma State University, where he played second-string quarterback on its football team, and received his law degree in 1976 from the University of Texas, graduating Order of the Coif. He was the dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law from 1999 to 2005 as well as dean of the University of Colorado Law School from 1988-1995. - (http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_rankings__2000_present)

You threaten me, but do nothing to user Cka3n who deliberately removed substantiated facts from Gene Nichol's bio. Many of the alumni of the College of William & Mary think that Gene Nichol's measurable metrics of performance are abysmal. We think that he is not worthy of a page on Wikipedia.

The site has been repeated vandalized and politically spun by anonymous changes traceable to the administration of the College of William & Mary, biased and directed by Nichol. No one has sought to put a stop of this propoganda campaign by Professor Holmes and Nichol.. See entry on February 27, 2007 mad on behalf of Professor Holmes in the history log pasted below.

The facts are that both the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill law school were so poorly managed by Nichol that due to lack of his ability to work with the state lagestures for funding, failure to be an effective fund raiser and failure to properly hire credible faculty and administer (all core responsibilities of a dean of a law school) both schoos underwent major drops in rankings by US News and World Report, documented by citations. Worse yet, Nichol left The University of Colorado of Law School in such bad financial and administrative condition, that the ABA threatened to pull it's ABA Accredidation.

Wikipedia should either unlock that Gene Nichol Page for editing and permit documentable facts to be added or Wikipedia should remove Gene Nichol's page and the Nichol Leadership comments in the William & Mary Page. You do not remove factual additions on other college presidents pages, even if negative. People are responsible for their performance, as is Nichol.

Personal tools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too late gn (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

   Since it looks like you might finally be willing to discuss your edits, there is an ANI section opened about this. IrishGuy talk 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Irish Guy,

I recommend that you review your own comments for bias. You should not have a double standard. In other words do not hold your self to no standard and then violate the principles of free speach and undo edits just because you do not agree with actual facts. That is engaging in replacement of facts with biased opinion and your comments demonstrate that your are quick to make judgments without sufficient facts. You know what is said about opinions..... Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Irishguy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Too late gn (talk • contribs)

The American laws of free speech have no bearing at all on Wikipedia. That being said, you have no leg to stand on about violating free speech when you are the one who continues to blank talk pages, blank article sections, blank your own talk page, etc. IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why all this random stuff is here? Can I make some of it go away? I can't even see what the dispute is. Dina 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that I caught him blanking talk pages and articles. His talk page had been blanked as well when I went to warn him. A quick perusal of what he was blanking showed that this had been brought up before as I noted above. All the gibberish he quoted...I have no idea what it has to do with anything. I had nothing to do with any previous content dispute. IrishGuy ^talk 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that they are editing Gene R. Nichol, User:Too late gn should be blocked for an inappropriate User name. Corvus cornix 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. But I did block him for 31 hours to give him a chance to get his thought processes together. He was wildly ranting. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If they're editing the Gene R. Nichol page, then "Too late gn" is an attack. Corvus cornix 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. All the edits have been to that article or removing references to him from other articles. Even blanking a redirect. It is clearly an attack account. IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially since his own account above admits to such. He is making he claim that he represents either genuinely aggrieved (but uncited) alumni, or simply alumni with an axe to grind. His behavior and language make it the latter, and since his name is clearly indicative of Nichols (gn as initials), almost probably an attack, though 'too late' seems confusing. Is Nichols known for deciding things after they resolve themselves and taking credit? (standard IANaAdmin disclaimer)ThuranX 23:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Snickers 579 (talk · contribs)

This user is currently on a bit of a spree, would somebody like to go and block him? FreeMorpheme 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) :User has no contribs - sure you typed the name correctly? Natalie 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Sure enough, and corrected before I finished typing. Natalie 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I went to block but another admin beat me to it. For future reference use WP:AIV for blatent vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All rolled back, blocked. Antandrus (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

