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

Legitimate link was reverted by a bot

The article Age_of_Conan:_Hyborian_Adventures has an out-of-date link to a guild website (guild is "The Hand of Set").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

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

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

Agreed. Allowing guild/clan listings in game articles would open the floodgates to all sorts of spam. Some games have thousands of such groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See AN/I complaint against me WAY down on the page regarding this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic behavior from an editor

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

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

You haven't even read his response, and you want him reprimanded? Surely there's something to be said for hearing the other person's side, no? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not Jewish, but I think we can assume good faith here and guess that this editor just wanted to make your comments a little clearer. A polite request to not edit others' comments should be enough, in my opinion. J Milburn 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't been aware of that practice, until now. Probably better to use the full spelling in mainspace, but in talkspace, I'd have to agree that one should have a good reason when editing comments from other editors. That said, I don't think rbj's had a chance to respond to this, yet -- no need to get everybody alarmed unless this sort of thing becomes a pattern, unless there's something I'm missing? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think editors should always be very cautious about editing others' talk page contributions. This goes doubly for editing the comments of anyone you have a dispute with or have had. R-b-j should know better and probably does. Let's see what he says in his defense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Well, I evidently didn't appreciate how sensitive this is. He's undone the edits as I suggested, but far from apologising or giving any reason for his action, he's made accusations that others did something similar to himself in the past[2], and has been advised to offer apologies instead of escalating the incident.[3]. ... dave souza, talk 11:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

r b-j has now responded. An aggressive and unrepentant defence. .. dave souza, talk 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a new low for Rbj - saying that he doesn't believe OrangeMarlin's claim that it was religiously offensive? Wow. I am reminded of Benapgar (talk · contribs)...similar type of incivility, albeit with a better-informed sense of content. Guettarda 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After he responded to a "why" with a blanket accusation at no one in particular, accusing others of changing his posts and lying[4] I suggested he apologise to Orangemarlin and not escalate, and if he had a complaint about others altering his posts he should post a dif.[5] His response was to ignore the suggestion to apologise and ignore my request for diffs, and instead to accuse me of lying (his words were "stretching the tr_th"[6] - the underscore in "truth" I can take only as yet another deliberate trolling insult at Orangemarlins' preferred "G_d", his rude edits of which is what started it all. I try to AGF, often beyond what is generally considered reasonable, but this is well beyond anything remotely acceptable. I try to help and I'm accused of lying, and in the same breath he yet agains taunts and insults Orangemarlin, this after several editors have suggested, with varying degrees of emphasis, that he owes Orangemarlin an apology? It is community ban time, this user has always been disruptive, argumentative and hostile, with no constructive contributions that I can recall, and I cannot any longer view this situation as anything other than deliberate, hateful anti-semitism towards Orangemarlin and general nastiness towards everyone else. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I'm jewish, (not an admin, but i watch here regularly and kibbitz a bit), and I've experienced this before, but not on Wikipedia. Many jews observe this, even if they're not regular shabbos synagogue-goers. It's a fairly traditional behavior, but it's also a reasonably obscure one. When explained, most non-jews apologize, shrug it off, and move on, and most jews do the same. Ultimately, the jew knows he was observant of the tradition, and that someone else, who happened to be ignorant of the idea, did the changing. The jew has done nothign 'wrong', and really, most jews assume the other person hasn't done something 'wrong', but just needs to have it explained. The fact that Rb-j didn't apologize or concede ignorance of the tradition, but immediately dug in seems far more evidence of incivility than his initial action, which could be seen as a member of another faith showing their version of respect, and not someone acting against another faith's show of respect. One observer's opinion. ThuranX 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is where I was, until he responded so hatefully, with the "tr_th" which can only be a snotty dig. There is no other way to view it. And I was asking for difs so I could right any wrongs which might have been done him! Nope, I'm all out of AGF for this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. He's now complaining about the block JoshuaZ gave him, using the premise that the editor isn't actually observantly jewish enough for his objection tothe change to count as offensive. ThuranX 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is "anti-semitic" but seems to be clearly deliberately antagonistic behavior. I'm blocking RBJ for 24 hours for incivility and grossly disruptive behavior. JoshuaZ 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, consider this: If I were white, and I knew another editor were black, and I started saying "nigger" and "darkie" it really wouldn't matter if I, personally, were actually racist or if I were doing it just to be a dick. The words themselves are bigoted and racist. Same applies here. He's being anti-semitic, whether or not he personally is anti-semitic, and if he's just doing it to be a dick it doesn't change his actions. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RBJ has objected to my block and claimed that I'm "full of crap". He has however raised what may be legitimate objections to his block. I would appreciate if someone would take a look over at his talk page and maybe comment here whether he should be unblocked. My feeling is no. JoshuaZ 02:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't bothered to put an unblock request on his talk page. And he has continued his flame-war like posts, his latest being to yet again basically (boiled down) say Orangemarlin is full of crap, the administrators here are crap, and invites you to kiss his ass. Not really seeing any reason to unblock. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an Orthodox Jew, I also usually write the word as "G-d", and tend to type it that way on computer screens, even though there is a debate if the legal religious reasons for the tradition are applicable to computer screens. Regardless, I would agree that in article namespace, it should be written fully spelled out, as that it how it would be printed in a book. On talkspaces (be they user, article, template, etc.) it would strike me as impolite for one user to change the posts of another, in either direction. In this particular situation, I don't think that addingthe middle "o" is ipso facto antisemitic, but the incivilties that arose from the issues do need to be addressed; on both sides. I think this edit shares in the incivilty issues as well. RBJ could have been informed in a less antagonistic manner; not that that excuses his resulting incivility. Oh well. -- Avi 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD#Muslix64.27s exploit

Over all the hype, why put the wikimedia foundation in any trouble? No body knows IF the number has an legal value or not. EFF anyone? Cyb3r01dX 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that someone is determined to post this DRM Key here on wikipedia, and keeps recreating an article, that I won't link to because that would require typing out the DRM key, and as of their last attempt to recreate it, created a username that was the same as the Key. That page needs to be deleted, but it can't be salted, since that would require the DRM key to be listed somewhere on wikipedia. Are there any options to deal with this other than repeatedly redeleting the article in question? And by article in question I of course mean the one I can't link to, not the one linked in the title of this thread. Not to mention, the content of the "article" is visible in the deletion log, showing the complete key, is there some sort of oversight that could deal with this? Speaking of which, it should probably be oversighted out of HD DVD--VectorPotential^Talk 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A number alone probably doesn't violate the DMCA, so salting isn't an issue. A number with instructions on how to use it might not be so good. There's already a thread going on at WP:AN#HD-DVD_decryption_key. We need someone who knows what they're talking about to settle this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice the AN thread--VectorPotential^Talk 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been salting pages titled with the number so far, so I've added done these ones too. Not an ideal solution though... WjB scribe 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a way to keep google from caching certain pages, such as Wikipedia:Protected titles and its various subpages--VectorPotential^Talk 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is. Files listed on Robots.txt by the Developers aren't google cached. It may be worth making a request to include all our lists of protected pages (if they aren't already) though I suspect they have a fairly low google profile. WjB scribe 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Some context: this info is (reportedly) an important master key used by AACS, in this case to protect HD-DVD disks. Having been discovered a while ago, it appears that the industry association which operates AACS has been sending DMCA notices to blogs either hosting that number or linking to the forum posts which report its extraction. Reports of this have in turn reached popular technology websites including Digg, Slashdot, and Boing Boing. There some posters are reposting the key, and others are in general encouraging a general guerilla/disobedience campaign, advocating the information be so widely disseminated that it can't be removed everywhere. Digg and BoingBoing report having received legal notices themselves, and posts containing the key have been featured on (and quickly erased) on Digg several times. Posts on Slashdot and Digg advocate Wikipedia as a suitable target for this campaign. The page VectorPotential reports is the tip of the iceberg - the key appears to be present on several pages. An article named for the number has been created and destroyed and recreated today (it's presently a redir to HD-DVD) and some of the contributors who have added it in various (logical, DVD-related) places have also spammed it onto unrelated pages too. There's every liklihood that subtler individuals will have posted the key into more places, hoping its being unnoticed will assist its dissemination to Wikipedia mirrors. I expect this behaviour to repeat over the next 18 hours or so (generally the hot period associated with a Slashdot story). I guess it's rather ironic that I can't (well, won't) link to the offending articles or user contribs and can't actually tell you the number so you can go search for it. I expect WP:OFFICE will shortly be receiving a complaint from the AACS people, so I imagine a rather extensive clusterfuck is about to ensue. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Full agreement with your last comment. Can the variations be salted as protected redirects, to strike the proper balance between information and legality? -- nae'blis 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Any redirects would show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/HD DVD, and would probably be conspicuous. — tregoweth (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but protected redirects contain the minimum of information necessary to prevent further pages being created with the illegal information. Therefore it would seem to me that they constitute a 'good faith' effort to abide by AACS' requests, and Special:Whatlinkshere is a nigh-unavoidable feature of the software that only some users will be aware of. It is not our job to prevent information in all forms, though we can try to perform reasonable actions. -- nae'blis 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do we remove any information that random individuals complain about? Of course not. We remove illegal content or libel. Neither is the case here. We don't simply comply because the AACS requests it. If WP:OFFICE requests it, that's different, of course. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 01:06Z

That's the point; some people with a lot of money say that the number is illegal, under the DMCA, and they're happy to use their money to back that point up. Dan Beale 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) I've had to protect Talk:HD DVD; anyone have any better ideas? — tregoweth (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about stop misusing admin powers. There's no reason to protect a talk page, ever, except in cases of involvement by WP:OFFICE or temporarily to clean up vandalism or libel. We have no reason to self-censor unless WP:OFFICE gets involved. Until then, stop assuming the worst. This is very anti-wiki, especially on the talk page. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-01 23:44Z

There are absolutely good reasons to protect talk pages. Illegal material posted to them repeatedly would qualify in my book. -- nae'blis 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true, but that is not the case here. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 01:03Z

Looks to me like the key was being added by anonymous users. Wouldn't semi-protection be sufficient in this case? *** Crotalus *** 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added a number of times when the article was semi-protected. — tregoweth (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing illegal about the string of characters. Do you agree? — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 01:12Z

Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. I believe you know very well that's not the context of what was on the talk page in question. Since that sequence has the clever "S/5" substitution, your own intentions are somewhat suspect here. -- nae'blis 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Clever? You mean trivial. How many strings are we no longer allowed to write because they may be "cleverly" too close in some way to the one you claim is unspeakable (for what reasons? the string is not illegal. disseminating it is not illegal. only using it to copy DVDs is illegal) — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 03:45Z

You're free to use your domain to disseminate the string of characters, and to use your money to defend your right to do so. I'm told that the DMCA makes it illegal to distribute information to break copy protection. This key seems to be part of that information. Dan Beale 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a version of the "guns don't kill people..." argument: "typing a string of numbers and letters isn't illegal, but using it to break hd dvd is"218.215.0.134 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block against "industry association that operates AACS" based on WP:NLT. Oh wait, they already don't edit here. In this case, m:avoid copyright paranoia and recognize the censorship attempt for what it is. Let the Foundation office decide how to deal with the legal stuff. Follow the office's instructions if they issue some. If they don't, then quit the amateur lawyering and and decide whether to include the number in the article based on normal editorial criteria of whether it is encyclopedic or not, as with the Muhammad cartoons. To the office: for this and many other reasons, consider pulling the servers out of Florida and putting them in California or some other state with a good anti-SLAPP statute. Please also report any interesting developments to the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. 75.62.7.22 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the policies, copyright infringement (even alleged) is not allowed because it "threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems." Pizzachicken 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Even alleged??!!! Are you kidding? Anyone can censor the entire encyclopedia by alleging infringement? Be real, we have to carry out office directives but on this matter we haven't gotten one, maybe for good reason. If it does become necessary to block that hex number, patching the spam blacklist MediaWiki code to prevent saving edits containing the number may ease on some whack-a-mole. But the whole situation is extremely offensive and I hope that the office is on the phone with the EFF about its options. 75.62.7.22 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled as to why we aren't forcing the Foundation with respect to this issue. If they are not prepared to step in and tell us conclusively whether or not we should include the data on Wikipedia, we should be forcing their hand. This is a very important editorial decision that cannot be made until the Foundation tells us something critical. theProject 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The office and its lawyers are almost certainly studying their options. Let's assume that they know what they're doing. We can cheer ourselves up with the thought that the longer the office makes us wait, the more consideration they're probably giving to the possibility of coming out swinging.

There seems to be another issue here too--the code isn't just being deleted, any mention of the code and the issues surrounding it are being deleted despite it being patently obvious that it's encyclopedic at this point. If getting tens of thousands of hits on Google in just a few days, major posts in major sites/blogs, an official announcement from Digg.com and numerous people becoming aware of it don't make it verifiable, reliable and notable, then I don't know what it is. For the time being, I think at the very least, they should allow a description of the issue--which I've seen deleted wholesale from at least one article. If you want to protect it for the time being until there is official word on the issue of the code itself, FINE, but at least post the text people have recommended be posted on the talk pages that describe the issue. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issues surrounding this are probably justifiably notable enough for inclusion. However, the key itself has no business here. It's nothing more than trivia from an encyclopedic standpoint and it's trivia that can realistically invoke the ire of a highly litigious organization that would be nice to avoid. It may be wise to let things cool off a bit before putting discussions of the topic into articles. This whole issue is recentism to the extreme, and the "Internet ADHD effect" will likely kick in within a few days. -- mattb 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the key is encyclopedic is an editorial decision; whether it's legal to publish is up to the courts to decide; whether wikipedia must censor it because it might be illegal to publish it is up to the office. It's certainly not trivia or else the AACS lawyers wouldn't be going berserk trying to suppress it. It's part of the workings of an HD DVD decrypter and as such, documenting it is like documenting the workings of a printing press in a country where printing presses are illegal. If we document how printing presses work and someone uses the info to build an illegal one in their country, we might consider that a good thing. That is why we help Chinese users route around the Chinese government blocks against Wikipedia for including the Falun Gong article, for example. And, even if HD DVD decrypters are illegal in the US, the information can probably still be used to build legal decrypters in countries where the lawmaking process isn't as corrupt as it is in the US. 75.62.7.22 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Who has been removing it? A mention in the AACS article is warranted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in various articles already, including Streisand effect, which also got keyspammed (I just removed it - again!). I've no issues with the mention of the incident, but I do with publishing the keys for the reasons SJ mentions below - Alison ☺ 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh guys: Universal v. Reimerdes. Though that's outside Wikipedia's circuit, we should not include the code itself, nor link to anywhere that does. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record: 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A)(2 a.k.a. the DMCA Title II (OCILLA) safe harbor clause. Which states, in summary: Wikipedia is granted safe harbor immunity from DMCA litigation, if we do not allow the HD-DVD key if we have reason to suspect it might be a violation.

in whole: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider — " ...does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;"...in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or "upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a (good) reason, why this code should not be included in wikipedia.org (for example as a redirect) with more than 300000 google hits nobody can claim that this is a trade secret anymore. And I doubt, that a mere number is copyright able. --LN2 10:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD encryption key controversy has been created. Please keep an eye on this page also. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had to semi-protect the article after 192.55.4.36 (talk • contribs) inserted it into the article (revisions now deleted), though he's now using edit summaries to publish the key. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question, if an article is about the news worthy event of the leak of the key, can't we use the key in a fair use capacity? (get ready for tomatoes to be thrown at him) ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia has to cover itself from possible (frivolous) legal threats but I feel this setting a very bad precedent - after all, we have Illegal Prime. And this new illegal number is definitly notable - so I'd like to see WP:OFFICE here, either allowing it or not. CharonX/talk 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User pages

What to do with userpages that include the key? I just stumbled on User:MarSch who included the key in al kinds of obsfucated forms on the page and the edit summaries in order to defeat searches and such. --Edokter (Talk) 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the HD-DVD key from his userpage and warned him regarding WP:POINT while we await WP:OFFICE clarification. --  Netsnipe   ►  16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He's still posting it elsewhere. Full agreement that this is a POINT. Pagrashtak 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Those posts were prior to my warning. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed it was new since it the key hadn't been removed. Pagrashtak 17:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

[7]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - that there user was blocked earlier though. Will (aka Wimt) 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian

The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian. Most recently, he has taken to haranguing [8] an editor who tried to step in to mediate a dispute over the article Whizzer. If this were the first incident, it might be worth trying to mediate. However, he has been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard before. Since that time, he has been blocked twice, [9] once for violating 3RR and once for edit warring. Moreover, he has engaged in edit wars over several articles: Absorbing Man, Avengers (comics), Basilisk (comics) [10], Black Bolt [11], Celestial (comics) [12], Dark Gods (Marvel Comics) [13], Eternity (comics) [14], Gladiator (Shi'ar) [15], Hyperion (comics) [16], Living Tribunal (as 203.46.189.91) [17], Man Beast [18], Mephisto (comics) [19], Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) [20], Odin (Marvel Comics) [21], Perrikus [22], Quicksilver (comics) (once as 211.29.188.167) [23], Speed Demon [24], Thanos [25], Wonder Man (as 203.46.189.91) [26], and Wrecker (comics) [27].

Asgardian seems not to understand Wikipedia's concept of article ownership [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], even while telling other editors that they don't own the articles. [36] [37] He frequently claims that his work is superior [38] [39] [40] [41] and denigrates the work of others. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] He often tells other editors that they need to "read the books" [52] [53] [54] [55] and that their edits are "non-thinking". [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] He asks others to be civil [61], but can't abide by that rule himself. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] He is fond of calling posters with whom he does not agree by the derogatory term "fanboy". [72] [73] Another time, he accused someone whom he couldn't get along with of having a "cosmic fetish". [74] When he doesn't agree with choices made by other editors, he accuses them of vandalism. [75] [76] [77] More often than not, he prefers to blank his talk page, rather than respond to criticism there. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] He is willing to carry on an edit war just "for the sake of it". [83] When action is taken against him, he accuses his critics of "jumping the gun". [84] [85] [86] In truth, this has been ongoing since his first arrival here in September 2006; I don't see anything expedient or hurried in the handling of this situation. Ultimately, I do not believe that his contributions outweigh his unwillingness to build consensus and work collaboratively. He's had four months to change his behaviour since the last time this was brought to this noticeboard, but I don't see a substantial improvement. --GentlemanGhost 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate for user conduct RFC than this noticeboard. At least, I think it's more likely that you'll get responses there. I have no comment on the merit of this request, as I have not read the the links posted above. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. I was not familiar with the user conduct RFC. This is where the issue was reported last time, so I followed suit. Would it be better to move it there now or to let things play out? --GentlemanGhost 11:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jersyko. Some edits aren't bad, (some edits to Odin were actually RVs of vandalism, and Galactus), some are, his summaries and talk page behavior should be addressed. IT'd be far better to tlak to him first, then go from there. (IANAnAdmin.)ThuranX 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for injecting some common sense into what appears to be an out-of-left-field argument based on assumptions and massive generalisations. The opening statement:

• The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian.

is dramatic, emotive and immediately indicates that the poster cannot be objective. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Most recently, he has taken to haranguing [87] an editor who tried to step in to mediate a dispute over the article Whizzer.

