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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

if their sole purpose is to disrupt an article and they haven't contributed anything of value I don't see any reason to permit them to keep editing. If they have contributed material of value to the article though an attempt should be made to reach out to them.--Crossmr 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are real problems with article Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

1. No reliable sources provided to establish notability.
2. Major WP:BLP issues where negative statements are attributed to a living person without proper sourcing.
3. The two sources are YouTube videos. Who uploaded them? Were they doctored? Those aren't reliable sources.
4. Watching a video and writing an article about that video is quite possibly original research or synthesis.

To me, the article looks it should be stubbed immediately, and then either speedied, sent to articles for deletion, or cleaned up. Fixing the article often eliminates the incentive for edit warring. I hope this guidance helps. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article, there's absolutely no version that doesn't violate BLP. Maxim 23:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was discussed in WP:BLPN#Amir Abdul Malik and two editors (I was one of them) didn't find it to be a BLP violation. The comments were also cross-posted to the article's talk page. So I'm not sure why it got deleted anyway as a BLP vio. The text needed sources added to it and some serious clean-up, but that wasn't possible since the article was protected due to the edit war among the users listed above. If the article should be deleted, then it should be deleted for other reasons. –panda 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Block of 209.175.168.14 (talk · contribs)

This ip has repeatedly and blatantly vandalized random subjects. Please investigate and impose a block.

BetacommandBot running riot

Hello I would like to alert the wikipedia community that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) appears to have gone on a mess campaign to get every image licensed under the template {{logo}} deleted reguardless if they have a proper rationale or not. All the images are being tagged for deletion and when this happens the bot posts on the talkpages of articles in an intimidating matter saying in other words "The image will be deleted" basically, claiming that all Rationale's I think we can improve this bot because it just seems to be a nuisance. The sunder king 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of edits you think it's making incorrectly? --bainer (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images which have fair rationales as having no or incorrect rationales. The sunder king 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are looking for is a specific example or two. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit concerns me. The image is the standard resolution with a rationale and proper license, and the bot has threatened deletion on it. The sunder king 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template, they fail WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's tagging images correctly to me. Image:Borough of Sunderland COA.png, Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, and Image:Nwlogo.gif...which you've recently removed the tag from...all have information lacking from their rationales. You've failed to include a link to the article it's being used in. --Onorem♠Dil 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They are being used in articles, but please read Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, it has a strong rationale. The sunder king 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From the tag, "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed."

I didn't say that they aren't being used in articles. A link to the article the image is being used in must be included in the fair use rationale. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read and done that on the description pages. The sunder king 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If Betacommand would be more communicative (your reverts could have had something in the summary) this could have been resolved much sooner. —Random832 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest when you see the amount of complaints/requests on his talk page from people who haven't read the linked pages, you understand why he is now less communicative than before. We all have only 24 hours in our days. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Random. Orderinchaos 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if one finds that he doesn't have time to respond to major questions and complaints concerning his bot's behavior, he should decrease its activity to a more reasonable level. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a simple matter of placing the article the picture is used in in the Fair Use rationale. If you do this, it should be okay. JuJube 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but couldn't BCBot be modified to insert the proper 10c article link rather than tag them for deletion on a technicality? Powers ^T 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that is not something a bot can do, how is it supposed to know where the current rationale is for? not all rationales are the same. β^_command 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, such logos are used on a single page. Powers ^T 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen images uploaded for page A and a rationale was written for page A, Image was placed on page B and later removed from page A. does that mean rationale A is valid for page B? (no) it requires human judgment. β^_command 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object to a bot inserting fair use rationales, that should never be done automatically, or what's the point in having a fair use rationale, anyway? How is the bot supposed to know if the article that the image is in, is actually being used under proper fair use considerations? Corvus cornix 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree, but in the case of logos it seems vanishingly unlikely. The vast, vast, vast majority of cases are blindingly obvious. Powers ^T 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? So, then you think there would be no problem with putting a TV network logo into every program shown on that network and letting the bot create the fair rationale in those cases? I would find the idea that a network's logo in a series or TV movie article would fail fair use usage. Corvus cornix 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here...

...Was not the bot, nor the user who undid the bot. The problem was two sterile reverts: [1] and [2] which restored the bot rationale warning tag without explaining why the tag had been placed.

All editors and administrators bear a responsibility for discussing issues which may come up. We accept bot actions within accepted ranges of activity as exceptions to that - the bot tagging here is appropriate. However, Betacommand manually reinserted the bot tag twice without so much as an edit summary or talk page comment to explain why the rationale that was there was not compliant with rationale requirements in the fair use policy.

I have warned Betacommand for sterile edit warring and failing to take reasonable efforts to inform and discuss and clarify policy when it was challenged. The bot was right; the tag was right; the rationale was deficient. Explaining why it was deficient was B's responsibility under the circumstances, however, and he didn't do that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm supposed to be on wikibreak and I'm getting emails and messages at my talk page from newbies concerned their images are being deleted (I'm sure I'm not alone amongst admins in getting these sorts of contacts) - they simply don't understand what they need to do to make them comply, and there is a general perception out there that the rules and goalposts keep moving, so if they fix it now, they'll have to fix it again in a few weeks or months. This is the main problem I have with this - for the sake of arbitrary correctness we are driving good contributors off the project out of sheer frustration. In cases where it simply points to a redirect or disambiguation instead of the final destination, the bot should fix it itself instead of mindlessly nominating for deletion. Orderinchaos 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That last biut seems kind of obvious to me... Viridae^Talk 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. It is understandable that a bot makes bot-like edits, but it is also reasonable to expect the operator of the bot to provide civil and helpful responses to good-faith queries. --John 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot follows redirects, as for DAB pages those are not valid. As for reverting, if a user actually read the notice, and the link that is provided they would know what the issue is. Instead the choose to undo or revert without fixing the issue that has been brought up. I just revert back. User who come to my talk page I try and help. β^_command 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. In particular, when applying arcane and often confusing policy to users who have little understanding of it, administrators and senior editors have a responsibility to proactively communicate in more detail to get the right message out. We cannot force the editor to listen and understand, but failing to make the effort to explain it to them adequately is assuming bad faith and unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. They should not have to come to your talk page to get an adequate explanation. If you revert, you owe them at least an edit summary that explains. You haven't been doing even that. Please take the time to help people. Assume good faith and explain it to them at least once, preferably at least twice if they don't get it the first time. WP:AGF and WP:BITE require that we treat them with respect and good faith efforts to communicate. The sterile reverts are as far away from that policy and underlying intended policy as you can get... Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

as for DAB pages those are not valid -- no, they're not valid, but what they are is automatically fixable. —Random832 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Worth considering (although tangential to GWH's post that began this thread) is that when one moves a page, a message appears to encourage one to do some housekeeping afterwards -- fix double redirects, etc. It might be useful to add a note to also verify that all non-free images in the article are also updated. -- llywrch 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be some MediaWiki text somewhere. If no-one responds here, raise it at the Village Pump (technical), and I'm sure someone will oblige with a link and maybe an edit. Carcharoth 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant page is MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. It already has this text. MER-C 10:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, since 17th September 2007. I'm sure I missed that on the 5 pages moves I've done since then. If I'm not the only one to find it easy to miss this, maybe make it more visible? Carcharoth 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

The tags added by BetacommandBot seemed to be valid, but users did not understand why the images were tagged. Perhaps BetacommandBot could be reprogrammed to write "rationale lacks information about which article the image is used in" in its messages instead of "bad rationale per NFCC#10c"? This is not the first time I see someone not understanding this message. Is he back? 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "bad rationale per NFCC#10c" may be linked, but it is still jargon and an example of using alphabet soup instead of explaining yourself clearly. Carcharoth 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with and support Betacommand's work, but it cannot be denied that this template needs some work to make it accessible to the average editor. No more bongos 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As a contrast, look at OrphanBot's {{no copyright holder}}. --Carnildo 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the amount of mopping up that has to be done after this bot goes through. For example. A vandal blanks a page (say a list of Simpsons characters) with 10 images on. The bot then runs through and puts an orphaned FU message on them. It takes 3 clicks to restore the blanked page but then users must go though every single image and remove the orphaned file template. If the images were put on by a now abandoned user nobody will be aware that they have orphaned tags on the and they risk being automatically deleted even though they are no longer orphaned. At the very least this bot should post an undo option on the talk page that originally contained the images so that users can simply remove the deletion warning tags without having to open up every single picture in turn.

I'm also concerned that this bot has no oversight. For example, when it comes to FU10C, how pages which actually say where they are posted, but not in a way that the bot can read (for example, a miss spelling or lacking a disambiguation), can be tagged. This bot needs to have a human at the helm. A human could see that an image is used on a single page but that it is misspelled or not disambiguated and they could add the link themselves. This would put the workload onto somebody who knows what they are doing and whom actually wants the workload, rather than on some poor user who doesn't fully understand what's happening or why.

Lastly, this bot doesn't give adequate provision for edits made by IP only users who don't have a talk page of their own or users who have left but whom have an active talk page that isn't checked by anybody. If one of these users adds several appropriate images but makes a small mistake in the rationale, nobody will ever know that they have been tagged or that they are about to be deleted. The bot should post a much clearer warning on the entry's talk page. What happens now is not sufficient.

perfectblue 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletions are done by humans. They should check for disambiguation pages and fix images needing only a simple correction. If they don't, please tell them to do so. Carcharoth 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In theory, they should... but when admins clear the backlogs (somewhat understandably) at rates close to 1 image per second, it's hard to have faith in the comprehensiveness of these checks. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of deleted images could have been fixed with the addition of a quick, perfunctory fair use rationale. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be time to do random checks of the deletion logs of those who clear CSD of images at bot-like speed and find out if anyone is actually deleting images that could have been fixed easily. By easily I mean only the addition of a backlink to the article the image is used in. Adding a rationale should be the job of the uploader. Adding a backlink to the image page is not intuitive, despite being clearly stated in the guidelines, because people may be looking at the automatically generated "file links" section and thinking the image page already links back to the article it is used in. Carcharoth 10:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to hazard a summary...

... of the rough consensus opinion on this recurring issue? Is it appropriate to tag articles like this which do not contain explicit links to the articles in which they are used, but from which a human could derive that information implicitly? Perhaps it is best that they not be tagged, but it is overall better to let the bot run anyway so that it can tag the other (maybe larger) group of images which do not implicitly or explicitly say where the image is to be used? This has come up quite a few times -- each ANI thread has a slightly different spin perhaps, but I think the similarities are quite substantial. Anyone care to attempt a neutral summary on what the general community opinion is? (Or are the issues too dissimilar?) — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I just changed the rationale and backlink for that image without spotting that a different "boilerplate" template had already been used. I looked only one diff ahead after the one you provided, and thought the editor was reverting the bot without realising what was happening. Pointless and sterile edit warring there, as GWH pointed out. Carcharoth 10:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) (aka Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)) is repeatedly disrupting XfD discussions relating to articles and categories in which he has a conflict of interest, despite the guidace at WP:COI to "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 2.Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors", which presumably also applies to autobiographical articles.

A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the most recent problems are with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers and with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the current AfD, Young has:

1. made one edit full of personal attacks, with lots of badly-formatted and barely-relevant links (it appears to be another block-copy-and-paste of a screen of google results) [3]
2. Accused me as nominator of having a COI becaise I nominated a related category [4]
3. chopped up and disrupted the nomination, leaving it unclear who wrote what [5]
4. abusively accuses another editor of "conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking" merely because they frequently comment on my talk page, calling this "a 'pissing contest'"[6]

Young also appears to contributing under an IP adress: [7].

It can often be useful to have the subject of an article comment at AfD, but this disruption is too much. I have restored my nomination, but please could someone try to apply some brakes here before this AfD becomes as much of a mess as the other XfDs where Young's COI has led him to post screenfuls of irrelevancies? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have tried discussing these problems with Young, both on his talk page and mine (see A, B B), including trying to discourage him from noting his canvassing, both in wikipedia and through his mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above user has conducted an unmitigated campaign that borders on abusive of the power and authority bestowed to a Wikipedia administrator. Questionable activities include:

A. Deleting relevant arguments

WP:AN on CfD disruption See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B. Using negative terms

C. Avoiding attempts at negotiation

D. Engaging in retributive AFD nominations

A check of the records will find that this originally started with Category:supercentenarian trackers AFD when the above user decided to delete pertinent material. I am a reasonable person but when someone begins making false accusations and then deleting the reponse, that has gone way, way too far.Ryoung122 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do read wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. BrownHairedGirl reverted your edit because the additions of your arguments made the AfD nomination unreadable. Interspersing your own comments between someone else's is bad enough in general Talk page usage (it's a lot like repeatedly interrupting someone while they're trying to speak) but to do so on an AfD nomination is worse. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, can you please provide diffs (Help: Diff) to substantiate your claims? Natalie 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have now had a further series of edits from Ryoung122 chopping up the nomination for a second time, and in this edit breaking indentation and introducing many paragraphs of material irrelevant to the AfD.

Two editors have taken some steps to tidy things a bit, but the discussion is still a huge big mess, and on past form will get worse if Young contributes again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is formatting, there is no issue. The issue is CONTENT. The content I added was highly appropriate. I merely documented the assertion that what I said about User:Aboutmovies was accurate: that he was the creator of the Mary Ramsey Wood page and therefore had a conflict of interest in this discussion, since he maintained that the woman was '120' years old, when research suggested she was around 97 or 98. User BHG claimed that some of the links didn't mention me, when in fact they did. Thus, in both cases the facts were on my side. The response, to delete them or 'claim' the issue is 'formatting', is a smokescreen.Ryoung122 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had a previous encounter with Ryoung122. I won't deny that he is knowledgable in his field, but the fact he acts as if his expertise excuses all incivil behavior on his part makes him a difficult case. He has been blocked once, & I wouldn't be surprised if he is blocked again, for a longer period. -- llywrch 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around. Some persons have made themselves into 'Wiki-stars' and have made process more important than 'content', making Wikipedia an end unto itself instead of the tool to arrive at the theoretical purpose, education of the public. I don't believe that 'uncivil behavior' should be excused. I do believe that persons who 'claim' someone else is being uncivil, OFTEN are being UNCIVIL themselves. For example,

How about THIS comment:

Comment. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe any of the claims made by Robert Young. In a comment above made from an IP address, Young says "there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet".

If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the typical, BAITING, FALSE comment that BHG has posted. When the facts were on my side, the response is now an appeal to emotion. I note that her track record isn't clean, either, with disputes such as on the Erdos numbers page and others asking her to tone things down a bit. Saying that "I have to seriously question whether anything (they) write can be trusted" is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, given that what I said was VERIFIABLE and FACTUAL. Deleting references that support my statements hardly constitutes a fair, balanced, or civil approach. If the arguments get heated, remember it takes both sides. Remember user BHG started it, by deleting appropriate comments on a CFD page. If one as the accuser claims something is not 'verifiable' then, at the least, one would expect that the 'defendant' could post evidence of verifiability. Deleting proof is simply muzzling free speech.Ryoung122 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that anyone has ever been "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", or even that such a position could exist. and the problem is that Robert does not seem to understand the sweeping nature of the claim being made. He probably intends to claim to that his role as a fact-checker for a popular publication is not limited to old people in any set of countries, but the inability to distinguish between the two is what leads me to query whether any of his claims is credible. This sort of hyperbole is one the things which fact-checkers should be rigorously hunting down, rather than employing it themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I'd like to note some items in your response. First, as Natalie asked above, please furnish diffs -- or at least links -- to the pages you refer. I have spent a couple hours trying to find any trace of this exchange where BHG acted inappropriately. (I assume you are referring to this talk page.)

Second, there is a very clear line between commenting on a person & commenting on their actions; sometimes it is easy to blur the line between them. However, BHG's comment you quote above can be read or seen as a comment on your actions: she is making an observation based on your claim that you are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Taken at face value, the words "in charge" imply that you are responsible for their welfare -- you make sure that these people get enough food, receive shelter, are attended to by a doctor, and so forth. While I know from other contexts that this is not what you meant -- IIRC, you are in charge of maintaining a list of these people -- rather than clarifying this statement, or explaining that you were quoted out of context, you respond with a strongly-worded paragraph with six words capitalized for emphasis! (Using capitalization for emphasis is not like adding hot peppers to salsa: using a little goes much further than a lot.)

This makes for very unpleasant reading, & I wonder whether you are aware of how intimidating your responses can be. And I speak from experience. The one time we crossed paths was at the article Katr67 refers to below. Looking back I'm amazed that although I was only marginally involved in that dispute, reading that conversation left me with an unpleasant impression of you. Every point you made could have been done with fewer words & far less emphasis. Have a look at the discussion at the link I made above, to the CfD on Erdos numbers: people were passionate, even angry, in that discussion, but I rarely saw anyone need to capitalize their words for emphasis.

All of this leaves me with an impression of a person who is given to making sweeping statements, & who responds to questions not with careful, rational arguments, but impassioned assertions accompanied by wild gestures. I don't think this impression is accurate -- seeing how you have a job that depends on meticulous work -- but it is very hard to reconcile these two. I believe this led to BHG to make her observation about you. Unless you change your style here on Wikipedia, more people will come to believe she is accurate. If that happens, they will act appropriately. -- llywrch 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that the conflict at the Mary Ramsey Wood article that Ryoung122 often brings up, (and in which he cited himself as source, which is what necessitated creating an article about himself) was not about whether she was 120 years old, a claim which nobody involved in the article was defending, it was about how to present the information that debunked the claim (which was made in 1908 and not by any of the involved authors, who were simply quoting cited sources). The article history and talk page gives the details of the mediation I requested by Trusilver, involving myself and Aboutmovies, with additional comments from Peteforsyth, who also made some attempts at mediation. I walked away from that article because of the relentless accusations of bad faith by Ryoung122, and I hesitate to comment here now because it's likely my comments will bring additional bad faith accusations, making my editing experience on Wikipedia stressful and unpleasant. If any editor previously uninvolved with the Wood article can point out how my actions there might be characterized as bad faith, however, I will certainly apologize to Ryoung122. Katr67 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what I saw on the talk page of that article it appeared that Young was attempting to brow beat anyone who didn't accept his word and opinions as irrefutable fact. Assuming good faith aside this guy seems to have a self-installed God complex. He appears to be rude, patronising and bullish. From what I saw you have no reason to apologise for anything. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since I’m apparently a topic of discussion, I’ll introduce my introduction to RY. After writing the aforementioned Mary Ramsey Wood article using reliable sources and no original research, I received this lovely message from RY accusing me of re-writing history. I replied to RY that he should really read the article and notice that it was sourced, so no I did not re-write history, I regurgitated it, otherwise that is a violation of original research. I and others then “battled” RY over his changes to the article, not because we cared how old she was, but as I think the talk page bears out, that it was about core Wikipedia policies of verfifiability and reliable sources (plus some WP:LEAD issues and undue weight thrown in for good measure). Instead of dealing with the issues in a civil, measured manner RY wanted to debate the whole age issue and god knows what else, when we just wanted sources per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A, and then presentation in line with the WP:MOS. That’s all. We said the age discrepancy should be included, but it needed sources. Then RY’s auto-biography gets nominated for AFD, and well yes I will comment on that AFD as anyone can. I didn’t stalk RY to find it, I just followed the link he inserted for the autobio in the Wood page. Low and behold it is an auto, and didn’t assert notability per notability guidelines. So yes, I will vote for delete every time in that case, as to me that is the only reason to delete an article (outside of legal issues with copyright). And my past AFD participation shows that is how I roll. Not notable with WP:RS that provide enough substantial coverage, delete. One article with substantial coverage is not enough for me. So when the article was back up for AFD, I reiterated that argument (of which BHG's looks similar to my breakdown of the sources provided). Now, had I actually had a vendetta, I could email the large number of editors RY has ticked off to inform them of the AFD so we could all dance on his grave and start an offical anti-RY cabal. Additionally, I would have also become involved and voted for deletion of the category partially at issue. Then I would have gone around nominating all the other articles for AFD that RY has started. But I didn’t, and I would not. I have not with this or any other editors. I have several “enemies” if you will on Wikipedia that piss me off far more than RY, and I don’t go around nominating their articles for AFD or vote in AFD debates about articles they are involved in. Tempting as that may be, it is not inline with Wikipedia guidelines/policies and that is what is important to me, hence the strong policy based arguments (not random collateral issues like the meaning of the Wiki or Universe) I make whether it is in AFD, CFD, or just in general on talk pages like the Wood article or more recently on this article. This is not about RY, its about Wikipedia, despite rantings to the contrary. I will NOW TYPE in caps for emphasis, that makes my argument better. Oh wait, where’s the bolding and italics? Aboutmovies 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More canvassing by Ryoung122

Just as he did at a recent CfD, Ryoung122 has now done some stealth canvassing of the AfD on his autobiography: see http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9032

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now. Carcharoth 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122: more canvassing and a sockpuppet

In addition to the self-promotional disruption, Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has acknowledged creating a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122). To add to the stealth canvassing ([8]) he has also engaged in extensive partisan canvassing on wikipedia: the AFD on his autobiography (see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), to which he has now posted over 4,000 words. He also been engaging on in more stealth canvssing off wikipedia, through his yahoogroups mailing list: [20], [21], [22]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've looked at the language he uses around the place - he's being pretty savage to people who don't support his "supercentenarian" neologism, falling into the classic trap of believing that not accepting the label implies disrespect to those so labelled. He's also quite blatantly engaged in sockpuppetry, vote stacking, and our od favourite vanispamcruftisement. I think he needs to clean up his act or get out of town, but he's unlikely to calm down while the deletion debates are underway since xFD is pretty brutal. What say we suggest a brief Wikibreak? Guy (Help!) 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note I did NOT use any 'sockpuppets' to 'VOTE' in any AFD debate. I did nominate the Keeley Dorsey article for deletion, which was withdrawn due to a formatting error (I haven't figured out how to create a 'second nomination' yet). The second ID was created with the first! What, that isn't obvious? Just the way that I suspect that User:Guy was once Just ziz Guy, You Know? Is that you?