COFS indef blocked

Given the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, I have indefinitely blocked COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because the CSI LA account was used for block evasion during COFS's past blocks. This does not mean that the blocks cannot ever be lifted, or even that the blocks should not be reduced immediately. I have no opinion about the appropriate block lengths. But I felt this was the necessary first step while discussion takes place about what exactly should happen in the long run. ··coelacan 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... both of those accounts were involved in the minor shitstorm over my week-long block of Misou (talk · contribs). AGF or RFCU, I'm so conflicted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I kinda doubt Misou is the same person, but who knows. CSI LA stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. 75.62.7.22 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning re: Homosexual agenda

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

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

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say [43]:

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

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page [44]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Funny old world isn't it? How one can be posting one moment, and they are gone the next. Obviously the going got tough! Giano 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yargh, at least post the right link.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why - have you made it blue? Giano 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted only after 24 hours. Didn't the page say we had 48 hours for certification? I've asked the deleter and he's checking. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the RfC. It was certified by multiple users. The deletion was out of process. That said, the claims made don't look terribly RfC worthy. Can we please get back to editing the encyclopedia? JoshuaZ 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, actually it isn't certified - the "certifiers" had not done the "tried and failed to resolve" step. They would at best be other people agreeing - David Gerard 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the talk page? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I expect David Gerard deleted it by accident, it was him I assume? Giano 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just restored it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't, I did! So far it has one certifier, who wants to delete it as some editors are using it as a bullying pileon, and four who claim to be certifying it but show no evidence of the having tried and failed to resolve step. Need one of those within 24 hours - David Gerard 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So tried and failed isn't warning the user about incivilty and having her ignoring it and removed it? (originally left on user's talk) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the talk page, not the article itself. IrishGuy ^talk 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, let's get back to editing the encyclopedia. Miaers would be proud of us right now. JuJube 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Agreed, let's get back to editing and administrating the encyclopedia. Nothing more to see here. --Iamunknown 05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet enforcement requested on Barbara Schwarz's latest

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

Block review of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He confirmed by checkuser a number of sockpuppets including the ones edit warring with Onefortyone. I blocked Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo for a week but would like feedback on an indefinite ban.

The sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo show similarities in interest to Lochdale (talk · contribs), including Elvis, Nick Adams and James Dean. Lochdale was banned from editing Elvis Presely at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis, and hasn't edited since--too long for checkuser against him. Lochdale in turn shares similar interests to Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) and Wyss (talk · contribs) who were placed on indefinite probation for making disruptive edits to celebrity articles (but who do not seem to be banned as far as I can tell). I'd like advice on whether a week is long enough for Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From Ted Wilkes' block log, he was blocked for one year in March 2006 after multiple violations of his probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. The year expired in March 2007 and Fred Bauder unblocked then, but Wilkes has not resumed editing under that name. Meanwhile, Wyss has been indefblocked "at request of user." As for the issue of block length, are the edits from the SPA's useful additions to the encyclopedia, or the mine-run of unsourced nonsense? Newyorkbrad 02:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mixed. Judge for yourself. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

164.107.223.217 (talk · contribs)