Not true at all. If GG had actually looked at the History, he would see we have been working to better the article. What I objected to - and still object to - is the condescending language Tenebrae has been using. Talking of improving my writing skills when I have rewritten many, many articles full of POV, spelling mistakes and other Wikipedia faux pas is of course going to nettle. Tenebrae needs to work on how he delivers the message. Admittedly, in electronic form it can be hard to read the "tone" but in general it has been condescending. This he needs to work on. Not what he says but how it is said. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• If this were the first incident, it might be worth trying to mediate. However, he has been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard before. Since that time, he has been blocked twice, [88] once for violating 3RR and once for edit warring.

Two of those incidents - one occurring just recently and questioned by another poster - were erroneous. Another was inexperience. Look at the learning curve and how many articles have been improved since. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Moreover, he has engaged in edit wars over several articles: Absorbing Man, Avengers (comics), Basilisk (comics) [89], Black Bolt [90], Celestial (comics) [91], Dark Gods (Marvel Comics) [92], Eternity (comics) [93], Gladiator (Shi'ar) [94], Hyperion (comics) [95], Living Tribunal (as 203.46.189.91) [96], Man Beast [97], Mephisto (comics) [98], Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) [99], Odin (Marvel Comics) [100], Perrikus [101], Quicksilver (comics) (once as 211.29.188.167) [102], Speed Demon [103], Thanos [104], Wonder Man (as 203.46.189.91) [105], and Wrecker (comics) [106].

What is the point of this? GG and many other posters have also engaged in these so-called "edit wars". If GG took the time to check the Histories, he would see that many of these articles have been polished and left as is for MONTHS, with only the smallest of correctional edits. MONTHS. Further to this, the articles have ALL been improved substantially since the time of editing. I don't expect everyone to be a comic buff, but articles such as Odin, Thanos etc. were truly terrible. I spent DAYS sourcing and then citing and referecing histories for characters that simply wasn't there. No one else came forward to do this.

I also note that GG has included a sock puppet claim, which was proven to be unfounded. Given the length of time I worked on some of these articles, the computer timed out. Again, an unnecessary mention. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Asgardian seems not to understand Wikipedia's concept of article ownership [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114], even while telling other editors that they don't own the articles. [115] [116] He frequently claims that his work is superior [117] [118] [119] [120] and denigrates the work of others. [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] He often tells other editors that they need to "read the books" [131] [132] [133] [134] and that their edits are "non-thinking". [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] He asks others to be civil [140], but can't abide by that rule himself. [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150]

The flaw in the logic is that once again GG has not checked Histories. Thanos is a good example. I do not own the article, but I believe it fair to try and stop someone flooding it with inappropriate images. This is the same thing that I was working on GG WITH on the article for the character Zzzax before he decided to report this. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• He is fond of calling posters with whom he does not agree by the derogatory term "fanboy". [151] [152]

Over a year ago. Doczilla and I now have a good relationship. He INVITED me to participate in a discussion recently... - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another time, he accused someone whom he couldn't get along with of having a "cosmic fetish". [153]

Hardly earth-shaking. His Edit History would seem to suggest this anyway, as the poster focuses on almost nothing else. That's odd. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• When he doesn't agree with choices made by other editors, he accuses them of vandalism. [154] [155] [156]

It is only GG's opinion that it was not. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• More often than not, he prefers to blank his talk page, rather than respond to criticism there. [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]

Once again, there is NO official mandate that a Talk Page be archived or kept. If it changes, so be it. Frankly, that's none of GG's business. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• He is willing to carry on an edit war just "for the sake of it". [162] When action is taken against him, he accuses his critics of "jumping the gun". [163] [164] [165]

Has GG even read the Talk Page for Galactus and the consensus reached? - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• In truth, this has been ongoing since his first arrival here in September 2006; I don't see anything expedient or hurried in the handling of this situation. Ultimately, I do not believe that his contributions outweigh his unwillingness to build consensus and work collaboratively. He's had four months to change his behaviour since the last time this was brought to this noticeboard, but I don't see a substantial improvement. --GentlemanGhost 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some massive and condescending generalisations. I suspect that GG and other parties may feel a tad intimidated by my level of comic knowledge, as once again it is true that I have brought many sub-standard articles with POV, spelling mistakes and missing/incorrect information (eg. Odin, Thanos, Hyperion) up to an acceptable standard. I've yet to see another poster perform accruate rewrites on this scale. As for working with others, if GG had again thought to check, many of Tenebrae and others edits have been incorporated. Not everything, as there is still a degree of POV etc that has to be ironed out, but articles such as the Whizzer hardly reflect an edit war. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To conclude, this is unnecessary and frankly, baffling. - Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, having just checked some of GG's supposed "proof", he is reaching at straws. In the case of the Absorbing Man, it is perfectly reasonble to remove an assertion that the character appears in the film when they do not. The Avengers is the same -there was no "warring" and a resolution was reached. All in all, this is a very flawed argument. - Asgardian 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Asgardian brought my name up with certain claims, I'm going to comment briefly.

Many WikiComics Project editors have difficulty working with Asgardian. His response is that people are "jealous" of his comics knowledge. This is highly debatable, and it's certainly not true my case.

It would be helpful if Asgardian acknowledged and took some responsibility for the fact that so many editors revert his edits and so many editors have lodged complaints about him. To hear, "I'm right and these dozen people are all wrong" as his response to virtually any complaint ... that's neither right not realistic.--Tenebrae 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was right all the time, and have apologised before now. Others, however, ALSO need to take responsibility for their actions. That said, GG's argument is weak and flawed. I'll chat with you further on Whizzer at that page, which is all that was ever necessary. - Asgardian 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a record for number of diffs in a single post? --Random832 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not (I've seen some interesting Arbcom postings : ) - but it's definitely "up there". - jc37 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible solutions

I'd like to point out that this discussion is nothing new, and has been going on for a rather long period of time. The last time this came up, User:Steve block suggested that perhaps the way to go with this would be Community probation. It's clear that User:Asgardian has made good edits, it's just that along with those come the issues such as linked to above by GG. Hence the community probation suggestion. AFAIK, it never came to fruition, merely due to the state of "busy-ness" of the time. (The WikiProject templates ratings system had just started for articles immediately after that, and Steve block very nearly single-handedly updated the entire comics WikiProject - If others were involved, I was/am unaware of it - and so he became too busy to pursue the probation AFAIK.)

I think at this point, I'd like to avoid seeing this escalate much further. It's starting to wear on all involved, perhaps creating an environment in which one of those involved may inadvertantly "cross-the-line" out of frustration.

I think that we have several possible solutions (besides people quitting Wikipedia, making new accounts, or blocking someone). The main issues with User:Asgardian would seem to be an inability to "back-down" from a WP:BOLD action and WP:EQ/WP:CIVIL issues. Both seem to stem from a sense of pride, and the self-assurance of being "right". This is not to say that others have not, or do not, bait him, as well. Not all have, but I've seen that it's rather easy for someone who disagrees with him to "pull his chain" as it were, and thus claim his incivility in order to "win" their POV in the discussion.

So here're a few possible solutions:

1.) Community probation for User:Asgardian - move this discussion to some part of the WP:CN, and discuss what the probation would entail, what criteria would have to be achieved to move off from probation, and what penalties would be enacted should the probation be violated.

2.) Mentorship for User:Asgardian - find a mediator or someone "third-party"-minded to become a mentor. Focus should be on the 5 pillars, and the MoS, and a thorough knowledge of the WikiProject guidelines for comics articles (since that's where the user does most of their editing). The goal is to not ever presume the user knows, since, of course he'll claim he does. But to presume he doesn't and "start from scratch", in the hopes of developing someone who has the potential to become a great editor.

3.) A short term ban from editing comics-related articles for User:Asgardian. Perhaps spending some time working on other tasks could help the user to see and understand the whys of the guidelines better.

4.) 1RR for User:Asgardian - To help suggest that "taking it to talk" is a better option than quick, off-the-cuff, edit summaries.

Any of these, a few of these combined, or perhaps all, are options that the community could discuss.

All that said, there are divergent opinions in the WikiProject about certain things (as I presume is found in any WikiProject), and I don't want to just single User:Asgardian out, to where he has little to no recourse than dispute resolution. If he runs into such situations, I think the more eyes, the better, so perhaps he should make more use of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.

I'd like to hear others' thoughts and comments on this. - jc37 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT, by User:Steve Dufour, User:Misou Redux

• Disruptive editing of a Straw Poll, with sarcastic comments and fake votes, to make a point, most recently here by
  • Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - DIFF
  • Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - DIFF

Archived discussions

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Violation_of_WP:POINT.
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#Violation_of_WP:POINT.2C_by_User:Steve_Dufour.
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Possible_Tendentious_editing_by_User:Steve_Dufour_and_User:Misou.

Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

3O:I'm not involved in these edits. After reviewing them, I did not see that they were disruptive. It appears to me that Smee is very quick on the trigger with NPA, CIVIL and POINT complaints, rather than WP:FAITH. Lsi john 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• If the curious editor/Administrator will simply look at the history involved and the DIFFs in question, you will see that the issue involves obvious sarcasm and fake voting, to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Smee 07:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

*'''Support''' two templates on each page. Why not three? :-) [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] 11:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) doesn't seem like a sarcastic comment or fake vote to you Lsi john? Anynobody 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I do not see sarcasm listed as a criteria in WP:POINT.
2. Both you and Smee seem to believe the comments where sarcastic. If they were, then they were not intended to be taken seriously. This would directly refute any claim of overt fake voting or WP:POINT disruption.

The charge Smee raised here was one of WP:POINT and I do not see a violation of that policy. He did not charge them with WP:SARCASM or WP:CIVIL.

IMO there was no violation of WP:POINT in this case.

Also, note that a case could be made against Smee for WP:POINT Here. He reverted user comments in discussion and, specifially, reverting article content after a request was made for discussion and after discussion comments were made Here. Then, after hitting 2RR and being forced into discussion, he stated that he refused to participate in the discussion. Then, rather than participate in the discussion, he opened up an RFC. This would seem to directly qualify for a charge of WP:POINT as these actions are specifically mentioned in the description of WP:POINT, yet none of the involved editors filed such a charge here.

These are heated discussions in highly emotionally charged articles and some latitude should be given rather than simply filing grievances and wasting administrator's time. Lsi john 13:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, seriously. Smee. No, a sarcastic comment is not "disruption". De minimis non curat lex. Please avoid posting trifles at this board. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I will not push this further, but the actions were disruptive to the discussion and the poll. Smee 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, thank you for your reasonable response. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

You are welcome, Bishonen. Smee 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Obvious hoaxes

user:PossumWith seems to be creating (Special:Contributions/PossumWith) obvious hoaxes based on existing Wikipedia article. Could an admin review his contribution and delete the hoaxes? (As a side note, is there a real speedy criteria for such obvious hoaxes? I think G1 can't apply here.) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Different admins feel different ways about obvious hoaxes. Some prefer there to be an "obvious nonsense" tag. Others, like me, view big, obvious hoaxes as vandalism. Others believe that there is no existing speedy criterion and that hoaxes have to go to AfD. I think they're speedies, but I also understand and agree with there not being an easily applied CSD category. Geogre 11:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes are not speedyable IMO because they may not actually be hoaxes - if you get my meaning. NOt talking specific examples here. Viridae^Talk 11:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced, implausible article can easily be tagged with proposed deletion (PROD) and a suitable explanation. If the tag is removed then it can be taken to Articles for deletion (AfD). If someone properly sources the article and removes the tag, all is well. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied two obvious hoaxes recently (and permablocked their perpetrators). One was brought to my attention by the relevant WikiProject and so I was not just acting on my own judgement, the other was a hoax that came after move vandalism. When an admin is faced with such compelling evidence, I don't really think it matters exactly which CSD it falls under! If the admin is not sure, then of course a PROD or an AfD is more appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear CSD for hoaxes, but I think in cases of extremely obvious hoaxes you could make a judgment call and speedy it without anyone making too big a fuss. Of course I would have to be 110% sure that this is absolutely, positively, a hoax with no chance of ever being verifiable before I would speedy something like that... because if you are wrong then you are looking at a possible WP:DRV.--Isotope23 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that in clear-cut cases one can speedy. The evidence has to be a bit more than "this looks a bit improbable", and both the creator's prior behavior and the considered opinion of third parties can be decisive in cases where doubt would otherwise merit a PROD or AfD. I wouldn't like to see an attempt to codify this in the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) but it seems to me this kind of deletion, in the right circumstances, is well within administrator discretion. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that there is meant to be no administrator discretion about CSD - either it is explicitly covered by a CSD criterion or it isn't. If there is any doubt that one or more criteria apply then it is by definition not eligible for speedy deletion. PROD was set-up to handle probably-non controversial deletions that didn't meet the speedy criteria. In this case, if the article is >100% certainly a hoax and other factors (e.g. third party opinion, author's prior behaviour) also indicate it as not valid, then it is speediable as G3 vandalism. Thryduulf 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR does have its legitimate purposes. I deleted an article about a blue whale that lived in Saskatchewan, it would swim along the plains. Being a whale that lived on land was certainly a claim of notability, so no CSD applied. I used IAR and deleted it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what HighInBC said. For process wonks, I'm willing to say that obvious hoaxes constitute disruptive editing that should be rolled back or deleted, or perhaps that they're just simple vandalism and can be speedied under that criterion. For people willing to employ common sense, we have WP:IAR and no further explanation is required for a reasonable deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied a number of blatantly obvious hoaxes. (In addition to inherent indicia of implausibility or complete lack of verifiability, I have found a useful criterion to be whether the alleged hoax article is the creator's only edit or series of edits.) On the other hand, I have also seen an alleged hoax article on AfD and demonstrated it wasn't a hoax at all, so caution should be used. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time tagging articles to be speedied, and I try to follow a guideline of plausibility, much as others have described. For things that could be real, I prod them instead of putting a speedy tag, following the logic of WP:HOAX that apparent hoaxes aren't speedyable because they might not be hoaxes and thus deserve more time and eyeballs. For example, a couple of days ago I prodded Peter Boylan, because it's certainly possible that this person exists and does the things described, though extremely unlikely. An article about a land-swimming whale is something I'd likely mark as speedyable under G1, with the idea being that it's not a hoax, but rather complete nonsense. I try to err on the side of caution, though, so it has to be blatantly impossible and obviously unsourced before I'd try to have it speedied. Pinball22 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How obvious is "obvious"? Truly, truly obvious, nonsensical hoaxes aren't worth a second thought before tagging/deleting -- take Non Sequitur's example of uploading an article about yourself winning the Nobel Prize for Best Girl of All Time, or whatever it was. Just delete and be done with it. Less obvious cases, though, I think that's more what we're getting at with "hoax isn't a speedy criteria" (and the really obvious hoaxes are presumably covered as nonsense or vandalism, anyway). That's my take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious hoaxes which are confirmable as fake by a simple Google search should be speedied, inasmuch they substantively and actively decrease the quality of the encyclopedia, and mislead any reader which might happen to stumble over them. Nothing which is false on Wikipedia is benign. If it's clearly nonsense, don't PROD it, nuke it. Every moment such an article exists on our encyclopedia is a blot on our copybook, inasmuch as we already have enough problems with our reputation for inaccuracy. We don't need to exacerbate the problem. We're rather lucky the media didn't get a hold of our article on a putative major city in Pennsylvania which happened to not actually exist, for example. FCYTravis 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is, in short, an issue upon which the magic pixie dust of "administrator's discretion" is applied liberally. Some are quick to kill them (me), others slow. It depends. I don't think I need to defend my position, but for those interested in my logic, it's this: an obvious hoax is defacement. If a person writes, Gary Hart, "He ate booogers!" then we treat it as vandalism. If someone creates an article called Booger eating presidential candidates and puts Gary Hart in it, it is no different. So, similarly, if a person puts, "And me LordDeathSkorpion" to List of presidential candidates, it's vandalism. If he writes, LordDeathSkorpion and says, "Famous presidential candidate in 2025 for the United States Empire," we shouldn't suddenly go into convulsions because "Oh, my goodness! there is a claim of notability there." It's only a small step to "Bongo Rabbitt Destroyer55 created the MiteeMuse music service in 2006 and began serving over 12,000 radio stations with streaming content." It's all just a childish desire to giggle at getting an article on Wikipedia. I nuke 'em. Geogre 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's being a dick, me or them? *You* make the call!

(I love having fun with my headings)

Quick run-through: in Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, the main character (Jedi Exile) can be either male or female. Canonically, they are female (as noted on Wookieepedia). This is somewhat controversial, but that's neither here nor there; canon states that the Exile was female, end of story.

Along comes The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs), who is editing numerous articles to change the Exile's gender back to male. I've addressed this problem, complete with evidence why the Exile is female, on their talk page.[166] The only rationale Matrix has provided has been basically "you have to just deal with it".[167] Matrix also POINTedly tweaked the Exile article to remove any trace of gender.[168]

Given his repeated reverts across multiple articles, I've warned him about 3RR.[169]

Since this is almost a borderline content dispute, am I stepping "out of bounds" by bringing my mop to the fight? I've got a sourced claim to back up my edits, while he does not; my justification is that I'm removing incorrect information and unsourced claims, but I could easily be seen as being a total dick about the whole thing. So, I want some outside opinions.

Any feedback is more than welcome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a content dispute (although such disputes can be clear-cut on occasion; I don't know anything about the subject, so I wouldn't know). I don't think anyone's violating the famous Meta page in this situation, especially if you've got sources; but to help prevent the matter escalating, I'd suggest that you don't use admin tools in the dispute (if it gets to the point where admin tools would be useful, ask another admin to take the action just to provide a sanity check and to keep AN/I just that bit calmer). Even admins can use WP:AN3 if they want to! --ais523 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... not this again. I think this was one of the very first disputes I ever saw when I started editing here. Give me some time to look into this a bit more.--Isotope23 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be a content dispute. I'm a bit perplexed why Wikia is being offered as a reliable source for this content; I would not consider it as such. Of course The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs) going around and changing the gender with no source isn't helping much either. I'd be happy to look at sources etc and provide an outside opinion (I personally don't really care either way if the Exile was male or female from a canonical aspect and I've played the game so I can probably provide an objective outside opinion), but at this time I don't really see any need for admin tools to be used.--Isotope23 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't citing wikia itself as the source, I was citing what Wookieepedia cited as its source. However, the full Gender section presents the full argument.
My only concern about the need for admin tools is if Matrix keeps making the changes without discussion; it'd be a violation of 3RR, but as the person that is conflicting with Matrix, I'm not sure if I should be the one to block over it, or if I should recuse myself (I'd rather not, as I enjoy taking care of things myself, but if there's a concern about a possible COI, I'd rather avoid it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait and see what effect, if any, your 3RR warning is going to have.--Isotope23 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. In the interest of fairness, I've alerted the user to this discussion.[170] EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the proof needed to trotted out again. Aside from that fact that the Exile is male canonally, end of story, the website called him male, the trailer also shows him as male and the official LucasArts promotional art for the Jedi Exile show a male Jedi and Sith (despite repeated attempts to pull that picture from the article *coughEVula cough*) and traditionally LucasArt has considered the male light side ending to any Star Wars game to be canon (or as canon as such games get). I don't really care if the Exile is male or female, I've played both ways and have no real preference; but I'm a sticker for the facts when it comes down to it.