How about this:

You claim the word 'supercentenarian' is a 'neologism', yet the only 'neologistic' aspect about it is that in the 1950's and 1970's it was hyphenated as 'super-centenarian'...and in the 1870's the term used was 'ultra-centenarian'. Thus, both the concept and the word are NOT new. This is just one of the many, many inconsistencies that others have not admitted to. Compromise and consensus-building must come out of not merely 'assuming good faith' but listening to what the other side has to say. I categorically deny 'vanispamcruft' on the grounds that there is no financial interest or .com link being used; all material is non-profit and scientifically oriented, save Guinness World Records, which in that case hardly needs mentioning as a COI since every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'

So, I ask: your NOT accepting that the word 'supercentenarian' existed before I came along, what does that mean? How can I assume good faith if others are resistant to even the facts? And while a Wikibreak seems like a good idea for everyone involved, continued tagging of articles like Habib Miyan (not created by myself) or A Ross Eckler Jr (not created by myself) is simply giving me 'more work to do' at the same time there are quite a few others. A non-Wikipedian e-mailed me that what is going on appears to be like Sherman's "March to the Sea." Consideration and rules-following must be in both directions. Both BHG and KittyBrewster have, at the very least, themselves engaged in questionable activity including COI nominations, name-calling, deletion of relevant material or crumpling into infoboxes, votestacking, canvassing, etc. Of course it's not called that when someone like them does it. But that's what it is, and the IP addresses show it.Ryoung122 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, no wikikipeda notability guideline says that "every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'" The fact that you claim this suggests that you either haven't read the guidelines or that you pay them no attention.

As to your counter-allegations I have not canvassed anyone, I have not votestacked, I have not offered opinions on the XfDs other than at the XfD pages or when Robert and others have posted to my talk page, and I have no interest in these issues for there to be a conflict, as Robert would be aware of if he read WP:COI. If he has any evidence of any of these things, then he should post the diffs here, and if he he doesn't have the evidence then stop making accusations.

Meanwhile, I'm puzzled by the remarkably limited response to the evidence of disruption and votestacking which has been posted here. Should Robert and others conclude from this that such widespread canvassing, self-promotion and disruption of XfDs is acceptable, or at least sufficiently tolerated to be indulged in without being restrained? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• When the hell is some admin going to sort out the disruptive behaviour of Ryoung122? It's bad enough his overt and OTT canvassing for his autobio's AfD but when he starts resorting to canvassing other editors to help get an administrator blocked for trying to keep his behaviour in check, then that's well over the line. This guy needs cutting off at the knees before he does any more damage. So who's up for it? The evidence is overwhelming, c'mon, enough is enough now. ---- WebHamster 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. For the past few days Ryoung122 has been running a campaign of harassment, bullying and intimidation directed against BrownHairedGirl and anyone else who has supported Delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Now he proposes on Carcharoth's talk page that BrownHairedGirl whose conduct has been unimpeachable throughout these constant attacks be blocked. Let’s have some action now please admins, as WebHampster points out, the evidence against Ryoung122 is overwhelming. - Galloglass 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ryoung122 appears now to have brought his harassment to this notice board. See below for his latest attack on BrownHairedGirl. Past time something was done about this. - Galloglass 13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This kind of behaviour is wholly unacceptable. It's disrupting the encyclopedia. My reasons are outlined in the block log, of which generally they are "Attempting to harass other users: Disruptive editing, pushing POV, repeatatly inserting unverifiable information", as well as (omitted in the reason), abusing multiple accounts. Now, hopefully, we can get on with doing something more constructive than pasting hundreds of diffs on AN/I about a disruptive user. Like writing a neutral, verifiable, stable, well-written article. I have a few of them that I'm itching to write, and I intend to do so. Maxim 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Maxim. Thanks. I'm afraid that I saw no indication that this editor had intention of engaging with wikipolicies on verifiabillity, notability etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current behaviour was not acceptable. I did see some faint signs of being amenable to working in a collaborative way, so I'm not going to agree that an indefinite block was the right thing to do. I would unblock if the user could demonstrate that they can change their ways, but they can't do that while blocked. I'm also wondering is who is going to edit the articles that this editor contributed? The ones that survive AfD, that is. Maxim, would you consider a long but not indefinite block? This editor has only been blocked for 31 hours previously, so possibly a long block might work better than an indefinite one. I fear an indefinite block at this point will only spawn more sockpuppets. Really, though, what is needed is for the editor to expand his editing outside his area of interest in order to gain more experience with Wikipedia. It is painfully obvious that there are basic things he has failed to pick up on, probably due to editing in such a narrow field. Carcharoth 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the question is whether he failed to pick up on them or alternatively chose not to learn about them/not to abide by them? He has been repeatedly pointed to a series of guidelines, and paid no attention to any of them other than occasionally trying to find in some of them a point he could use, generally out of context. I admire your faith, but in this case I don't see the basis for sustaining it. I prefer your suggestion on Ryoung122's talk page that a prerequisite for any unblocking would have to include an statement from him "you understand why you were blocked and what has changed in the interim period". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment. Ryoung122 was editing in a small area. His attitude was abrasive but from my point of view seemed to arise more from inexperience outside that area and an argumentative attitude (neither of which should be reasons for blocks, though his arguments did tend towards the tendentious). I understand that it was the specific threats and personal attacks and levels of disruption that got him blocked, but, to be frank, I think you could have handled this better. Your approach does, in my opinion, contribute to the level of drama sometimes. Like it or not, people not used to AfD and Wikipedia's policies do see nomination of an article for deletion or tagging as an 'attack'. Sometimes just talking to people before tagging or nominating will help. And not just for a day or two. Sometimes turning situations like this around take time, and there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Slow improvement is sometimes better than scorching the earth and starting again. It is possible that Ryoung122 would never have reformed, but I don't think he was given a proper chance to do so. In my opinion, escalating lengths of blocks should have been used rather than an immediate indefinite block. If you read what I said above:

"He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now."

Well, that was actually meant for both you and him to read. From what I can see, you both ignored that plea for calm, and that disappoints me. At some point, when disputes like this erupt, it is sometimes better to step back and become less involved and let others report the bad behaviour. I can understand wanting to see the issue through to the end, but trust your fellow editors and admins to do the right thing. You could have eased off on the tagging and nomination (for now), filed the sockpuppetry report and then stepped back and waited for things to calm down. Carcharoth 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Some truth in that. But an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block. And BHG has said she regrets this becoming such a trainwreck for RYoung122. The troubles is that that he took it very personally (in which he was wrong) and over-reacted. All is not lost for him. But he certainly needs to calm down during a time-out. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make one point regarding the recent article for deletion debate about Robert Young. I posted on the deletion discussion page, and my comments were immediately tagged as if I were a sockpuppet, or some lackey who had been manipulated into posting there by the subject. This assumption seems to have been made because I have only posted and edited one article on Wikipedia (an article on the Jazz singer Jimmy Scott), the reason being that I only recently joined, and am learning the ropes about wikipedia (there is a lot to learn and we are not all born experts! Maybe some people forget that!). Anyway, I found am interesting wikipedia guidleine "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" which I think some of the people on this website would do well to have a look at. I was disappointed to encounter such mistrust and such assumptions merely for expressing an opinion. "Newcomers" may be a bit green, and have a lot to learn, but give them a chance please. You have no idea what an individual might have to contribute once they have learned the ropes. I just thought it was worth adding this because it seems some people may not have considered it. Cjeales 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us your fucking money

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [23] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian <shudder>. I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless. In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose. The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter. --Dynaflow babble 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg. --Dynaflow babble 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages. I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon

I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil ☎ 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow babble 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coelacan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shop steward's thoughts

While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrities are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)

We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is just funny :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [24].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also  Done.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again. The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use. If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner. But I have no choice. It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable. If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem. By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy. Just keep on editing. Keegan^talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I just pointed out above, "not censored" doesn't protect this usage in non-article space. Not censored protects the use of words and images that people might find offensive when they are necessary to article space. It doesn't give you license to fill an article with "fuck" and in fact the policy clearly states that its only allowed so long as it doesn't violate any other policy. So you might want to cruise over to WP:CIVIL and have a read. Which obviously some people feel this doesn't jive with.--Crossmr 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are asking to go re-read Wikipedia:Civility, but let me assure you that I am extremely familiar with that policy. Especially the part that says "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." And the part that says "Profanity directed at another contributor." Please note carefully the "personally targeted" and "at another contributor" language I have bolded.

If someone visited your talk page and demanded that you "f*cking donate," that would be a completely different issue. But colorfully worded satire on your own personal user page is not a violation of any official policy, and it never has been.

I hope it doesn't sound like I am completely insensitive to your concerns. I personally do not approve of such language: I don't use it here and I wish that others would not either. But just as I argued that the personal essay "Don't be a f*cking douchebag" was not a policy violation, I will always defend those who choose to use profanity in a way that is not uncivil. It is simply not behavior that requires administrator attention or action. If someone feels that it should be, they should make a formal proposal at the pump. -- Satori Son 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Humour is not universal and you're going to have to accept that fact that obviously this isn't universally hilarious as its seemed to be thought. But I don't see how behaviour has to be personally targeted to be uncivil. If I go off on a rant about the general behaviour of wikipedians and lace it with profanity you can guarentee I'll be blocked for it regardless of whether or not I name names. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. More than one editor has indicated they don't find this hilarious and have an issue with it. That's enough as far as I'm concerned to consider this as not acting civilly towards each other. Another quote from the page and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.. This obvious was unintentional but people have been offended. And 'not censored' doesn't provide any protection here. So there is nothing here to support keeping this image and a clear policy which indicates it should be removed, along with WP:AGF which means you should take their complaints at face value unless you see any evidence to the contrary.--Crossmr 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against admin action because I think it's "hilarious"; I don't. And I don't see anything that indicates I have not assumed good faith; I have.

My argument, simply, is that official En-Wikipedia policy does not strictly prohibit the use of profanity that is not uncivil. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of policy, but I respect your opinion. And if it's supported by other administrators, I will support consensus. -- Satori Son 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The moment someone comes here to complain about it, it has become uncivil. Whether its intended as such or not that is how its has been viewed.--Crossmr 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if one grants that it's not strictly prohibited (which I would grant), is that really as high as we aim? I don't really care whether it's prohibited; I care that it's unprofessional, tacky, and unbecoming the dignity of this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The key to the civility policy is to act civilly towards others. The presence of the image on a userpage is not directed or addressed towards anyone; it only exists as a self-obvious bit of humorous ironic hyperbole on the part of the user whose page it happens to appear on. Now that the image has been BADIMAGE'ed, there's no worry it might be maliciously forced on a mass audience. If what is causing emotional distress is the image's simple existence, we are dealing with a different issue entirely. WP:AGF also calls for the image's detractors to accept that the users of the image are probably not using it in a manner calculated to shock or offend. As regards the "gratuitous" profanity, as long as we're still citing not being dicks as one of our most important, core values, we have to accept that profanity and quasi-offensive language, in both humorous and merely emphatic contexts, have a secure and long-standing place in Wikipedia's culture. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the humor is as obvious as you make it out to be. I find it cute enough, but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, and writing cultural differences off as some kind of oversensitivity on the part of others strikes me as very unprofessional and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. The f-bomb means a lot more in some places than it does in others. I think the banner is very tacky, and while I wouldn't support sanctions against users who display the banner, I would hope that most of us aim to be a little classier than that. We are being watched by the world, after all. The conflation of profanity with our fund-raising drive is particularly unfortunate, to my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the banner (in a deliberately crappy manner with all manner of bad jpeg artifact) with the sole intention of making people giggle when they clicked on the pipelink to it on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. It wasn't intended for display on talk pages or anything like that. Neil ☎ 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that you made the banner for bad reasons, or that anybody who's displaying it is doing so in less than perfectly good faith. I'm just hoping to point out that there may be reasons for not displaying such a banner that some people have not perhaps considered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i think it is VERY unprofesional of wikipedia to have such a banner. after i see the banner, i will NEVER donate. americans think saying the f word is very funny. here it is NOT. i didnt come to wikipedia to see that kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Doctorfluffy

I believe that the block for sockpuppetry is mistaken. The evidence given is not warranted:

Evidence of sockpuppetry + disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia = eminently blockable. — Phil Sandifer 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the block be removed and the editor allowed to make his own case. Kindly note there was a related discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Pilotbob which make have given rise to this problem. --Gavin Collins 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. User:Doctorfluffy has been active since May; I'm not aware of significant disruption on his part, and I'm not persuaded that he is a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first step should have been to ask Phil, not post here. I've left him a message to direct him here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have here a user whose stated purpose is to delete articles, who says he will only participate in AfD discussions to vote delete, and who has no meaningful mainspace contributions beyond tagging and trying to delete articles. We also have evidence linking him to other accounts with similar editing habits. This is straightforward. Note that I am not the blocking admin - User:David Gerard is, and he blocked for the checkusered sockpuppet evidence. The statement "the evidence given is not warranted" does not seem to me to be meaningful, as I can't find anything beyond David's declaration that Checkuser determined sockpuppetry. This is generally considered sufficient evidence. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• First- you're right that I should have waited until the blocking admin was contacted, rather than endorsing an unblock here. Sorry. Second- User:Doctorfluffy has posted a defense against the accusations of sockpuppetry and disruption on his talk page, and since he can't participate in this discussion, he asked that someone point that out here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Doctorfluffy's claim that he and Pilotbob edit from the same IP during work hours but from different IP's at home (at the exact same time) is at least plausible. Phil, does this assertion comport with your checkuser results? Or perhaps is does not matter: Since other behavior has been found disruptive (on which I do not yet have an opinion), was the checkuser just icing? — Satori Son 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser accounts show all three usernames from different IPs at matching times. They're blatantly single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Pilotbob has been blocked for AFD dickery before - David Gerard 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand. Wouldn't the three users editing from different IPs at the same time indicate that they are not the same person? Am I misunderstanding what you said? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what David means is that, at any given time, all three accounts are on the same IP, and that when one changes IPs, the others do as well. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I understand it: different IP's at matching times. Just wanted to make sure we did our due diligence. — Satori Son 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really thought that User:Doctorfluffy was innocent of sockpuppetry. But if checkuser does not support his assertion, then that would make me wrong. Make a note of the date, because it doesn't happen often. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Slap my blindcheeks and call me Mary. Mental note for future use: just because you've agreed with someone whenever you've crossed paths with them doesn't mean they aren't fucking over the 'pedia. Are there any AfDs we need to revisit because of this? Because I'm too tired to look for myself and must away to bed now anyway: I'm cooking for a party of six tomorrow and need my beauty sleep to achieve it and the associated shopping ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's little more annoying than having someone you thoroughly agree with do dickish things to support it. This is an example of classic sockpuppetry: using second accounts to fake consensus. Which is a gross violation of the Wikipedia way of trying to do things by a real consensus - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left notes on all the open AfDs he participated in (well, the ones that User:JoshuaZ didn't get to first). — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no way for me to defend myself otherwise, I was forced to create a second account. I won't use it in the main namespace or for any other purpose than to resolve this issue, so please don't just block me off the bat.

I don't understand what exactly the checkuser has shown. To reiterate, Pilotbob, AndalusianNaugahyde, and myself edit at work at the same time. I've admitted this repeatedly. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently there are two possible IPs those edits could come from (not one as I originally thought), since we have two internet connections and sometimes users are switched between them. Regardless, all three of our edits during the workday come from that pair of IP addresses. At night, we all go home around the same time, and all of IP addresses would then correspond to our home internet connections. I don't see how this is so damning that the case is immediately closed. What exactly are Phil Sandifer's and SatoriSon's comments referring to? Why is it so surprising that our IP addresses change at the same time? I believe my initial explanation of the situation admitted as much. Doctorfluffytemp 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We don't draw any distinction between multiple accounts operated by a single editor and multiple accounts acting in concert from the same or similar addresses. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read my defense? As I have stated multiple times already, we independently have an interest in notability debates and AfDs, but we have never "acted in concert". The overlap between our edit histories is coincidental due to the fact that we happen to patrol the same sections of Wikipedia, mainly the AfD cats and boards. At most, one of us may have !voted in an AfD the other nominated, purely by happenstance. Can you please find an example where our edits to the same AfD were more than that? Perhaps a situation we were vocally supported each other in an actual discussion? A situation where we acted in such an actively collaborative way that the AfD was tainted? Are our opinions invalid simply because we happen to be in the geographic location? Even taking into account that our separate interests lie in the same niche of Wikipedia, I would still venture that the number of AfDs we have both contributed to is very small in proportion to the number I have participated in. Is it somehow against policy for two people who happen to be in close physical proximity to both contribute to Wikipedia in the same manner? Doctorfluffytemp2 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know about the checkuser evidence, but creating an account for the exclusive purpose of indiscriminately pushing for deletions does seem rather troll-like. The rapid, indiscriminate delete !votes you cast and nominations you made really offer no insight into the merits of the articles they pertain to, and very short time gaps suggest that you couldn't have done more than glanced at the articles. So I really can't imagine what intent you might have had apart from creating the appearance of consensus favoring deletion where there might not otherwise be one. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I refer you to the extensive defense section on my original account's talk page. It fully explains the rationale for what I do. Continually blocking me and not allowing me to even comment in my defense is rather exasperating. Doctorfluffytemp3 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  It would be smarter to cease attempting to stretch our credulity this way. Even if you were NOT a sockpuppet of another editor, it would still be disruptive to create an account solely to attempt to delete content from Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  Your exact concern is addressed in my defense section. I articulate precisely why solely particpating in AfDs is not disruptive and is actually beneficial. I implore you, please read it - I have linked to it multiple times now. Doctorfluffytemp4 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Perhaps the indef block should be reconsidered, as you intentions don't appear disruptive. (Not sure about the checkuser findings; probably best for those with the CU tools to decide.) Still, I think your rapid AfD !votes and nominations can be seen as forceful overrepresentation of a somewhat outlandish view. Your philosophy seems to be if someone else thought this should be deleted, then it probably should be deleted by my standards, so I don't need to look carefully at the content. This makes sense, but I don't think it's how AfD should or is meant to work -- rarely do you see users saying "keep - this is admittedly not notable but I inherently disagree with WP:N," and those who leave such comments are rightly told to bug off and read our guidelines (even though a year ago such comments were generally seen as reasonable). To an extent, AfD participants are expected to !vote in a way that they think is consistent with what the community thinks is best -- a reasonable amount of deviation is always acceptable and helps gauge consensus changes, but in my opinion you were pushing too hard. Perhaps, if the checkusers decide that your explanation is plausible, we should hold a request for comment to discuss these issues? — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (undent) I'm not aware that being a DeleteElf is a reason for being blocked. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing doesn't have a section that suggests a user should be blocked for taking part in AfDs, nor does WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used. Care must be taken when looking at cases involving users whose behaviour one doesn't like or agree with, but whose behaviour as such is not against Wiki policy and guidelines. I understand that Doctorfluffy's participation in AfD's has attracted attention. Though I think this on Nov 5th - for which Doctorfluffy was cleared - followed by a block on Nov 9th looks close to harresment. And, out of interest, I couldn't find any discussion for a request for a checkuser search. I think there are valid reasons to question this block. I do however find that the situation that Doctorfluffy has outlined of three people working in the same office who all set out to concentrate on deleting articles to be one that will invite close attention. If this is true then all three users would need to accept that mass voting in AfD attracts attention, and that if three people are doing it from the same IP address then those users are going to be asked some stiff questions, and will need to be very careful as to how they conduct their accounts. I would like the benefit of the doubt given to all three accounts and the block removed on the understanding that if the accounts !vote or comment on the same AfD in the future that it is highly likely they will get blocked again. Failing that I would suggest to Doctorfluffy and the others that they open new accounts and take great care never to edit in such a way to call into question their honesty - not to support each other in editing articles or in AfD discussions, etc. They would need to accept that given their situation and their editing preferences, they must take more care than the average Wiki editor. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a sound block. I checkusered this user as well and reviewed contributions and the net effect is one user acting to disrupt AfD discussions. I have addressed the objections and made an offer (despite it being a sound block) at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, similarly to how I counseled Pilotbob at his talk. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you mention at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry that you did the check "on request". Could you point us to that request because I've not yet seen it, nor the reasons and evidence for the request. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a request made privately, (estimates are that somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of all requests at en:wp are private and do not appear on WP:RFCU). I adjudged the reason for the request sufficient to warrant carrying the request out, so I did. ++Lar: t/c 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been trusted with checkuser, and part of the reason for that trust would have been that you are not dishonest or seek to conceal things. Yet you are reluctant to be as open about this affair as you could be. There are questions about this case, and it would give reassurance if there were evidence of greater accountability for the reasoning behind the action. I have asked twice already for reassurance, and I am now asking for the third time for the reasons for the check and the subsequent block. You needn't reveal the name of the person or persons who made the request if you feel their reputation would be soiled by this affair; though it would be reassuring if you could at least let us know the reasoning and the evidence. If the person who made the request would also come forward that would be even better. You must be aware that secrecy and evasiveness leads to greater concerns, so if you have reasons for not revealing part of the process that led to this user to get checked and then blocked it would be helpful if you could indicate that. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers are sometimes privy to information that can not be released due to the privacy policy. The checkusers do check each other. Mercury 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more the reason for the check that I am curious about. I've just been spending some fairly dull time looking at the history of the accounts under question and I don't see the reason why a check needed to be done. Also, if two of these users are sockpuppets, and one is the puppet master, then the puppet master would appear to be AndalusianNaugahyde, as that account is the oldest. At the moment the puppet master is claimed to be Pilotbob. The situation is not giving me confidence that this case has been handed with due care and consideration. That a concern about the block has been raised here and several people have supported that concern, yet we still haven't been given sufficient reason for why the check took place, is piquing my curiosity. It has been suggested I request the Ombudsman commission look into the matter, and I think I will. I've just had a look at Lars userpage, and I can see that he is a straight up person who is a highly respected Wikipedian. The impression I get from his userpage is that he would understand my concerns and would support my approaching the Ombudsman as I have not had satisfaction here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a pretty routine investigation. My entry into it came when someone I trust as a good investigator, someone good at spotting correlations, sent me mail asking me to look. For privacy reasons I choose not to reveal who that is, although they can if they wish. I also choose not to reveal what the particular correlations are (per WP:BEANS). It resulted in a pretty routine result, really... 3 accounts that very solidly correlate together. Which account is the puppet master is not something we always get exactly right, and it doesn't really matter actually, it can be changed if it turns out (in cases where there are a lot of socks) that better identification helps more. See also User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, particularly my latest entry, where I opine about happenstance, about cost/benefit and about levels of effort to prove or disprove things. I don't think there is a lot here to look into about why this investigation was carried out but if you want to go to the ombudsman I'd welcome their looking into it because if I've misstepped, or if David did, we of course want to know about it so we can improve going forward. But really, you should know, most investigations happen because of non public requests. What matters is what the outcome is. ++Lar: t/c 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12 (talk · contribs)

I was about to issue a short block to TShilo12 (talk · contribs), but thought I'd bring it here for pre-emptive review instead. I first noticed this user when he posted vague, unsupported accusations of anti-Semitism against another editor while simultaneously complaining about violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I warned him at the time, he argued with me, but ultimately there were no further problems and the issue dropped.