• This anonymous user has been voting in a lot of AfDs, voting "Keep" pretty much every time even in patently obvious delete cases. When I left him a message about it, his response suggested that he was voting "Keep" just to make a point about the evil deletionists who prey on hard-working Wikipedians. Beyond leaving comments making people aware of his voting pattern, I don't know what else to do, but this seems pretty disruptive to me. JuJube 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! If I find one that I agree should be deleted, I promise that I will vote as such, but if I have a reason to keep, why not share it? Should I comment that you mostly vote to delete articles based on your recent history as evidence of something? If you notice, most of my edits are grammatical in nature, correcting typos and such. I do NOT just go to article for deletion discussions and run down the lists or something. I also should note that I'm currently using a university IP and so not all of the edits in the IPs history will be mine. If you would like, I'll voluntarily hold off from articles for deletion, but if you disagree with my side of things, then shouldn't we just discuss where we disagree? Finally, for what it's worth, I'm taking a break from Wikipedia and because I'm using a university IP, any edits on the next few hours or so are NOT from me the one who used the IP on this vote and I don't know if I'll happen to be on this particular IP again. So, I'm just letting you know that if you don't hear anything further from me and notice radiclally unrelated edits from this IP, that's why. So, good night! Take care, one of the many users of --164.107.223.217 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It does look like a bunch of reflexive "keep"s on ideological grounds [45]. I'm not JuJube but if your offer to hold off from AfD extends to requests other editors, I'd like to take you up on it. Wikipedia has consensus principles (e.g. notability, attribution, etc.) for when to keep or delete stuff and those principles reflect the community's choosing not to embrace the philosophy of inclusionism even though some individual editors might themselves be inclusionists (or similarly deletionists, etc.). Trying to push a particular such philosophy into one AfD after another in disregard of the consensus principles borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Instead you might like to participate in the talk pages for developing the principles and guidelines themselves. 75.62.7.22 06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD overload again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Could someone get this guy (correct link; userpage is red) off my back? He's sullying my talk page with things like "zomg lulz" and something about it being over my head. I wouldn't have reported something as trivial as this were it from some random IP user, but I've never seen this kind of behavior from an administrator before. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Jeffrey O. Gustafson. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Take it up with Jeffrey if you were offended by his "personal attack". Sean William 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so he has friends. Could a neutral administrator address this? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit! I have friends!? This guy clearly has no clue who I am... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there something Simoes has done to deserve being mocked? ··coelacan 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was mocking me... don't know about anyone else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the edit summary again, that made me ask this. As evidenced by the comment below, Simoes wants this to be over. I hope it is over. ··coelacan 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind. I don't think I'll be running into him again. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Serpent of evil river

I suspect that these accounts may sockpuppets of Serpent of evil river (talk · contribs) compare edit

• Areabuilt890 (talk · contribs · logs) similar edit
• 89.242.70.104 (talk · contribs) similar edit
• 89.242.170.167 (talk · contribs)
• 89.243.164.70 (talk · contribs) similar edit
• 89.240.157.86 (talk · contribs) similar edit

The IP's all belong in the same range [46]. They revert to an earlier version to include the "fifth season," which does not exist, and changes the air dates of episodes. The IP edits also similarly remove the lead sentence, revert a correction to a wikilink ("The Last Starmakers" to "The Last of the Starmakers"), and an interwiki link.

Areabuilt890 is also recently created account and the first and only edit was to request edit protection on an earlier version that did not remove the lead sentence, but the correction to the wikilink and the interwiki link and also include the fifth season that dates the season as 2006. The fifth season does not exist and a few of the false episode titles can be found on this thread on tv.com forums where users make up their own episodes: [47] inluding "String Burn", "The Witch of the Paste", "Duck and cower", "Katz kokoa", "Freaky Fred-day", and "Being Muriel". Squids'and'Chips 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, again

Talk:Wikipedia community#Trivia. Can someone please say something to him? See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru more background if you don't already know. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And by say something, I don't necessarily mean about the dispute on the talk page, but his behavior in the dispute (such as egging people on to add the trivia and ignore the discussion about it's dispute, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=126894978&oldid=126892247 -- Ned Scott 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it time we took him to ArbCom? MER-C 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has mediation been tried? --Iamunknown 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Given Quackguru has paid no attention to anything anyone says to him on the talkpages, I doubt he will on a mediation page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe community-enforceable mediation. QuackGuru would have to actually participate tho. --Iamunknown 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon/Gimmiet (indefblocked user) back again?