In the interest of those unwilling to accept such and to be fair to all parties I compromised by changing my own edit to a complete gender neutral version. Unfortunately someone removed that edit and did not even bother to state why.

I realize I may be coming down a little heavy but we had this problem with the Revan article too and I’m not to happy to see that people have transferred it over to the Exile article now. I realize that since Revan was stated to be male it makes some people more determined that the Exile be female but so far their only source is “deal with it”.

Now I believe EVula is editing in good faith but I see no reason why the gender neutral version should be unacceptable in this case. --The Matrix Prime 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a third opinion, and someone who played KOTOR (so I understand the whole male/female issue about Revan which sounds exactly like the subject of this discussion.) It seems like a good idea to explain the overall concept that the Jedi Exile, as the player character can be male or female because it makes the tone sound more out of universe. Then address each piece of information as presented, for example the "x source" showed a male, the "y source" showed a female. Anynobody 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that... I've not seen anything that would constitute a reliable source for a canonical sex of this character. I'd say a qualifier in the articles and gender neutrality would be a good middle ground for the time being and an RFC or some sort of centralized discussion should be undertaken. At the end of the day, this is a content dispute and it would appear that both editors involved in it are good faith editing, they just are coming at it from opposite viewpoints.--Isotope23 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of article's discussion page content

In the case of the article David_Boothroyd, on 5 April Admin FloNight removed, without obvious discussion, the majority of historical content for the article’s talk page – see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk:David_Boothroyd

Although Admin El C sites “personal info” in his original deletion on the same date, he sensibly, it appears, immediately restored the remaining presumably non-personal info. There is therefore no apparent reason for Admin FloNight to have involved himself in such a hasty and undocumented deletion of material from a public article.

Having attempted twice (9 April and 16 April) to obtain clarification from Admin FloNight via his own talk page [[171]] without response, I am now appealing for clarification and review as to why such an amount of previously relevant material has been removed from a discussion page of a public article.

I have left a message at FloNight talk page relating to this appeal in order than he is aware of the outline complaint against his decision to remove the material in question. leaky_caldron 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please wait until Flo responds to your question on her Talk page. There doesn't seem to be any obvious hurry for the material to be re-added until such a time. Corvus cornix 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The query has now been archived twice - how long do you suggest it is reasonable to wait? It would be easy to answer my question and Flo is answering other later queries, on other topics leaky_caldron 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I removed this as a speedy delete request for personal information. I think I deleted about 200 article that week that were backlogs. This was one of those. It has no special significance to me. It appears that this was a request made after material was added again after El C handled a request. Sorry for a slow reply, but I did not recall the specifics of the situation and did not make it a priority to review it as I have many other pending issues that I deemed more urgent. FloNight 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: having looked at the deletion history, I think that the 38 edits that were originally restored were too many. Sometimes, when someone deletes and restores something inappropriate that has just been added, he or she may miss earlier inappropriate additions from the history. I'd only restore up to and including Kingbotk at 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC), plus, of course, edits from after 10:15, 5 April 2007, as they were not subject to the original deletion. Musical Linguist 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here is to allow David Boothroyd, i.e. user:DavidBoothroyd, to keep his other wikipedia identity private. While this has the air of trying to unscramble eggs, much of the deleted talk page content is trolling of this user. I don't see anything that must be restored in to order to understand and move forward editing the article. I could be persuaded to restore the content as Musical Linguist suggests, but only after obscuring the user's other account name. Thatcher131 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. There is no particular need to retain that history, and woe betide anyone who commits the gross privacy violation of mentioning the current username and the real name together (although the connection is trivially easy to establish). Guy (Help!) 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject had asked that specific edits be removed from multiple pages (not just the biography), so I limited myself to that request. I don't wish to compromise Dbiv current account, but he expressed satisfaction with these measures. El_C 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As the aggrieved party apparently expressed satisfaction at the removal of personal material by Admin User:El C then surely the appropriate action is to reinstate the position to the status following the User:El C changes?

User:FloNight has stated that they acted in haste and without any particular knowledge or interest (see above). However, on a point of fact, having now been able to untangle the relationship between the subject and their various editor names, it is not the case that the request for deletion was a backlog. Within 30 minutes of the subject's request on 5 April, Admin User:El C correctly removed the material supposedly compromising Boothroyd's wiki-editor identity.

It is therefore insufficient, in good practice, to make further sweeping changes, when the situation had already been correctly assessed and dealt with by User:El C to the subject's satisfaction.

Can I request that the discussion page is reinstated as per the User:El C edit at 10:22 on 5 April, subject of course to the removal of any residual "personal info" as suggested above by Thatcher131. Thanks leaky_caldron 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Kafziel and Fox News Channel

Can someone please look into the conduct of the above user on the Fox News Channel talk page. Although there has been a vigorous debate for weeks on this page, today Kafziel decided to unilaterally declare an edit war (although the history shows no sign of one [172]) and full block the page. When I told him I disagreed with the block and responded to his other concerns [173], he responded with this [174]. First, I think it is troubling that a) he apparantly thinks lively discussion on the talk pages is an edit war, b) that he is apparantly gleeful about blocking everyone in a content dispute, and c) the unnecessarily hostile stance. Can someone please review this and remove the edit protection from the article, it is not needed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone involved in this dispute, I actually support the page protection. This debate/edit war has been ongoing since October 2006 and includes one anon user who has been blanking the section since the very beginning (see diffs here). Without getting into the merits of either side of the argument, having the ability to continue reverting was not helping the discussion. If this forces discussion to continue (as it was already occurring), I see no need to unprotect just yet; let's give it some time. - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although my objection remains (even though the correct version of the page has been locked), it should be noted that what led to the block was a report at 3RR for a user who was editting another section of the article. In addition, none of the current users who were discussing the intro on the talk page the last few days have been edit warring, as shown by the page history. But I will assume good faith and drop this for now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to step in and disagree with my friend AuburnPilot here... it's a very very bad thing when an admin feels the need to accuse all editors of being "out of hand" and worthy of blocks -- AuburnPilot, you yourself are very aware of the situation and persistant bad faith actions of some editors. By supporting this admin's actions you're both doing the good faith editors a disservice by supporting a lump categorization as well as inhibiting their ability to resolve the issues. Consensus building is a team effort that only works when everyone plays by the rules -- need I remind you of bad faith RFC's and blatant disregard of consensus and wikipolicies and guidelines by those editors? Protection and "encouraging discussion" with no understanding of the situation does no good. /Blaxthos 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was that if Tom needed to be blocked, so did everyone else. But I also said Tom didn't need to be blocked. By extension, neither do any of you. So let's not try to portray me as some block-happy maniac. In fact, your real complaint is that I didn't block anyone at all. But admins aren't attack dogs you can just sick on people you don't like.

Consensus building can occur whether the article is locked or not. Consensus building can't occur when one of the editors is frozen out of the discussion. Tom was warned, agreed to stop edit warring, and was willing to discuss the issue, so I didn't block him. As I already pointed out, he couldn't have violated 3RR unless the rest of you were on the other side reverting him. Just because a bunch of you ganged up on him doesn't mean it isn't an edit war. He was stubborn, POV-pushing, and bold, but none of those constitute vandalism so you should have discussed the issue without revert warring after it was clear he wasn't going to stop. 3RR isn't something you strive to push your opponents into so you can shut them up and win an argument. Kafziel ^Talk 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A request to restore a small part of deleted content

I do not believe this qualifies as an "administrator incident." I believe this is an editing dispute involving an administrator; however, the administrator in question disagrees and pointed me here. I shall attempt an unbiased summary and then proceed with my request.

A Wikipedia administrator, Swatjester, removed a portion of the Age of Conan article on the grounds of WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:RS. Note that I partially agree with his deletions; in particular, regarding the guild-specific material. However, at the time, I mistakenly assumed this was another act of weekly vandalism and, after reverting, stated a gruff warning in my comment. He believed my warning was uncivil ("brutal") and, after undoing my last change, posted on my Talk Page in a manner which, I felt, was equally uncivil. A hotly-debated war of words began on his Talk Page.

However, I am not here to debate those events, my incivility or, in my opinion, his brusque intractability. I am posting here to request permission to retrieve certain sentences purged in his administrative deletions.

Now, I agree with the administrator that the bulk of the content he removed is, indeed, "unreferenced fancruft." I further agree that the majority of guild-specific content was appropriately removed in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:RS. I am not objecting to his enforcement of those policies or his overall reasons for the deletions. I am objecting that I cannot salvage certain imbedded sentences regarding Funcom's community initiatives: I would like to restore two small parts of his deleted content which are not "unreferenced fancruft." However, as Swatjester maintains that all the deleted content is unreferenced fancruft and also does not deem this as an editing dispute, I am in a bind.

In short, I would like to restore the following sentences from his administrative deletions:

“ Throughout the development of Age of Conan, Funcom heavily emphasized community relations to encourage the fan sites that support Age of Conan. The fan sites are frequently sent exclusive content to display on their pages as well as exclusive interviews with development staff. ”

And:

“ In April 2006, Funcom created a Guild Hall for its pre-launch community and, within hours, forum members began organizing their player guilds. These guilds consist of individuals who typically share the same playing styles and gameplay opinions. ”

Note that the above sentences can be properly cited and/or referenced via official websites.

And, yes, this is a very trivial issue. -- Flask 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put those sentences in, then go ahead; reverting that would certainly be an editing dispute. Your statement implies that you have previously attempted to put in only that information, which you haven't. -Amarkov moo! 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to those sentences if they are sourced, however they are rather redundant and pointless: ALL publishers and developers give fan sites exclusive material: almost all include a community forum of some sort. That is commonly accepted in ALL games, not just MMORPG's, and I state that coming from extensive experience of work in the games industry in both management, editorialship, reviewing, and game development.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned on Amarkov's talk page, this is the first I am hearing about wanting to put in two lines. Those two lines were never discussed with me, certainly not discussed on the article talk page. If they had, we wouldn't be here, as they are obviously fine for inclusion. However the rest of the stuff wasn't, and the resulting brouhaha coming out of it was a little sickening. Again, see below section for more details. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

response

This is not the whole story. I have made a total of two edits, reverting unsourced information about a non-notable, unsourced bit of game fan cruft. Diffs: my original removal of information, Flask's disruptive attack on me for deletion including threats, my revert and response, citing policy (current version. Please see my talk page for the full length of the discussion.

Content wise: this game is not yet released. There is overwhelming precedent not to add information about guilds to articles on MMORPGs: there is even less reason to add the information for one that has only been in beta testing for less than 1 week. The information was unreferenced, does not come from a reliable source (claims from the publisher itself about their own product), and is entirely non notable. Go see the diffs. Compare to our articles on Counter-strike, World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot, Everquest etc. Fan run community stuff is not suitable for inclusion unless it achieves some level of notability itself: this is well established.

So now we have WP:NOT a crystal ball, non notable, unsourced, unreliable information. I removed it, and I was immediately accused of a WP:OWN violation, disruptive editing, ignoring WP:V, incivility, abusing my authority as an administrator, threats, vandalism etc.....all in the space of one edit.

I'll point out Flask's edit summary there "Reverted a mass-deletion by Swatjester. If you continue to delete large sections of this article without any preceding Talk Page discussion, I'll report you for vandalism and notify an administrator." Who's making threats? My edit summary in response was to cite policy and state "I am an administrator.

Flask cannot even argue there is any talk page consensus. the history shows that were only two talk page comments in the past TWO MONTHS, and none of them had anything to do with the subject matter.

Summary: this is absolutely ridiculous. I perform an uncontroversial action, not even requiring the use of any admin tools, and I'm brutally attacked by this editor, throwing misquotes of policy at me, and trying to misrepresent my actions. This is absolutely absurd. I've warned Flask for his incivility, threats, and ownership violations. This is the last straw. Outside observers need to clearly inform Flask of his errors, and correct his misperceptions of policy, or I will do so by any preventative measures necessary to continue to keep the editing on the article constructive and civil. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, this is a crock. Archive it out or mark it as done with. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• SWATJester is in the right here. Any unsourced information can be deleted at will. Unless there are reliable sources, it doesn't get in the article. Period. The fact that Flask made inappropriate threats makes it harder than usual to assume good faith in this matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ and BLP and Daniel Brandt

JoshuaZ did this. Good judgement or bad judgement? WAS 4.250 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad judgement, besides which he reverted my comments and I am not banned, and DB is only banned at his own request. This violates the spirit of BLP amongst other things and I have reverted because my comments were removed and I absolutely have the right to comment on the BLP talk page, SqueakBox 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt was commenting in a policy situation and engaging in more of his standard threats. This was not an attempt by Brandt to fix specific issues on his page, and so the "spirit" of BLP does not support him in this instance. As I have already commented to SqueakBox, it doesn't make sense to only remove every other comment in his discussion. JoshuaZ 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On a technical point, I don't see any legal threat from Brandt in that thread. He mentions a schedule for appealing to the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt is indefinitely banned. If he wants to have something done, he can email the foundation. He knows who to contact.--MONGO 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We can also ignore WP:BAN when the net benefit of Brandt being able to post is good for the encyclopedia; his latest posts certainly seem helpful and not hurtful. --Iamunknown 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt knows the email address for OTRS, Jimbo and most of the arbcom, he also knows that he is absolutely banned from posting to Wikipedia AT ALL, including the specific case of his article's talk page. Why would we continue to allow him to ignore that? He has means to get factual inaccuracies fixed, and his past behaviour is such that simply engaging with him presents a real riski to the privacy of editors, a risk to which people should not be subjected. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If ignoring WP:BAN would improve Wikipedia I would agree, but in this case I think BAN is protecting Wikipedia from disruption. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True. --Iamunknown 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt was indefinitely blocked by Jimbo. If anyone wants to proxy edit for him, they had probably better get Jimbo's permission or approval, first. Corvus cornix 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is proxy editing for him. He signed two separate statements made from 2 different ip addresses (a classic Brandt tactic) with the ip address and date stamp (the 4 squiggles) and also signed them Daniel Brandt. Its impossible to stop someone who can change ip at will and lives in a large US city from editing as an IP and at least he has the honesty to always sign his comments (though that is the point too), SqueakBox 02:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kd lvr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (combined User:TREYWiki and SVRTVDude requests)

User:Kd lvr is a nuisance and vandal. He continues to troll on mine and User:Orangemonster2k1‎'s talk pages, after we have apologized for the sock accusations. User:Blueboy96‎ brought up meatpuppet accusations, that are obviously true. His friend, User:Kdkatpir2, was indefinatly blocked for personal attacks and socking. Kd kat has violated the 3RR on the KDKA page, and his own user page, removing {{meatpuppet}} tags and trolling. He has created KDKA anchor pages, text copied off the KDKA website, and violates WP:OWN, assuming ownership of articles. He is severely disrupting the project, we could all be making helpful edits instead of dealing with him. He has proven extremely hard to deal with, his page is loaded with warnings, and I think he needs to be indefinatly blocked. We have reported him to WP:AVI but they have directed us here. --TREYWiki 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kd lvr continues to add inaccurate and unconfirmed information to pages after last warn, continues to WikiOWN several articles on Wiki, including KDKA-TV (which has had inaccurate, unconfirmed and unneeded information added to it repeatedly). User is also a suspected meatpuppet of User:Kdkatpir2 (who has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppeteer and abusing several accounts) and has been previously blocked for this behaviour in the past couple days. User continues to add inaccurate information as of this writing. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 02:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kd lvr was blocked for personal attacks on me, which he has continued after that block expired. --TREYWiki 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you two have been stalking and harassing him, and scored the inevitable flame after endless flamebaiting. I see no reason to think the utterly lame content dispute you are engaged in at KDKA-TV has anything to do with vandalism or trolling, or that Kd lvr is any more of a meatpuppet than you two. I'm blocking all three and deleting this offensive attack subpage: User talk:TREYWiki/KD KLAN. Screaming "WE KNOW YOU ARE A SOCKPUPPETEER!" with no basis and "WHOOHOOO!!!" when someone gets blocked for 3RR is very immature and doesn't belong here. You've been assuming bad faith from the beginning and it needs to stop if this is going to be resolved. Dmcdevit·t 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Dmcdevit's blocks 100%. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I like it, just like Solomon, cut them all in half. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:41, 3 May 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)

I believe there may be several people sharing a common ip at Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles, Misou is also one of them. I would like to reduce the block to a week and then have this matter follow the dispute resolution process. I have looked at the edits of CSI LA, while aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view, they mostly consist of removal of links to original research by the opposition. Fred Bauder 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the WP:OR the editor(s) were removing? Anynobody 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121754554
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121753145
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodore%27s_Messenger_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=1217410
• Fred Bauder 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fred Bauder, I wanted to make sure it wasn't one of mine. (P.S. the third link goes to some page from 2003). Anynobody 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The first one isn't original research as per WP:OR, it was based on quotes of other people. The second one was based on an analysis of "48 hours". The third one don't work properly [175], it goes to a weird page not based on the history of the article. If you mean this edit, [176], it is a link to a biography. --Tilman 05:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing CSI LA's edits as merely "aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view" drastically underplays the disruption of this editor. At L. Ron Hubbard, CSI LA stated([177]) that he had looked up certain quotes from Hubbard's The Fundamentals of Thought cited in the article, and found those quotes differed significantly between his book and the article. He characterized the quotes, as presented in the article, as "falsified" for "the purpose of slandering Hubbard". Strong words, but nothing outside the boundaries of appropriate debate, IMHO, even if he added speculation on the "motivation behind this and motivation of those keeping it in there". I checked the quotes in question against my own copy of Fundamentals and found that in that edition, the quotes existed in almost exactly the form presented in the article, differing as far as I could see only in punctuation. I replied to CSI LA,([178]) explaining that while he might have in good faith believed that he had irrefutably proved "falsification", I could personally verify that the quotes he asserted "do not even exist" did in fact exist in official editions of the book, and if he wished to verify it himself he had the full publication data of both editions cited. Obviously it was disappointing when his next comment on the matter([179]) continued to call the quotes "a fake and slander attack on Hubbard" and assert "The real quotes are not containing such statements". Ignoring others is not civil. Judge for yourself whether my response([180]) was mild enough given the circumstances. CSI LA's next comment([181]) was what went completely beyond acceptable behavior. It was not only full of attacks upon my competence ("... to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder.") and upon my motivations ("Maybe so you can complain along about hot air.", "You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials.") but upon my integrity as an editor ("You know better than you say.", "What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes.") By still calling them "altered quotes" he is alleging that when I say I checked the evidence and told him how he can even double-check that very same evidence if he chooses, that I am lying. If it is allowed to simply allege without just cause for suspicion that someone is lying when they say "Here are the reliable sources which say these things verbatim", then we might as well shut down Wikipedia right here; it cannot operate other than on the principle that when one editor of good standing says "yes, I have checked this source, and yes, it does support this claim," the burden of proof is then upon those who would dispute that. To say "nothing is sourced well enough to go into the article if I have to take someone else's word that the sources support it" is a form of solipsism, and it is equally deleterious. As I have frequently pointed out, politeness is not civility; CSI LA's language might meet certain minimum standards for acceptable debate but his monstrous allegations attack the entire concept of collaborative editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The disturbing evidence brought forth from the Checkuser Case Confirmation brings up other issues as well. Isn't this also blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline??? At the very least, if the IPs are all coming from this certain locale, it belies that most likely there is some sort of funding going on to edit Wikipedia in a certain manner. How is this any different than the User:MyWikiBiz issue? Certainly this would go towards some serious considerations of many of the subsections of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, including but not limited to potentially: Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Close relationships, Campaigning, and Citing oneself... Also, at User_talk:Coelacan#COFS_and_CSI_LA, am I correct when I read that Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is also related to this series of IPs as well? How many of these individuals are either the same individual or organization, or are relate to the conflict of interests outlined above? If this is not allowed for the concept and user User:MyWikiBiz, why is it allowed in other situations? Smee 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you Smee for your words. Although I'd understand that corporations are allowed to work on the wikipedia entries of their products and services, I consider it deeply disturbing when several staff members would do so. Theoretically, scientology has the resources to simply set up 20 full time Sea Org staff members (payment: less than $100 a week) at that same IP. Hey, it could even set up 20 different IPs for them. --Tilman 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the cofs would do this because it could always be reverted at a later date AND they have a "security" concern about staff getting information that might lead to them change their point of view on the cofs and leave.--Fahrenheit451 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why current block makes sense

I've honestly tried to think of how this could be a mistake as opposed to dishonesty, but whenever I try to give the editor(s) in question the benefit of the doubt they demonstrate reasons why I shouldn't. For example this statement from COFS talking about how Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop was able to stay:[182]. (My reply:[183]).