Today I noticed that User:TShilo12 added new "evidence" to the "Allegations of apartheid" ArbCom case, which closed several weeks ago. The "evidence" in question was not evidence at all, but merely a rehash of the unsupported, inflammatory accusations he's made in the past ([25]). All the worse, this was added to a difficult and controversial ArbCom case long after its closure, in what appears to be an attempt to inflame and perpetuate the dispute.

I view this sort of baseless accusation of anti-Semitism as a problem for 2 reasons: first, because it violates the core of WP:NPA by attacking the character of another editor rather than his arguments. Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem. I see no mitigating factors to what appears to be a serious, unsupported attack, made in a long-since-closed ArbCom case, designed to inflame a dispute, and coming after a previous warning. My inclination is to issue a short block here, but as NPA blocks are always a bit controversial and I generally don't issue them (not to mention the underlying issue is inflammatory), I'm bringing it here for feedback before I do so. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I could be happy with the NPA block but a stern warning and reversion of the addition might work too. I certainly agree with your thoughts here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed to see that TShilo12 has done this again. As far as I know, I'd never had any interaction with this editor before he made his unprovoked personal attack on me and other unnamed editors ("an opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins") back in August. I've not had any involvement with him since, other than asking him on his talk page to withdraw his attack (see User talk:TShilo12#Your accusations), to which he did not respond. I have no idea what prompted this fresh attack, since I don't habitually edit Jewish-related articles and my editing lately has been fairly light. Once again it seems to be completely unprovoked. What makes this especially disappointing is that I see he's actually an admin of about two years' standing, so he of all people should know that Wikipedia:No personal attacks means what it says. Given all of this - the repeated attacks, the lack of any contrition, and the fact that as an admin he knows that this isn't acceptable conduct - I think a more significant penalty is merited. I'm not calling for a desysopping (though his conduct does make me wonder about his fitness to hold the sysop bit), but I do think this requires more than a 24 hour block. As an admin myself, I think we need to show that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when it involves repeated, willful and unprovoked misconduct of this kind. -- ChrisO 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with a 24-hour block for repeated and very serious personal attacks, aggravated by the choice of venue. If there is evidence that an editor is an anti-Semite then that's certainly a valid issue, but it's absolutely not acceptable to repeatedly make such a claim without any supporting evidence, based on what appears to be personal animus or something, and to aggressively complain about a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at the same time. Unsubstantiated and repeated accusations of this sort are corrosive to any sort of dialog or community-building here. I recognize this is potentially controversial, so if there's a strong feeling (i.e. multiple editors/admins) that this block is inappropriate, then I'm willing to undo it (or if I'm offline, I don't object to it being undone provided there is real discussion about it here rather than a unilateral reversal). MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody neutral please take a look at this

Ummm… my God? This block is wrong in so many ways. First of all, MastCell, you seemed to me to be very much a partisan in the very arb case from which you excised TShiloh’s comments. To have blocked someone who you disagree with therefore is inarguably an abuse of your admin role, not to mention that blocks for NPA are not generally given except in very severe cases (which this clearly is not), nor am I aware of a block policy regarding adding evidence to a closed case—and if that were a policy, I’m sure the clerks/arbs could handle it.

What Tshiloh was up to, near as I can tell without having talked to him, was blowing off some steam because nasty things were being said about him in an arb case that he was not informed of until after it closed; I think most of us would find that pretty frustrating.

And you leave this up for just a few hours on AN/I (when you can clearly see TShiloh has stopped editing and can’t respond), and get exactly two responses, one lukewarm support at best, the other from ChrisO, who I think we can all agree would not be a neutral voice as this concerns him directly, and you take this as what? Community endorsement? Consensus? I recognize that there are tough calls to be made in blocking form time to time; this is not one of them. I urge you, or some uninvolved admin, to reverse this ASAP. IronDuke 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to unblock at this time. Is MastCell in conflict with TShilo? Because simply "disagreeing" with someone does not prevent you from blocking them; that's not part of the blocking policy. I don't think MastCell is claiming community consensus; he made it clear in his message that he is planning on blocking, does anyone object? No one objected, so he did. I don't understand what would compel someone to make accusations (and that's using a far milder word than I think could apply) of the sort TShilo has made while being entirely unwilling to present any sort of evidence or support. Judging from the previous responses of TShilo to questioning, I'm unsure that a block will do anything to deter him from his actions, so it could be argued that the block is punitive rather than preventative. I'm not entirely convinced of that, which is why I'm unwilling to unblock myself without knowing much, much more background. If the actions do continue, then steps up the dispute resolution ladder must be taken; this behavior is absolutely not acceptable in any shape, fashion, or form. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

bbatsell, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. When I say that MastCell is in conflict with TShiloh, I mean that he was a party to a case that was brought against people who are, or who are perceived to be, pro-Israel, and that the strong possibility exists that, as no remedies of any kind were enforced in that case, MastCell is using a tenuous excuse to block someone he's had a political dispute with. See here among many other instances of MastCell’s taking a decidedly political position on this issue. If I may offer a mild global criticism; I think admins are far too willing to overlook fairly obvious conflicts of interest when other admins use blocking to gain an advantage in content disputes. It troubles me greatly. IronDuke 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in here, but I find:

Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem.

an incredibly important and valid point, just for future readers. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from U.S. military?

Resolved

 – dealt with on OTRS⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I get someone uninvolved to assist in a situation, and possibly give a NLT warning to a user who is threatening potential criminal charges over my reverting of their page blanking? This is all over the now deleted page Weather earl, this user's multiple blankings of that page, and their non-explanation/demands for the blankings on the article's talk. I'm a bit shaken by the threats, and even if I could write a civil enough response on their talk page, which I'm not certain I can currently do, I suspect that any more correspondence should come from someone uninvolved at this point. Also note that the editor in question regularly blanks their talk page, so if you want to see previous conversations with them you will need to go into their talk history. - TexasAndroid 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned them, it's a pretty b.s. threat to begin with so we can let it slide for now. -- John Reaves 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked (before I was aware you were warning them) on the basis that it was a clear threat of criminal charges. I've clearly stated that I'll unblock the minute the threat is taken back. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine Ryan. I'm now more concerned after viewing the deleted page in question. It appears to be an article on a new military technology(?) The last deleted edit was also a legal threat, but given the WHOIS information, it may be credible. -- John Reaves 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it could be a legit legal threat. Maybe let the foundation know? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(After a couple of edit conflicts) My best guess is that he's trying to say that the page was "Sensative", if not "Classified" information, and it was from there that the idea of criminal charges built. If he's with the US Air Force, and in a position to act on the fact that WP had such information inproperly on the project, then I could see how it could somehow lead to such charges. (And that's a *lot* of "ifs".) OTOH, his demands for it's removal were far from clear on what the problem was, making it hard to know if he is for real, or a creative troll. OTOH, with the page deleted by another admin, the threats were mostly moot, which is a good part of why I recommended a warning, not a block. I'm an admin. I know I have to have think skin around here. But this one just has me a bit rattled for some reason. - TexasAndroid 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP taces back to "Air Mobility Command Comp/Systems Squadron" with *.mil adresses, I'd say it's not his creativity. I'm in the process of sending an e-mail. -- John Reaves 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not an official legal threat; rather, I suspect that it is someone in the Air Force using their personal judgment of what is allowed/not allowed. Official channels would call the Wikimedia Foundation.

However, since the article cited no sources, deleting it was proper. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to demand official action they need to do so though WP:OTRS and/or the foundation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weather earl was deleted by prod "No real claim of notability, nor references to establish such.", but it looks noteworthy to me: forecasting weather at airfields is important to save lives and aircraft. Undelete it and AfD it? Anthony Appleyard 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to, go for it, anyone can dispute and undelete a prod. Though it might be best to wait until the situation is settled out a bit first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The version that was deleted should probably stay deleted: it appears to be the operating manual for a specific piece of hardware, and not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. --Carnildo 19:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

American Brit 2: Electric Boogaloo

So, my most favoritest editor evar, User:American Brit, is apparently back, in the form of User:American Brit the second. As AB was community banned, not just blocked, I've blocked the current account and want the community's feedback on whether to lift the ban or not. He left a message on The Haunted Angel's talk page, apparently wanting to put the whole thing behind him.[26]

For those that don't know who AB is, he was community banned for making outrageous threats and insults. (How outrageous? See User:EVula#Collection of threats; that section wouldn't exist without him). You can find a listing of some of his socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/American Brit, read about the initial stages of this situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Crazy wacky funtime, and the actual ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Proposed community ban of American Brit.

As his favorite targets were myself himself (his socks would make death threats against the puppetmaster account), and The Haunted Angel, his statement "I am as fond of you as I always was" to THA doesn't fill me with much confidence...

So, what does the community decree? Shall we do the right thing, or should we lift the ban? (gee, I hope I didn't load that sentence too much... :D) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do pigeons eat human flesh? I thought they were herbivores. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Only when hung from oak trees, apparently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, immediate unblock. Look how remorseful he is! He regrets his "creaul and heartless banning," and is eager to "get things back the way they were." How can we resist the opportunity to get him back, just as he was? Er, wait a minute. Let me think about that. Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm changing my vote to No, I don't think so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as a non-admin, I find something like this alone (sockpuppet of AB) reprehensible, and in no way deserving an unban. The Checkuser case is so long, and so disturbing in demonstrating the non-constructive nature of the editor, that I feel this is further proof this editor is not deserving of an unban at this time. Ariel♥Gold 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I fairly surprised that this isn't a request for review of a "No, thank you very much, but it was kind of you to ask all the same." response... LessHeard vanU 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I decided to be even nicer than the situation actually warranted. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

COmmunity bans of some users could/should be removed because their net effect on the project will probably be positive. This isn't one of those cases. Daniel 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The instigator of the community ban votes no. Banned. Let ArbCom review it, but that was nothing more than trolling. Keegan^talk 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think bringing ArbCom into it is overkill, especially with the overwhelming support for leaving the ban. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot "rating" articles and leaving notes about it

For quite some time now the talk pages of articles have been filling up with WikiProject templates saying things like "This article is supported by the Sports and games work group" or "This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma". I personally think this is, at best, meaningless non-sense. Saying that an article is supported by a certain group should mean that there is a group of people which is actively involved in improving it or maintaining it. Usually nothing of the sort is true - the article is usually written by a random Wikipedian and then some other Wikipedian involved with a vaguely related project has auto-tagged the talk page to claim it for the project or some subgroup thereof. What we get out of this is cluttered talk pages containing misleading and distracting text. This is probably particularly misleading for newbies who will think that this stuff about projects and workgroups "supporting" the article means something and will get the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works.

These WikiProject templates typically contain a parameter for rating the quality of the article. Quality assessments could potentially be useful but there's no reason to tie them in with WikiProject templates unless, and I think that's the original idea, an article could be of different quality depending on from what project you're looking at it. For example an article on a famous chess player who's also a politician could cover the chess part of his career in an excellent way (meriting, say, an A rating) but be lackluster in the political part (say, a B rating). In reality people don't seem to apply the tags this way a lot, the different projects seem to usually have the same rating for a given article. User:Betacommand seems to have picked up on this and is now having his bot go through articles and duplicating ratings across different WikiProject tags. So if an article is already "rated as Stub-Class" on the scale of WikiProject Biography then it now gets to be rated as stub class on the scale of WikiProject Oklahoma too. This is massively redundant. If ratings are not project-dependent (and they don't really need to be) then don't keep them in the project tags - make a new tag just for that and cut down those banners a bit.

Now, I'm used to seeing my watchlist spammed by useless juggling of project tags on talk pages but now BetacommandBot has started leaving notes under new headings that the bot has rated the article with the method above. Enough is enough. Talk pages are for talk. Human talk. They shouldn't be full of clutter. I asked Betacommand to stop the bot. Five hours later I followed the link on User:BetacommandBot which is supposed to stop the bot. Nothing happened so I went ahead and blocked it. Haukur 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last edit made by the bot before I first blocked it: [27] Haukur 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject tags have a broad consensus and universal use. Presumably Betacommand has proper approvals for the assessment project, and it's very useful for the projects that care about assessments. What are you asking for? That the bot not leave a note? I don't think the note is terribly obtrusive, and it does highlight a relevant change to the article. What are the pros and cons of omitting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Have you even tried talking with User:Betacommand? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note and then waited five hours before doing anything. He doesn't seem to have been around for the last ten hours or so. The method he gives for stopping his bot doesn't work, forcing me to manually block him and that's why I brought up the matter here (not that I think blocking bots is a big deal but still). Haukur 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making useless clutter. Of course we can live with it but there's just no need to. If what the bot's doing is uncontroversial then it doesn't need to leave a note. If it's controversial then it shouldn't be done by a bot. The bot will even happily leave more than one of these notes per page: Talk:Neel E. Kearby. And why, oh why, doesn't the bot handle all the project tags on each talk page in one pass? Haukur 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't address the thrust of my criticism: Why should the ratings be embedded in the project tags if they're going to be the same for every project? Why not just have a separate little tag for the ratings? Haukur 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not useless, if you don't think a practice is good them discuss, don't block. 1 != 2 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked a bot, not a person. I did leave a note at the bot talk page, but wouldn't you know it, the bot went right on editing into the night without attempting any discussion with me at all. Rude fellow, you should scold him. Haukur 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for what it was doing and many other bots do this task as well and have done so for a while. This is not the type of thing to block for. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was never approved to add comments to thousands of talk pages. Nor was it really approved for the specific thing it is doing. Nor is it doing what it's supposedly doing very well. Haukur 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Adding wikiproject banners to article talk pages and associated issues." - how was it differing from that scope? Mr.Z-man 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is leaving comments under new headings to explain that it rated an article an "associated issue" to adding wikiproject banners? That's certainly interpreting its mandate very broadly. Haukur 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should note that even this approval you cite urges caution, saying: "please be aware that there is mounting dissatisfaction at the number of talk pages with multiple tags" Well, I'm part of this mounting dissatisfaction, I suppose. Haukur 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, your comment about trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating, and, probably more important, it would basically require an entirely different tab to keep track of the banners, which is probably all but completely unworkable, and would certainly be rather expensive and time consuming. If you really want to reduce banner clutter, then probably the best thing to do would be to use either the {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to reduce the amount of space they take up. In fact, it's even recommended that one or the other be used if three or more banners are in place. However, in several cases I've seen today, there has been absolutely no discussion ever on a given article, even if it has existed for several years. In those cases, adding the banner and at least letting the associated project know that article exists might be one of the few ways available to get any attention to the article. John Carter 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating I don't follow, what about the article's talk page? Is a more central forum for discussing the article's worth needed? trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before But isn't that what the bot is doing? Anyway, yes, hiding those silly banners under yet another banner is somewhat helpful - but the edits doing it still throw up dust on my watchlist so I'm a bit apathetic. Haukur 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for adding WikiProject tags to pages in specific categories, not for anything having to do with ratings. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking comment per link to another approval page posted by Betacommand. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to sleep, you lot do what you want. If you honestly think edits like this and this are useful then go ahead and unblock the bot. (Not that you need my permission.) I stand by everything I've said, though. Haukur 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering your invitation, and the general consensus here that the block was not the best solution I am unblocking Betacommandbot. 1 != 2 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth on this one -- I just don't see any benefit to adding redundant ratings. It just causes page clutter, watchlist clutter, and possibly confusion. If it's just done so that a human from a Wikiproject never has to touch the article, then the article probably shouldn't have the WikiProject tag in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dont like bot edits on your watch list there is a nice little option to hide them, use it. Ive got full approval for what Im going, Ive been doing this for a long time and have had over 10,000 pages fixed prior to today. β^_command 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. I don't necessarily want to hide all bot edits - I want to review some of them. It's the useless talk page edits of your particular bot I don't want to see. You say you have "fixed" 10,000 pages, I say you have done marginal damage to 10,000 pages. Besides, your bot is just plain buggy. Why doesn't it stop editing when its talk page is edited like it says it does? Why doesn't it add this redundant rating stuff to all WikiProject tags at the same time? Why does it leave the same message twice for pages it does two passes on? Haukur 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When was this approved? Link, please. (And I don't use my watchlist, FYI in case anyone was dying to know.) :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 is where this task was approved. β^_command 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm, and actually a lot of benefit to adding ratings to existing wikiproject templates. One of my projects, WP:BAY, has a drive to help identify important articles that can be expanded beyond stub status. I for one often look there to see how I can help. In the past few days it has assessed about a dozen, probably more than any of the project members. In fact I was about to give the bot a barnstar until I realized it had been blocked and brought here, which would make my barnstar a little ironic. There are probably things to improve such as the way it leaves messages and how it decides what to do if the ratings are contradictory. But it's a great start and in my opinion doing a lot more good than bad. Incidentally, I consider it bad form to rate articles I create or significantly expand, and a little pushy to add assessments for projects I have no involvement with, so that's one way tags are left without ratings. Also, if I know the bot will soon conform the ratings it's a lot simpler for me to just add it once than to multiple templates...kind of the way you don't have to add the date to the {{fact}} template because you know the bot will fix it for you. Wikidemo 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is substantial harm to filling talk pages with redundant bot output. For one thing it makes everything less accessible and friendly to newbies. They go to the talk page of an article they may be interested in and find that it's full of this bureaucratic claptrap. They might think all this non-sense about such and such a group "supporting" the article is actually meaningful and maybe figure that they shouldn't edit the article because they're not a part of the right group or whatever. I'm sure redundant messages from bots "rating" article don't help. Talk pages that should be empty are now full of cryptic template code and redundant bot output. I've never seen any of this lead to actual improvement of articles. Haukur 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My god, why are people getting so worked up about this? Calm down, have a cup of tea, a biscuit, and go edit an article. No more bongos 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All out of biscuits. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This practice must stop. Does Betacommand also use "autocontent wizards?" There is no such thing as an "automated assessment." It is a contradiction in terms. If it's automated, then it's not an assessment. If it's an assessment, then it can't be automated. This -bot, from one of the shabbier folks about, insults everyone who has ever performed article assessment. Their work has hereby been reduced to the level of a checksum. Their minds have just been evaluated by Betacommand and concluded to be negligible. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever written an article. Your work at putting together sentences, at being concise, at finding the correct terms, has hereby been called irrelevant by Betacommand. Those arguing "for" not blocking are, essentially, saying that convenience trumps both the editing spirit of the people doing assessment and the people doing writing. If you think that is no big deal, then you probably need to go do some checksums and leave the world of editing articles. Geogre 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do you understand what the bot is doing? the bot does not do any real assessing. what the bot does do is add a already present assessment to another template. you seem to misunderstand what it is doing. β^_command 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of having the exact same assessment duplicated across multiple templates? Why are you making thousands of edits to talk pages which add nothing to them which isn't already there? And why do you feel this activity is so important that the bot needs to leave notes about it at every talk page it visits? Haukur 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its part of the WikiProject system, since you seem to not understand that system and hate it, I will not attempt to explain it. Also I was requested to do this and have had a lot of positive feedback. β^_command 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, Betacommand, you "have been requested" not to do this. In fact, you say that you won't communicate with people who don't like the "system" (because they don't understand it, of course!), so I'm not sure that claiming virtues of listening to people really sticks. Try listening to people who don't want the autocontentwizarding. Consider the following: in the absence of consensus, the status quo is the preferred form. Is there consensus for you? Is it just consensus among those you like? Is it only consensus in your mind? Again: you're being asked to stop, so stop. Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's part of the system" - so it doesn't have to make sense? How is your bot leaving comments on thousands of talk pages a part of a system useful to Wikipedia? Why do you feel you don't even have to explain this? You are completely responsible for every edit done by your bot. If you can't (or won't) explain why you think edits like this and this are useful, then you shouldn't be doing them. Haukur 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just assuming here, so I could be completely wrong, but doesn't assessing the articles allows the WikiProject's to decide which articles they can collaborate to improve? If they are unassessed then it means a human being has to do it and it's time-consuming work, more easily completed by a bot. Is it the action you find disagreeable or the note? Seraphim ^Whipp 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, yes, all those stub/start assessments and tags are supposed to lead to actual people actually improving articles. I can't say I have observed this happen, though, and the plan seems rather Dilbertesque to me. Step 1: Tag lots and lots of articles and automatically rate them. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit! If anyone has diffs which show some causal relation between a bot editing templates on an article's talk page and that article being subsequently improved then please present them. Haukur 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Haukur, Im choosing not to explain it because you obviously do not like or understand the wikiproject system. What the bot does is share the basic rating of stub or start between wikiprojects that are unassessed but have been rated by someone else. β^_command 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the bot does - I don't understand how what the bot does is supposed to be useful. I'm starting to think you don't either because you're not making any sense. How is my not understanding something a reason for not explaining it to me? Haukur 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's useful for the reason I pointed out. I don't know if there is a relationship between the articles being assessed and improvement, but there it is, that it what the bot is for. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<-- moving back

The bot is useful in that it addresses the thousands of project page that have been tagged but left unassessed, this occurs purely because editors create a stub add the project tags but dont include the rating on each one. As such I see the bots action as useful in addressing that, but maybe it should be expanded to add {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} thus combining project tags. Gnangarra 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

id rather not mess with re-arranging text, (its open to a lot of errors) and there is already a bot for bannershell. β^_command 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the maths WikiProject does not want this given Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 24#Tagging math articles (which is admittedly not quite about the same thing but in my opinion it's sufficiently similar). Personally, I don't think this is useful. I'd prefer that the bot stopped doing this, and I think I have a good case to request this at least for maths articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has decided to listen to those who agree with what he's doing ("like the project" = "agree with him," and he has said that he doesn't want to talk to (presumably to hear from, as well) those who do not "like the projects") and substitute that for general consent. It isn't. The eventual crisis of "Projects" contradicting site-wide policies remains in the future, but we are merely seeing someone with a -bot executing across all articles without reason and refusing to listen to someone. I'm sure that the Math Project will fail to understand or like Projects, too, by Betacommand's rhetoric.