I've kept Otherkin watchlisted after the big Gabrielsimon/Gimmiet/Gavin the Chosen/etc dustup (all the same person) last year. He was indefinitely blocked, and I suspected that if he came back, it would only be a matter of time before he showed up there. This seems to have paid off, Karaveks_voice (talk · contribs) is very active there now, creating controversy, and editing in the same fashion as the indef blocked user. Additionally, that account was created the same day in March 2006 as when Gabrielsimon/Gimmiet/Gavin the Chosen was indefinitely blocked. This seems pretty clear to me, but I'd like a second set of eyes before blocking the user. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ye gods, that article looks like a mass of OR on a topic that has a very dubious claim to notability. Do you have some convenient links to get a bead on Gabrielsimon etc.? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No links right now, I don't have 'em handy and I'm now 95% confident that this is him. I'm going to go ahead and initiate the block, this user is creating a whole heck of grief (admittedly on an article that's pretty much an abortion, but still, it's affecting plenty of editors) and is obviously the person in question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

207.207.127.254 keeps replacing own talk page

Within the past day, I've counted ten times that 207.207.127.254 has removed the content from User_talk:207.207.127.254. Xerxesnine 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the content was replaced with things attacking admins, and there was also recently a fake barnstar for fighting administrator cruelty. -Amarkov moo! 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected it for 2 days. Hopefully that will deal with the situation for now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am partly to blame, for posting the translation of the declaration of the Army of Russian Resistance. That declaration however had a good reason for being on the page, as we were discussing the sources and reliabiliy of the Kavkaz Center article and the authenticity of the message. -- Petri Krohn 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user with shifting IPs trolling AfDs

• He's voting "Speedy Keep" on a variety of AfDs where it's obvious he hasn't even read the article in question, and is simply voting to make a point about deletionists. I don't know if it's the same guy as the one I reported before, but I wouldn't be surprised. He is posting from 172.129.74.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked by Naconkantari), 172.162.65.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and more recently from 172.162.73.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Is there anything that can be done about this? JuJube 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If s/he is voting keep on articles that Wikipedia guidelines say should be deleted in order to make a point, s/he's doing Wikipedia a service in taking the trouble to figure out the proper disposition of all those articles in order to vote the opposite way. The solution is simple: closing admins for the affected AfD's should simply count each of the person's "keep" votes as a "delete" vote when determining consensus ;-). Note, I left a reply a couple minutes ago at the earlier discussion (but now it looks unlikely to have an effect, sigh). Anyway, I'd say warn about WP:POINT then block if it continues. 75.62.7.22 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be more to it than first glance. The edits of the last IP I put suggest this person might be indef-blocked user ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs). If so, it's cut and dry trolling. JuJube 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really no fun to see this disruption at AFD. Blocks are entirely warranted by now, for WP:IAR if for no other reason. YechielMan 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo, Ward Churchill, Alan Cabal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eleven accounts created 15 months ago

Resolved

Background

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

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

Commonalities

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Burkem22

Resolved

A new account for the indefinitely blocked User:Burkem and posting further nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think we need checkuser to confirm this one; the name and contributions history show a clear identity. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Choess will revert the vandalism. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers ownership issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of Libricide

This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello...

"I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins.

It is a great irony for me that Wikipedia burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation as serious scholarship still has far to go.

Still, i wish you folks the best of luck and i want to thank those who participated in this discussion and saw a salvageable piece. I think you need to spend more time reading books.

Is this mutatis-mutandis ?

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/madrid1933-english.htm

Neil zusman 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libricide. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Neil, you want WP:DRV for that, but please familiarise yourself with core Wikipedia policies first, notably WP:AGF, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (especially WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. --Folantin 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

USERS GNEVIN AND PADRAIC3UK VANDALISM

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

When outright lies are added to a page i consider that edit to be vandlism . IP user adding "although there is no record of any non-Catholic playing for the GAA [48] which is a lie many have played and one it most important cups is name after a non-Catholic see Sam Maguire and Sam Maguire Cup (Gnevin 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bot needs to be stopped

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

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

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

warning level?