He'd get the benefit of the doubt except since he knows about Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop he's either read up on it in the archives like I have or he was here under a different name while it was happening. Either way, he should know better based on the outcome of said example. Or how CSI LA harassed a sysop for blocking Misou:

1. CSI LA advocating unblock of Misou, calls neutral sysop anti-Scientologist for not unblocking
2. same as last diff but on WP:ANI.
3. CSI LA advances notion that Misou was "set up".

If it's one person, the block should stay. If it's several people the block seems just as appropriate because they appear to be working together in a manner not intended by the principles of this project. Also please note that even the points for unblocking raised by them are misrepresentations. CSI LA has said (in an e-mail postd on his talk page) that 1000 Scientologists are being affected. This can not be true, and instead makes it seem as though we are persecuting people rather than enforcing the rules (something the CoS has been observed doing in the past). Anynobody 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparisons to my "highfructosecornsyrup" experiment aren't even in the same ballpark anyhow. My two accounts never had conversations with each other, as CSI LA and COFS did. My two accounts never backed each other up in edit wars- in fact, I had stopped editing as Wikipediatrix during that time. I didn't operate two accounts simultaneously. COFS/CSI LA, by contrast, made every effort to portray themselves as two different persons, talked to each other, and apparently used the identities to bolster one user's opinion with two user's voices. (and even if they are two different people, if they're editing from the same office on the same mission or as a WP:ROLE account, that might as well be one person, as far as I'm concerned.) wikipediatrix 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I explained to COFS, you were not trying to give the impression that you are more than one person whereas he was. The difference is as big as night and day, with what you did being day and their tactics being night. Anynobody 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sock-puppet matter alone is egregious enough to block this user, but the adjunct policy violations, such as repeated personal attacks and incivility, strengthen the rationale for the block.--Fahrenheit451 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Block reduced

User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA Anynobody 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of active content dispute by FeloniousMonk

FeloniousMonk moved my comments, and those of many others, in this edit, in a content dispute of which he is an active participant, in an effort to marganilize opposing viewpoints. ImprobabilityDrive 05:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This active discussion is in regard to the very reason the article was protected. While I am an active participant (and target), I request that an objective administrator review the move, revert it if it was against wikipedia policy, and provide appropriate response to FeloniousMonk. Thanks, ImprobabilityDrive 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon to move a particular thread to a subpage, if it's off topic, clogging up the page, or causing disruption. No idea if that's the case here, but he didn't use any admin tools, so I don't see what his involvement in a content dispute has to do with it. In any case, it's not something that requires administrators' intervention. If others agree with his move, they'll support him at that talk page; if not, someone will probably move the comments back. Musical Linguist 05:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes sophisticated knowledge to move the article back, and it is well known that FeloniousMonk is an admin. His edit summary's convey his authority. He indicated in his move that the purpose was to avoid complicating the case that I was a disruptive editor. He provides permission to other contributors to continue to enforce his move here. ImprobabilityDrive 05:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive has been deemed by the community at that article a classic disruptive editor. The section I moved to a subpage was a proposal already widely rejected by every established editor of the article several times over and reintroduced yet again. It was moved to allow for other discussions to take place that might actually have a change at gaining consensus.

ImprobabilityDrive's disruption has taken the form of edit warring at that article and at Sternberg peer review controversy, and have resulted in both being protected. He consistently rejects community input and calls for moderation while continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and admins. Not to mention his campaign to drive away productive contributors through gaming the system at WP:AN/I and WP:DE. There's an ongoing discussion among the regular editors to that article (which I am not one) for a user conduct RFC on ImprobabilityDrive, for which there is near unanimous support. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I encourage whatever objective admin that looks at this to dig in to the veracity of the assertions made by FeloniousMonk. For example, the only person now contributing to the discussion is FeloniousMonk, now that he has disrupted it [184]. Previously, as can be seen here, other contributors were commenting, and we were making headway. ImprobabilityDrive 06:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is free to continue on the subpage, here: Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Sternberg dscussion I don't see how you can in all honesty call no one agreeing with you "making progress." Also, this section Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#To_all_those_that_are_piling_on adds zero value, is further disruption, and really needs to be userfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeloniousMonk (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In around six days, User:ImprobabilityDrive has posted 112 times to Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, making him the 10th largest contributor, compared to people who've been posting there for years. It's too much, and it's overwhelming the page. I've asked him to consider taking it off his watchlist for a couple of days to let things cool down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If only Slim would take her own advice on (e.g.) Pallywood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.66.55 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

<officer barbary> "Nothing to see here people, move along"</officer barbary> ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked ImprobabilityDrive as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. It surprises me no one did it already: the account was obviously a sockpuppet, nearly all the edits touched on fundamentalist Christianity in some manner, and the attempts to whitewash Louisiana Baptist University are a dead giveaway. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I only had it at 50% probability, wasn't there a recent checkuser on Gastrich? Anywa, good call - that one is here to promote The Truth (TM) not what is verifiable. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the community is much better off now. I recently began to realise he was likely a sock, but like Guy I was a bit surprised that he was Gastrich's sock. Zeus knows he certainly stirred up enough trouble. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What really did it for me was the diff where he fluffed up a citation of the school's doctoral program. I mean, who else would both care about inflating the appearance of one particular program at an unaccredited bible college and know so much about how Wikipedia works? It's a slam dunk in my opinion, and if checkuser didn't catch this then all it means is he's getting a little clever on the technical end. That might be worth watching for future reference. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not show anything, but editing pattern is a dead giveaway. Fred Bauder 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-editor improper deletion (without another AFD) of main part of United States military aid to Israel

Some editors are trying to delete the weapon systems list from this article. It is the main part of this article. Here is the last revision of the intact article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_aid_to_Israel&oldid=127900153

This article already survived a recent AFD, a recent incident report, and a recent DRV.

Discussion has already been tried and failed. Dispute resolution suggests protecting the page while further discussion continues. I am also asking other editors and admins who are reading this to come to the talk page. I am also asking those MANY editors and admins who commented on the AFD, DRV, and PREVIOUS incident report to also come to the talk page. I also am asking those who understand better the dispute resolution processes, and incident boards, to take the appropriate actions. I do not know all of them. I have used many of the dispute resolution processes in the past, but I have found that until some admins get involved, genuine discussion frequently does not occur on the talk pages dealing with Arab and/or Israeli articles. But the bottom line is that an attempt to delete the main part of the article is happening YET AGAIN. The weapon systems list is the reason this article can not be merged with other articles, and should not be merged. It is another roundabout deletion without having to go through AFD. I am requesting that the last intact revision be protected, so as not to allow this roundabout deletion to stand.

Here is a summary of what already has happened with this article:

United States military aid to Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel. The original closing admin (Doc) wrote: "The result was KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages." Another admin deleted that closing improperly, and changed the closing admin comment to "The result was Delete - with a strong suggestion to merge." See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel. During the DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26, the original closing admin (Doc) clarified his closing comment and changed it to, "The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages". The DRV closing admin wrote: "After examining the comments carefully (and ignoring the boldfaces here, which were often confused), there is a ~75% consensus in support of Doc's original closure. Relisting is at editorial option; merge discussions belong on the appropriate talk pages." There are overall articles called United States military aid and Israel-United States military relations. The list of U.S.-supplied weapons systems in the article in question here, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with those 2 articles. It is also too long to merge with Israel-United States relations#United States military and economic aid. WP:NPOV help is needed to maintain and to fill out this spinout article more. --Timeshifter 09:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK QUACK

We don't need a DNA test to tell which type of bird this is.

I rather suspect that this was so loud they probably heard it in China. 69.105.173.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is, I suspect, the latest visitation of Jacob Peters. Los Angeles IP, pro-Communist/Stalin trolling hitting Peters' usual articles. Might be a good idea to block for a couple hours so he won't use this IP again either today or tomorrow. Moreschi ^Talk 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing with rage

I request that some admin stop User:Sarvagnya from going on a disruption spree. I don't want to take admin action as I'm a complainant myself. This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. His edit summaries and talk page comments are almost always provocative. One fine editor who has produced a bunch of FAs has gone into semi-retirement unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang. More users including me are stressed to the point of leaving. Attempts at reconciliation have not worked.

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. He took the next worst choice -- going on a rampage with anything that's linked from there. The latest is the article Tamil people, a featured article and also one which has undergone FA review recently. His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case, but request someone to look into his history of disruption and take action. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you guys to seek mediation, and I still think that's best for everyone. This seems to me to be a complex dispute and a two-way street. I nominated Tamil language for featured article review, and it was closed as a "keep", just as the article was being locked and having its neutrality disputed. This has quickly spiraled out of control, but I still would suggest something better than running to admins all the time during your disputes. Grandmasterka 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Sarvagnya seems to have been cleared of being a sockpuppeteer. Grandmasterka 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the same opinion about this as Grandmasterka... DR should be used for disputes, with ANI used when things spiral out of control, and admin intervention is necessary to sort things out. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself and he, having bought some time, started his disruptive edits with other related articles. Reg him being a sock, I just notice that the clerks asuumed good faith and revised the decision as meatpuppetry.

Kzrulzuall, I know that DR is generally a better choice. But, we've been through this earlier too. That time, I was a lot more patient, but still we lost or almost lost another editor. I am no longer willing to play this game of pacifying him. I'm going to go away rather than stressing myself with another DR with him. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I could tag the article for OR. But then Mr. Sundar and his stooge Parthi will come and immediately revert it. If you throw in two inline citations in a 10000 word article or names of two books under ==Refs==, the article becomes 'sourced'! Right? Yeah right. Sarvagnya 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Assumed good faith and revised as meatuppetry"?!! - Thats misleading people here with malicious intent. Sarvagnya 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The very accusations of sockpuppetry were infact in bad faith and I proved it. There was no sockpuppetry. There was no meatpuppetry. Nonsense! Sarvagnya 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. - Evidence please. Sarvagnya 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. - Shameless and malicious misrepresentation of facts. Does not befit an admin. Not in the least. Sarvagnya 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself - You didnt suggest that we write drafts. I did. Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. - Bullshit! Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. - I perhaps tagged only one such image. And didnt resist once it got reverted. Sarvagnya 10:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revise your tone, Sarvagnya, as you are not acting very civil. If you have comments, please address them properly. Accusing users of having "Malicious intent" does not help. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them on some article doesnt help either nor is it very civil. Sarvagnya 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And since when is tagging copyvio and asking for citations disruption?! Does this admin in question who openly told me that he cannot assume good faith with me even know what disruption is? Sarvagnya 10:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'd have done if I was editing with rage. I'd have moved Tamil language back into FAR. Whoever had heard of an article thats protected and with POV and disputed tags being closed as FAs. That too with no semblance of a voting exercise on the FAR page. Sarvagnya 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case... - I'm tired too. Or I could present several diffs.. even one of the admin in question biting a new user who just happened to be on the other side of the POV divide. Shameful indeed. I could also present a diff where the admin in question attributes malicious intent to me. And many more. Sarvagnya 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sundar wouldn't be an admin if he doesn't know what "disruption" is. If someone is behaving uncivilly with you, it is not an excuse to behave uncivilly back. Please calm down before you start making more accusations to respected users editing in good faith.--Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing in "good faith"? Dont you see how he lies about my block record in a bid to sway opinion of some admin in the hope that some admin would block me? He says I've been blocked several times for disruption and sockpuppetry while one quick look at my block log will reveal that I have been blocked ONLY ONCE and that too for 'fighting' with another user who the concerned admins will testify was a rank bad troll. He and all his accomplices were subsequently blocked for using abusive sockpuppets against me or other users. I could go on.. every single word that Sundar has written is a lie. L-I-E. LIE. Sarvagnya 10:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang.... - me and my gang? would you elaborate please? Last I remember, I was waging a lone battle against a tag team of reverters on Tamil language and Talk:Tamil language. Sarvagnya 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Signing off for now. If any admin has any questions, I will answer each one of them. For now, suffice to say that all of Sundar's charges are baseless and nonsense. He is trying to use his admin weight to bully me into submission in the content issue he and his friends are having with me on Tamil language. Sarvagnya 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since evidence is being asked, I will provide them.

Evidence of removing cited content:

He removes the following cited content unilaterally here.

"On the other hand a number of scholars believe that the influence of Tamil and Dravidian had a far greater influence, including grammar, syntax, poetics and meter on Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages."

He then proceeds to remove following cited fact here.

"Unlike in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where early inscriptions were written in Sanskrit, the early inscriptions in Tamil nadu used Tamil exclusively."

This is not the first time where he removes cited facts from Tamil nadu related articles. Previous cited content removal with offending edit summaries are here, here, here, & here. It is particularly notable that in one edit summary he indulges in OR & attacks the Tamil epic's content as disco-dance (a slang in south India for cabaret [185]).

Possible defamation of eminent Tamil researcher & other Tamil organizations (sangams) here where he compares their work to 'squat'.

"...Hart's campaign and sundry Tamil sangams' 'campaigns' would have counted for squat minus Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress govt.,.)..."

Then he indulges in personal attack on all other editors in the talk page of Tamil language article without proof here where he accuses other editors of trolling.

"If only you guys would have spent less time trolling on Halmidi and Rashtrakuta FAC and Kannada and Bharatanatya and Carnatic music, we could have had more time to thrash out several issues on this page."

I warned about this personal attack here.

Can he provide evidence for the claim that he was exonerated from meat-puppetry charges? The restrictions on him were removed on account of subsequent contributions by him & his confirmed meat puppet. Not that his confirmed case was changed to unconfirmed.

He accuses admin Sundar of bullying him (again without any proof). Please make a stop to all these. Thanks. Praveen 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being accused of being a stooge to Sundar. Brushing aside this personal attack, which I have to come to expect from Sarvagna, let me point out a few recent examples of unreasonable behaviour from Sarvagna.

1. He tagged dozens of Tamil History related articles with {{citation neede}} tags with the edit summary inline citations (book, year, author, p#, publisher, quote, isbn) for all the cruft here please. [186] While asking for inline citation is ok, does he have to insult the integrity of the author?
2. He tagged dozens of Tamil literature related articles as OR [187], [188], [189], etc with no justification or discussion.
3. He maliciously tagged images with explicit license information: [190], [191], [192], [193], etc, almost all pertaining to the soon to be featured History of Tamil Nadu or Tamil people articles. He also accused the uploader of one image of 'pompously' releasing it as {{PD}} [194].This is the image chosen to appear on the Main page on the 5th.

These are just a few example of the disruptive editing habits of this user. I request stern admin action to address this. 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To emphasise my point, let me give you an excerpt from a post from Arvind [195]:

“ This isn't an easy problem to deal with. It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence). They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible. After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Wikipedia altogether. ”

- 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya has a rather blunt way of putting things, however characterizing his editing pattern as a disruption spree seems like a large stretch. As for WP:BLP, he called the work squat, not Professor Hart (who is a respected expert on the Tamil language. Seeing the larger picture, this ANI post has been transformed into another of ethnolinguistic conflicts of India being played on the web. It centers in this context over the Kaveri water dispute and other issued dividing Kannada people (sarvagnya, KNM, and others) and Tamil people (parthi, praveen, etc.)Bakaman 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Kaveri, in this case. It's just some sort of "parity complex" that a few people hold. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So how much 'bluntness' you suggest the community to tolerate? Calling other editors trolls is according you is just 'blunt' way of putting things. Thanks for the insight.

If putting fact tags for every sentence (in some cases for every word) in an article [196], adding frivolous no-license tags for images with clear license information, calling all other editors as trolls, adding offending edit summaries are not being disruptive, what is being disruptive?

BTW: its nice to see Sarvagnya supporting your cause in Arbcom. Praveen 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First things first. Saying that I defamed Hart or anybody else is nonsense. Neither have I defamed Hart nor have I resisted them using him in their citations. When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a citation in hand. I was not just ORing.

This is all that I'll respond to right now as I dont know if anybody here is even interested/listening nor do I see any point in discussing content issues pertaining to Tamil language on ANI. But if any admin wants me to answer any of those baseless allegations they've thrown at me, point out the accusation and I will respond to it. Otherwise, I am done here. And before I sign off, I am still waiting to hear how tagging an article asking for citations is disruption. Or tagging(asking for source info) pictures that have been.. yes.. 'pompously' released on GFDL when there is zero evidence regarding the source or the original copyright holder. Sarvagnya 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a citation in hand.

Could you please show us the portion where Hart's (and other Tamil organizations') work is compared to squat from your citation? Thanks. Praveen 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Praveen and Parthi have presented enough evidence here. Moreover, he has himself shown a sample of his attitude with his above comments. I leave it to the admins. Back to content issues, with his relentless and systematic pushing across-the-board, I doubt if we can work out consensus without third party mediation at the least or even arbitration. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential sock puppets' affecting opinion at deletion review

Please check the three users at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=125702519, User:TomSkillingJr., User:Chudzooka and User:Shoopshoop for sock puppetry. They posted within six minutes of one another, and each made the same mistake of arguing for deletion on a discussion page. Their user contributions don't extend further than discrediting Cory Williams. More puppets might be found at Talk:Cory Williams.