If the only way to forestall autocontentassessmentwizardbot is to go through and remove all assessment tags from any articles that one believes deserve human consideration, then so be it. I imagine, though, that that would only prompt another -bot that understands Projects to go on another rampage (and count all those edits toward RFA). Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot performs a valuable service

As someone who regularly goes through the Category:Stub-Class Wine articles and Category:Start-Class Wine articles for the Wine Project, I am one of the many different project members who are grateful for the work of the Betacommandbot in assessing start/stub articles (feel free to look at our assessment logs). There are many times when a new editor or anon IP will slap the {{wine}} tag on a new article they created and then forget about. Being a project that is fairly active about the status of our stub articles, with Betacommandbot's assistance, we can better categorize our articles and areas of need. Now there are times when I disagree with the Bot's assessment but it an easy fix to reassess it. While the extra "talk page message" is probably not needed, the basic function of the bot is useful in catching articles that project members might not be aware of. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't this be an opt-in service for particular projects? Assuming for the moment that ratings are useful, different projects are surely rating against different things. An article about a scientist can be a decent biography but do a mediocre job explaining the science, an article about a protein can adequately cover its structure but give short shrift to an associated disease, etc. If two projects opt in and both have their tags on the talk page, then the assessments get duplicated; if not, no need. This would at least keep the clutter restricted to articles where projects are active and actually use the ratings. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An opt-in option would be the best way to resolve this. Carcharoth 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer an incident needing admin attention, please go to the bot noticeboard, a project discussion area, or a user talk page. This is page is for incidences that require admin attention. This is an argument that can be settled in a more appropriate venue(perhaps you can talk to the people that participated in its approval discussion). 1 != 2 14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Terribly shoddy block by the way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:高 edit-warring and changing page name without consensus

A few days ago User:高 decided to unilaterally turn the longstanding disambiguation page Magnetic Hill into a redirect to Gravity hill. Another user has reverted this several times, and so have I, but User:高 continued to make this major and non-stadard change five times, even though he obviously had no consensus or even common sense reason for doing so. Looking at the edit history, User:高 doesn't seem to understand what disambiguation pages are for.

Now he has changed the title from Magnetic Hill to Magnetic Hill (disambiguation), again without consensus, but even worse, he has started deleting articles listed on the disambig page, for example here [28].

There are now eight different articles associated with the term "Magnetic Hill", and there is no primary topic for the name. Believe me, I have been researching gravity hills for more than ten years (hence my username), and gravity hills are nearly always referred to as gravity hills. If anything, the tourist attraction in Canada is more commonly associated with the term, but there is really no single article which could be determined to be the most likely target for people searching the term. Therefore the disambig page should be at the Magnetic Hill title.

Could an admin please change the name back to its previous correct name? Thanks. Magnetic hill 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment - I have tried to assume good faith of this editor, but now User:高 is violating WP:POINT as has removed the list of locations in the Gravity hill and pasted them to a list named List of magnetic hills. Once again, no consensus for this drastic change, and naming it "List of magnetic hills" instead of "List of gravity hills" (to match the article) appears to be just to make a point. Can an admin look at his editing and take the appropriate action please? Magnetic hill 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would really recommend the WP:DR tools. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, it's a straightfoward case of an editor making drastic changes without consensus. I was under the impression that responsible editors should seek consensus before renaming pages, removing content, etc. Magnetic hill 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but IMO that list of hills shouldn't be in the Gravity hill article or in a separate list. I had a look at the history of Gravity hill and it's mostly made up of passing editors adding dubious unsourced claims, even many of the gravity hills with refererences have sources that I wouldn't call reliable. Merge it back to Gravity hill and remove all the unverifiable stuff and that way it won't take up so much space. I agree about reverting the dab back to Magnetic Hill though. Crazysuit 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost comical to see one rant of consensus conveyed by scorn. I'll kindly point to WP:BRD. Apparently the first and third steps are lesser known than the second. 高 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (I'm the "other user" who reverted some of 高's edits, in case anyone hasn't looked at the edit summaries). I was assuming you thought the disambiguation page was a list of gravity/magnetic hills, instead of a list of articles called Magnetic Hill, but your recent creation of List of magnetic hills does appear somewhat pointy, given that the article's called Gravity hill and the category's called Category:Gravity hills, so the list should be called List of gravity hills.

Regarding your constant revertions to Magnetic Hill (disambiguation), why would someone searching for Magnetic Hill (Canada) find it helpful to be directed to a page listing hundreds of gravity hills? Disambiguation pages help readers find the article they are looking for, just because the disambiguation page contains articles that also happen to be gravity hills doesn't mean it should be redirected to the article about gravity hills. It would show some good faith on your part if you moved the list of magnetic hills back to the main article and tried bringing it up on the talk page, editors respond more favorably to major changes when they are discussed first (and WP:BOLD isn't an excuse here for not discussing first, because your changes were clearly going to be controversial considering your other recent edits). Masaruemoto 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's migrate this to the relevant talk page without further aspersion, for the sake of step three. Perhaps in the process you could read WP:BRD-- bold edits are acceptable without prior discussion. Maybe next time step three can be mutually followed to prevent the needless elevation exhibited here. 高 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a username vio, since the username is in non-latin script?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg and its uploader Fresheneesz

When I saw this untagged on 8 November 2007, I tagged no license. The uploader removed the tag and replied to me in an uncooperative way on the same day, claiming the copyright info clear, but I disagreed as 'This picture has permission to be used by wikipedia: "I can send them a permission form if they need/want something like that. Doug Malewicki"' would not be enough. I asked what kind of permission that would be, such as GFDL, CC, or PD. The uploader remained uncooperative by removing warning tags without giving exact license and claimed my tagging inappropriate while I would still disagree my tagging inappropriate. For the uploader's uncooperative attitude, I would like to ask any other admins some actions:

1. Please intervene to tell the uploader that we cannot accept images with permission to be used by Wikipedia if not properly tagged.
2. For admins who can access OTRS, please check if any mew message is received in connection with this message.
3. If the uploader remains uncooperative and still removes the no-license warning, the image may still have to be deleted. Blocking is what I prefer not to do, unless there is absolutely no other way.--Jusjih 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I tossed him a note, let's see if he understands this. Should we tag with {{db-noncom}} now or later? hbdragon88 08:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems that you've already informed him about the "no permission-only" rule. Let's see if my explanation will do the trick. Personally I am tempted to go ahead and get it speedily deleted after he told you to "pull that stick out of your ass." It can always be undeleted after copyright status is clarified. hbdragon88 08:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. This is a promotional image of something that actually does not exist, even in prototype, but I am sure that Fresheneesz will be able to persuade the inventor to release it in order to maintain his wonderful advertisement on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The uploader does not understand our licensing policy well. If you come to my talk page you will see uncooperative attitude. Now, I need someone to check OTRS if any mew message is received in connection with this message while I have no access.--Jusjih 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we got it now. He tagged it as {{promotoinal}} and I added a fair use rationale. A smaller version will have be uploaded. I have requested that Fresheneesz keep trying and asking the copyright holder to release it under a free license. Yet the ultimate question still must be asked: does ti contribute significantly enough to the article in question to justify its fair use claim? hbdragon88 08:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne

• Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am camping on DreamGuy's talk page because he's been subjected to near constant trolling. One of his trolls, User:Ideogram, was site banned based on a report I prepared. Ideogram claims to have undiscovered socks, so I keep watch.

Earlier today I semi-protected DG's user page when an IP vandal redirected it to asshole. [29] Yes, there are nasty folks who get their jollies bothering DG.

For whatever reason Arcayne seems to have joined forces with the trolls, or maybe been fooled by a Joe job. I don't see any connection to Ideogram, but I am concerned about the situation. Arcayne has made two posts to DreamGuy's talk page [30] [31] after being politely asked not to post there, twice.[32] [33]

Around October 25 DreamGuy removed a thread from his talk page that consisted of pestering. [34] Users are given broad latitude to do what they want on their own talk pages. Arcayne restored the thread. [35]

Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 and greatly lengthened a thread at arbitration enforcement with a lot of verbage, but few enlightening diffs. (Overly critical)

Does anybody have suggestions how to handle this matter? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i would imagine that the first way to address the matter would be to actually get your facts a bit straighter. Let's address them singly, shall we?

• Arcayne seems to have joined forces with the trolls, or maybe been fooled by a Joe job - prior to today, i didn't even know what a "JoeJob" was; I can fairly assure anyone who is interested that I am in fact real, and have never engaged in any net or email spoofing. Of course, if Jehochman has anything approximating proof of this, I welcome him to submit such. As it is, I have never acted in a trollish manner to or about GreamGuy, and have in fact defended his edits and ability to edit until i discovered that he was likely sockpuppeting and breaking his ArbCom restrictions.
• Arcayne has made two posts to DreamGuy's talk page after being politely asked not to post there, twice - this is in fact incorrect. My first post after being told that I was in fact one of these apparent "trolls" was to inquire as to why I was included in this bunch as well as to point out that my posting was was required to inform him of the ArbCom complaint. The second instance was to inform him - as required of the SSP report that was filed. Again, my notifications were required by Wikipedia policy.
• DreamGuy removed a thread from his talk page that consisted of "pestering". Users are given broad latitude to do what they want on their own talk pages. Arcayne restored the thread - while I may have erred in reinstating his talk page comments, i thought it important that anyone wanting to comment on DG's uncivility and/or personal attacks shouldn't feel like they were the only ones doing so. I didn't evaluate the comments, but none of them seemed to be uncivil, attack-y, pestering or trolling.
• Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 - actually, I did this at your suggestion, Jehochman. While you are of course able to form an opinion of the accusation of your friend, you, I am following the steps you suggested I take.
• and greatly lengthened a thread at arbitration enforcement] with a lot of verbage, but few enlightening diffs - again, apparently, you haven;t read the scope of the issues i have with your friend DG. As its rather clear that you aren't very neutral in this matter, perhaps a really good idea is to avoid acting int he capacity as an admin?

My suyggestion is to await the results of the Checkuser and Sockpuppet reports. When they return results, those will be applied as evidence to the ArbCom complaint (which someone else filed, btw). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection to nor friendship with DreamGuy. He's had his own problems, but that doesn't mean he should be subjected to abuse. He deserves the same protection as any other user. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, calm down, and present a few diffs showing DreamGuy doing something wrong. Within your SSP report, there's one IP that is quite likely DG. The others most likely are not. Can you show evidence, in the form of diffs, of incivility by that IP? If so, I will block DG myself. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you with the research:

• These are potentially rude: [36] [37] [38]

I'd like a second opinion as to whether these are sufficiently uncivil, per the terms at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#DreamGuy restricted, and also to determine whether this IP is a sock per the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 to warrant a block on DG. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that those diffs are at least borderline uncivil, the first one probably going into inivility. I'd like to see the IPs checked at SSP before any further action is taken. Wizardman 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a lot to work through, but I am fairly sure that the two anon IPs are going to show as being from the same user, as User:71.203.223.65 created the account for user:82.38.177.222 here (it's worth noting that the first edit under that ID was blatant vandalism). the telling connection is going to be that between DG and user:71. Proving the connection between those two essentially proves the connection between all three - and all three edited in the same article.

Jehochman, if I have misinterpreted your zeal in protecting DG, then an apology is in order. I do not feel like I have subjected him to abuse whatsoever; I too have in fact defended his edits and his right to overcome the hurdles set before him as well.. It was only after this IP stuff came up that I was less inclined to defend him - I have zero tolerance when it comes to socks. Even when the behavior set off alarms, not once did I post a personal attack or was uncivil.

I too will wait until this all becomes clear with the SSP check. As I had not filed one before, could someone please check to make sure I filed it correctly? I'll do all the heavy lifting, just tell me what needs fixing if it needs such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. There's enough trolling aimed at DG that it's sometimes hard to identify friend or foe. The diff you cited between the two IPs just shows one IP giving the other a vandalism warning. I don't think the IPs are related to each other, but I do think one IP is related to DG. This happened three weeks ago, so we can wait to see what DG has to say about this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. However, I did ask him on at least five different occasions if he was in fact any of the anon users, and each time he either said it wasn't important or avoided addressing it. it begs the question, if you are innocent, why avoid saying so? I think its fairly likely that the IP was used to side-step the rstrictions and edit freely, or in this specific case, edit-war - something DG isn't supposed to be doing, as its inherently uncivil; the edit summaries don't help, either. Had DG addressed this and taken whatever lumps ArbCom Enforcemetn felt were necessary when it first came up, it wouldn't have become as involved as it has. I do see that it might very well be that the 83 user's talk page was "created" by 71 posting a comment there; on closer inspection,it seems likely to be the case. Again, had DG said anything about this before, it wouldn't have become a Thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus. Can you present a sequence of three or four diffs that show edit warring by User:71.203.223.65 and User:DreamGuy? If you can present a sequence that shows them acting in concert, or separately, that will be helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I kinda did that in the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, but perhaps I showed too many diffs.

As user 71.203.223.65:

1 - 12:33, October 18, 2007

2 - 09:59, October 20, 2007

3 - 16:19, October 21, 2007

As User DreamGuy:

4 - 13:50, October 22, 2007

5 - 13:52, October 22, 2007

6 - 13:54, October 22, 2007

7 - 13:56, October 22, 2007

8 - 13:58, October 22, 2007

9 - 13:59, October 22, 2007

10 - 14:00, October 22, 2007

11 - 14:03, October 22, 2007

12 - 14:12, October 22, 2007

Edits #1-3 were made by the anonymous user. Edit #3 was a revert of the article version.

Successive edits #4-9 by DG show successive edits to restore to the prior version previously reverted to by the anonymous user (I'm willing to be charitable and consider them all a collective revert, though an admin weighing 3RR or civility might see it differently), so we'll call them a single revert as well (revert number two).

Edit #10 is revert number three.

Edit #11 is revert number four.

Edit #12 is revert number five.

There are three more edits after that, all serving to reinforce the edit DG (and user 71 beforehand) continually reverted to, all within a 24-hour period. Even were the issue not of multple accounts serving the same purpose (reinforcing a previous version), DG still violated 3RR. When we count in the reinforced edit of the anonymous user, the violation becomes that much more egregious. As edit-warring is specifically considered hostile (and therefore uncivil), an editor under civility restrictions would normally be avoiding reverting more than once, preferring to discuss their edits instead. In point of fact, both the anonymous editor and DG were asked repeatedly to discuss their edits instead of edit-warring, without success. It bears meantioning that similar activity took place in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee article between 10/18/07 and 10/22/07, again involving three reverts by the anon user 71 and DG. As 3RR is not confined to simply three reverts, but instead a pattern of disruptive behavior (in this case by a registered user and his anon), I think it should be considered as well.

Was that what you were looking for, Jehochman? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy blocked

We have strong evidence that DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) engaged in incivility, edit warring, abusive sock puppetry, and gaming the system to evade ArbCom sanctions. I'll add that DreamGuy ceased editing under his own account from Aug 24 until October 22 ("he has not been heard from since Aug. 24, so maybe there's no longer an issue" [39]), and used a sockpuppet during that time while his ArbCom case we being discussed. [40] [41] [42] This was apparently a ruse to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. I am going to block the account for abusive sockpuppetry, gaming the system, and disruptive editing. The reason for the block is to prevent further disruption and sockpuppetry. If an IP appears to edit for DreamGuy, it may be blocked for block evasion. DreamGuy's block should *not* be lifted without a discussion and consensus. I am going to bring these matters to the attention of ArbCom and ask them for advice. The block is stated as one week, but may be increased because there is no reason to allow further editing until another arrangement is made. The sanctions imposed were based on an incomplete understanding of the situation. Had ArbCom known that abusive sockpuppetry was occurring during the discussion of the case, I think the result would have been different. I invite discussion, but please don't refactor the block until we come to a consensus. DreamGuy may comment on his talk page, and the comments may be copied here. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the situation the IP 71.203.223.65 first edit was on 29th August and the bulk of the edits relate to Jack the Ripper most telling I find in this is that at 20:08, 23 October 2007 -- was the IP's last edit and that 20:18, 23 October 2007 -- Dream guy account made its first edit of the day. While the issue is under consideration by Arbcom theres enough apparent commonality for the block of DreamGuy and this IP. Gnangarra 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Snuh?(!) This is all far too convoluted and longwinded. I click on the second link in the passage reading while his ArbCom case we [sic.] being discussed. [43] [44] [45] and it is simple vandalism reversion (The Mammoth cock of Jack the Ripper → The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper). What on earth is going on here? El_C 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs) for the same period Gnangarra 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jack the Ripper#The The 'Canonical Five' gives a brief insight to the commonality of these two accounts. additionally this edit isnt vandalism its removing "Ripperologists" link something I saw frequently in DreamGuys edits. There also this by the IP and this by DreamGuy notice the similarities in edit summaries. Gnangarra 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've placed this in ArbCom's competent hands.[46][47][48] Let's see what they say. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly impressed with your conduct here, Jehochman. I expect more efforts geared toward clarity, next time. El_C 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you seriously just block an editor for month-old edits, or are am I just missing something? I don't understand quite what the point of this in-depth investigation of old edits in order to find something blockworthy is. Dmcdevit·t 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for having undergone through the labyrinthine collections of diffs, Dmcdevit. I don't think it was fair to subject us to this (which to say, a more concise, organized approach was to be expected, on the part of the blocking admin, if not the original individual who levied these charges). As concerning is Jehochman seeming unwillingness to spell out what he found abusive (instead of sending us all over for the non/answers). El_C 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we have another individual appearing on AE, who, immediately after I ask for (any) evidence of abuse, tells me that DG "violated 3RR pretty badly," yet provides zero evidence to that effect(!). Am I the only one finding this conduct suspicious? El_C 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you suggesting by that? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it not obvious? I am suggesting that when someone says "reference your claims" and then the immediate response to that is another, wholly unreferenced claim, that is suspicious. El_C 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I get that, but you obviously have something in mind to explain the suspician. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. It's just odd. My last sentence was literally "please reference your claims" (quote not paraphrase). El_C 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems not in the least odd to the individual in question. (Me.) I prefaced my remarks with "I have no comment to make about that', which I would have thought would indicate that I was not responding specifically to your complaints about lack of organisation, especially since I was not the individual addressed. However, in case you felt that running through all the links would be too much work, I merely pointed out the most salient fact, which was that if the IP was DG logged out, then it appeared to me - on the basis of the diffs provided in a location which you had already been made aware - violated 3RR. My concern was to simplify the accusation sufficiently for you to plow through the diffs yourself. I have read it again, and i see nothing in the least odd about that. Nor suspicious. I can't understand what you're driving at, frankly.

I do gather that you are displeased with Jehochman's pattern of blocks - I believe he blocked Dbachmann punitively? (In which case I seem to recall I was among the first to comment about it, expressing a certain degree of support for Dbachmann in that case.) Whatever the reason may be, I think you should either spell out what you think is suspicious about my attempts to clarify things for you, or withdraw it. I oppose, as much as I imagine you do, arbitrary blocks. As the rest of the comment on the AE board made clear, I would have waited for CU to come in. It certainly is the last time I try to make anything clearer for you; I tried it once before recently, and got snapped at that time as well. Relata refero 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand less and less the more clarification I get. Dbachmann has been blocked once in his entire wikicareer.[49] The block happened recently, it wasn't imposed by Jehochman, and, before further mystery claims get put on the table, I undid the block. (With something of an accompaniment of punitive nagging by Jehochman, admittedly... but I think you were probably talking about someone else, RR? Different blocker, different blockee, relevance..? [/me starts to cry. I have flu! I can't do this! ] Bishonen | talk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I probably was. I do remember, however that seeing El_C popping up asking for clarification almost every time Jehochman's been involved, which is why I was seriously angered that he was taking his irritation out on me. I apologise for exacerbating your flu. Relata refero 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm expected to "plow through the diffs [myself]", then, for evidence of a 3RR breach you claim? El_C 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim it! I have nothing whatsoever to do with it! I merely summarized the accusation for you, as I have said several times. And whether here or at AN3, I do suspect you have to plow through the diffs yourself. There aren't any shortcuts to checking whether 3RR occurred. Since you want to do it, and demand evidence, and then refuse to check the evidence, I can't see what on earth you want. And I still haven't seen an explanation of your remarks above ladling "suspicion" on me. What the hell? Relata refero 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence, no consideration. El_C 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the list of diffs above (in Arcayne's post) the evidence you're asking for? Arcayne claims those diffs show that DreamGuy used his named account and the IP to edit war and violate 3RR. Assuming that Arcayne's interpretation of the diffs is correct, that's abusive sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just reference claims that 3RR was violated (if we invoke it) in our own sentences, shall we? El_C 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...I'm not sure how to read your tone, El_C, but I'm not claiming that DG violated the 3RR; I don't have an opinion at the moment. But I am noting that Arcayne's post, just one section above, seems to have the diffs you're looking for. But maybe I'm wrong...your comments are quite terse, and I'm not even sure what evidence you're looking for. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone has diffs they wish to submit, here, in this section, that would be helpful. El_C 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are two summaries for those who don't like wading through ANI threads and chasing links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dreamguy
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2

I hope these help. I am waiting for the checkuser evidence to come back, for DreamGuy to respond, and for ArbCom to respond before taking further steps. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I told Arcayne, that should be moved to the top of [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy. Relata refero 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep sending us to subpages, Jehochman. I'm asking for diffs where you show abuse. Cite one or two for us, please. El_C 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of sanity can someone please cite a single edit from this month that justifies a week-long block? Dmcdevit·t 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! El_C 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Jehochman playing games? I keep asking for one or two diffs and he keeps linking those subpages. I'm beginning to feel that he may simply not be suited for the sysop bit and that supporting him in his RfA was a mistake on my part. El_C 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, the edit war at Jack the Ripper involving DreamGuy and his IP sock puppet has caused the page to be protected indefinitely since October 26.[50] That's why there hasn't been any more edit warring since then. Discussions at the talk page have deadlocked because of DreamGuy's refusal to cooperate. Here are a few diffs from November that show the sort of uncooperative approach and hostile tone DreamGuy takes with editors who disagree with him: [51] [52] [53] [54] I don't think this behavior complies with the restrictions that ArbCom has placed on DreamGuy. If we agree to keep DreamGuy blocked this article can be unprotected. I don't think it makes sense to punish the innocent by forcing them to deal with an uncooperative, uncivil editor. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding any one of those diffs too problematic; can you focus on the worse one? El_C 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, I trust you to do the right thing. If you think DreamGuy should be unblocked, then you have my permission to do so. Of course, I may still bring this sockpuppetry to the attention of ArbCom, and any administrator may reblock DreamGuy if he resumes edit warring. Would you also unprotect Jack the Ripper and be sure to warn DreamGuy so he doesn't get into further trouble? Does that arrangement sound fair? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, to all concerned, if there are disagreements about Jack the Ripper, try WP:RFC instead of edit warring. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that since his ArbCom sanctions, DreamGuy has gotten better at keeping his comments just short of incivil. But he has not gotten any better at being able to work with other editors toward consensus. I don't know if this justified a block, or whether his use of an IP sockpuppet for a month to avoid ArbCom scrutiny while his case was open deserves a block, but I just want to caution people from blaming others for his problems. The idea that there are groups of editors who get their jollies harassing DreamGuy is one that he and some of his admin friends have proposed, and I say that's just absurd; he behavior brings on these reactions. And when he characterizes himself this way: "I do consider the opinions of others, but what I do not do is suddenly decide to follow the opinions of editors who show up out of the blue demanding changes against the way other editors have agreed to do it in the past when it's clear that they have no real consensus to do so, have not read prior discussions, and do not understand how Wikipedia policies apply" he is just rationalizing why he always has to have things his way; his too-common tactic of citing a prior consensus, when nobody is willing to support his position, makes him impossible to edit with. I'm just glad he hasn't come back to any articles that I'm watching. Dicklyon 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's called gaming the system. When an editor causes an article to be protected for two weeks and refuses to cooperate with other editors, do we let them carry on until they drive away the other contributors? When an editor uses a sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and to edit war, do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month? Excuse me for using common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, instead we drive them away with spurious blocks based on stale diffs dredged up by an edit warring adversary, I see. This is a bit ludicrous. I note that there was no evidence of any edits this month warranting a week-long block, and you explain that it was because the article was protected... so you blocked him out of the blue because he wanted to edit war, or what? This attitude that "do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month" is a license for witch hunts by editors' opponents and branding people without regard to their actual value for the project. I guess the whole "blocks are preventative" concept is quaint now. This what I think you should have done if you thought the continued protection was harmful (which of course is true): unprotect the article with the clear directive to all involved editors that any edit warring will result in an immediate block. But block for real misconduct; don't block willy-nilly for old or presumed misconduct. I also notice that you weren't, apparently, so concerned about the article's long protection to, say, unprotect it after blocking the editor that you blocked so that the article could be unprotected. Bizarre. Dmcdevit·t 04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't unprotect articles without first consulting with the administrator who placed the protection. Seeing how El C has unblocked DreamGuy, and there's still no agreement about how to resolve the edit war, the protection should probably stay in place. Don't you agree? - Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcdevit. Jehochman uncommunicable conduct here has been truly bizarre, likely abusive. El_C 06:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really quite shocked over Jehochman's conduct in this case, so I am taking this to arbitration. El_C 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wer'e discussing the matter on Jehochman's talk page, so maybe this can be resolved informally. El_C 07:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

unresolved?