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

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

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

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

Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212

The user that created Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212 previously created a page, telling me that their teacher told them to make a page on Wikipedia as an assignment. As such, I am dubious as to the notability of this new page. What do other people think? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be real. Google does turn up a few hits. (Which I didn't check individually, though.) But it's very bad practice to write an article about a court case based on nothing but the court documents. I'm missing secondary sources. As it is, it's an OR summary culled together from a primary source. Lupo 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Masinagudi

I have just tagged this article for speedy deletion as it seems the article is nothing more than a brochure for a resort (db-spam). This was tagged before with db-spam, however, 122.164.33.90 removed the tag, claiming that the web links to the portal were removed. They then proceeded to place a weblink "For more information about the resort" into the article. Could we speedy delete this? Addendum: Xompanthy has just tagged the article for blatant advertising. --Ispy1981 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange and curious block

Apologies if Cyde gas already listed this here but I don't see it. This seems a very odd situation [49] If coming and going is a blockable crime there would be few of us left. I wonder what Cyde's motives are Giano 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you talk with Cyde first? I'm sure he would be open to suggestions. --Iamunknown 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Cyde's description of why he blocked is not a reason given by our blocking policy, and Cyde himself does not appear to be impartial. The actual reason appears to be these deletions of comments, including Cyde's, which means he's involved in the situation and should not have performed the block. R. D. H.'s minor disruption does not warrant an indefinite block. -- nae'blis 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Add in all of the disruption and personal attacks from the IP address identified below; now do you think it warrants an indefinite block? --Cyde Weys 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Repeatedly returning in order to disrupt is indeed within the scope of WP:BP, we definitely do block for repeated disruption. Giano was somewhat selective in his quotation of the block reason, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• No Giano was not. I listed the reasons given by the blocking editor "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (User repeatedly claims he has left Wikipedia but keeps returning to create further disruptive. This will help him.) " on the block log. Please check your facts. Giano 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

JzG's point reflects the need to discuss such things with the blocking admin if feasible before undoing a block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought of removing this thread and then asking Giano at his talk page to talk with Cyde first. Maybe I shall do that next time. --Iamunknown 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• No this is the place to discuss strange blocks. I was right first time. Giano 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not without talking to the administrator first. --Iamunknown 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde appears a bit to close to this and really shouldn't be doing the blocks, but given the fact that RDH appears to be here just to disrupt at this point I don't think an indef is out of the question. Given the recent edits from what would appear to be his IP, 70.171.22.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I don't think he's particularly interested in adding anything of value here at this point.--Isotope23 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has long gone without doing anything productive on the project and his stated intentions have been to return to cause trouble, which he has been doing. This is a textbook case for an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then come here and get support for such a block. Your blocking reason was unclear, your personal involvement was ill-advised, and while I may support such a block now based on your aditional information, all actions should be transparent and clear from the get-go. This is a textbook case of failed communication. -- nae'blis 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's no biggie, this will all be resolved very shortly now that the information is out there. I don't particularly mind if he remains unblocked for a brief period while all of our individual knowledge is shared. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Cyde, I am confused - why are you saying he was serving a 48 hour block, I'm sure he was not. Giano 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see OK [50] Interesting sequence of events this. I wonder why you botched your reasoning on the block og. Giano 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My complain of nonsense on my page

Someone posted nonsense on my page that I am banned. The name was Hipocrite but he was retired so it must be another. It said I am Rootlogy. This is not for real. I am no one but me and babalooobabalooo, for I forgot my Babalooo password for one day. I thank you to take away the Babalooobabalooo name. This is the many times I have to removed nonsense at me. I am sorry that I do not write the pefect English but this is not a reason to torture me. How do I get a mentor advocate? I thank you to ask others to not torture me. Babalooo 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said you were banned. From the looks of it, there is a suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of Rootology (talk · contribs). The fact that you've edited here means you are not banned or blocked though.--Isotope23 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to prove that you are not a sockpuppet, you could leave a message for WP:AMA. YechielMan 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post in this forum tonight. Babalooo 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Badly broken english now, but used to be able to write acceptably. Perfect knowledge of editing on their first edit (signing, space before ~'s), user page on their second edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are my room-mates words. My first words were on 06:51, 26 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (→Where?) He says I should make my own name account and not use his. I will do so tonight and you may transfer my posts to my new name. I want to have a high post count with these posts under Babalooo and Babalooobabalooo on my new name account. Babalooo 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a rather over-used excuse. --Iamunknown 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugrat Characters Vandalism

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