I ask this because the article Cory Williams is currently undergoing deletion review at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cory_Williams. Although no puppets have surfaced at the review yet, the user who initiated the review did so solely on the basis of a perceived controversy on Talk:Cory Williams at the behest of User:TomSkillingJr., whom I believe to be the puppet master. Even though the user who initiated the review states he finds Cory Williams notable, a manufactured controversy could end up compromising the review.Ichormosquito 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User Stalking Other User with Constant Incivility and Per Attacks

User Eleemosynary has been following around user Getaway and reverted almost all edits and then personally attacking user Getaway. Examples of this can be found in these places: [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]. I need assistance.--Getaway 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Getaway/Keetowah: I'd be happy to post diffs for over 500 instances of personal attacks and disruptive edits coming from you, your various identities, and your sockpuppet/meatpuppets. I urge you, as Fred Bauder has, to take this to a dispute resolution so all information can come to light. : ) Eleemosynary 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, you took the time to count? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:K1ng l0v3

The user mentionned above has been calling me "Persian wishfull thinker" in the past when I added a sourced statement in the Iranian Military Industry and this is unacceptable. It was related to an Iranian submarine Nahang 1, which exists but this person denies it, and keeps reverting my edits. So I don't know what to do and I don't want to make any personal attacks. SSZ 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JASON NAZARIO

Resolved

 – It seems to be deleted, I'll watch it and salt if needed. CMummert · talk 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please delete this attack page asap and deal with the interference of the other school kids trying to keep it in existence. --Dweller 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with a POINT violation but concerned about 3RR

I've got a problem with a user who's disrupting the Anomalistics page by moving the pages infobox from the top right hand corner of a page to the the bottom right hand corner of the page, and by deleting pertinent information from the definition of the term described on the page even though it is backed up by references from the man who first coined it.

With the exception of moving the infobox to silly places the users edits aren't obvious vandalism (there's no bad language or anything) unless you're familiar with the topic, so I'm concerned that I will be slapped with a 3RR violation if I keep undoing it. An admin's assistance would be most welcome here.

perfectblue 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Try the talk page to figure out why they're doing it? Content disputes like this aren't vandalism. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Can an unbiased administrator please look at this article as soon as possible please? An administrator with a Sinn Féin image on their userpage has taken exception to content that is fully sourced from reliable sources, claiming WP:BLP. Practically every single book ever written on the Troubles or the IRA names Adams as an IRA member in the 1970s, and I've recently cited four of them in the article along with other sources which were there already. Betacommand has then jumped in threatening to block anyone who adds the material back without proper sourcing and multiple reliable sources, totally ignoring the fact it is sourced exactly like that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The above statement regarding the use of "reliable sources" is patently false. I've recently learned that Sean O'Callaghan is being used as a Wikipedia reference to make spurious claims about Irish politicians being involved in criminal activities. Sean O'Callaghan is a former IRA member who became an informant for the Garda (Irish police). He has an inherent and evident bias against the fellows who he turned against and cannot be considered a reliable source. I've tried to explain this numerous times that the section in question does not comply to WP:BLP. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<:::::::::No distortion was intended. My point was, if you concede that the Foundation does not consider this to be a violation of Florida law, then it seems clear that WP:NOT#CENSORED does not apply. Therefore (unless another relevant policy exists that hasn't been mentioned here) preventing edits of the hexadecimal chain in question is unsupported by any Wikipedia policy and is in violation of several Wikipedia policies that do exist. Konekoniku 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)span style="cursor: w-resize">gaillimh]]^{Conas tá tú?} 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's disputable, but the section doesn't even say that he was an IRA member, it just says that various people have stated that he was. The very first sentence in the section was that he denied it. -Amarkov moo! 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer (if you object to O'Callaghan) would be to remove the O'Callaghan part, and leave all the other sources in. Objecting to O'Callaghan does not give you carte blanche to remove every other source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but as I've mentioned to you in the past, Adams has directly refuted and dismissed Ed Moloney's claims. In addition, you sourced Michael McDowell, the PD leader. I wouldn't consider that at all reliable either. Using Wikipedia to advance your goals of attempting to associate a politician with a criminal organisation is inappropriate. In addition, there's not been any proof of this, and again, Adams has denied all of these claims. You've been edit warring with me on numerous articles about this particular point, and while I've attempted to reach a compromise with you on List of IRA Chiefs of Staff, you keep insisting on interjecting your POV gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I insist on maintaining a neutral point of view, as do several other editors who've tried to add the Adams content back. It's quite ironic that by one group of editors I get accused of having a pro-republican bias, now I'm being accused of having an anti-republican bias. The presence of a SF logo on your userpage clearly shows your POV on this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My having a SF logo on my userpage equates to a POV that I eschew the IRA? Haha, now I've heard it all. This conversation might be a bit confusing to those outside of Ireland, and perhaps Britain, but SF has long since maintained direct ties to the IRA, so I'm not sure how removing biased information about an SF member incorrectly being labeled an IRA member equates to a POV (as I realise that I've mentioned they've direct ties, it should be noted that the IRA is completely decommissioned now, off of the US list of terrorist organisations, and plenty of SF members have never been a part of the IRA, Adams included). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you consider McDowell or O'Callaghan a reliable source is irrelevant. If they made these claims and the claim has been reported on in a reliable source then there is no issue including it in an article here. In these cases all the information is referenced from reliable sources. On the Adams article, as ONiH states multiple sources have been given. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, it doesn't matter if I consider them to be reliable. Apologies for the confusion. I don't consider them reliable based on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact I specifically added four additional sources before adding it back the first time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh, you misunderstand. McDowell is an Irish politician and lawyer, O'Callaghan is a former IRA member. So their opinions or claims are relevant. Any of our own opinions on them are irrelevant. We might think they are wrong, but that's irrelevant. They made these claims and they were reported on in reliable, independant sources which are used in the articles. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without the alleged IRA membership, the article fails WP:NPOV. The significant view (among journalists, authors, politicians etc) is that Adams is a former member of the IRA, that Adams denies it does not affect this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is significant opinion that Adams has been an IRA member in the past. In an attempt at a compromise, I suggest that we find reliable sources to present both claims, while obviously giving precedence to Adam's own refutations and the lack of any hard evidence to the contrary. Sean O'Callaghan and Malcolm McDowell clearly fail WP:RS. I am still a bit unsold that this compromise will adhere to WP:BLP, so I would like another administrator or someone well-versed in this policy to take a look at it gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I recommend this article stay protected until such a compromise is worked out gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have all the sources we need. There's plenty of sources already in the article saying Adams was an IRA member, but Adams denies it. That's there already, and I honestly don't see what more needs to be said. There is no WP:BLP violation, the page should not have been protected in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Betacommand was correct and judicious in protecting the page, given the stated WP:BLP concerns above. Again, Sean O'Callaghan and Michael McDowell are not reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So that would be why Betacommand describes the sources as "anti-adams POV/slander sites"? Any administrator is welcome to check the sources being used, and they will clearly see they are nothing of the sort. This is just another example of poor judgement by Betacommand. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please dont quote me unless you get it right because that is also making my statement false, I also cited BLP and RS for removal so please shut up with trying to smear the admin who took the action and get to the meat of the issue. Wikipedia is not here to spread speculation, have a reliable 3rd party source the data. IE a fox news, the guardian or some other non-biased reliable third party confirm it and there will be no problems. but using confirmed POV sources that lean toward what you are trying to state is not a good Idea get a third party to source it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you missed the four books by respected authors, some of which have won awards for their reporting on Northern Ireland? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason this conversation is being held here instead of the article's Talk page? --ElKevbo 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Betacommand was quite correct in protecting the page, and it's always best to err on the side of caution when dealing with BLP concerms. The anti-Adams POV evidently refers to Sean O'Callaghan and the slander-sites is probably a bit of confusion with regards to the McDowell silliness in The Guardian. As a related aside, I can't see how one would ever think Sean O'Callaghan could possibly be appropriate for citing in an encyclopedia (other than, perhaps, in his own article when sourcing biographical information) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. I've been asked along to venture my two penn'orth, but I don't think it will help much. For what it's worth: the statement that several people accused Adams of being an IRA member is both factually accurate, correctly attributed, and significant in context. The fact that he rejects the claim, and that no credible evidence exists to support it, is also accurate and significant. It's not massively important, but it is highly significant and still believed, as far as I can tell, by a significant proportion of the militant Protestant population. WP:BLP does certainly provide for the inclusion of validly attributed, significant, but almost certainly wrong material, provided it is stated neutrally and tied to those who say it. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your estimation of BLP, and have several times suggested a compromise to this effect, despite this significant opinion being wrong. My issue is with attempting to pass off Michael McDowell and Sean O'Callaghan as reliable sources, when they are the epitomisation of what Wikipedia should strive to remove from biographical articles gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem being that you didn't remove those sources and the information they sourced, you removed an entire section including information sourced by reliable sources, and have repeatedly refused to discuss this despite requests from myself and another editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, I'm sorry to hear that you've used my absence to give a skewed account of the events. The truth is that I've tried to approach this fellow numerous times in an attempt at resolution and he's reponded in the snarky manner he's demonstrated directly above. Again, I'm disappointed in you, mate, and you've lost a bit of respect from me given your blatant lying in my short absence gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any of this personalising of the dispute helps much. Are we all agreed on how to proceed? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Purgatory Fubar

Please examine the history of User talk:Purgatory Fubar. I am a long time anon editor seeimingly being "harassed" by the above user (User:Purgatory Fubar). I attempted to engage in conversation, specifically about WP:RED policy (see [202] which was reverted) but find my edits constantly reverted and marked as "vandalism", on his talk page, without even a token attempt to engage further.

This has progressed onto my user talk page (see the history, I have removed what I consider to be "bad faith" templates placed on the page by the above user), and now onto any other articles I have ever edited - such as Halloween (film) ([203] claimed to be "reverting vandalism" but in fact nothing of the sort).

here is the user attempting to "block" me as a vandal: [204]

here is the user again removing warnings claiming it is "unwarranted": [205]

here is the user attempting to engage another user (in barely grammatical language) in the war: [206] - claiming "trollery"

here is the user reverting yet another page without any expln other than I was the last editor: [207]

another one: removing notability tag [208]

removal of all red links from Hong Kong action cinema: [209]

removal of valid "do not claim vandalism when it is not vandalism" warnings from userpage: [210] and [211] (using vandalism tools to revert the messages without any expln.)

I note the user claims to "hate anonymous editors" which may be an underlying cause of his issue, or perhaps he is unhappy with me that some of his college clubs were marked as non-notable as they failed to assert the importance of their subject. I would have preferred his anger to spill out as discussion rather than using "vandalism" warnings and reversions where they do not apply. I hope somebody can have a word... 86.31.156.253 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

According to your contribs, you just started editing today. And your edits are somewhat to be desired. See 86.31.156.253 Talk for more insite. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of 86.31.156.253's edits do leave a bit to be desired, but many are constructive and the ones that are not are simply because they don't follow the style guidelines. As you point out, this user has only begun editing today and so cannot be expected to know all of the style guidelines. I don't see anything (point it out if I'm wrong) that indicates vandalism. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right then, so as far as I can see, both of you are attempting to make good faith edits, but reverting each other as vandalism. Purgatory Fubar, I'm a little disapointed in you reporting the IP to WP:AIV in an attempt to get them blocked, I would also suggest you let the red links stand, they allow users to see what articles they can create. Both of you I suggest take a short break from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Three points: 86.31.156.253 posted a comment [212] which he signed as being from me. I was the user that removed the speedy delete from Fightin' Texas Aggie Band that the IP editor placed. As far as I can tell from here, the IP editor was reported to WP:AIV by User:Savant13 ([213]). -- Upholder 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

see ryan postlethwaite removing false AIV notice by purgatory fubar and| aeropagitica removing incorrectly restored false AIV notice. User:Purgatory Fubar using AIV as a tool to win edit-wars is a strict no-no. Be very careful from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.144.47 (talk • contribs)

Any comment on why you signed a message left on Purgatory Fubar's talk page as if you were Upholder? Many of your other edits can be easily excused by assuming good faith, but that one is troubling. --OnoremDil 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

didnt know i did... but checking my history, it seems when i copy&pasted someone else's template i copy&pasted their username accidentally as well! oops ;)

i should also mention Upholder became very upset when i *dared* to put a notability tag on his apparently non-notable band's page, claiming the addition of the tag to be "bad faith" and "vandalism" ([214]) and angrily started issuing me vandalism warnings as a result [215] (claiming vandalism) [216] (again claiming vandalism), [217] - several more vandalism warnings. is this user simply unware of what constitutes vandalism, or is it a deliberate bad faith attack by a user angered about the question of notability of their favorite band?

I have no connection to Texas A&M University nor the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. The notability of the band is covered by the entire first paragraph of the article and in addition the band has been awarded the Sudler Trophy, as I noted on the talk page for the article. I noticed the speedy delete because I have edited the article before, but I did not create it. Concerning your allegations that my warnings were placed in bad faith, adminsitrator (aeropagitica) noted that removing valid vandalism notices on your user talk page is in violation of Wikipedia policy [218]. -- Upholder 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues, removing warnings has had community consensus for a number of months now. It is in line with our current policy and considered a sign that you read it. -M^ask? 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that I have not made any personal attacks but the IP editor in question has made personal attacks against me here in the comment this is in response to as well as on his talk page. -- Upholder 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating User:Upholder time left on my talk page 15:53 [219] but signed it 15:44, not very smart [220] and know editing under another IP? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

User Biophys who is involved in editing Operation Sarindar article, made the following statement: "I believe that recent edits of this article represent a clear vandalism". As I am (User:Vlad fedorov) the only one user who edited the article recently, I regard it as a personal attack on me. The issue between me and Biophys is whether statements of Senior Defense Department officials should be mentioned in introductory paragraph. I have included mentioning of these statements, because they are also contained in the main body of the article.

User Biophys, repeatedly deleted this text supported by reliable sources without discussions. He was reported on 3RR board here.

I also would like to pay attention of the admins, that Biophys continues his abuse of me by calling me vandal. Please, see here for previous instances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Multiple_instances_of_Biophys_calling_me_vandal.2C_wikistalker_and_so_on. Vlad fedorov 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He continues to make very abusive comments on me diff, despite of my sincere attempts to find a compromise and peace with him diff, diff. Vlad fedorov 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Yes, you can take a look at the link provided by Vlad Fedorov: [221]. I am not going to comment here any more, since you are very busy.Biophys 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh....Biophys vs. Vlad Federov again? This really should go to RFAR so we can get some sort of injunctive relief seperating the two permanently. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Swat, see my previous message. I sincerely tried to make a peace with him, but he continues to threaten with new articles of contraversial Russian political issues. For example on article Human rights in Russia we discovered more reliable and official source which praises Russia, not condemns. When we attempted to introduce this into the article he threatened by creating separate articles on different issues. See here [Biophys message]. Though it is not addressed to me, see how Biophys forcible pushes his version of article against numerous editors who disagree with him. Remember that Biophys was making pomises right here to step out of contraversial political issues each time he was discussed here. You see that he is clearly pursuing just the opposite pattern of behaviour. He also was vowing to step out when we were editing Boris Stomakhin article. Currently Boris Stomakhin article is protected in his version, but nevertheless he continues to add conspiracy theories on articles about Russian and continues to add hearsays and empty allegations, like in Internet brigades, which survived the AfD. Also at AfD, Biophys vowed to step aside from editing contraversial articles if the article would survive, but he isn't. Vlad fedorov 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice of possible vandalism by User:JzG

Resolved

 – seems to be resolved --Iamunknown 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This user removed all content from the Larry Gluck article. Here is this user's explanation [222]--Fahrenheit451 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, that's a content editing decision based on the Biographies of living persons policy. Please feel free to follow his instructions for a sourced rewrite, if you feel you can create such a thing. FCYTravis 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify Larry Gluck was a redirect to Lawrence Jerrold Gluck, which JzG deleted per an OTRS ticket (and I just deleted Larry Gluck as a dead redirect). Looking at the deleted history I'm going to have to agree with JzG's deletion; this article was in no way adequately sourced in a way to meet WP:BLP.--Isotope23 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That was an article that I and another editor started working on. It is too bad it was summarily removed.--Fahrenheit451 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider reading Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". --Iamunknown 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider reading the title at it states "possible vandalism". I used the word appropriately as modified by an adjective.--Fahrenheit451 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And stating that something is "possible vandalism" rather than "vandalism" is different and appropriate, how? --Iamunknown 19:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism implies bad faith and I see no evidence of that here or in Guy's edits generally, SqueakBox 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. You said it much more clearly than I. --Iamunknown 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know Guy and posted this notice about possible vandalism to have an admin look into the matter. Possible vandalism means that it is uncertain whether good faith or bad faith actions have taken place.--Fahrenheit451 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between possible and definite, then I am not the person to attempt to help you any further.--Fahrenheit451 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that it's a living person's biography and so we have to immediately have a good and well-sourced article. JzG's actions were drastic, but not wrong. Living biographies are a major pain in the arse for Wikipedia. Best thing to do is to write an article that is immaculately up to the standards of WP:BLP and put it there. If you're not sure, I advise you to work with JzG on the issue - I assure you, he's really good at these difficult issues, and all living biographies are difficult issues by nature - David Gerard 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy is an excellent administrator here, and it would be best to take his advice, rather than complain about him. -- Fyslee/talk 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We could have used all this BLP support yesterday, when One Night in Hackney stubbed an article and an admin kept restoring it without sources. [223] BLP needs to be enforced consistently and by everyone to be effective. No free passes. Frise 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frise, when you have an issue like this it's always best to post it as soon as possible to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one having the issue in that case. I just noticed it after the fact and was disturbed by the way it was handled. Frise 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why User:JzG couldn't simply have removed any info from the article that he felt violated WP:BLP. (I'd love to know what info that was.) And if he felt the article was non-notable in the first place (as he stated), then why not take it to AfD and let someone else weigh in before completely deleting the work of other editors? There wasn't a single sentence in that article that wasn't backed up by the sources given. And we were in the process of adding more information about Gluck's long and prestigious art career so that it wouldn't be weighted in favor of the negative Scientology-related information, when the article was suddenly eradicated. Nevertheless, the info will appear again soon as part of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises article, and maybe there will be discussion rather than deletion. wikipediatrix 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frise, are you going to complain about that incident indefinitely? You are wrong, some common sense is expected. I won't reiterate the absurdity of removing mention of an Inquiry when the person is already featured (and sourced) in its own entry. El_C 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there any oustanding complaints? Can this topic be closed? --Iamunknown 23:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (3rd nomination)

• There's an issue here that I'd like an admin familiar with policy to clear up. To wit, the issue is that Matrixism has already been deleted twice, with several DRVs. Now, it's up for deletion again, but this time the article is substantially different and has sources (albeit somewhat questionable ones). Isn't it customary to normally bring an altered version of an article whose subject's notability is questionable to another DRV first? That would seem like the best way to get a community consensus. Instead, the primary editors are stating that because it has sources, it can't be deleted, and since it's different from the other versions, it can't be speedily deleted. This reads like first-grade policy gaming to me. JuJube 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if AfD is necessarily the wrong place for this, but the problem is that the nominator didn't actually give any valid reason for an AfD here...--Isotope23 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • In my opinion, the whole reason we don't generally salt deleted articles is to cover cases such as this, where a valid article is created in the place of a failed deleted one. (For the record, JuJube, I !voted keep on this one and have never edited this article in any way — and I note you still haven't given any reason for deletion other than I don't like it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if that is a reason not to salt... salting can be undone (I salted Caspian (band) and unsalted it when someone produced verifiable information towards WP:MUSIC). That said, I'm tempted to snow the afd because it has not been started on any sort of solid reasoning for deletion. That said, I'm extremely dubious about the sources being provided... WP:AGF, but somehow I suspect if anyone went and picked those books up they would not offer much in the way of actual verification.--Isotope23 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • My reason for deletion was actually I'm not convinced that Matrixism isn't religioncruft. And I'm not. The sources are still dubious, as I said. But that's for the AfD. JuJube 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth I'm not at all convinced this isn't something made up in school, although certainly this link seems to be a bona fide source. We certainly have plenty of other made-up-in-school religions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration of decision not to block IPvandal

[Copy-pasted (mostly verbatim) from Alison ☺'s Talk page]

Re: 199.216.98.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has made four, not three, edits to Wikipedia today, and eight since the 27 April block expired -- all of them vandalizing. I did not leave a fresh final warning on this user's talk page after his or her previous block expired because it has been my experience that each final block warning negates all final block warnings preceding it. ("How come you gave him a final warning when he already has a final warning? You should've just reported him, etc.") Out of this IPvandal's 101 edits, I have determined, based on a random sampling, that approximately 0 of them have been constructive.