Actually, I certainly don't consider it resolved, though you may have resolved your discussions with your fellow admins. I am a bit insulted at being characterized by Dmcdevit as "an edit warring adversary". If it isn't too much trouble, perhaps that fine gentleman could point out where I have acted at all uncivilly or edit-warred in this matter? I see someone who did something wrong - a person with a considerable history of doing the same thing wrong and being told not to do so. When I ask the user in question about it, I receive disturbingly evasive responses, as Dicklyon discovered recently at DG's own user talk page. I wasn't keen on bringing Dreamguy's background into this, of for no other reason than its far more complex a venture than I am willing to spend my time on. Being characterized as an edit-warring adversary for pointing out the obvious seems more than a little tendentious and, of course, pretty damned inaccurate.

Granted, I didn't really know how to handle a fairly complex administrative procedure as ArbCom Enforcement coupled with RfCU and SSP and AN/I, and my resulting post was too long. However, I have responded with DIffs when asked - even when those requests weren't necessarily directed at me. Jhochman requested further clarification as to wrongdoing, and I provided it - not my opinion, but the Diffs. El C requested the DiffTimes for the 3RR, and I provided it. Decrying those results as being 'old' is somewhat disingenuine - had we discovered that DG had violated 3RR and his ArbCom restrictions through his use of his anonymous IP earlier, we would have filed it earlier. It wasn't dredged up as has been disparagingly described.

Granted, there are editors who have worse track records than DG, and editors who have less respect for ArbCom restrictions, too. However, most of those folk have already been shown the door. If he cannot be persuaded to follow the rules when they are specifically pointed out by ArbCom, what voice are you thinking he is more likely to heed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, ArbCom restricted DG from incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. The diffs here don't show that DG was uncivil, nor I do see that he made personal attacks or assumed bad faith; so I would refrain from saying he violated the ArbCom decision.

You're trying to claim that DG edit warred, that edit warring is uncivil, so therefore DG violated his ArbCom restriction. This is an inventive argument. If ArbCom had thought that DG had a problem w/edit warring, they would have restricted him from doing so. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this incident has played out and that complaining about three week old edit warring after the editor has been blocked and unblocked isn't a good use of effort. I recommend dropping this. If the edit warring resumes, post diffs promptly and ask for help. You don't need to question the other editor first and wait for response. Simply post the diffs and say, "This looks like edit warring. Could somebody please investigate." It's not a violation of assume good faith to call a duck a duck. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, somebody needs to start an RfC, mediation, or some other form of dispute resolution at Jack the Ripper, because it doesn't look like the article's regular editors are able to solve the dispute on their own. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, an uninvolved administrator, is well qualified to perform this task. Have at it! - Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait! I wasn't volunteering! I was suggesting that the involved parties take steps to get outside input. I'll be happy to look at the article's talk page, etc., but I'm a really bad choice for a mediator, because I develop strong opinions about article content almost immediately. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Then this will be a learning and growing opportunity for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, i guess I have to say that I am really disappointed at how this is matter seems to be ending without resolution. I acted on someone else's ArbCom complaint to provide information (granted, not concise enough information, but it was my first time doing so), and instead I have at least two admins mis-characterize my involvement; "trollish" and "edit-warring" by Dmcdevit and being hauled in front of AN/I on a litany of accusations by Jehochman, none of which ended up being accurate. It's certainly been an education.
If this is the way that one can expect to have their good faith efforts in helping to identify bad behavior, then perhaps it isn't worth the effort. I would have preferred to spend these last few days editing, instead of trying to learn somewhat unclear protocols and file numerous complaints as the request of different admins. I guess I don't mind the learning part; I just object to admins considering me the enemy for failing to follow these protocols flawlessly. It doesn't engender a lot of faith in admins.
I think Dreamguy broke the rules that all of us have to follow, rules that would have resulted in anyone else being blocked. That he is someone who has repeatedly made the same mistakes before and has walked with nary a hand-slap begs the question: when will enough be enough? At what point will an admin up and say, 'hey, if anyone else were doing this, they would get blocked, and if anyone with a history of doing this were doing this again, they would be blocked indefinitely.'? That anyone who seems to be saying this is disappointing, to say the least. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the result here, your final recourse is to file a complaint at requests for arbitration. Otherwise, you can let bygones be bygones. If any editor causes problems for you in the future, you now have a much better idea how to file an actionable complaint. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

file an arbitration request? Yes, as that has worked so well. And yes, while I do know how to file a complaint better, what's the point of doing so when people - admins - instead attack the one filing? No thanks. Of course,an apology would have been nice, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf

It has been an ongoing struggle over the past several months to maintain the effectiveness of the indefinite block levied against banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. This user has repeatedly resorted to sock-puppetry to subvert the block, resulting in a string of cases against him (the latest being Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (6th)). His latest incarnation as 75.32.38.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has not been resolved, as his activity continues virtually unabated. For the short term, I'd like this IP blocked. For the long-term, I'm open to other approaches -- whether it involves page-protection or some more creative solution. Myasuda 03:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given a reasonable length block to this dynamic IP address from AT&T. It was clearly stalking you and reverting your contributions for no reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I appreciate the effort, now that the block has expired 75.32.38.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back to his old tricks. Either a longer block or page protection might help. Myasuda 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which pages need protection, and why? - Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a block is the more ideal solution at this time since this sock-puppet is a front for a banned user (by community consensus -- for example, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TyrusThomas4lyf, User_talk:TyrusThomas4lyf, and User:TyrusThomas4lyf). However, if I had to choose one among the many articles that this user has chosen to infect, I would choose List of National Basketball Association teams by single season win pct‎ for protection since this user is constantly reverting sourced information. In other words, repeated long-term vandalism. Myasuda 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Death threats by User:Lock Box

I've blocked Lock Box (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making death threats in almost every edit he/she has made. User also appears to be a sock of some sort. I was under the impression that death threats were supposed to be mentioned here, so here I am. Please disregard if I'm mistaken. --Bongwarrior 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In one edit summary, they claim to be a sock of Starwars1955, a user who was banned a few months ago, if I remember right. I seem to recall some checkuser blocks were issued, at the time; if they keep at it, it may be worth another request. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At least one edit summary indicates real world stalking behavior. Should that user be informed that he has real-world legal recourse for a stalker? ThuranX 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis

This section is a reopening of a case that was started by a possibly bad-faith report. However concerns arose when the matter was investigated. Due to the presence of bad-faith puppetry in the original thread, and the original report being tainted, a new thread was proposed to be started for better discussion.

Background

A report was made on ANI by a one-edit SPA ("Triash") stating that FCYTravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uses his position on the wiki to subtlely promote for third parties, and pointing to the articles Total Recorder and the commercial article Time Machine (Solution-Soft software) as examples. The user account was blocked by user:JzG as a sock of Abhib (talk · contribs) who was himself blocked for 2 weeks for the post. The original post contained a couple of other allegations by the bad-faith user, but it's fairly obviously a grudge post, the above is the gist of it.

See above: #Reporting Administrator FCYTravis For Using Sockpuppets To Write Commercial Advertisements And Protecting Them Abusing Admin Powers.

Review

After some ANI discussion, I decided to look into the history of these matters from scratch. My report was as follows:

Total Recorder: Total Recorder was created by SPA GlenRowan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then linked to Digital audio editor, the account's sole edits. The article was tagged for SPEEDY deletion, and shortly after, deleted by an administrator. 13 hours later it was recreated by FCYTravis, without explanation, and despite the visible deletion. It would have been visible to FCYTravis that 1/ it had been speedy deleted A7, 2/ The speedy was valid, and 3/ no action was taken to remedy this (ie, the page was recreated with the deficiency it had been speedy deleted for, unchanged). The page was then PRODed by a different editor. 3 hours later the PROD was removed by FCYTravis again as "sources were available"; although in fact, none were listed and he did not add any [55]. (Nor did he address the initial deficiency for which it was SPEEDYed, either.) Time Machine: On Sept 28, a single purpose account user, Michaelmorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is Michael Morrison, director of marketing at Solution-Soft [56] (creators of a different program from Apple's, also called "Time Machine") began editing. Amongst his first edits were: Adding a marketing conflict note to the wiki in a discussion [57] Adding promotional links to marketing information [58], and Overwriting the article on Apple's "Time machine" program with his own company's software of that name [59]. On Nov 2, Morrison engaged in edit warring via repeated page moves and incivility, over the article [60]. On Nov 5, FCYTravis and Morrison engaged in edit warring via reversion, involving multiple reverts within a period of a few hours. FCYTravis reverted 5 times 20.19 20.31 20.44 21.08 and (similar) 23.08. Morrison reverted at 20.17 20.24 20.36 20.58 and 22.30. The 5 edit summaries of the latter also included a degree of personal attack [61], misdescription as "vandalism" [62] and POINTiness [63][64]. I have not examined FCYTravis' role in detail beyond this. As with Total Recorder there was no evidence or claim of notability to this software article, and one would have expected (FCYTravis being an administrator) that this would simply have been SPEEDY'ed, AFD'd, or evidence requested, too. Impressions: At a minimum Morrison needs 1/ to be directed to apply WP:COI in his editing and not to edit directly on subjects related to his work or company, and 2/ to have basics about Wikipedia, and policies on edit warring, collaborative editing, and civility, pointed out. (Hopefully the latter were mostly due to lack of awareness.) FCYTravis' conduct in this matter is of valid concern due to, 1/ edit warring (especially via 3RR), 2/ multiple failure to appropriately apply basic article inclusion/deletion policies and criteria, 3/ recreation of previously speedy deleted material in its obviously deficient state, 4/ failure to respond to reasonable requests of multiple others to either act in accordance with basic policies on inclusion/deletion in these cases, rectify the articles before recreating, or (as an administrator) explain himself when asked by other editors. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of reputable administrators and experienced users concurred (diff/EliminatorJR diff/Rlevse diff/Starblind diff/Coren) and further items of concern were presented:

Concur. Additionally, I am very unconvinced by this restoration of a previously correctly deleted (IMHO) article. ELIMINATORJR 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC) concur. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Agreed. I'd love to assume good faith here, but this looks bad. Hopefully FCYT has a doozy of an explanation for all this, although I can't imagine at the moment what that might be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC) I agree. I've looked over FCYTravis's history, and there is the unpleasant odor of WP:COI pervading it. — Coren (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The thread still being visited by sockpuppets of the original complainant, it was suggested a new thread be started:

I am concerned about the blocked sock puppet Triash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who seems to have filed the original complaint. I think the discussion can be biased when it starts on a false basis. In fairness to Travis, I'd prefer to start a fresh thread. - Jehochman Talk 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

Since the above, two further events have taken place:

1) FCYTravis has recreated the article further, adding a couple of sources. However despite the above (and despite having read this thread and the stated concerns), no evidence of significant notability has been added - a PC reviewer calling it a "pearl" is pretty minimal by any standards. The insistence on proving a point that this suggests, is a further concern for me.

2) An incivil and disparaging (and factually incorrect where facts are stated) post has been added to my talk page. In this post, titled "You have no clue", FCYTravis: Ignores my previous WP:AGF comment above, which states: "Travis - all that "concern" means is just that.... there's a basis for concern, and a resolution would be a Good Thing. That might be many forms, and a good fair explanation certainly isn't excluded. If you read my summary above, you'll find it is accurate, thorough, and does not "jump to conclusions". No label is used, no claim made. The sole conclusion is, "I am concerned, for these evidenced reasons". Would you be willing to consider a second answer that addresses the matter in more detail?" [65] Sidetracks the issue by repeating his statement from before that "Michael Morrison has nothing to do whatsoever with the Apple software known as Time Machine. He is apparently linked with a company called Solution-Soft", ignoring the fact I have not only 1/ stated this in my summary (which I also asked him to re-read) but also gone beyond that and 2/ sourced it via DIFFS and 3/ presented evidence beyond that of Morrison's COI via Solution-soft's website and his posts elsewhere. (See boxed post above.) Admits edit warring via 3RR - a good call since it's obvious, but an aggressive acknowledgement with name-calling isn't helpful. Reasserts "Total Recorder is an encyclopedic product as well - just friggin' Google-search it". States "This whole thread was started by a sockpuppet of the person who speedy-tagged Total Recorder, and is now randomly pissed off that it's not deleted. Maybe you need to look at his motivations, eh?" - concerns are visibly based on diffs, not complainant's text. States "You really, REALLY need to get a clue before you make wild accusations about a long-time administrator", disparagingly ignoring the fact no "accusations" are made, much less wild ones, and that the concerns (which have apparently not been read) are based upon diffs, not hearsay.

WP:NPA states that: "Editors should be civil ... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done [italics in original] ... a pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith ... users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks[...]" Various comments posted above are incivil, disparaging, confrontational or hostile.

Notably, disparagement aside, the actual concerns arising from an experienced admin's review of his activity, concured by 4 other experienced admins or users to date, are not really responded to at all.

Instead I now have an incivil and aggressive denial of matters that either are not germane, or were accounted for already. There is not one point made that actually is a "good valid one" for the concerns raised. Instead the concerns persist. To recap:

If any experienced user wishes to dispute my summary having reviewed the case, that a user 1/ breaching 3RR with 5 reverts in three hours, 2/ restoring problematic speedy'ed articles whilst very visibly still deficient, 3/ accepting "there are sources" as meaning "they are notable" and on that basis overriding other administrators' judgement, then 4/ repeatedly failing to discuss or explain ones' actions when asked and when there is a visible question, [5/ responding to a factual list of concerns by an experienced admin citing diffs by ignoring the actual concerns posted and disparaging/attacking the writer], are not a matter of at least some reasonable concern, please let me know.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good summation. Perhaps a response without the hyperbole will be forthcoming. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. Why was the original reporter blocked, and bad faith assumed? The various variations on WP:GHBH being suggested are not yet policy. Relata refero 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless the main account was blocked beforehand, in which case it was straightforward block evasion. In which case, I may point out that JzG's comment, "Go back to your main account or we won't take you seriously" runs counter to the spirit and letter of WP:SOCK as currently written, and is uninformative about the actual reason. Just thought I'd mention that. On with the show. Relata refero 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss that block, let's move that discussion to a new section. This needs to stay focused on the allegations against FCYTravis. The nature of that editor is really a separate issue now. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, but I don't want to waste my time. Its not as if anyone is going to stick their neck out and suggest that JzG rein himself in. Which is why I said "on with the show." Relata refero 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: from here, the facts as they are, have been evidenced by diffs presented for others to review too. There are no 'allegations' as such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And those are concerning, especially the wheel-warring at Total Recorder after it had been twice deleted by two different admins and the general hostility of FCYTravis when these concerns are brought to his attention. I don't think it's unreasonable in this case for anyone to ask him for an explanation as to what's going on here, and I would strongly encourage him to provide one so that the matter can be settled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think, at the very minimum, the community is entitled to a simple yes-or-no response regarding whether he's editing with a COI regarding these particular articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no conflict of interest - except my interest in writing an encyclopedia conflicting with someone's interest in deleting an article. FCYTravis 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

So, what am I being accused of here?

• I have undeleted Total Recorder. That's correct - it's not a candidate for speedy deletion at all. It's a piece of software that appears to have at least some reliable sources. While it has been "deleted by various admins," it has never been subject to an AfD process. It is established policy that anything which is speedily-deleted may be recreated if it can be sourced. I'll repeat - The article is not subject to speedy deletion. Now, someone can AfD it - that's fine with me, that's how it works. I have no interest in the subject except to save an article. I don't even use Windows software (except when I dual-boot my MacBook Pro to play Team Fortress 2.) I am amazed that I am being attacked for salvaging encyclopedic content. Isn't that what we're about here - writing sourced, verified encyclopedia articles? Absolutely astounding.
• I edit-warred with someone on Time Machine (Solution-Soft software). That's correct, I did. I edit-warred with a single-purpose account holder, probably an employee of the company, who was absolutely insistent that the article include a trademark symbol in the name and include a long, irrelevant line detailing the exact trademark number, in violation of common sense and MOS:TM. I believe we both violated WP:3RR there. If you want to block me for 24 hours for doing it, fine, go ahead. The article's deleted anyway and the edit war's long since over.
• It appears to be the trend on Wikipedia that people immediately assume bad faith on the part of longtime administrators with a track record of defending encyclopedic content and resolving sensitive BLP issues - such as myself. This is extremely disturbing, dismaying and discouraging. FCYTravis 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • To comment on your first point, if you disagree with a deletion, you should take it to WP:DRV, not wheel war over it, without discussion. The least you could have done would have been to userfy it whilst you were working on it. Whilst you may believe it's OK to edit war over the MOS with an SPA, this isn't an exemption from 3RR, and could have resulted in a block (although I agree with your ascertation that is purely punitive now). Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so. DRV is to contest AfDs, not to contest speedy deletions. If an article can be recreated with good sources, let it be. If someone wants is deleted, it can be sent to AfD. I don't see any merit in this complaint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:DRV - "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion", so yes, deletion review is used to appeal speedily deleted articles. The problem here is that was not followed, and FCYTravis twice reverted another administrators speedy deletion, without grounds to do so, with no discussion and with no forth coming sources that were promised. As I said, this should have at least been userfied whilst improvements were made. Ryan Postlet;hwaite 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know who added that and when. The DRV lead reads quite unequivocally: Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. I have removed that wording and started a discussion in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is long-established practice (and probably policy) that an article not deleted by a consensus-driven process such as AfD or DRV may be recreated at any time. Speedy and proposed deletion is not a bar to article recreation if the recreated/rewritten article falls outside speedy deletion criteria. Take it to AfD. FCYTravis 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not good practice doing it a second time, when two previous admins have deleted it. That's wheel warring, and that's what deletion review is there to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have had to do it in the first place if an admin hadn't take a blocked troll's sockpuppet at face value and deleted a perfectly valid article. FCYTravis 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Feh. FCYTravis's response gets filed in my "fair enough" basket. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts

This whole mess has been created by a banned user, User:Abhih, who is pissed off that JzG blocked him for two weeks for something completely unrelated - so he has apparently decided to take his aggression out on me. Abhih placed a speedy tag on the article, apparently in good faith. I read his ANI post and decided that I should take a look. The article was clearly salvagable as a quick Google search found reviews in major computer magazines. Borderline? Possibly. But why not save something? Aren't we here to write an encyclopedia?

Three days later, Abhih is blocked by JzG for a reason unknown to me. Today, Abhih uses a sockpuppet to post on ANI wild, unfounded and completely unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry and conflict-of-interest about me. Why? I have no clue. Apparently he just hates admins now, though he has since posted a grudging-yet-insulting apology to his talk page.

The facts of my actions are thus: I undeleted and have sourced an article about a piece of shareware. I enforced Wikipedia's standards on a now-deleted article by removing trademark logos that a single-purpose account insisted on revert-warring into the article. For those actions, I have been vilified. This is just unfathomably stupid.

Blocked-user sockpuppets are supported and good faith assumed when they make untrue, trollish and slanderous attacks, while every action of a long-standing, trusted administrator is dissected, analyzed and criticized in the minutest detail, with no quarter given for the slightest mis-step. Why am I wasting my time on this community? FCYTravis 22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, you aren't accused of anything, nor is the banned sock relevant, nor are you being "slandered". This section and the above check is by admins and ignores the original sock-user, who is blocked and not (as you state) "supported". The concerns here are carefully considered admin concerns not "trollish" ones, and so far some 4 - 7 admins and reputable users have concurred they would like calm, considered answers to them. As I've said (3 times I think) and Seraphimblade, and others, there are apparently genuine concerns, one's view on the sockmaster notwithstanding, and your comments on them would be helpful.