It is more likely that the sun will explode this afternoon than that this user will turn out to have deserved the benefit of the doubt. If you want to go letter-of-the-law on this, there are a grand total of five warnings on the user's talk page (including mine), which explicitly state that the user will be blocked without further warning if disruptive edits continue. These warnings date back to last October.

All I ask is that a long-term (semi-permanent is too much to hope for) block on anonymous editing from the IP address be imposed. Is this possible, or will the vandal be allowed to continue wasting our time into the forseeable future on slow days at his or her public works department office in scenic Alberta? --Dynaflow 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's my take on it. The address is a shared IP and, while their contributions have been abyssmal to-date, I can't just block them because of something they may do. At the very least, they deserve a final warning here. I don't want to give a confirmed shared IP a long-term block without a little due process here. It's not a simple AIV case and, for that reason, you might want to bring it to WP:ANI and state that the AIV report was turned down by myself. That way, other admins will get a look-in and decide accordingly. - Alison ☺ 19:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

(hoping this doesn't become another subpage monster, but here goes...)

Eastmain (talk · contribs) is following my trail of tagging images without a fair-use rationale and inserting what I believe to be wholly insufficient rationales, then deleting the {{nrd}} template. One example is here. "To illustrate the article" is a fair-use "rationale" that seems to me to be synonymous with decoration, which is expressly prohibited by our non-free content rules. Can someone help set either Eastmain or myself straight? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely dead wrong per policy - David Gerard 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He's flat out wrong, according to our policy. Needs to be detailed, with each specific instance documented and shown how the criticism or commentary would be lacking without it. -M^ask? 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All reverted. And one by accident on ESkog's page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eastmain here. I was not dealing with images in general, but rather with logos, book covers and album covers (not photographs), which were used in the article about the album or book or about the owner of the logo, which has always been considered acceptable. Do you really want to throw away all the images of album covers or book covers that Wikipedia has, except for those that appear in articles about the subtler points of album cover design? --Eastmain 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That would in fact be what policy demands. It's a widespread myth that cover art is under a blanket fair use justification for every book/film/CD article. I know we've tolerated this common practice, but it's still wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What policy really says

For logos, {{Non-free logo}} says:

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

For album covers, {{Non-free album cover}} says:

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

For book covers, {{Non-free book cover}} says:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers

• to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

So I believe that my actions were in each case consistent with the text in the relevant tag, and that the tags are an accurate reflection of policy. It may not have been obvious that I was dealing only with images in these three categories, so I recognize that my actions may have been misunderstood. Now that I have explained things, would someone please restore my edits to the affected image pages? --Eastmain 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All non-free images still require a detailed and separate Wikipedia:Fair use rationale for each use in Wikipedia. The tag is inadequate. The images should therefore still be tagged with {{subst:nrd}}. Oh, additionally, the tags you quote are not policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is policy. --Iamunknown 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, is there any reason not to boiler plate it for those three special cases? --Selket ^Talk 00:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An image description page of non-free media must contain the "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source" in addition to a fair use rationale for each use of the image in an article and an appropriate image copyright tag. I assume that not all of the logos, album covers and book covers in question are from the same source or are owned by the same copyright owner; it would therefore be technically unfeasible to use boilerplate text and provide the necessary information that is unique to each non-free image. --Iamunknown 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the rule is pretty clear that there needs to be justification for each specific use; that is, each time a particular image is used in a particular article. The justification needs to show that the image is used for both identification and critical commentary in the article. I have encountered other users who have experienced similar confusion with these boilerplate templates and perhaps the solution is to cut down their size so that they don't seem to be prewriting someone's fair-use rationale. I think I'm heading off to one of those talk pages to propose just that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - please join in the discussion here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse by User:Netsnipe

Resolved

 – Discussion closed by initiator's request - Alison ☺ 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Idaho Springs, Colorado vandalized

Idaho Springs, Colorado has been vandalized. Suggest checking User contributions, there has been extensive activity. Thanks, Richard Myers 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest Request for Page Protection for a lot of vandalism. --24.136.230.38 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just revert. It wasn't that extensive. For proøpt actions next time → WP:AIV. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal attack on Gwen Shamblin

There have been several different IPs vandalizing the Gwen Shamblin article. On the talk page, a regular editor of this page alleges that at least one of these IPs is assigned to an organization that Gwen Shamblin runs. That particular IP was removing negative but well-sourced info from the article but the link provided does not prove, to me, the affiliation claimed. In any case, this article might be one to watch a bit more closely for a time. DES ^(talk) 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to warn that person for deleting content. If they keep it up, report them to WP:AIV, and watch them get blocked. --24.136.230.38 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're just giving us the heads up? --24.136.230.38 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Warnings have been put on at least three different IP addresses, at least one has been blocked. Problem is, either there is a coincidence or one or more people using multiple IPs are targetign this article. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

bogus warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baxter&diff=next&oldid=128048860

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=128063011&oldid=127984511

I removed unsourced material which did not have inline citations. I would like the warning reviewed and my edit reviewed. Can a Wikipedian give people a warning without any validity. I felt I was harrassed. Please evaluate this situation and deal with the issue at hand. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The template warning was inappropriate, but this has already been brought to Runcorn's attention. Furthermore, it seems he has provided a citation for the disputed content. -- mattb 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) You might want to re-read WP:BLP. Negative or controversial material can and should be removed instantly if unsourced. (note that "sourced" is not the same as "has inline citations" there are other ways to source statements). Content that is uncontroversial and not apparently negative is probably worth asking on the talk page if anyone can point to sources. OTOH, it would have been more polite in the case of an established editor to raise the matter on your talk page with a specific question rather than a generalized warning template. But a template that says that someone else thought that your edit was improper is not harassment, IMO. Now why don't all involved discuss the matter on the article's talk page and try for consensus? DES ^(talk) 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crohnie&diff=prev&oldid=128064101 Editor is now engaging in edit war on Larry Sanger against consensus and has issued another bogus warning to another editor. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Runcorn to stop misusing warning templates in this manner. [226] Note that this is only in reference to his behavior with these templates, not any comment on the content disputes. I encourage you to heed DES' advice as well. -- mattb 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Runcorn This person is actually an administrator. I am shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiLeon&diff=prev&oldid=128074598 He/she has claimed it was "vandal fighting." This remark has alleged that Crohnie and I are vandals. And the editor is engaging in more edit warring on Larry Sanger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=128075176 He/she has issued another bogus warning after being warned about misusing warning templates. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did receive one too. I have shown him how to reference an article correctly (ie not lewaving it in the ref section), part of the problem is that he badly edited wikipedia and then accused people who removed these edits of vandalsim. And clearly the message from Matt didnt work, SqueakBox 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=128079857 SqueakBox has received yet another warning and has been threatened to be blocked for no good reason. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I just got threastened with blocking too, didnt sign and didnt refer to what vandalsim. As this chap is admin it may be that the account is compromised, and either way this is completely unacceptable behaviour from an admin (and an admin who cant reference properly), SqueakBox 23:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And a new editor chased off the article "in his own words" here. is this the sort of berhaviour we expect from admins? SqueakBox 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this warning. I'm not going to defend anyone's actions, but Runcorn only reverted once. The second time he added the information back in the article it was with additional references, thus not a revert. Given the frustration one can have when dealing with these same users, I can understand that Runcorn might have been on edge. Quack has a history of stirring up needless confrontations over trivial matters. But I don't know Runcorn, so take what I say with a grain of salt or whatever. Just my two cents. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And normally I do try to avoid interaction with Quack due to past confrontations, but the conversation here just seemed a little.. one sided, for a lack of better words. -- Ned Scott 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn has made at least 3 or 4 reverts with a 24 hour period.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128018198
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128039273
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128064754
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128077095

Any suggestions on what course of action to take about the edit warring.

Ned Scott has removed an appropriate 3rr notice which may be seen as disruptive

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Runcorn&diff=prev&oldid=128106083 Any suggestions on the behaviour of Ned Scott on removing a 3rr notice. It may be seen as disruptive.

Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but I was mistaken about the number of reverts. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong page history. None the less, it's pretty obvious even from the above message that Quack has a way of getting people on edge, and has a tendency of escalating disputes rather than helping them. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking out comment above that I feel is a borderline personal attack. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unstricken.. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I have suggested to Runcorn that he take a couple of days off to destress. Georgewilliamherbert 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Hancock image situation

This is about Image:Josh Hancock.jpg

I'm sick of people telling me I'm wrong, because I know that I'm right on this and I'd like admin assistance.

Notice the Reds logo on the uniform, it is backwards. The Reds have NEVER worn a backwards C with the word "SDER" (in backwards letters) on the left side of the chest in their uniform. I believe the "3" and "4" were photoshopped, as Brandon Claussen (left-handed) wore "34" when on the Reds.

There's the image in its proper form, the only thing incorrect is the number, which appears to have been edited.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6669/claussenrx3.jpg

Notice the "Reds" logo is on the right on their now old home uniform [227]. In the image, it's on the left. Can anyone explain this? Or am I just "fantasizing" (as said in the Commons RFD)? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note discussion here on Commons - Alison ☺ 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear to God I am not doing this for shits and giggles....notice that the Reds logo in the image is on the LEFT. The Reds logo has always been on the right in their uniforms. [228] [229] In the image, the logo is on the LEFT. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a fair point here. However, it's currently on discussion over on Commons, where the image resides. Best off not reverting the article (again!) until the matter is resolved - Alison ☺ 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible canvassing by newbie

Could someone have a look at User talk:Sp1959? He appears to be soliciting signatures on his talk page for a petition. I almost reported him to WP:AIV, but I think this may fall into a gray area where while it isn't appropriate, it doesn't merit a block.Blueboy96 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I left a note on his talk page. Let's see if he replies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin gone wild?

I kinda thought that admins were selected for being something of a cut above the regular editor, so imagine my surprise when I discover that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is an admin. After the whole fiaso regarding the Iranians back in early April that went to RfC or Incidents, he began contributing to the article, arguing over the usage of a translation of a Greek film review (supposedly utilizing his GR-3 skills denoted on his User Page). After arguing over the definitions of two words, he tried to add the original Greek link to the article (1). When it was pointed out in Discussion that we don't do that in the English wiki, he then changed the statement, deciding to paraphrase the quote instead. It rather detracted fromt he quote, and wasn't really to anyone's preference but, as the article has seen a lot of edit-warring, we weren't really eager to engage in yet another WP:LAME|lame dispute.
Today, he began removing the soundtrack image in 300, citing that it was simply decorative. He then posted that he would simply delete the image tomorrow, despite being presented with reasoning behind the image's retention.
I didn't even know that FutPerf was an admin until I left a message on his user Talk page today. I am a little concerned that this editor is actively editing in an article and using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent. As well, I am unsure as to the "crystal" clarity of the polcy governing his intended removal.
Maybe I am reading this all wrong. Is he going a bit overboard, or am I being too sensitive to his particular personality and editing style? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fut. Perf.'s interpretation of the fair use policy appears to be correct, and in any case this looks like something to be solved at the article's talk page or a deletion review. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say you "didn't even know that FutPerf was an admin until [you] left a message on his user Talk page today", but then also claim he is "using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent". Obviously, the latter is not true. Nevertheless, I'm not seeing how this is an admin issue and I don't see the problem here. He used a word that sounded awkward in English. You and others complained. He then decided to propose a compromise that just summarizes the reviewer's statement. I don't see how his paraphrasing is any different from the intended meaning. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus, for the sanity check. And Tariq, please don't call me a liar. I didn't know he was an admin until I sent to his talk page. It was after that that I posted here - after discovering he was an admin. So apparently both are true. However, its always nice to get your point of view. Thanks again, Akhilleus. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I called you a liar? I'm not sure if that's the right word to use... perhaps you misrepresented something, but being a liar is too harsh an accusation. Regardless, you didn't refute my point. If you were to read carefully, you'd see that I said Obviously, the latter is not true. Fut. Perf could not have been "using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent" considering you didn't even know what his "title" was until just recently, when you "left a message on his user Talk page today". (I'm assuming by "title" you mean admin status, considering that is what most of your post was about.) -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If I misinterpreted your accusation, then I am sorry. When I read his posts in the Discussion area, I thought he was just being an somewhat arrogant person who was simply posting what he was going to do without the intent of listening to our posts in dissent. When i went to his Talk page to take the subject out off-discussion page, I then discovered he was an admin. Re-reading what he wrote in the Discussion page made arrogance seem more like abuse. Then I posted here. I apologize if the detailed chronology (and refutation) wasn't made clear. I stiil think its kinda arrogant for anyone to decide unilaterally that they are going to purge an image without explaining adequately the fair use issues (he simply called it decorative). That I felt (and feel) that he approached the situation with two left feet wasn't wrong. Anyway, the topic is closed; you folks think he went about things jolly well, so what more is there to say? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this section name is too amusing... If the Wikimedia Foundation is ever desperate for funding, we could release an "Admins Gone Wild" DVD ("the wild side of administrators that you don't see on Wikipedia! Only $9.99 a month and cancel anytime!") Grandmasterka 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL :-) WjBscribe 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! "When good admins go baaaad! - Alison ☺ 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do get snippy sometimes, but I make every effort to hold onto my humor. It was either that or "Fast Admins, Slow Newbies." I erred on the late night comical of drunken college girls. I could do worse.

Honestly, what I think motivated my vigor in pursuing this is that I have an image of admins built up in my head that isn't fair. I expect these folk who put the Enn in 'NPOV' and are pretty nifty diplomats. There are a lot of them like that, and I was fairly blessed to see some of them in action as I was starting out. But there are people behind the curtain in the hall of the Great and Powerful Wiki, and they are just ordinary folk (albeit with powers beynd the ken of mere men). When someone breaks rank and acts - to my preconception - un-admin-y, I feel kinda offended. Maybe expecting FutPerf and others to fit that image every time is unfair. I know the admins often have a pretty miserable set of tasks, duty that largely goes unnoticed. I appreciate that. I guess that's what I sorta wanted to say. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "Admins going wild" documentation could start right off with a documentation of me going wild over another issue just today. ([230],cf. [231], [232]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MosesMaster

Resolved

This guy blanked the WWII page, and if you look at his talk he's done this to other stuff before. Actually, he was blocked in April, and someone unblocked him. --LtWinters 00:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for a month by Oberiko earlier. IrishGuy ^talk 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't vandalism-only accounts normally blocked indefinitely? JuJube 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think vandal-only accounts should be blocked indefinately. --24.136.230.38 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have indef blocked, myself, but this is something that should probably be taken up with Oberiko to see what the motivation for a shorter block would be. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tsyam

Hi sir, I have written an article titled "Tsyam" but I do not find it in Wikipedia now. I would be most grateful if you can help restore it. Best regards Shkëmbi 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is right here, at Tsyam. To create links to other pages on Wikipedia add two square brackets, [[ and ]], on either side of the word or words you want to link. Picaroon (Talk) 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Write Open Story

Hi there! Can someone take a look at this one? I have a feeling that it is some sort of school assignment taking place in Wikipedia article space--looking at the deletion log seems to indicate recreations by multiple users with different content. Since I can't see the deleted material, I have brought my concern here. Thanks!--Xnuala (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The first instance was a description of a website, apparently that described in the title. The others were random dumps of text, much as this appears to be, but entirely different from the current content. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Any clues as to what the point of this is?--Xnuala (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor abuse? misconduct?

User:Smee is acting improperly in Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training

One of the editors for this article had removed a template: [here]

Smee then reverted [here]

On another edit [here] information was removed which did not pertain to the book being reviewed.

Smee immediately reverted [here] and gave only the reason that the source was cited.

Then again, a valid reason was given for removal [here]

And again, Smee reverted [here] and again only gave cited source as justfication.

Next Smee turned his attention back to the template

His first act was to post comments [here] from another editor for another article in this article's discussion. The comments were posted in first person and no indication was given that the other editor had not posted himself.

Then, based on those comments, Smee edited the article and re-inserted the template [here] and gave this edit comment: upon comments provided from a neutral, previously un-involved editor on the template usage

Note that the editor being quoted did not post on this page, but his opinion on another unknown article was used to justify an edit on this page. Note also that the concerns of the original editor, who initially objected to the template, was never addressed.

When I discovered (by looking in edit history) that Smee had added the entire conversation, I reverted the Template edit [here], as well as his entire comment edit [here]

I also posted a note on his user page [here] and invited him to post and document the comments properly.

His response was to repost the comments exactly as they had been done the first time [here].

While it could be excused the first time. By posting exactly the same comments a 2nd time after being told of the issue, it appears that he may have intended to mislead readers.

Next, I properly cited the quotation [here] by putting it all in blockquote and "'s and added a paragraph which explained where they comments came from and who put them there.

Smee, then reverted my entire edit [here].

Several attempts after that to properly document the comments appeared to be headed to an edit war, so I have stopped editing there.

Thank you for looking into this matter, I'm sorry to bring up what I thought we would be able to over look. However, it appears that Smee will not allow us to over look it.

Lsi john 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• This user is simply attempting to cause trouble against me. I have edited and re-edited a "disclaimer" above the posted comments from the other user on the talk page in question - there were no untoward intentions here. Please see my disclaimer on the associated talk page. Smee 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
• First point; fraud is a heavyweight criminal accusation (second time I saw this today). Secondly, I think Smee is a she. Didn't you guys go through MEDCAB last month? - Alison ☺ 03:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, Smee is a he, and s/he is welcome to correct the misunderstanding.