You're an administrator, and as you note, a long-standing one. I can't speak for others, these are the things I'd like comments on. There's a few of them. I will spell them out in detail, to avoid the above problem where concern is expressed about "A", and your response is essentially, that there is no reason except bad faith to be concerned about "B", which has happened some 3 times now:

1. You undid another administrator's SPEEDY on an article. Reversion of other admin's work is supposed to be with checking, or only if clearly wrong. The speedy was clearly correct as it did not meet A7, and yet you did not rectify it on undeletion. Explain the reversion of the other admin's speedy delete on an article that was verifiably correctly deleted, and which you didn't rectify.
2. You edit warred. You've known about 3RR for several years now. Is this going to repeat?
3. You removed a PROD, on the article that was at that point still a failure for speedy deletion, and still were willing to leave it without sources or discussion of notability, and despite two people now showing concern. Having seen there were concerns, why did you simply undo others concerns (deletion, prod), including administrators concerns, without discussion, rectification, or respect for their work.
4. Your sole statement that was left for several days was "there are sources available". You only added (limited and moderately flimsy) sources several days later, today, under duress. Please explain this decision.
5. Wikipedia is collaborative. You were asked to discuss, and refused to do, or were reluctant to do so. Do you understand that collaborative editing requires mutual discussion and explanation of decisions, and decisions of an administrative nature more so, perhaps.
6. You were given a neutral, factual based summary of the case, citing DIFFs, on-wiki administrative and user logs, and nothing else, and this was concurred by multiple others including administrators, of good reputation. Your response was to (evidently) not bother to read this, but to heatedly dive in and accuse others of failure of good faith, of merely (and implied, irrationally or stupidly) attacking you, and of 'farce'. You ignored everything that was actually and specifically asked, in favor of 'rhetoric', bad faith responses, and flames. You answered straw men (responses to questions no reputable person had in fact asked, in preference to their actual questions) only.
7. You were then given a clear, uterly explicit, WP:AGF statement, that made clear a second time that these - genuine - concerns were what was being asked about. In response to this, you posted a second set of rhetoric, 'flames', incivilities and (per WP:NPA) attacks, which:

   1. commenced "You have no clue",
   2. described the concerns evidenced from system logs as "wild accusations" which they clearly are not (they are simple evidence which beg questions, and are far from 'wild' or 'accusations'),
   3. implied indignation that even evidenced concerns were out of line since you are a "long time administrator",
   4. responses again to only the matters that were not in fact at all being asked, nor really related to the concerns at hand,
   5. insulted and disparaged those noting the diffs at hand, and
   6. despite being heated, failed in fact to address any of the issues mentioned by any administrator as a concern.

8. At this time you still have not really done more that assert 1/ an admission you edit warred, and 2/ that in some indeterminate manner yet to be described, the rest of the above are justified as they stand, to the point a person who asks is evidently acting in bad faith.
9. You have access to delete and undelete tools. These are to be used in accordance with communal norms. The actions above do not seem to be in that fashion, nor is there an exceptional circumstance under IAR to indicate why you might have 1/ undeleted a newly deleted article that lacked any evidence of CSD A7, notability or sources, 2/ refused to explain it, 3/ unprodded it, 4/ refused to explain that, 5/ failed still to rectify these, and then 6/ express anger and aggressive hostility when asked by others at ANI. Your main response is a generic "I think it's right", and flames and attack, when it seems few or no others are in agreement yet that these are okay. That is not the standard of awareness, communal norm compliance, or manner that one would hope to expect from administrators.

I have (and am) extending good faith; no accusation has been made, nor is any being made, no assumptions are made, nor is this anything personal in any way -- this could be to anyone who makes edits and administrative decisions that there is concern over and one wishes to have explained. None the less, you have asked what the issue is. It is not Mr. Morrison, nor Apple, nor trademarks, nor salvaging content. It is the matters above.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I've already explained this several times. I'm not going to waste my breath any longer as I really should be studying. The frivolous accusations of a sockpuppet have caused me enough needless stress as it is. Good day, sir. FCYTravis 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Just to bring out a couple of points from above. Removing PROD notices is perfectly acceptable, though it is recommended that the edit summary explain why the PROD is being removed. If the reason is not good enough for the PRODder, then AfD is the next step. This also applies to the use of speedy tags ("Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it"). People may be confusing this with what happens after speedy deletion has taken place. The idea is that speedy deletion should only be used in obvious cases. A contested speedy in most cases means that the reasoning probably wasn't as obvious as it appears. This should be grounds for an immediate overturn, but what happens after that depends on the nature of the speedy. For most speedies, just talking to the deleting admin might be enough to get an undeletion or a listing at AfD. For speedies for copyvios or other cases where restoring the article should wait, again, talking to the deleting admin is best, followed by DRV. That's my take on it, anyway. Carcharoth 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's only the context that makes it worth comment. Otherwise, agreed, removal of the PROD notice is exactly how it's intended to be used. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gas chamber edit war

• Pages Gas chamber and Talk:Gas chamber seem to have become edit war battlefields involving Holocaust deniers. Anthony Appleyard 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected Mercury 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected it, Mercury, you seemed to unprotect it? In the log it said you had unprotected it due to edit warring?, but it had never had protection in the first place. (Also why would you unprotect it because of edit warring? :). It is my first protection, is it done correctly? Woodym555 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have some script bugs to work out of my js. Its done correctly, I've adjusted it to expire 7 days time. This is what I intended. Thank you for catching it. Mercury 19:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be one holocaust denier in particular - User:Keltik31. He's been warned for his section blanking in the main article. However, looking back at his few mainspace contribs, I am struggling to find one that is constructive. His very first edit was to call Menachem Begin a terrorist, his second was to change the 'Capture' of Adolf Eichmann to 'Kidnapping', he removes the word "Jewish" from biographies .. apart from his edits to Grand National, practically every edit is POV and related to racism or anti-semitism. However, his edits are such low-level vandalism that he has few warnings. Comments on this account would be welcome. ELIMINATORJR 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say block him, for at least a month, if not indef, do we really want this kind of anti-semitic behaviour on the project, and i can't see how his edits have been anything other than negative, and i doubt he would be missed--Jac16888 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

i am not anti semetic. i am anti bullshit and that is what there is a lot of on wiki regarding the gas chambers. Keltik31 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I've indefinitely blocked the account - for evidence see the above linked RfC, in addition to more recent problems. Addhoc 20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad - I missed the RfC - if I'd seen that I'd have blocked him on the spot myself. ELIMINATORJR 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case somebody else uses this little factoid to re-ignite anti-semitic ravings; Menachem Begin was declared a terrorist by the British following an incident during the British Protectorate of Palestine, as it was then. The classification was rescinded just prior to a State visit by the them Premier of Israel - the same person - as memory serves. Beware the POV warrior attempting using this for their own ends. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As right as this block is, the view that Begin was a terrorist goes beyond the British. Jd2718 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck what "the view" is - Begin was the Prime Minister of a Nation who had also previously been declared a terrorist by a different State; these are verifiable facts and I make no judgement on the validity of the label (and I am aware of the incident that lead to it), but pointed it out simply to make people aware it might be used as an excuse to push a POV... such as we might have here. LessHeard vanU 10:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bring Begin in? To argue. Had nothing to do with the block (referred to a year-old edit). So of course you give a fuck, if you didn't you wouldn't have tried to introduce this where it didn't belong. Next time, stay on topic. Jd2718 14:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Following Keltic31's block, I've unprotected the Gas chamber article - hope that's ok. Addhoc 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Malware linkage

80.200.227.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) linked a malware site from Erotica. One time address so I left a warning. I mention it here in case there is a procedure I should follow when this happens. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is in order here :) Qst (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone's sure it's malware, the IP should probably be blocked: it just inserted the link into History of erotic photography. I'm not going to block because I can't verify the linked file is malware: ClamAV says it doesn't contain any viruses, and there's no such thing as a spyware detector for Linux. --Carnildo 10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle

User:Lost Girls Diary (contributions) seems intent to keep these two entries written in a style that doesn't fit even the basic tenets of Wikipedia's WP:MOSBIO (most notably, insisting that the subjects of the article be referred to by their first name throughout the article, rather than by their surname). This account may be using either meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry as well (stated that she "emailed a good number of interested parties from outwith wikipedia" - [66]). User:Ktbyosmosis (contributions) appears to be a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I suspect the same of User:Relister (contributions), who did not edit for a month, but returned after User:Lost Girls Diary began reverting (this user also appears to have the same preference for referring to subjects of articles by their first name in the text [67]). (Relister, Lost Girls, and Ktbyosmosis all once edited Katharine Isabelle within the span of 2 hours [68] - on July 23rd). When asked if he/she is a sockpuppet, User:Relister issued a legal threat. Not sure how to proceed with these two pages. All Hallow's Wraith 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to libel. The user all Hallow's Wraith is intent on changing the pages in question no matter what, nor how many other users find the style and content perfectly acceptable. as I have pointed out to him, the first statement in the mosbio page is that one does NOT have to adhere to the guidelines, it is merely "recommended". His "revisions" aren's even accurate, or beneficial. Furthermore admin FCYTravis has recently seen the page, as written, and didn't ask, or insist that it be changed, nor did he change it himself. Our only dispute was over an image, which, I admit, he was right about. My contacting other interested parties, are those who run websites, and and are close the subjects. This was done merely to inform them what was happening. If they choose to add, change or delete content it is entirely their decision, not mine. Lost Girls Diary 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Lost, I'd suggest you be more careful about violating WP:LEGAL. The fact that others have found the style acceptable doesn't matter; Hallow's is prefectly right to follow WP:MOS. Second, read WP:OWN; I concerned about language like "if people come along and mess with the pages which I have looked after" from you. Assume good faith. Your edits summaries overall are not at all helpful ("unnecessary and ridiculous") so be civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for making another legal threat after a warning. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblocked declined until the user withdraws the threat. If anyone (other than Lost Girls Diary) disagrees with my assessment, feel free to initiate a discussion here about it (drop me a note on my talk as well so I don't miss it). Cheers, Daniel 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the attitude, I don't think we're losing a lot here. Natalie 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV stance

SOPHIA (talk · contribs) has an obvious beef with Cristianity that she is allowing to interfer with wikipedia's NPOV stance. More worrying is that she is making accusations that people are sockpuppets because they disagree with her. Her edits appear to add no value to the Brian Flemming article but serve only to aid Brian Flemming's activities that I have described for what they are. I have brought this here in case it looks like a slow edit war - can someone external please warn/block accordingly. Thanks. 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Fixed the userlinks above. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this earlier report for more information. IrishGuy ^talk 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also see the article Brian Flemming to see the damage being done by SOPHIA (talk · contribs). 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Yeah, it looks like you need to read WP:NPOV, Hoofhearted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Any part in particluar? 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Also WP:BLP. Putting this on BLP/N, if not already there. Clearly needs watchlisting. Relata refero 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So because he's alive he can't possibly be anti Christian? 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Because he's alive, we must take especial care that anything claimed about him in the article is verifiable to strong sources. Pro Christian, anti Christian, or anything else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like he's denying he's anti-Christian Flemming is pretty proud of it. 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Generally when given the choice between a neutral description of someone's acts and making conclusions about their motives, Wikipedia should do the former. Statements about someone's motives should generally be drawn from sources rather than being in the words of a Wikipedian. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia "Anti-Christian discrimination, (AKA) anti-Christian prejudice, Christianophobia or Christophobia is a negative categorical bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity. Such prejudice and discrimination is a type of religious intolerance and a form of religious discrimination. Anti-Christian prejudice can be held by individuals or groups, and may be the result of religious or antireligious fanaticism or bigotry. Anti-Christian discrimination is practiced by members of other religions, as well as antireligious adherents of secularism. As a mental and emotional attitude, anti-Christian discrimination leads to stereotyping, hate, and oppression. Anti-Christian prejudice results in the dissemination of hate speech, the commission of hate crimes, and the formation of hate groups, as well as other forms of discriminatory behaviour. Widespread Anti-Christian discrimination may attach social stigma to Christians or Christian beliefs, and may result in an experience of social inequality by Christians. In nations where freedom of religion is limited, the issue becomes persecution of Christians." He fits the bill 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Which is you wanting Wikipedia to draw a conclusion rather than state the facts of his actions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(indented) Indeed; what exactly do you want Wikipedia to do about Flemming's anti-religious beliefs? I don't see any admin action required here. ELIMINATORJR 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

reviewing the edit history of the page, there seem to be three accounts editing to the same exact statement. they have somewhat similar other subjects, mostly about athetism and christianity. Is a checkuser warranted there? nevermind, that's what I get for reading this page from the bottom up. ThuranX 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content break down

In case people haven't seen it, the latest analytical 'break down' of Wikipedia's content is now complete. The statistical analysis is available here--Doc^g 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I didn't realise we had so much useful content. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just mainspace, right? Jd2718 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the other namespaces are filled with never ending arguments, stupid questions, autograph books, spurious reports of admin abuse, spurious reports of sockpuppetry, spurious reports of conflict of interest, and lots of hue and cry about some particular thing being the end of Wikipedia. Natalie 03:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's 'Stephen Goddamn Fucking Colbert' now. He got a name extension. HalfShadow 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That analysis reeks of NPOV, censorship, liberal bias, anti-Western eurocentrism, ageism, atheism, vandalism, criticism, elitism, inclusionism, cabalism, bagism, imperialism, and a bunch of other stuff. (I'm stealing it for my user page.) Raymond Arritt 05:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

old so no the Colbert name was correct at the tme.Geni 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's nice to see productivity up 17% over last year, when the Family Guy/Robot Chicken pop culture reference wars were going on. Now... about them cabals? ThuranX 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Shhhhhh. Natalie 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonconstructive reverts and edits to ancestry templates by IP address 24.57.196.130

24.57.196.130 (talk · contribs) is habitually reverting changes made to ancestry templates in royalty articles. A lot of these articles are in my watch list, where I am monitoring changes, and the anonymous user is making nonconstructive edits to the effect of linking to redirects and adding in titles where they were not before and where they are not needed. Generally, ancestry templates have names linked in them according to WP:NC(NT) which simplifies names for kings, queens, etc, by omitting titles and using territorial designations. While I can understand this happening once or twice, I have already left a note on the user's talk page, which appears to be stable and used by one individual and it is still happening to the point where it is disruptive. For instance, it just happened again at Charles I of Austria. It is becoming disruptive and it is coming to the point where it is vandalism as the user will not respond to the talk page or to requests to stop. Charles 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also note these differences and the respective article histories [69][70][71]. Charles 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Something odd is going on, he adds soome titles, and removes others. Unusual behavior, and no edit summaries. ThuranX 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some minor constructive edits, but to me it seems, for the most part, that it is this continual reverting which is taking centre stage in his/her editing activities. I would like to change the templates back to the form generally used for articles, to bypass redirects and have names in compliance with WP:NC(NT), especially if someone decides to turn an unlinked name into a link (so that the article is first created at the right title). I do not, however, want to break the 3RR. Would you consider this habitual, nonconstructive editing to be vandalism? Charles 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The user just now is continuing his or her reverting spree for no apparent reason. Are there, or when will there be, grounds for a block of the users account? The edits cannot be restored without it leading to edit warring, because the user will only return. Charles 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me as well that Cladeal832 *may* be the same user as the IP address because the edits are never at the same time (but close sometimes and always in blocks) as if the user was accidentally logged out and continued editing. The edits performed are the same, infobox edits to locations and flag icons and some non-constructive edits to ancestry templates. I should probably leave this thought out for now and deal with what is known for certain. Charles 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

More reverts and changes:

[72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. Charles 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks on Adult-child sex

I've blocked both Pol64 (talk · contribs) and Albert Wincentz (talk · contribs) for revert warring on Adult-child sex. Neither had actually broken WP:3RR, but Wikipedia:Edit war is policy and revert warring is quite disruptive. I am inviting review on both these blocks. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had just warned them both about 3rr as they are new users and neither had edited after the warning but its only 24 hours and I think it is a good call. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A warning might have sufficed in this case. I won't complain, I just think it might be a way to consider going in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper AFD closure

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Time (radio show) seems to have been closed early by a Non admin, Shalom (talk · contribs), after only a day, marked with a misleading result. Since I nominated Pacific Time (radio show), I feel it better for another admin to have alook at this situation.--Hu12 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears Shalom (talk · contribs) is closing other Afd's early and inapropriatly--Hu12 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at his/her most recent closes and I don't think they are obviously improper. Are there specific other AfDs you thought were closed early? Natalie 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On the example above, 5 "keeps' on an afd which has 4 more days to go hardly equals a "Speedy keep". I've reverted the AfD above (changed the link to oldid) so it can run their course and gain full consensus as intended by the process. Several others include;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heller center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle MLS
• A few Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

I see this user is up for Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shalom, while I grately respect the co-nom's, I'd hope better judgement is used by Shalom in the future. The process are in place for the pupose of consensus, understandibly if all opinions/votes are "speedy keep (or delete)". Then this type of closure would be appropriate, however they were not.--Hu12 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In case the question is about non-admins closing xFDs, see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several non-admin closures in which they were done appropriately in the proper manor, however I have not seen this done with AFD's that just begun. --Hu12 03:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The first one wasn't not a candidate for speedy keep on those grounds, and had not yet reached snow proportions. The other closes were valid. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The closures may have been a bit brusk, especially the first one, but they appear to have been done in good faith, and they all appeared to be heading for WP:SNOW keep. Even the first one, which appears to be the fastest closure, looked unlikely to generate ANY result better than "no consensus" given the number of keep votes already cited, with reasonable keep rationale. It would be nice to see most of these stay active for a day or two, but I see no evidence of malice here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

LI agree with the lack of malice. More a case of jumping the gun/mistaken use of speedy keep. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps here he should have ideally waited to let the snow get rolling, but I really don't agree that this is a persistent problem. This is a perfectly acceptable, I would venture to say nearly unobjectionable, withdrawal in which no one wanted the article deleted. If someone comes across and does want the article deleted, they can start their own AfD. This was an extremely clear snowball case, and IMO a perfect example of a non-admin closure. The three that he closed here had, by my best speculation, virtually no chance of resulting in deletion. Looks like mostly uncontentious housekeeping to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, there really is no such thing as a valid WP:SNOW speedy keep. WP:SNOW is not an invitation to break proper process (it is an invitation not to dig in your heels and climb the Reichstag dressed as spiderman when process has already been broken; quite a different thing.) WP:IAR is also hardly ever a good reason to speedy close an AFD, because a running AFD doesn't "prevent people from improving Wikipedia"; proper process shouldn't be broken unless there is a problem to be fixed, and there very rarely is a problem in simply letting an AFD run its course. Speedy keep is only for dealing with irregularities of process, such as bad-faith nominations, and for retracted nominations. So-called SNOW speedy keeps should almost never be done, and certainly not by non-administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I think such practices are generally viewed as permissible by most. Quite a lot of AfDs are closed early for snow-like reasons, in my experience at least. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe those practices are generally Not viewed as permissible by most.--Hu12 11:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with FutPerf. Several of these were closed after only a day or so, which I think should only be done for bad faith noms. People need time to respond. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we have about three discussions in one here. Should these articles be kept, was the speedy keep appropriate, and was the candidate-for-administrator's action appropriate. On the first front it's obvious to me that all the articles should not be deleted, and that will be the outcome of the process. User:Hu seems to think otherwise in some cases, based on a position that notability has to actually be cited to multiple extra reliable sources offering substantial coverage in a non-spammy, non-COI article, and have commented and voted as such in the articles. That's certainly a valid opinion, but it still does not mean that the articles are likely to be deleted. Regarding speedy keeping, I can't say but this may well be within the permitted bounds. Discussion is nice but it's extremely unlikely that any of these articles can be properly deleted based on the discussion so far (unanimous or nearly unanimous strong keep votes with cogent arguments by quite a number of editors), so there does not seem to be any urgent need to continue. The final question is more problematic. Although it may or may not be permitted to close them early, it's really not necessary and the closure is controversial. An administrative candidate ought to demonstrate that he or she will not just act within the bare minimum of allowable edits, but is actually thoughtful and good with their administrative actions. I don't think this one incident will make them a bad administrator but it would be helpful if someone counseled them. Even if their actions are technically allowable, to be a good administrator they should inspire confidence, take actions that serious editors consider fair and rational, etc. In this case better to let people beat a dead horse four more days than to leave anybody questioning whether the horse was alive.Wikidemo 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issue on anonymous shared IP talk page

The person who is currently assigned IP address contributions insists on blanking the associated talk page User talk:66.176.85.30, which contains templates showing the hostname, ISP, and recent warnings from that IP address. The editor has far exceeded the WP:3RR threshold although I'm not sure that applies to talk pages. Several editors (including myself) have attempted to restore the page, but the anon editor seems to insist upon ownership. Any way to resolve this? =Axlq 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the only reason for my restoration of the talkpage is to keep the long-term vandalism that this user has committed apparent. This is a shared IP, so this talk page is probably registered to several people, thus nullifying the user ownership clause, IMO. The Hybrid T/C 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While editors are usually free to blank notices (and doing so implies they read the warnings), with the case of shared IPs, my understanding is that it is not generally acceptable to remove shared IP headers and notices given, as the information is there for administrators and editors to understand the history of the shared IP, as well as for the IP it is registered to if need be. I think reverting in this case is perfectly acceptable, and I've seen many an administrator revert blankings of shared/educational IPs for this very reason. Ariel♥Gold 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Combined with the vandalism (mostly blanking) in their recent contribs there's enough here to warrant a block. 48 hours, which may be enough time for the IP to roll over to someone new. If anyone thinks this is excessive you can dial it back. Raymond Arritt 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.x2) Aside from the keeping-warnings-visible issue, 3RR specifically does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." Regarding the removal of warnings by a user, see WP:UP#CMT. The IP doesn't seem to be violating any sort of policy, as the removal of warnings should simply be taken as proof the user has received them. --Dynaflow babble 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages". It isn't their talk page; it is Comcast's, and whoever has used it previously in addition to what stake they have it it. The warnings, and the IP notice needs to remain for the benefit of any future blocking admins, and any users who need to warn the user in the future. It should not be allowed to be blanked. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A look through the IP user's contribs seems to indicate that the same user has been on that same IP for quite a while, and it should probably be treated as we'd treat any other account. The warnings are in the history, and assuming CVU and other patrollers leave summaries when they leave the warnings, seeing what "level" this user on is a simple matter. [EDIT:] As for Comcast IPs' "dynamicness," see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:24.62.241.203. In the case of an educational institution, I'd probably say that the warnings and especially the {{SharedIPEDU}} template should be kept, but we're likely dealing with just one person here. --Dynaflow babble 06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) I'm sure we can all agree this is no big deal. If good faith is applied to this IP's recent summaries, then we can assume that the IP has just changed hands, but all in all I'm tired, and want to go to bed. Do whatever you feel, as my intense apathy has just kicked in :P. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 06:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin review required please

Resolved

IMO this attack on me is unacceptable, especially ther threat to take me down. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the comment could have been expressed in a more politically correct manner, but to put it bluntly, I think your behavior in the pedophilia-related articles has lately been very provocative. Remove it if you'd like, but I think it's a very understandable, if not desirable, reaction to your involvement. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? IO have not been at all provocative as all, the contribs I make there amply prove this. I am looking for admin review, and that is not you. And no, it is completely unacceptable for supporters of pro-pedophile activism to advertise a collective attempt to take me down so that they can pursue their well known pedophilia pushing agenda on wikipedia, an agenda the arbcom are very keen to clamp down upon. Your defence of such a statement is not needed either. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...he'd have even less adversaries to protect his victim, due to his general lack of rationality...that's why I'm trying to create an atmosphere that he might be taken down by collective effort."