Webster defines fraud as :1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY. Copying and pasting another editor's comments into a discussion (twice) and using them to justify an edit seems to fit under deceit, however in the interest of WP:FAITH I have removed the word fraud from the heading here. It does seem to be WP:TE and this is only a small sample of the observed conduct. The pattern is to revert and comment highly cited source and ignore discussion.

Yes we went through mediation. Based on the mediation, I no longer engage him in discussions of his behavior. And, his conduct has not changed since the mediation as you can see from the above sequence.

I don't know if this is the proper way to file an AN/I or not. The edits are documented and I tried to post them in an easy sequence.

Lsi john 03:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee's edits and explanations seem to me to be helpful and clarifying. Each edit was accompanied by Smee's edit summary and there were no involved IP numbers. Its very clear that Smee's actions are intentionally transparent and above board. But there have been large deletions of well sourced material from the Landmark Forum article without proper indication in edit summaries (Not by Smee). I believe the latter action is more likely to be classified as deception and trickery and that is more fitting for investigation. Jeffrire 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrire, your edit history is telling. --Justanother 12:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Smee's edits and explanations seem to me to be helpful and clarifying. Each edit was accompanied by Smee's edit summary and there were no involved IP numbers. Its very clear that Smee's actions are intentionally transparent and above board." -- Thank you, Jeffrire, for these clarifying comments as to my actions. This is exactly how I feel as well on this issue. I also second your consternation as to the removal of cited material from the other article in question... Smee 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

98.1.242.33

This guy is driving me crazy. see his contrubutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.1.242.33 -- Penubag  02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to post here here. --ElKevbo 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Those edits are several days old. What do you want anyone to do about it now? --ElKevbo 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He already is "here," but I think I know where you meant to send him. =)

I don't see the problem. The user made three disruptive edits in a five-minute period on 30 April, and s/he was warned. Is there something I'm missing here? --Dynaflow 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Penubag may be referring to the ongoing problem at that page, from sundry IP numbers. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The vandalizing edits seem to be coming from a number of different ISPs' IP-address ranges and from widely-scattered geographic locations. Was there a special on stratus clouds on TV recently or something? --Dynaflow 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, look on the bright side: at least it's not a WP:BLP violation, since stratus clouds are not living people. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just what the radical humanists want us to think. --Dynaflow 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the radical group called the Weathermen? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Touché. --Dynaflow 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user WilliamMelvin evading block with IP address

Not even trying to disguise it. WilliamMelvin (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday for making personal attacks among other problems. Has returned as 84.64.234.112 (talk · contribs) to resume the same "bullshit"/"pricks" editwarring, at Highest snooker break. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Extending the block of the origina account to 1 week. Viridae^Talk 03:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP user 207.207.127.254 on C++

This user continues to edit against consensus on the C++ article. He has repeatedly tried to modify the "Hello, World" program ([233][234][235] and others). He originally wanted to remove an #include required by the C++ standard, now he wants to change the program to use legacy C functions. He has tried to argue his case on the talk page but not a single editor has agreed with him.

He has also blanked and vandalized his anon IP talk page ([236][237]) and left spurious warnings on another user's talk page ([238]). I've repeatedly tried to warn him that his behavior is inappropriate, and advised him to register an account, all to no avail.

His IP address is from a college, but he claims it's his machine, so he may have a static or long-term dynamic IP lease.

Can one of you please either put an extended block on this IP, or semi-protect the C++ article so we don't have to keep reverting him? Thanks. ATren 03:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look deeper into this matter, and don't block me if you can help it. My very first edit to Wikipedia was a removal of a include statement in the C++ article that I thought was inappropriate. This was met by severe warnings and hatred from a few editors that apparently feel very strongly about this matter. After being informed (rather forcefully) of the "discuss, then make change" policy of Wikipedia, I took a legitimate route to editing the page, debating the change until it was clear there was no argument against it, then made a careful, noninflammatory change. Note that ATren (and possible sock puppet Xerxesnine) have been following me around, evidently with some vendetta against me. Note that I haven't vandalized a single page, and the 'vandalism' ATren cites is only done to my own talk page, and even then it was quite some time ago.

I'm new here, and I'm learning, but users like ATren don't make Wikipedia a very inviting place sometimes.

Misuse of sysops powers

After the Kevin Potvin article was protected, Zanimum (talk · contribs) used his or her admin privileges to edit the article [239]. Under normal circumstances, these might be justifiable edits (with the exception that "fall" should in fact be lowercase according to WP:MOS), but there is no libel issue here being taken care of, or any other serious matter requiring immediate admin intervention to an article under full protection, and no comment on the talk page. I request that these changes be reverted, along with whatever else you people do with wayward administrators. If Zanimum wishes to edit the article, s/he can plug his or her nose and slum it on the talk page with us commoners. bobanny 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

These edits appear to be related to the same issue that caused the page to be protected. I've asked Zanimum to clarify this. >Radiant< 11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Letter posted to the talk page. -- Zanimum 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP user 63.192.130.60

This user appears to do nothing but make spurious additions and deletions in vandalizing random pages. Could someone please review this user's contributions and issue a warning or block as appropriate?

Thanks.

Spventi 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See me on your talk page, and I'll run down how this works. --Dynaflow 04:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

Resolved

 – Lou Proctor indefblocked as a sock of User:Chadbryant - Alison ☺ 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is responding to my cited edits to Craig Roger Gregerson with threats and accusations of being a sockpuppet, and other harassment. I have asked him to stop and he refuses, even removing my requests to stop from his talk page. Lou Proctor 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please block this sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant, the edits to the Craig Roger Gregerson clearly show it's him and I've already raised the matter with User:Yamla and User:Tyrenius both of whom are more than familiar with User:Chadbryant, but are both offline at the moment. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. You claimed that my edit was original research when it was not, and now you are angry and lashing out. Please grow up. Lou Proctor 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I note that you're blanking your talk page messages. Furthermore, you're revert-warring on that article. Your last revert (finally) included a reference .... which is broken. A quick search of that site doesn't show up the reference you require - Alison ☺ 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - so I dug back through the history of the Craig Roger Gregerson article and note that a banned editor has been using various socks to repeatedly insert the exact same changes as you are. The last time this happened was just before you happened along. Furthermore, your account was created just a few days ago and you immediately started revert-warring on the above article. Can someone else give me a second opinion here? - Alison ☺ 05:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Smells like socks. JuJube 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • One more thing. This account was created 2 hours after his last sock was blocked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok - I've seen enough. That, plus talkpage comments - Alison ☺ 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Just indefblocked seconds ago by Grandmasterka - Alison ☺ 06:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I don't know why it's me that always deals with the prolific sockpupeteers, JB196, RMS, Chadbryant.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're just a natural at it :) - Alison ☺ 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

Could someone temporarily protect Buckingham Palace, it has been vandalised 7 times in the last 24 hours. Obviously with the Queen being un USA it is the headlines in America at the moment. Giano 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's not really enough activity there and I just blocked the main anon culprit. The other page-blanker hadn't been warned at all yet. Warned now - Alison ☺ 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I cycled past it yesterday, it looked pretty well protected to me - plod and soldiers and everything. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That really is very funny. LOL Giano 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How dare they vandalise it while she's out of the house! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• LOL!! Very funny :) - Alison ☺ 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

100110100 (talk · contribs) making death threats

I blocked 100110100 (talk · contribs) for a week for edit warring and making a nonspecific death threat at Template talk:Sailor Moon. This user has a history of abusive behavior, and I wasn't sure whether to block for longer (since the threat was not specific), although the behavior doesn't seem to have included death threats. Therefore, I need this action reviewed in case the block needs to be lengthened. --Coredesat 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not indef? User is obviously completely disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Case in point calling another editor a bitch while reverting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Binary frequently edits from an IP address. Someone should keep an eye on it to make sure he doesn't engage in sockpuppetry. JuJube 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured I should've gone with indef, but it's very late here, and I'm too tired to deal with any potential fallout at the moment. I'll keep an eye out for socks, though. Thanks, Ryulong. --Coredesat 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user WilliamMelvin back AGAIN with new IP

This time it's 80.5.205.84 (talk · contribs). He'll probably run out eventually. Diff. The escalating "retarded" personal attack this time probably warrants a further block extension. He'll get the point eventually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: I have self-reverted at that article to his last version. The talk page at said article has an ongoing discussion about the entire set of points his puppetwarring relates to, and I don't want my personal opinion on the matter to affect dealing with the behavior at issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Admin Denying Users Placing Appropriate 'Sock Puppet' Tag on His Page

FYI, Chris Griswold and a "friend" (meat puppet?) Ned Scott have taken to deleting any comments/tags on his page that discuss his 'puppet master' past. I realize he did step down, but I am baffled why someone who claims to want to 'come clean' is making an effort to have any tags that acknowledge what he's done removed. Admins and others know of his past, but most casual users won't know or understand where to look. I believe a tag needs to be placed so most anyone else can see what's happened and why. Additionally, the user has claimed that he would 'come clean' about his past... But by denying the placement of an appropriate tag—and enlisting in the aid of 'meat puppets'—he's proving to not fully grasp the depth of what he has done. Please have the tag reverted and placed on his page. —SpyMagician 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed the template, Ned Scott removed it twice without giving any real justification. He was probabbly relying in the fact that most users are afraid to revert if he acts like he knows what he is doing (going against the policies in this case). Then Chris Griswold wisely told Ned not to defend him... aaand took the tamplate off for a third time. I think that's cynical and sad. I don't refuse to wear the tag he imposed on me, he shouldn't refuse to wear his. I was blocked regular user when I did certain meat and sockpuppetry... he was a admin who already blocked several users for doing the same when he created the accounts in question. CheckUser confirmed his identity. He should have known better and he has to face consequences just like I did. Even more as a former admin. Wikipedia trusted him!! that's how he pays?!! this is propostrous I'm ofended by his cynism and I demand justice!!! (or whatever the appropiate equivalent in wikipedia is)!!--T-man, the wise 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 'justice' is very simple in this case. Chris Griswold has been proven to be the 'puppet master' of three editors: Truth in Comedy, Superburgh and 24.3.194.217. All of these sock puppets were created while—and only while—the user was a sysop on Wikipedia. Now, T-man, the wise engaged in sock puppetr himself as a plain old 'editor' and is forced to wear the tag of 'puppet master'. Why then should an admin who abused power and had multiple sock puppets allowed to exist on Wikipedia without a 'puppet master' tag? It's clearly a higher offense when a trusted admin/sysop does something like that? So why is he—and his 'friend'—deleting tags or comments like this? Someone else needs to step up and say something about this. Despite being stripped of 'admin' status, Chris Griswold is still showing all the signs of an abusive admin ego. And it needs to stop. —SpyMagician 08:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally users who aren't blocked don't have the {{SockpuppeteerProven}} template on their userpage. Especially not for experienced, long-term editors (20,000 edits) who are still in good standing. Your edit-warring is unacceptable, and I have protected the page from your edit warring regardless, until further input is gathered here. But don't be surprised if your behaviour is characterised as 'dickish' and possibly even harassment. Daniel Bryant 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we wouldn't want to get too rich on the meat-puppetry allegations, now, would we? Daniel Bryant 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave SpyMagician alone! the punishment should be twice as hard with admins. Wikipedia trusted them, admins are more aware of the repercutions of sockpuppetry, therefore they should be harder on cases like Chris!

And now they protected his page!! Whitout the template!!!!!! Is this the image of corruption whe want for wikipedia?! --T-man, the wise 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. What will hounding the guy achieve? He's no longer a sysop and his reputation here is severely tarnished. He's chosen to walk away for a bit and lick his wounds. I think it would say much better things about those who were in dispute with him if they let him have some dignity and stopped pestering him. Chris' actions were wrong but the matter is closed. Please leave him alone. WjBscribe 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite amazing that you would say that my behavior is 'dickish'. What then is the behavior of an abusive admin who used sock puppets to destroy and harass hundreds of users who contributed to comedy articles? This is kind of amazing. The guy was an admin and abused power, people point it out and someone calls their behavior 'dickish'. So I assume sock puppetry is okay as long as your an admin? Quite amazing inequity here. 'Dickish' behavior to some on Wikipedia is considered 'fair' in the real world. What would be achieved is those of us who are not 'hard core' users would see this user's past for what he is. In the admin world his rep is tarnished, but in the regular world people barely know what happened. And his user page shows barely anything to indicate the sock puppetry. All anyone is asking is the tag be added so that regular people/editors know that he engaged in abusive sock puppetry. —SpyMagician 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no useful purpose to be served by that - we don't engage in tarring and feathering around here. The tag isn't needed and shouldn't be added. And how does someone manage to "destroy" hundreds of users? -- ChrisO 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Where did I ever say I thought your behaviour was 'dickish'? I merely suggested that some may consider it so. Daniel Bryant 08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Random passer-by comments: I don't understand this. I saw something related to this come up in an RfA last month too and had the same reaction. The question posed in summary form was "What if a long-standing and well-liked Wikipedian were caught sock-handed?" The RfA candidate responded with a lot of reputation-protectiveness: Would talk with the problem admin first, try to convince them to stop, and so on. I say to hell with that. I may not be everyone's favorite editor around here - I know I can be abrasive - but come on. If I ever betrayed community trust to that extent I would expect to be strung up by the sensitive parts for it, and if I were an admin at the time, I'd expect to lose community trust damned near forever. "The tag isn't needed"? You must be kidding. It's desperately needed. This isn't the Wikipedia of 2005 any longer. It's fairly trivial for previously bad-acting people to "make friends" hither and yon and seek adminship again after the furor dies down. There are so many RfAs these days it's hard to keep track of them, and with an order of magnitude more editors in today's Wikipedia it's increasingly hard to remember transgressions. I guess that's it really. It just bowls me over that people are leaping to the defense of someone who torqued the system in a grossly treacherous manner and go caught. To me, this sends the message "It's okay to stuff the ballot box as long as you've at least once been enumerated among the poll workers", by way of analogy. PS: Please actually read WP:DICK. It is pretty clear that citation to WP:DICK is a WP:DICKish thing to do. Pretending that you were just referring to it for, well, interesting reading purposes or whatever is just WP:BALLS (while we're being metaphorically genital about everything). You were in fact being a WP:DICK yourself in citing that essay and were darned right to be called on it. And yes, I am both well aware and quite comfortable with fact that I am hereby being a WP:DICK myself in turn, because I think the point is worth making even at my own expense. PPS: There's a difference between tarring and feathering and presenting the facts. T&Fing is well thwarted by WP:NPA to my mind. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no justification. If I have to wear my template he has to wear his! I also want to report something else: --T-man, the wise 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in the spirit of 'some may consider it so', I say that by allowing an ex-admin who has clearly abused power to NOT have a tag placed on their user page indicating their past, well... some may consider it to be 'nepotistic' or 'favoritism' that he can get away with doing that based on the number of edits he made, while others exist on Wiki with these tags and dare not ever remove them lest an admin will chastize them. Sorry, but if the user DID engage in 20,000+ edits then it makes even MORE sense to have the tag added to their user page. How does one begin to contact or add comments to the THOUSANDS of pages this user edited this way? Does it not make more sense to just have one tag placed on the user page so if anyone has been edited by them, they can then see this user's history and then make a judgement based on it? It all wreaks of double-standards. Plain and simple. And if this user wants to make ammends to others, IDing himself as a puppet master—which is what he is—is a good way of honestly coming clean. I truly don't understand why some would consider it 'dickish' for that to happen or be discussed. —SpyMagician 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's been discussed and it's been resolved. End of story. -- ChrisO 08:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue has indeed been discussed in admin and other circles which average users will not seek out. The issue now at hand is how to communicate this to the average user/editor who comes across this user's page. Simply placing the puppet master tag on it will end the issue. People will see what he did and understand the scope of it. Why is it he is being defended against that tag being placed when there's overwhelming evidence that he deserves it. And beyond that he has only 'reappeared' on Wikipedia to delete ANYTHING negative specifically on his talk page and his talk page only. If what I'm saying is so wrong, then why isn't there a reversion of all comments? There is a very clear double-standard here and that is the root of the issues I'm having and others are commenting on. —SpyMagician 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear, SpyMagician, that you found out? The Arbcom already dealt with the situation. They were aware the tag was removed. If they were adamant about the tag staying, I don't think they're too stupid to say "The sock tags must be left alone." We don't use those as brands or scarlet letters, we use them to help us track unrepentant, banned or soon to be sockpuppeteers who are an ongoing problem. Chris Griswold is not blocked or banned, you've presented nothing to indicate his puppetry is continuing, and he is not required to display any "badge of shame". And this conversation, for some reason, seems awfully familiar to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with McCandlish. Anchoress 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, {{sockpuppeteer}} is left for users who are

1. Indefinitely blocked
2. Banned
3. Someone who extensively abused said sockpuppets (say in the dozens)

Chris Griswold does not meet any of these "criteria"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ryulong and Seraphimblade on this. The tag is used to identify disruptive or banned sockpuppeteers and to identify their socks. It is not to be used as punishment. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree. There is no need to identify him as a sockpuppet if he has stopped doing it and he has not been blocked or banned. Use of the tag should not be punitive, which is what it would be here. Will (aka Wimt) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with it is the circular reference. It's kind of like a case in my home town where the teachers' union defended the information about a teacher who had committed serious offences being kept secret because, in their words, 'he wasn't kicked out of the union, and we don't make the information public if the teacher isn't kicked out of the union.' Anchoress 09:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then can someone explain then why discussion on this user's talk page that points out his behavior is continutally reverted? It's clear there's a double standard here. On the one hand he claims that he wants to make good. But on the other, he's avoiding ANY public mention of it outside of the 'deeper' circles of Wikipedia. And while I understand the tags are not 'badges of shame' let's face facts. They are not designed because people want them. Much in the same way people put cute tags on their homepage to explain who they are, such badges can also educate others. I'm sorry but I don't appreciate the level of defense being made to defend someone who grossly abused their position. And the most disturbing aspect of this is the admins whose way of engaging in discussion is to basically imply banning or blocking if the discussion still happens. There's clearly an air of protection surrounding this ex-admin and it's simply quite disturbing. And as I said before, it's impractical for ANYONE to go to the thousands of pages that have been edited and say "Hey, this guy abused power..." It's simply more practical for public acknowledgement on his page. If he was proud enough to place badges on his page delcaring his likes/interests and even links to articles about his own past, why deny this? And why the eagerness to delete ANY discussion on this users page? Wikipedia and Wikinepotism is baffling. —SpyMagician 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he is not punished for having done so any more than having had his sysop bit removed. There is no need to put a big red A on his page for one (or two) lapses of judgement.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris isn't denying anything, he's resigned his adminship and that should be the end of it, no-one is going to forget what he's done. Using the pupetteer tag is way out of line, as people have said, thats reserved for blocked or banned users. Continued addition of the tag, and constant abuse on his talk page ammounts to harrassment in my eyes, I suggest you let this drop. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And there is a user, User:Giovanni33, who has been proven to have used sockpuppets in the past, but he doesn't have {{SockpuppeteerProven}} on his userpage. Why? Because he, for all intents and purposes, said that he was sorry, and we don't hound him over it. He's not an administrator. Not every user who is a proven sockpuppeteer needs that tag on their page, nor does it anywhere on Wikipedia that they do. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem. In case it wasn't obvious, it is perfectly acceptable to have and use an alternate account. Several of us have them, for use when we just want a quiet afternoon's editing without being hounded about admin actions and when we don't wantr the little yellow bar lighting up every ten seconds. A sockpuppet account is not the same thing; sockpuppetry is use of alternate accounts to avoid a block or ban, or to give the apperaance of greater support than really exists in community debates. Is there any evidence that Chris used these accounts for proscribed purposes? Or was he just using an alternate account for purposes of a quiet life? Guy (Help!) 10:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • @Guy: If you read the links in the very first post, you'll see that he did. The most relevant section. Anchoress 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Additionally, here is the discussion on the request for arbitration page about this. There's no doubt there was a conscious effort to use multiple accounts to avoid responsibility and abuse power. But the fact you were confused about this, Guy is an example of what I have been arguing. A clear message should be placed on his page so anyone who comes across an edit knows what happened. —SpyMagician 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I absolutely agree. If an active admin doesn't know what happened, and without common knowledge of CG's self-serving sockpuppetry, his '20,000 good edits', as noted above, weigh too heavily in the direction of trustworthiness. Anchoress 10:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, all it means is that I miseed the discussions on that. I am not omniscient and I do have things to do in RL. It all looks a bit WP:POINTy to me, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A quiet aside