Wow, that's not just a failure to assume good faith, that's a threat of harassment, defined as a personal attack in WP:NPA. Since Squeakbox has done nothing wrong it is totally inappropriate for editors to talk about getting rid of him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, from my (sometimes involved) perspective, it seems that you have

• Removed pertinent discussion threads from other users' talk pages and WikiProject talk pages, against the reasonable requests of editors(*)(*)(*)(*), edited acceptable comments made by others(*), and removed criticism of your behavior (*)(*)
• Labeled virtually everyone who contested the neutrality of your behavior as a pro-pedophile advocacy activist and/or POV-pusher(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Accused several editors you didn't agree with, myself included, of being SPAs, trolls, sockpuppets or meatpuppets(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Accused editors of using "dirtier and dirtier" tactics(*)
• Used derogatory terms like "ridiculous and childish", "idiot", twat, etc.
• Neglected to assume the assumption of good faith(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Made a large number of comments in a tone that some, though not necessarily all, might interpret as mocking (examples: (*)(*))

That's what I've observed, which is a relatively small portion of all the related discussions. None of the above actions are individually outstanding, but taken together one can understand how they might cause other editors stress. I have noticed that a number of editors have complained about your behavior recently.(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) I'm sorry if anything I'm saying offendeds you, but I feel strongly that if you're going to request that action be taken against an editor you are in dispute with, the broader context of the dispute should be disclosed. — xDanielx ^T/_C 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly you do not provide diffs and the only diff I could find was to a completely innocent archiving of my own talk page[78] which doesn't give me faith to even check your other links. You on the other hand have persistently disputed arbcom blocks in any public place you can find in spite of having been repeatedly told that such comments need to go directly to arbcom, and your behaviour has resulted in the locking of User talk:A.Z. which can hardly help that user. There are editors who disagree with my assertion that the known socks of banned users should have their comments removed. Opposition to my assertion does not make that opposition right or my removal of them wrong. I am not sure what your comments are doing here but an admin has reviewed anyway and given a warning to the user. Supporting a user trying to take another user down is not a good idea and I urge you not to get involved in such an enterprise as it goes against what wikipedia stands for. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when questioning a block on the user's talk page became an offense, least of all when the questioner is uninvolved and is simply expressing a concern shared by a majority. It was User:JzG who made the decision to delete the discussion and protect AZ's talk page, not me. If you're interested in discussing this further, let's switch to user talk namespace. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy blocked the page after you reverted his deletion of unnecessarily inflammatory talk page discussion was going on there, he did it in response to your not leaving his deletion in place but instead reverting and continuing the thread. The arbcom have made it clear that if you want to discuss this issue you should email them, you should not revert the deletion by an admin of inflammatory material and continue the inflammatory discussion. Feel free to continue this conversation on my talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper conduct of admin user:Butseriouslyfolks

User:Butseriouslyfolks improperly unblocked an aggressive user which was blocked after several warninngs about improper behavior, see User talk:Nergaal under ridiculous justification "as the blocking admin apparently has a relationship with the other party". I was not informed about the unblock. I insist the block reinstated and user:Butseriouslyfolks warned. `'Míkka>t 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you not initiate a discussion with the unblocking administrator first on User talk:Butseriouslyfolks, rather than 'reporting' them here? Out of general courtesy and common practice, this noticeboard is used in these situations only after discussion has been tried and failed between the involved parties (in this case, yourself and Butseriouslyfolks). Daniel 09:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the last time Mikka reported me here was after he unilaterally restored about 25 pages I had deleted, without any prior discussion or subsequent notice, other than the report here. Then, after his insult laced reports here, he refused to respond to the notes I left on his talk page. This incident is preserved for posterity here. And yes, I admit my deletions there were . . . overzealous. (OK, they were wrong!)

In this particular case, Mikka went after Nergaal after the latter was embroiled in a content dispute (or perhaps a format dispute) with Fabartus. After the two had apparently settled their differences, with some positive comments on both sides, Mikka escalated the conflict with warnings left for Nergaal and encouraged Fabartus to go back to doing whatever had upset Nergaal in the first place. Fabartus told Mikka "long time no see", and when Nergaal suggested that Mikka had abused his admin powers by taking the side of an old acquaintance, Mikka blocked Nergaal for "trolling" and deleted Nergaal's comment that pointed out the friendship between Mikka and Fabartus. In my view, Mikka was clearly wrong in two respects -- the block was completely undeserved, and Mikka should have reported it and then stepped aside due to his friendship with Fabartus so someone else could decide whether Nergaal should be blocked. So I unblocked.

Look, I know I'm not ZScout, but neither is Mikka Jimbo. I know a rotten block when I see one, and I also knew Mikka would refuse to discuss the situation, per my past experience and the friendly notice on his user talk page that "Any messages left here will probably not be unanswered [sic]", so I did the bold thing. -- But|seriously|folks  10:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I feel you should at the very least have advised the blocking admin of your intention to unblock and given your reasons, but preferably have initiated a discussion on why you thought the block improper - notwithstanding your belief that such a discussion was unlikely to formulate a consensus. In this particular case, per your comments, I think it even more appropriate to have followed procedure. This may be an example of the end not justifying the means. Them's my tu sense. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Mikka has made it well known that s/he's not interested in constructive dialogue per his (or his friend Irpen's) deletion of many legit comments/questions from his userpage, deeming them "trolling", "bullying", and worse. BSF was justified in his/her belief that Mikka would not be responsive to dialogue. K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This admin now viciously attacks me because I violently protested against harassment of me because of my voting WP:RFA, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 109#Response to recent bullying, which only confirms my opinion about my RFA voting. The logic of this remark is unfit for an admin, to say the least. `'Míkka>t 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If a comment to a talkpage is removed without response it is still deemed to have been read. It doesn't matter what Mikka's response is, but a complaint of no notification cannot be made and an avenue of dispute closed. I therefore believe Butseriouslyfolks should have notified Mikka of his intentions.LessHeard vanU 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit by banned user:Bonaparte removed) --Irpen 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked six times and "at least". It seems doing mathematics today means "load this thing into a Word processor and have the comp count the number of times "is blocked" is mentioned". Have a good look: he accidentally blocked himself once, one block was obviously incorect and one was a re-block in an wheel war. Leaves three, two of which are more than a year old. --Paul Pieniezny 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the remaining three was another improper block by an admin who was edit warring with me (unblocker), another was erroneour 3RR revert: I and another user were editing in turn some text, in a series of iterations, during which he erroneously duplicated a paragraph, and the trigger happy admin decided I am persistetly deleting a piece of text. The first block was when I was reverting edits form open proxies by especially nasty troll, banned user:Bonaparte. `'Míkka>t 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An amazing feat of jumping at conclusions and turning tables by two admins, who are supposed to be careful in judgement. Even now no one bothered to ask me to explain my actions! I am out of this Kangaroo court. `'Míkka>t 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You initiated this section by complaining about the actions of Butseriouslyfolks, which is what is being discussed. Why do we need an explanation of your actions? LessHeard vanU 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Desysop of Admin Mikkalai

It's about time now to have this admin desysopped http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.254.193.119 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why This is a Secret ^account 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he's an Admin that use his power against Romanian editors. He hates them, don't you see him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.14.11 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this open-proxy anon wouldn't be our old friend Bonnie by any chance, would he? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Surely not. Oh, wait, actually it is. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bonaparte has a long history of posting to this board via open proxies. He even posted lengthy threads with forged signature by many users and experienced users bought this trick and replied to forged posts promoting threads that should not have been there or should have been removed on sight. Anyway, I am removing his posts now. Please do not forget to remove such posts in the future. --Irpen 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. This complaint was originally posted to the Wikiquette alerts section [79], and has been redirected here with the comment from User:Jamessugrono as follows: "This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits". Vizjim 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity[80] and uncivil manners [81] and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add to the list the constant playing around and gaming of the system with respect to 3RR, again visible at Mexican and Cypriot pages. Vizjim 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Loose cannon, chasing rapidly changing IP editor

Recently, there have been a number of contributions to various Kent-related articles that are coming from IP numbers (80.0.110.148, 80.2.201.239, 80.0.117.237, 80.1.88.210, etc.). It looks like it may be the same person. The problem is that although the contributions seem well-intentioned, the editor appears to be blissfully unaware of WP's guidelines (POV, linking policy, verifiability etc). So far I have been unable to communicate with him/her because the IP address keeps changing.

It seems heavy-handed to revert, but at the same time their contributions need extensive fixing and it would be good to introduce them to Wikipedia principles. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? How does one chase an ip-editor? Pgr94 12:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When reverting/tidying up leave a request to discuss the edits on the talkpage in the edit summary? Include a non visible message (I know it can be done, just not how - who made me sysop!?) in the text that is being edited to the same effect? LessHeard vanU 13:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes d

Despite the apparent differences we may have in editorial issues, I have repeatedly tried to help this user edit within the spirit of civility of Wikipedia ( past: but I am sorry to have failed.

Below is a list of their most recent pattern of language, and I am afraid I cannot tolerate it any longer, so I present the diffs here for your input:

[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

Your insight is valuable. NikoSilver 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wish one single user, administrator or not, to see how blatantly, and in a ugly fashion, this user has been pushing his POV in this or several other articles..Instead of presenting here bits and pieces of the dispute, i invite anyone to see the discussion..

He changes non-pro Turkish historians` citations to things that they dont say, fanatically revert the article without entering into any discussion, or say completely unrelated things just to seem like he is actually discussing something when in fact he doesnt..

I dont have any problem with any particular nationality, and if somebody would check my edits it will be obvious that i do not promote any nationalistic pov pushing, i myself several times added definitely non-pro Turkish citations and quotations to wikipedia, but i cant stand to see such an ugly POV pushing to be continued for such a long time..--laertes d 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Laertes we are not discussing any dispute here, this is not WP:DR or anything. Also, please do not interfere with my comments ever again.[101] NikoSilver 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

i just wish you could simply stick to the point instead of making ad hominem attacks to show yourself on the right side, bring your issues with that particular `dispute`..--laertes d 13:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you are altering my comment. NikoSilver 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the third. NikoSilver 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the tenth time youre employing ad hominem stretegy, as i said just use things that is directly related with the current discussion, if anybody is interested that much about these things they can see it with a little research..Im taking them as an another attempt in your part to change the topic and thats why im moving them..I do not list here countless links of how blatantly nationalistic pov pushing edits you have made in wikipedia and have been criticized by doing so by several other editors..--laertes d 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the fourth time. For those interested in my initial comment, this is the diff. NikoSilver 14:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked laertes d (talk · contribs · count) indefinetly. His block log clearly shows that this is not the first time he is behaving like this, and that he hasn't changed from previous blocks. He is causing too much disruption to continue here. Maxim 14:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. The fewer nationalistic edit-warring SPAs we have around here, the better. Top-hole block. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I restore my original comment here in ANI (since I doubt anybody can figure it out in the history's mess), or will it be deemed as a 3RR vio from my part? I know people are not supposed to interfere with one's comments, but you can never be too safe... NikoSilver 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl

Obviously some poor articles - unsourced and not notable in many cases. No admin actions used so this isn't an admin noticeboard incident. violet/riga (t) 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Dear Arbitration Committee,

I have before you a matter of extreme urgency--the actitivies of ONE particular administrator, Administrator Brown-Haired Girl, who has engaged in an UNMITIGATED campaign of terror, harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and name-calling against not simply my person, but the entire world system of determing who is the world's oldest person. To give the complete story here would be long-winded. However, noting that ALL the latest edits involve articles that I have either created or edited:

It seems fairly obvious this user is OUT OF CONTROL and needs to be blocked immediately from further editing until which time she calms down.

The Wikipedia system is SUPPOSED to be based on RELIABLE sources. However, user Brown-Haired Girl FIRST questioned my integrity when I challenged her deletion of a category she didn't like. When facts were presented that I was in fact an established authority in the field, instead of doing the right thing, she gathered a lot of 'friends' and launched an all-out attack to wipe not just myself but the 'Gerontology Research Group' and 'supercentenarians' from Wikipedia. Pick up a copy of the 2008 Guinness World Records. Look on page 67 (hardcover edition) and you'll see the GRG (www.grg.org) listed as the source for Guinness World Record's oldest living persons category. Given that the (western) media has viewed Guinness as even the 'official arbiter of longevity',

MILESTONES - TIMECalls inundated the offices of The Guinness Book of World Records, official arbiter of longevity. Herewith a few of the candidates in the vintage ... www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986874,00.html?iid=chix-sphere - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Are we now going to let a SINGLE administrator on Wikipedia decide, all by herself, that this is just 'linkspam'? I note the Gerontology Research Group is a NONPROFIT scientific organization that includes a Who's Who of the world's top scientists, such as Leonard Hayflic, Aubrey de Grey, etc. Note that User Brown-Haired Girl also attacked the James Birren article (a co-founder of the Gerontology Society of America group, the top organization in the field, end of story). Mis-use of admin. power to harass, intimidate, incorrectly remove links, calling reliable sources 'spam', refusing to talk or negotiate, making inappropriate AFD nominations, etc show an administrator completely out of control. If ever there was a time for a block and a mass reversion of someone's edits, the time is now.

Current revision (13:29, 11 November 2007) (edit) (undo) BrownHairedGirl (Talk | contribs) (notability, refs, rm linkspam)

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you sum that all up in a simple, brief manner? BrownEyedGirl is doing what, exactly? and why is what shes' doing wrong? Thank you. That mess of text and templates is hard to read and sort through without links. ThuranX 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell BrownEyedGirl is removing links to Ryoung122's website - I presume the criteria is Primary Source, where there are available reliable third party sources - to which Ryoung122 objects. LessHeard vanU 13:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young is now blocked for distruption. Maxim 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's a pity that Robert still has not learnt how to post to a talk page, rather than spamming it with huge copy-pasted blocks. :(
  Anyway, here's what's happening: having become aware that a major contributor to articles on extremely old people has no apparent understanding of notability guidelines or of COI issues, and having seen his repeated unwillingness to engage with them in a week of XfD discussions, I have been scanning the relevant categories of old people and tagging for improvement about half of those I encounter, which have lacked adequate references to reliable sources an/or do not establish the notability of the subject. I have also removed as linkspam many links to the homepage of Robert's employer, http://www.grg.org , I have use {{prod}} to proposed deletion of about 5 articles, and nominated two for AfD. As per usual practice, if Robert or other editors are able to add sufficient references and to establish notability of the notability of the subjects of the articles through substantial coverage in independent sources, the tags should be removed.
  One of the difficulties is that Robert either does not accept or does not understand some fairly basic points, such as that links to his own yaoogroup are not reliable sources, and that inclusion in a list published by his employer is not evidence of notability, and after a week of trying to discuss these points with him, I have banned him from my talk page because it was becoming unmanageably bloated as a result of his spamming it. I hope that other editors may improve many of the articles I have tagged, but I'm afraid that I see little evidence that Robert will do so. :(
  However, I have to say that I love the section heading here. The Western Media must be united in outrage that a wikipedia editor is asking for more citations from their publications. String her up, I say! ;)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was sort of impressed that you're managing to wage a war of terror on old people, all by yourself. I bet you assault the elderly with their own canes, don't you?--Thespian 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that I am apparently doing this against "the entire world". Eat your heart out, Osama, you're small fry ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That kind of atitude is hardly going to increase the chances of there being a mutaly acceptable resolution.Geni 15:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And you're begging the question by assuming that a mutually acceptable resolution is required in the first place. --Calton | Talk 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I for one am happy with the resolution. Good block, Maxim. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Maxim. Well done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But an indefinite block for him is very harsh indeed though, is it not? Extremely sexy 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And so am I. BrownHairedGirl did absolutely nothing wrong - except perhaps take a stance which Ryoung122 disagreed with. Sam Blacketer 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting out of hand now: you have marked all articles about the world's oldest people for deletion, and this without any reason or whatsoever, and I will notify other administrators of your own disruptive behavior. Extremely sexy 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Of the supercentenarian I have checked, I have {{prod}}ded about five, nominated two at AFD, and tagged about half of the others I have seen with one or more of {{notability}}, {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}. Most of those I have seen fall well short of establishing notability per WP:BIO, and I look forward to seeing the articles either improved or merged into lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But all the references to the message board at the yahoo group about the world's oldest people are reliable ones. Extremely sexy 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate restoration of article skirting deletion review

Rhythmnation2004 (talk · contribs) created JAMAA which I speedy deleted as a non-notable organization. The user then opened a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_10#JAMAA. The discussion so far has been to support the original deletion as the club was not a notable organization. Rhythmnation2004 has now recreated the article at JAMAA stating that he feels he now has enough evidence to prove it's notable. He created it at his sandbox first, but now has moved that to the main article stating that he was restoring because "due to lack of admin participation. Since my current revision cites credible sources, I'm going to restore this page since there has been no administrative comments in the last several hours."

Is this appropriate to recreate an article because a DRV hasn't been active within a few hours? Shouldn't we let the DRV run its full course before we restore? Thanks, Metros 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A brief review of the last example of the deleted article and the current one does indicate the provision of (unchecked) third party sources, and to my eyes it seems the article does establish notability. However, this is not an answer to the question you raised.

The reason for recreation is inappropriate, the consensus that was developing was that the speedy delete was correct and a lack of response to the availability of sources establishing notability was no reason to ignore the existing consensus. If further content was found that could be added then it should have been noted at the DRV and the consensus allowed to change. There is no requirement or pressing reason for the article to be recreated prior to that happening, and the DRV should have been allowed to be completed. I think Rhythmnation2004's actions to be very pointy, and suggest that they be admonished for them - lest this establishes a methodology by this editor which may well cause disruption in the future. LessHeard vanU 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with everything you say. However, I'd like someone else (like you or any other admin) to say this to Rhythmnation2004 because he believes I have a vendetta against him. Basically anything I'd say to him would be blown off or taken as a personal attack. Ceyockey (talk · contribs) has already tried talking to him about this issue but as you can see the comments don't seem to fall under much consideration. Metros 15:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK. I've userfied the article to User:Rhythmnation2004/JAMAA and deleted it. I will be informing the user and placing a note on the DRV page. The new version is very possibly notable, but that doesn't mean we can end-run round procedure, or chaos would ensue. ELIMINATORJR 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read We can end-run round procedure. Chaos is SOP around these here parts, so long as it make the encyclopedia better - and adding sourced articles is the very essence of creating this encyclopedia. Give people who are trying to add sourced content the benefit of the doubt. Don't handicap them. Don't drive them away. Help them. WAS 4.250 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to help them in a way that satisfied everyone. Obviously that wasn't successful. ELIMINATORJR 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What policy permits an administrator to speedily delete an article based on a "consensus" that an earlier speedy deletion is proper? My understanding is that CSD specifically permits people to recreate articles that had been speedily deleted, and says that a prior speedy deletion is no reason for an A7 deletion. In fact, a prior consensus deletion is not a valid reason for speedy deletion if the article is recreated in different form or in a way that overcomes the prior reason. The user says he can establish notability, and now has an article with sources. That doesn't sound like circumventing policy. On the face of things, it sounds like doing exactly what one is supposed to do. If the deletion is at all controversial it should go through AfD, not speedy deletion, right? 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Wikidemo 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The repost was all but identical, pretty much word-for-word. But if he feels that strongly an AfD won't hurt. That said, I'd advocate delete at AfD based on the article as written in the sandbox - the sources are not primarily about this group, and one of the two calls it a "small organisation". I suspect it's a bit too soon in its life for a properly compliant article. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

MIGO 99 (talk · contribs)

MIGO 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- appears to have uploaded some images without licenses or sources, and he is placing them in an enormous range of articles. When people are reverting these edits he is putting the images back in and he has already broken WP:3RR on Mido (footballer could an admin sort this mess out? The sunder king 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I count five separate images, which although they are unsourced, is hardly "hundreds". Reports of violations of the three revert rule belong at the appropriate noticeboard but this is clearly an enthusiastic new user who does not understand the importance of copyrights. Have you tried to talk to him first, before calling the cops? Sam Blacketer 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A few messages have been posted on his talkpage about the images, (from humans) but the user hasn't seemed to have listened. The sunder king 17:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of the images have already been deleted, the rest will be deleted later if no license or source is provided and if the user keeps reverting please inform them about 3RR. Oysterguitarist 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request semi-protection for Bindeez while it's on the front page.