Totally aside from the concern of this discussion (which seems a waste of space imho. I think User:Daniel.Bryant et al have things well in hand), and just thinking about Chris, for a moment. I wonder if, at this point, it wouldn't be better if he just allowed all three accounts to be indef blocked, the user pages deleted, (even perhaps have the ChrisGriswold account renamed to add obscurity) and he just started over from scratch with another username. I see he has concerns about being tied to his real name, and perhaps a bit of anonymity would be the answer? I think an email discussion with someone appropriate (bureaucrat? steward?) may be the order of the day. Just a suggestion, in the hopes it may help. - jc37 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he ever had any real concerns over the privacy of his username; he was likely saying that to attempt to get out of the arbitration case. If he was concerned for his privacy he could have got the account renamed a long time ago. The idea of him starting a new account is possibly a good one, however. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 09:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be happy for that to occur. Daniel Bryant 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why afford an ex-admin a way to wipe their past like this? Why would this even be considered? Is this done for other users as well? It's patently ridiculous that someone who abused power as a Wiki admin be 'rewarded' by wiping the slate clean? Also, why is the discussion of how an ex-admin is treated a waste of space? It's simply ridiculous that this much effort is being made to 'protect' a user/ex-admin who abused priledge/power and seems to avoid taking any public responsibilty to those he damaged. What about the thousands of edits he made to damage others? What efforts are made or thought of to revert the ill-will and headaches caused by them? Or is that discussion a 'waste of space'. Ultimately it seems that you can break/bend Wiki rules if you (1) have a disturbingly high amount of edits and (2) are an ex-admin. Quite disturbing that attitude exists. —SpyMagician 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to abandon their accounts and start afresh- see Wikipedia:Right to vanish. WjBscribe 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that a clean slate might be good idea, although the choice is up to him. However I would comment that someone (steward, 'crat) is advised of his new name in the small chance that he does decide to engage in disruptive activities. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to know there are ways one can duck their own personal responsibility and come back as a new 'handle' but with the same person behind the keyboard. How exactly is it 'good' for someone who ducked responsibility in the first place to be given the right to make the ultimate 'duck' by dumping their record? It's been proven that he can't control himself. And despite claims that he should have stepped aside a few months ago, he continued to edit. And he only stopped when he was busted by a user who had to fight hard to get the point made. Yes, there is a Wikipedia:Right to vanish, but it seems that it would just give him a new way to come back and engage in the same behavior again. Kzrulzuall's suggestion makes sense, and I would agree with it. But can't shake the fact that a lot of energy is being spent defending someone who abused the concept of good faith. —SpyMagician 10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody comes back under a new name and then engages in the same "bad behaviour" they generally get found out pretty quickly and indef blocked for their troubles. If somebody manages to come back and keep a clean slate (and I'm sure that happens often) how can that not be good for the encyclopedia? It looks to me, as a new pair of eyes on this case, that you want "blood". It might be time to let this go: the guy was caught, and it's been quite humiliating for him; the community has (it would seem) decided to leave it at that, so let's move on. If you continue to make a song and dance about what is essentially a spent issue you'll likely find your own conduct coming under more scrutiny. --kingboyk 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a squeaky-clean new account is a great idea. But his choice, of course. Anchoress 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To recapitulate, I believe that the issue here is that Chris Griswold is this user's real name. He obviously behaved inappropriately, but at the same time does not want the fact that he used an alternative account on Wikipedia to be the most important fact about his life that appears on Internet searches, and he is concerned that these tags will make that happen. I am not sure that the tags are a material part of the problem, but I concur with those who have urged that there is no legitimate reason to make a further issue of the tags on the blocked accounts. Of course, if the fact that two accounts belonged to the same user is relevant in discussion on a particular article talkpage, that can be mentioned. Otherwise, there is no need for further publicity of the matter. Newyorkbrad 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism

The oft-deleted Matrixism was reposted a couple of days after the WP:SALT was removed. It was taken to AfD, I closed it as a repost (DRV is the right place, in my view). Neil reverted that, restoring the article, and then removed the AfD notice as "closed". So: AfD notice removed because AfD closed, at the same time reversing the closurew of the AfD. Which pisses me off just a tiny bit. In the mean time we have rewarded the wankers who have been bleating about this crap-off-teh-Internets non-religion with its Geocities homepage since forever by giving them what they want. Way to go, team.

But it's worse:

• Neil created the current article
• Neil moved it to mainspace without deletion review, depspite presumably knowing that dleeiton had been endorse drecently
• Neil undeleted it after another admin (me) speedied it as G4, rather than taking it to DRV
• Neil then removed the deletion tag because the debate had been "closed" - but it was closed as delete, so he unilaterally reverted closure in favour of deletion of an article he himself had created, and which he surely knew to have been the suject of multiple deletions.
• Neil did not at any time that I can see declare that he was the creator when doing the above

That does not look too good, does it? Guy (Help!) 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• 11:38, May 4, 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (39 revisions restored: Utterly invalid application of CSD)
• 21:15, May 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (CSD G4: Recreation of Deleted Material, re-created very shortly after removal of WP:SALT. No.) (Restore)
• 21:27, April 17, 2007 Cbrown1023 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (content was: '{{deletedpage||July 2006}} <!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on Special:Shortpages.........................................................') (Restore)
• 01:15, July 25, 2006 Philwelch (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (nonsensical redirect) (Restore)
• 21:57, May 10, 2006 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (4 revisions restored)
• 18:48, May 10, 2006 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (Restore)
• 03:10, November 22, 2005 Sherool (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (WP:CSD#G4 recreation) (Restore)
• 07:18, November 20, 2005 Pamri (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (it is reposted content that was removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. It may have undergone a vote for deletion here. See also this page's entry in the deletion log.) (Restore)
• 18:15, October 3, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (deleted per (old) VFD) (Restore)
• 15:09, August 26, 2005 Ahoerstemeier (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (content was: 'what is matrix....nobody knows' (and the only contributor was '202.88.159.172')) (Restore)
• 22:11, August 6, 2005 SimonP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (protected blank two months ago to prevent recreation) (Restore)
• 22:59, May 6, 2005 Texture (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (deleted VfD'd content reposted again) (Restore)
• 20:16, May 6, 2005 Texture (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (deleted VfD'd content reposted again) (Restore)
• 19:51, May 6, 2005 Academic Challenger (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (Restore)
• 19:48, May 6, 2005 Academic Challenger (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" ((deleted content reposted again)) (Restore)
• 19:45, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (restored to protect, deleting again.) (Restore)
• 19:44, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (1 revisions restored)
• 19:41, May 6, 2005 Postdlf (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (recreated vfd'd article) (Restore)
• 19:05, May 6, 2005 Xezbeth (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (redeleting) (Restore)
• 19:03, May 6, 2005 Xezbeth (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (recreation) (Restore)
• 18:49, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (redeleting again) (Restore)
• 12:06, May 6, 2005 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (speedy deleting previously deleted article) (Restore)
• 18:20, May 5, 2005 Jnc (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (pr request, redir) (Restore)

Someone is playing pitch-till-ya-win here. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yep. User:71.112.17.109 is joining in the fray, too. >Radiant< 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what they say about shit-off-teh-internets. Cleaning the toilet bowl of the internet is like trying to scrape fish crap from the ocean. I'd say G4 applies since it was VFDed, SALTed, deleted a whole lot, and all that other stuff. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think calling other editors "wankers" is very productive. The speedy criterion only applies if the versions were "substantially identical", which they weren't. Neil corrected your error, which was a completely reasonable judgement call. Addhoc 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You want tact and diplomacy? Ask someone else. This is a nonsense "religion" with 300 adherents which has been relentlessly spammed on Wikipedia pretty much since its inception. The sources evaporate under any kind of light. The homepage of the purported religion is a Geocities page. We deleted it several times, and reviewed the deletion and endorsed it several times. And very shortly after the WP:SALT was removed, it was re-created yet again. Like I say, someone is playing pitch-till-ya-win. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering there was one valid AfD and no valid speedy deletions, I'm not sure what the pasting of the log is supposed to accomplish. The DRV result was, incorrectly, "Deletions endorsed; if the sources contain encyclopedic material, a new article should be started in userspace." The second part was done. What's the problem here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that admin Neil restored the article deleted by Guy that editor Neil had written; an obvious conflict of interest. Neil should have gone to DRV. If the article is really as different as he says, the result at DRV would have been to either undelete or list at AfD (which is happening now, but without the conflicted and possible misuse of admin tools. Thatcher131 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so (not that I'm convinced he did anything wrong at this point, although I probably would have preferred him to go the {{editprotected}} route), but he was also right in line with the DRV closing. Considering how often DRV gets it wrong (including the last Matrixism discussion), and how many people seem to be missing the boat, who can blame him? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you're not advocating ignoring the rules, are you? In any case, an article which has been repeatedly deleted should be subject to discussion before recreation in mainspace. If someone wants to create a userspace draft and take it to DRV saying "Hey, guys, I think I've actually got a decent article on this, could we allow recreation?" I have no problem with that. But you don't just recreate, and you certainly don't wheel war when someone properly G4's it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I'd never do such a thing. There's no inherent need given the DRV closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected images

Wikipedia:Protected titles/May 2007/List contains two images (Image:WinXP_exclamation.png and Image:Stop_X_XP.png) that were nevertheless recreated. Does this process not work on images, or is something else wrong? >Radiant< 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the protected title template; you have to specify the namespace with the "ns" parameter or it doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

courtsey blanking

I don't really see the logic behind a "curtesy blanking" of an organisation's name such as here on my userpage. Does that mean that any organisation can request this? --Fredrick day 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a page about it if you're interested: Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking. As the name suggests, it is a matter of courtesy and not a mandatory thing. But I can understand that companies might not be pleased seeing their names coming up high in Google search because of a deletion discussion that turned to delete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The user and organization just want to go away. There was a big mess involving numerous accounts from the user in the name of the organization, foolishly created using a real names, bad behavior on the user's part--who was not completely familiar with our policies, well-meaning administrators who persisted in applying the name in numerous locations on talk pages, citing guidelines as policies (such as WP:COI) and using those as excuses to block, rather than discuss things in a healthy manner... Immediate application to Community Noticeboard before the incedent had a broader look at it by less involved and heated users. All of the edits remain in the history of the pages, so any user familiar with Wikipedia will have complete access to these pages. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:67.127.101.76

67.127.101.76 is making the same exact edits as indefinitely blocked users RandomGuy11522914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([240]) and CostcoBall72355 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([241]). 67.127.228.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.122.50.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also madesimilaredits. Squirepants101 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All the IPs are owned by Pacbell. Squirepants101 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with User:Anna Vida

I have recently entered a discussion concerning Anna Vida's opinions on Wikipedia, she said that it "Sucks" and is "Utter Rubbish", so I left a message on her talkpage, she then replied with:

You added the following to my talk page:

"Our site sucks? Well, then leave it, we don't need people like you around here"

Here we have another wiki member who thinks they own wikipedia (by saying: our site sucks) you don't own it, and it is not your site!

Secondly, seen as (for some reason that isn't obvious to me) university students use wikipedia for assignments, so someone has to make sure that the info on it is true and correct (which in most cases it is utter rubbish).

And finally, don't stick your nose into business that doesn't concern you, the comment i made was to Jimbo Wales not you, so but out, and mind your own business, or don't you have a life?

A personal attack, implying that "I dont have a life"
She has also, on many occasions, distrupted wikipedia to make a point, and placed more incivil comments on my userpage. in short, I would like her blocked, because she obviously doesent understand the way wikipedia works, and demonstrates this by distruption, incivillity, and personal attacks.

Thanks, Gherkin30 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is needed at the moment. Why on earth did you respond to a criticism on Jimbo's talk page with a suggestion to leave? I think that she should be spoken to politely, even if she is a bit on the rude side, We can always block later but not for the above rant. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

vandal & dubious user name

• Cockmaster69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandal-only and dubious user name. Andy Mabbett 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Next time please refer such cases to WP:AIV. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was vandalised?

Resolved

• Iamsaa (talk · contribs)

Iamsaa's edit, archiving by MiszaBot II.

I believe some vandalism went under the radar there. Simply reverting it is not a solution since many edits were made ever since. [242]

-- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was vandalism? Because there was a problem a while back with the page histories, where people's browsers were being fed out of date revisions, resulting in large numbers of accidental mass reverts--VectorPotential^Talk 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that was what I saw when Ryulong seemed to delete another editor's comments while adding her/his own. Anchoress 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... mind the [?] on the section header, I am not 100% certain if it falls under WP:VANDALISM. Whatever the intention was, there are missing comments that need to be restored. Both there and at the archive page -- Cat ^chi? 14:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's much that can be done, short of reverting the whole thing, and adding back more recent comments one at a time. There only seem to have been 16 comments to the page after Iamsaa, so it's not impossible, just very tedious--VectorPotential^Talk 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now 17. hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. I tend to think it was an accident of some kind rather than deliberate. Thatcher131 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Bogus MfD closure, and then some

Before I even get into this one, I confess that I was annoying in this particular MfD debate, as I admit at User talk:SMcCandlish#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner, and as amended at this diff with a broad self-revert. Despite no further issues being expressed by anyone, Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the debate while still ongoing, supporting a "consensus" of keep and adding an "admonishment" to me for having proposed the MfD in the first place. I have four issues with this (and if this is really a WP:DRV issue, then say so and I'll take it there): 1) A party to the debate shouldn't close it; it's a conflict of interest. 2) An admonishment is called for in a case of bad faith, but not simply because one disagrees with the XfD nomination or doesn't like the nomintator's debate style, 3) More importantly, the "keep" decision strikes me as faulty; the only conclusion to draw (as much as I would like it to be otherwise) appears to be "no consensus" - a number of ediors raised substantive issues, in detail, that were never addressed by the more numerous but largely "me to" keep commentors, few of whom seemed to understand that the actual gist of the MfD was userspacing (or even another form of compromise) not deletion; and lastly, 4): Of over 30 commentors, only two suggested in any terms that I be admonished for bringing this XfD, and one made it very clear he was kidding, so a finding of consensus that I be so admonished is clearly nonsensical. That said, the fact that one seriously meant it and I got user talk comments about the matter was enough for me to re-examine my participation and change it, to the point of self-reverting much of my own text. I'm not sure what better sign of good-faith could be given. Still, the almost immediate 1 "result of the debate was: keep and admonish nominator" followed by the strangest message I've ever gotten yet on WP, and I've been around since late '05. I don't think I've ever seen an Anti-Barnstar before. From an admin closing a debate he was party to.

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate way to close an XfD, even if you are irritated with the nominator. And I don't like seeing this sitting around in the archives "admonishing" me for having dared to challege something that I thought was (and still think is) ultimately detrimental to the project. That view may be debatable, but it is neither insane nor malicious.

PS: The personal attack message aside, I am being reverted by the same personage at the MfD page in my effort to resolve an edit conflict and add my final comment to that page, which has no effect whatsoever on the closure decision, but simply provides my response to a direct challenge for one. Judging from the edit summaries, he reversions are based on assumptions of bad faith on my part that are not justified (i.e. 'lol "edit conflict". I don't believe you, reverting.')

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from any other issue, what you believe would have been the proper result of "No consensus" would still default to "keep," so precisely how the closer characterized the close is not critical. The "admonition" is one user's view; it's not a formal ruling as part of the XfD process, so I don't think you need to worry overmuch about that. I suppose you can seek a deletion review if you want to, but my recommendation would be to drop the matter and see how this new idea works. If it has as negative an impact as you seem to anticipate, the matter can be revisited in due course. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, closing admins need to understand that what they say in a closing has implications, and the "ruling" to admonish the nominator is clearly listed at the top of the delete debate for everyone to see. There is no question that it may be interpreted as an "official" part of the closing and should not have been included. The closer should keep his purely personal opinions, especially when of a negative nature, to private conversation with the nominator. Lexicon (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it would have been better not to include that comment at that location. Perhaps the closing administrator, on seeing this thread, will refactor the wording. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Regardless of anything else, the "middle-finger barnstar" [243] is a bit much. That really doesn't seem appropriate, whether or not the admonition is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that, having only looked at the MfD discussion itself rather than the talk. I have to agree that that was grossly inappropriate coming from any editor and especially from an administrator. I would urge, though, that the closing admin be given notice of this thread (if he hasn't already) before this discussion continues. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Naruto134

User:Naruto134 blanks discussion topics he disagrees with. He is a high school kid who seems very self-righteous an self-important in his deletions, particularly when it comes to Toho monsters. He is unwilling to debate. Please investigate this guy and try to keep him editing Wikipedia in a proper manner. I don't think he realizes he is crossing lines. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to keep a watch on a couple of newbies

Happened to notice while on vandal patrol that Pwnanza666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ballsmccloon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made seven defamatory edits to Pacman Jones within seven minutes.

• [244]
• [245]
• [246]
• [247]
• [248]
• [249]
• [250]

I got a bit suspicious, given the similarity of the writing styles, and it turns out they were created within four minutes of each other. Pwnanza666 was created at 11:30 am GMT, while Ballsmcloon was created at 11:26 am GMT. They've both vandalized again (albeit to different articles) and have been level 3-warned. This bears the distinct flavor of sockpuppetry--only reason I didn't report it to the sock page was because they're newbies. But keep an eye on them, would you please?Blueboy96 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)