Resolved

Bindeez (a toy) is linked from the front page of Wikipedia, since it's the subject of a newsworthy product recall. Of the last 50 or so edits, most have been vandalism or reversions of vandalism, mostly from random anons. Request a day or two of semi-protection until the issue cools off. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Article semi-protected for 24 hours. Shadow1 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for future reference, you can use requests for page protection, too. Qst (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:ScottAHudson

ScottAHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user has a long history of disruptive edits and serious ownership issues. He was even blocked on September 29 (2007) for this type of behavior. Today, he once again made made changes to a Big Brother related page that went against a known consensus for that page. I reverted the edit, with an explanation in the edit summary as to why I did so. I also left another notice on his talk page explaining this. I've left him at least 10 notices and/or warnings in the past 3 months and others have also. Apparently he hasn't learned from his last block. This user makes very little contributions to the main space and focuses his time on his, what I feel, are pointless subpages. This point has also been discussed with him on several occasions, as evident from his current talk page, and the previous removed comments. Perhaps an admin can leave him a note (if he even deserves more warnings) as he is obviously not taking me, nor anybody else seriously. - Rjd0060 20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since Riana blocked him. I've reblocked for a month. Maxim 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I suggested on Scott's page that he look into one of the many personal wiki programs so that he can set up his own site as he pleases. --Kyoko 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Socking

This section has been moved. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#SockPuppet KingPuppy 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User claims plausibly to be sock of indef blocked User:LtWinters

• Republicanpower07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LtWinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not much else to say. (Sorry if this is better reported somewhere else.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. east.718 at 00:42, 11/12/2007

User:Marinidil

Resolved

 – Account blocked as a sock of banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the AdF for West Garden Grove admits to creating a new account for the sole purpose of commenting on the AdF. CelticGreen 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as they don't use it to votestack or disrupt, I don't see the problem. east.718 at 00:42, 11/12/2007

Did you look at the page? They have definitely disrupted the page. They've also left unveiled threats on other users pages. CelticGreen 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide differential edits to substantiate your claims as I can't find any evidence of disruption; although the user could use a lesson in diplomacy. Also, restoring warnings constitutes harassment on your part. east.718 at 01:26, 11/12/2007

Hardly. I was replying to his accusations in the article that I was vandalizing the page. How you cannot see his comments as disruptive is beyond comprehension. Admitting he created the account so his long time account wouldn't be blocked for his behaviour? How is that not an admission of guilt? He accused me of "fixing" the vote while I was only putting comments in order. He further accused me of deleting comments, which I did not. Seems to me he's the one making baseless accusations and hiding behind a new user name. Oh, and that "differential edits" thing makes 0 sense. And a cursory check of his latest edits are definitely disruptive and do personally attack. CelticGreen 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, just please leave me alone Celtic. I have done nothing wrong, I just created a new account to use because I didnt choose to use my original account for this purpose when I learned about this issue. I have done nothing wrong. I just want you to leave me alone, stop harassing me, and everything will be alright. I have done nothing to you and have not attacked you, I would appreciate the same consideration in return. Are you now going to report me for every little thing? Admins dont have time for complaints like this. Just leave me alone I would appreciate it. Marinidil 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The name is CelticGreen. I have only conformed to Wikipedia policy by reporting an abusive, incivil, sockpuppet. I have not harrased you. You left the first message calling me a coward and accusing me of deleting comments when all I did was move comments to the order of their arrival on an AdF. You also hurled same accusations against Esanchez. I would call that wrong and I'm not harrassing you. This is not on your user page, it's on the admin notification page based on your behaviour. See this edit [102]CelticGreen 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I never accused him of deleting my comments personally, but the Anon who he/she argued with did. And there was truth behind that accusation, this Anon's comment was deleted [103]. Marinidil 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not deleted, it was moved to the bottom of the page in order of arrival on the AdF.CelticGreen 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• User Marindi warned. Please go back and make useful contributions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi-Under legitimate uses for socpuppets, this is one of the statements: "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area."

That is simply what I am doing, and it abides by the rules of Wiki. Can you explain my wrongdoings? Marinidil 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that it is obvious that Marinidil used the sock account for disruptive/abusive purposes. However, CelticGreen's "harassment" (as quoted above) by re-adding the warnings, and then accusing me of being involved in sockpuppetry was completely uncalled for. - Rjd0060 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Marinidil is a sock puppet of banned Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've blocked that new account along with some IPs and an old account he used to contribute to an AfD. Anyone who works on articles related to Orange County, California should keep their eyes open for him - alhough he was banned a year ago he keeps popping in every week or two. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please indef block this WR troll

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Section_230_Expert

Wikipedia contributors publish using servers and bandwidth provided by WikiMedia which acts as a service provider. This clown from WR is deliberately trolling. WAS 4.250 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Got him. east.718 at 01:57, 11/12/2007

This MyWikiBiz vendetta may never end. -- Satori Son 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre behavior from Jehochman

After blocking me without explanation (swiftly reversed) User:Jehochman has accused me of being the respected administrator El C,[104] some fellow named Greg, with whom he plays "cat and mouse",[105], blanked the discussion of the block from his own user talk page,[106], which he then s-protected against "trolling",[107].. Then he began edit-warring to remove the discussion from my own user talk, citing mysterious BLP violations which he refused to explain besides a generic template message, and which I still fail to see.[108] (unless Jehochman's own comment, to which I'd linked, is the violation?) Now Bishonen, presumably acting on the basis of what can only be Jehochman's misrepresentations, has protected my own user talk page, citing the same unexplained BLP violations and accused me of being a banned user.[109] The first time I posted this inquiry to this noticeboard, Jehochman himself removed it with the summary, "remove post by banned user."[110] I'm not a banned user, I'm not El C, my name isn't Greg, I didn't violate BLP or talk page guidelines, and I'm completely baffled by this bizarre behavior, for which I feel I'm owed an explanation.

Because both Jehochman and Bishonen have s-protected my talk page as well as their own, I have no way of communicating with them about these blocks (or anything else) other than to post here. If someone could unprotect my talk page, that would be great.24.19.33.82 03:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This probably is due to you using AOL, which sucks. Your IP just happens to be similar to whoever they think you are. Perspicacite 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Comcast, not AOL. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the edits to User talk:24.19.33.82 and see no reason why it was s-protected. In fact, Jehochman blocked this IP as a sock and then explained that the real reason was trolling.[111] I recommend several admins review this matter, because it looks like this IP user has a case. Rklawton 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen applied semi-protection for repeatedBiography of living person violations. The fellow is using my real name and attributing unethical real life behavior to me without sourcing. I warned him a few times. This looks like a sock or meat puppet of MyWikiBiz based on behavior. I recommend employing WP:DENY. He originally started trolling at WT:SOCK, so I blocked for 24 hours. He's been harassing me since. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying it is a BLP violation for someone to make accusations of misconduct about you in you role as an admin because you edit under your real name? I've never seen BLP applied by admins in this way before. I'm having difficulty seeing a BLP problem with this thread in any event. A lot of users make comments in a manner stronger than advisable when dealing with administrators - the skill is to be able to calm the situation. Blankings, blocks and talkpage protections are not the way to achieve that in my experience. WjBscribe 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's MyWikiBiz: either the banned editor himself or someone who's proxying for him. Either way, a clear WP:SOCK policy violation. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What BLP reason? And what reason do you have to believe it is Greg Kohs? Viridae^Talk 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser should be performed to ascertain whether the anonymous editor is MyWikiBiz, otherwise leave him alone. Looking at his contributions, I do not see trolling. Where is the BLP violation? Perspicacite 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, are you serious? You link to your website from your userpage and have a bio for everyone to see. You're complaining about him using your real name? Perspicacite 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since nothing untoward has been written by this IP on this IP's talk page, why is it protected? I have now read every contribution made by this IP, and if it's a sock, it's not an abusive one, and so it doesn't violate WP:SOCK. Rklawton 03:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He was pulling the same thing a week and a half ago, and pretty much admitted his identity.[112] All standard Kohs MO: he's always been in it for the buck, so he attributes an unethical profit motive to anyone who upholds site policies and tells him no. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that COI analyst is a likely to be Kohs -it sounds very much like him. I'm less persuaded in the case of this IP. WjBscribe 03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I originally blocked the IP for trolling. It could be another from that group who likes to troll us. Kohs has a discussion forum with them where they share ideas. Also, I was having a conversation with El C when an IP comment popped up. I asked if it was El C because I thought he might have logged out. Nothing more. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now read all User:COI analyst's edits, and I see no problem with them, either. This account should not have been blocked. This edit expresses a legitimate concern. As much as I've enjoyed reading Durova's Wikipedia related SEO articles, COI related concerns are worth discussing, and the now-blocked editor picked the appropriate time and place to do it. Rklawton 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Greg Koh is banned and I'm pretty persuaded COI analyst is him - the tone sounds very much like him and its making virtually identical points to those he's made off-site. I don't have a problem with the block of that user. If you think the points should be discussed, you can of course raise them independently (indeed I asked a question about Jehochman's SEO involvement at his RfA). I'm a little more worried about how this IP was treated and what strikes me as a novel application of BLP. WjBscribe 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I think the IP is likely MyWikiBiz; the language in this post reflects his concerns, particularly the accusation that Jehochman has a COI in participating in Wikipedia, and the post uses some buzzwords that are currently hot on a Site We're Not Supposed To Link To. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of respect for Jehochman's privacy I'm refraining from posting the diffs: this sock insists on referring to that editor by his surname rather than his username, and repeats Kohs's insinuation that Jehochman participtes at this website to make money (elsewhere Kohs makes that claim about me also). He repeatedly restored that disclosure and the claim despite repeated blanking of the IP's user talk, and quite obviously this is a sock rather than a new user. The question of whether this actually is Kohs or not is beside the point. Either is a violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLP and WP:POINT - the only distinction is which clause of the sockpuppet policy is being violated. He didn't stop until the IP's talk page was protected and as soon as a 3 hour block expired he went right back to disruption. So I implemented a routine reblock. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If Jehochman has a problem with criticisms of him as an admin being made using his name, I would strongly advise (a) removing the link to his website from his userpame and (b) getting renamed. Otherwise this situation is likely to reoccur rather frequently. WjBscribe 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being criticized for my actions on Wiki, but when somebody alleges things about me in Real Life, that's crossing the line into BLP territory. Erasing the link would be pointless because I am well known. I prefer transparency. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

My thoughts on checkuser are that unless the suspected sock has violated WP:SOCK there's no reason to use checkuser - unless the suspected puppet master has been blocked/banned. Is that the case here? Rklawton 03:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz is banned. Any edit by him is a violation of policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz is totally banned. Totally. Do a checkuser. Perspicacite 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a Comcast IP. We aren't going to get much from it. WjBscribe 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted a CU. The result was inconclusive. MyWikiBiz is technically sophisticated and has historically done a good job covering his tracks. We have to look at the editing pattern and motive. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking MyWikiBiz socks for a year and am pretty good at spotting them. If it weren't for this sock's invasion of another editor's privacy I'd post all the diffs on this one to spell it out for newcomers to the situation. With Jehochman's permission I'd be willing to share evidence via e-mail. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking over the edit history, expecting to find a clear cut case of trolling and/or sock puppetry prior to the first block. instead I found two edits:

Removed statement with a cite tag from Feb 2007 and Plainly stating that popular administrators are exempt from the restrictions should nicely define the balance we seek.
Did I miss something? Special:Contributions/24.19.33.82 Unless I have, this person made a reasonable edit by removing material in need of a source for over six months and made a smart ass point. Is it possible that perhaps, some people here have been a bit quick in jumping to conclusions? Anynobody 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Any, did that edit conflict with my post above? Durova^Charge! 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This reads like something Durova might have written in one of her SEO articles. But what does it have to do with this case? Rklawton 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RK, you've got the wrong editor there. Check your diff. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To Durova, probably... (noted conflict in edit summary). Anynobody 04:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, please retract that statement. Those are not my opinions at all and neither the diff nor that IP address is related to this conversation. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Retracted. I've spent the last five minutes trying to figure out where I got that link. Rklawton 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova: all things considered, if you think this is a case of WP:DUCK, then I'm satisfied. Rklawton 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. The fellow behind MyWikiBiz takes an intense interest in my offsite publications. Not only has he posted to every column I've written, he posted to the YouTube video interview I did and sometimes even posts about me after I comment at other people's offsite articles. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. You've got the experience to make DUCK stick, and I appreciate your taking the time to help sort this out. Rklawton 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All in all I'm willing to accept the views of admins more knowledgeable than me about Greg Koh as to whethere this IP is his sock. However 3 points about this still worry me: (a) the initial allegations that the IP was El C, (b) the BLP blanking of the userpage for raising criticisms about Jehochman and (c) the fact that this complaint was twice blanked by Jehochman rather than allowing fellow admins to evaluate its merits. The first point shows a troubling failure to AGF on the part of another admin. The second and third are likely to open Wikipedia up to considerable criticism for closing ranks and being unwilling to discuss such issues. That this comes so soon after the controversial block of DreamGuy is also a worry. Jehochman, as a relatively new admin, might it not be a good idea for you stear away from these sorts of controversies for a while? WjBscribe 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

These are fair points and I'll leave it to the editors who protected the talk page and performed the initial block to answer them. By the time I intervened the situation had developed to the point where reblocking was a straightforward decision and I saw no need to undo the talk page protection. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, those are fair points which I will keep in mind. I've emailed you an explanation. We should not continue to feed the trolls and hand them extra beans. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe's concerns were what got my beanie-prop spinning. But if I understand the above correctly, Jehochman also has significant experience with Koh as well, and as we saw later, Durova agreed with his assessment. I think Jehochman should have blocked the user as a Koh sock. Such a block probably would have stuck, and we wouldn't have had this AN/I. Jehochman's mistake? Trolling and BLP weren't the primary concerns here and had me chasing off in the wrong direction. I'd recommend that Jehochman simply take more care in his communications so that reviewing admins can clearly see the primary issue. Other than that, keep up the good work. Rklawton 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rklawton. I am new at this, and am working on some very tough cases, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, which is currently in the voting phase. WJBscribe makes a good point that I should not take on too many challenges all at once. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with points made by WJB above and, I really hate to be the one to raise this, but, I think this needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later. Just because someone raises concerns with regard to JH and Durova's external activities, does not mean that it is either a Greg Koh's sockpuppet, someone proxying for Kohs or someone sucked in by Kohs. Every time I see these concerns raised, they're dismissed as one of the above, like here for instance. It's entirely possible (actually, it is probable) that others have reached their own similar conclusions entirely independent of Greg Kohs. Frankly, this business is getting way too bizarre for my liking. I honestly don't see the BLP violation in the links above. JH, seriously, I think you should consider removing the link to your business from your userpage and requesting an account rename to something other than your name. At the very least, please consider allowing another admin to remove any threads that need to be removed, especially when they are complaints about yourself. Sarah 05:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to run and hide, Sarah, but I will certainly take your advice and let another administrator remove threads because I don't want to create drama. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting you "run and hide" but if you are sensitive about these sorts of issues (and trust me, this is just the beginning) out of concern for your business reputation and name, then I think you should give careful consideration to all your options, including whether you want to so clearly connect your Wikipedia identity to your business and real name. Sarah 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, no one treated that in isolation. This IP was obviously not some new user who had happened to stumble across Jehochman's real name in some offsite venue: it was an obvious sock who posted a sarcastic comment to a namespace talk page on its second edit, and whose actions steadily worsened from there. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment above was a general comment about these concerns which keep being raised and not always by trollish IPs and sockpuppets. I have not expressed an opinion about this particular IP other than to suggest to Jonathan that he should leave removing trollish complaints about himself to another admin so as to avoid any accusations of underhanded behaviour etc. Sarah 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's any concern about my activities I'm happy to discuss it. This evening I learned that an editor I respect had supposed I got paid to write the offsite column. I don't. My participation at last month's conference was partially sponsored, but I still had quite a few out of pocket expenses and the trip was too short to do any sightseeing. I tried to do this pseudonymously when I started publishing offsite in order to avoid any appearance of seeking personal gain, but several people (probably banned Wikipedians) insisted on posting my real name at the article comments and linking to attack site pages about me. So I added my name to the byline, and now the same people try to spin that into a claim that I'm doing something improper. The way I've seen this unfold, some banned editors have been very proactive about trying to spin the public's perception of Wikipedia while at the same time they try to undermine any Wikipedian in good standing who does volunteer outreach. My goal has been to prevent some of our problems with COI, spam, and related issues before they start. Durova^Charge! 06:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarah's point is very close to what I was saying. People ought not be surprised that strangers know their name or other personal info if they link to it from their user space. With all due respect to Jehochman and Durova, they could be right in this instance, but the way of identifying a sock puppet by smart ass nature or using a name readily available to all, assumes that
1) There aren't many smart asses out there
<false>
2) Nobody reads userpages.
<false>
(PS Don't get me wrong, sometimes it's really easy to spot a sock, so I'm not saying there aren't times when a person gives themselves away with one or two edits. I'm just not seeing that here.) Anynobody 06:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this, Anynobody, feel free to email me for details. I owe you a Q&A session about other matters too. Happy editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that even assuming you are right this time, if other admins are as quick to impose blocks on IPs or new accounts they suspect are socks, don't you think a lot of mistakes are bound to be made? Anynobody 07:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

With experience one gets quite good at this. That said, upon further consideration I'm going to let other sysops do the honors if this happens again. My aim was to put my experience on the case to good use, I don't want to create any appearance of silencing criticism. Legitimate criticism is welcome and the other kind is nothing to worry about. Durova^Charge! 07:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I was watching this late last night and was surprised to see Jehochman apparently remove an ANI thread which criticised his behaviour and block and protect the user talk page of the IP who had added it. Surprised that is, until I looked at the IP's comments which made it clear that it was someone well known, and almost certainly was Gregory Kohs who is a banned user. For the future, I would recommend that in the case of not obviously trolling ANI threads started by anonymous IPs or by sockpuppets of banned users, instead of removing the thread, a {{resolved}} is added at the top and a note at the bottom that explains exactly who the IP was or was suspected of being. It might save a bit of trouble given that pages like this are often watched and people notice if things disappear. Sam Blacketer 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Revertionist reverting to bury AfD template

ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting on the article Mappila Malayalam irresponsibly. He never cared to explain the questions or address the concerns raised on the talk page. As a result the article went to AfD. See the AfD. However, in stead of participating in the AfD or answering the concerns the user has again reverted and buried the AfD template. User's disruptive behaviour is evident from his log, Uploading stolen images under GDFL license repeatedly, for example. Admin action sought. --Stray cat ano 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any recent attempts to engage the user on the user's talk page. I left a template warning about AfD template removal, but I don't see a need for administrative intervention at this point. -- But|seriously|folks  04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Troll-free Wiki (talk · contribs)

User:Troll-free Wiki seems to be an account created specifically for the purpose of harassing User:Rhinoracer; TfW's first edit is a post to User talk:Rhinoracer asking for him to be banned [113]. His fifth edit is to start an SSP case against Rhinoracer: [114]. I'm inclined to block this guy as a harassment-only account, but I'd appreciate some additional opinions. There seems to be some kind of off-wiki dispute being imported to Wikipedia here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support a block for harassing other users. Troll-free's attacks are despicable, and reek of sockpuppetry. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Troll-free Wiki for legal threats here. -- But|seriously|folks  05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I missed that contrib. Thanks for taking action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

VoABot II defending badly damaged article

Resolved

Monica Lewinsky was tripled in size by a vandal, and three others, myself included, have had their efforts at reversion undone by this bot. Mine was [115]. This bot is presently quite exploitable. 68.183.26.130 05:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been fixed, with no bot revert....yet. - Rjd0060 05:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot seems to only revert anon edits, not admin ones. —Kurykh 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well anons and new users only. Voice-of-All 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Goon rush

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2681321&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Someone should probably keep an eye on that and revert accordingly. Jtrainor 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That forum thread cannot be viewed by unregistered members. What's the issue? -- Satori Son 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Summer of Vile.--Atlan (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

why haven't we speedied that yet? --Crossmr 06:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and blocked several of them. It seems User:Rubber cat, recently blocked 48 hours for vandalism, has been encouraging fellow Something Awful members to vandalize various articles as revenge. --krimpet⟲ 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel got him indef. east.718 at 07:43, 11/12/2007

Block of Rubber cat

Rubber cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely, as my block message says, for inciting and encouraging vandalism and disruption in a deliberate and blatant manner. It was done on an off-Wiki forum, link, and hence this as well as the fact that the account has a fair few edits (900-odd) I bring this here for review.

I have no objection to people criticising Wikipedia off-wiki, and I also recognise that attacking people off-Wiki isn't often blockable. However, in this situation, inciting others to vandalise in such a blatant and deliberate manner is not compatible with also being allowed the ability to edit Wikipedia, both given the blatant attempts to negate what we're doing here (constructing an encyclopedia), and the disruption this user is directly, deliberately and knowingly causing by doing so.

I welcome a review of this block and, if consensus supports it (for whatever reason), an unblocking.

Because the forum is private, many users won't be able to access the information. If any established user so requests the content of the posts, then I will email them via the Wikipedia email interface. Cheers, Daniel 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this from the thread above - unfortunately their forum is private, and pay access is required, but I happened to have an account left over from when I was active there years ago, and I can confirm that on Nov 10, 2007 15:13, while he was serving a 48-hour block for vandalism, he made a thread in their "FYAD" forum inciting "everybody go vandalize at least 3 wikipedia articles right now." I support the block; we have no need for this silliness. --krimpet⟲ 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged this thread into the above one as a subthread. Daniel 07:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: This edit may also be of interest - see Footu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Daniel 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• If it hasn't been done already, all edits by Footu should be automatically reverted, since that was a vandalism only account. Bread climp should also be speedy deleted, since it was created by Foot to vandalize Bread clip. Cumulus Clouds 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvey (talk · contribs) Personal attacks, Civility, edit warring

It starts with this on the paypal talk page [116] He makes claims that those links had been defended on the talk page but I could find no evidence of that. He then adds another link here [117] which seems to have no purpose. it doesn't seem to support anything in the text of the article as the text its citing is about the location of the offices and not what phone numbers to use to get through to various departments. In addition to restoring this link he makes some comments on the talk page [118]. Including You are really pissing me of now, But as I said, pollute away, and How dare you? Are you looking for or do you have gig as a corporate Public Relations shill? . I removed the link from the article stating that I so no relevance to the text in question and also left him an NPA warning on his talk page. He reverted with [119] unfounded accusation of violation of WP:NPA. Looks like he didn't carefully read what I actually wrote. I wish I could run CheckUser to look for sock puppets Which as vague as he wants to word it is still a direct accusation of sock puppetry since I and cool caesor are the only two involved in this right now with him. He then flat our denies he said these things [120], then removes the discussion claiming "libel". He also reverts the removal of the link again claiming it supports the text, but doesn't clarify this. As a challenged source, and given the other abrasive language, 3 reverts or not its clearly edit warring [121].--Crossmr 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Death threats by User:Jahary

Resolved

Hi, my user and talk pages have been repeatedly vandalised by a user, including a death threat (here). I also have some vulgar language on my user page edit history that I was wondering if I could have removed by a sysop.

Thanks so much!

Malzees o.0 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely and am working on undoing his vandalism. east.718 at 07:33, 11/12/2007

Thanks again!! I was hoping I'm going through the right channel. Malzees o.0 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and done. Making death threats isn't very smart when you reveal your real-life identity at the same time. east.718 at 07:40, 11/12/2007