Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Coloane community ban discussion

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

This is in response to an email I received from a concerned editor. It would appear that User:Coloane continues to attempt to use FAC as a weapon for causing disruption against editors he has a beef with. There was a prior ANI discussion (here about possible problems with Coloane; this was resolved by Raul, who said that mentoring Coloane was a possible option. However, one of the main points in that discussion, that Coloane was using FAC intentionally to disrupt Wikipedia, was lost I think, and it is still happening. Two relevent difs: here: [1] where he claims to wish to see another editors article "fail and die at FAC" and here: [2] where he threatens to obstruct any articles edited by another user from becoming FAC. These edits are personally directed, and represent a directed attempt to disrupt, in my opinion. Now, this was all in the prior ANI report, however the behavior continues DESPITE the prior report. At this dif where he opposes the article U2, he makes a veiled reference to his deliberate attempt to obstruct of the Russia FAC. And the final issue is here: [3] where he cleary says that he is making outrageous and unactionable claims on the article, simply to obstruct the vote. This is stretching the bounds of good faith, and we should consider a community ban restricting this user from the entire FA process. What I see here is repeated attempts (feeble as they may be) to push a personal agenda by making outlandish and rediculous oppose votes at FA nominations. That such votes are patently rediculous and likely to be discounted by the FA director is moot. The Russia FAC would have failed regardless of Coloanes clumsy attempt to disrupt it; likewise the U2 FAC is likely to succeed in spite of it. However, these obvious and rediculous attempts at trolling need to be stopped. I recognize that he has been a valuable contributor to many articles here at Wikipedia, but he clearly misunderstands how to work well with others at FAC, and a community ban may be in order. Any ideas?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed his "vote" and the discussion thread from the FAC, directing him to dispute resolution. It was an inappropriate, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic exchange. El_C 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. I still press that a community ban of some sort on FA discussions needs to be addressed. Do others agree, or do we need to let this play out further. As I noted, the user has made some clearly positive contributions, but this behavior at FA should not be suffered for much longer... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are something wrong here. You tried to talk about the vote from Russia (or the last message from the noticeboard) and mixed up the vote I put on U2 in order to rationalise your above message. This is my first time to see it. Again, my vote in Russia and U2 are fair with highly detail reasons and they are all seperate issues. It doesn't make sense and it is rude to erase my vote over there. Everyone can go there and vote. With the message I wrote to Mikoyan is a third matter. You had better treat it one by one. So go back to the U2 issue. You made my comment over my comment, why didn't you take this to the talk page? I answered your question politely and illustrated my point clearly. The message I wrote you is to tell you what vote means and my comment is entirely my personal view. If you are not a nominator nor main editor of U2, you can simply ignore it. It is not a message to tell you that I will come here to disrupt FAC next time. Probably you didn't pay attention or misunderstood. Coloane (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have a history of behavior which cannot be ignored at this point. You don;t get to disrupt FAC after FAC over and over simply because you want us to forget about past problems. You have never adequately explained you outright declarations to intentionally disrupt the processes at FAC. For this reason, I feel the community ban is an appropriate solution. I urge you to refrain from commenting on FACs and FARs in the future, and return to editing articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is your concrete evidence to prove that I disrupt/ed the FAC process? I am not going to write anymore here since it really wastes me too much time to reply your comment, so this is my last comment here. I guess you probably wanted to save your face on my comment under U2. Plus I guess you have nothing to do so far and that is why you spent most of your time to see if you can do something. Oh by the way, it seems you did a right job to give a warning to someone I didn't know. Hopefully this is not the only one you can do as an admin. Good luck! Coloane (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem: [4]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then put this comment on Archive 354. Coloane (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see related thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane. It would seem a community ban on FA/GA discussions is the next stage from here. Orderinchaos 11:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall Coloane has commented in a past Macau FAC with personal attacks directed at Tony and myself at the very least. I have reminded this user that the attacking behaviour is unacceptable, but has ignored the message. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (GMT)

So the question remains: Are we prepared to institute and enforce a community ban on this user? Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence above, something needs to be done; I just don't know what. Maybe a ban, maybe FAC probation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (GMT)

I think if the user were restricted from any future FA discussions, that would be a reasonable solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he has not clean up his acts & instead went on his 'crusade' further by ignoring any past community warnings or actions & even while his case is in arbitration now, I wld like to bring to your attention on his editing behaviour & actions towards Singapore-related articles & the SGpedia community not too long ago. As his case is still pending here, he has 'retired' suddenly as of Jan 23 but I've lingering doubts that he will remain so for long. [5]. u may also want to read his remarks posted on Jimbo Wales' talkpage previously. Fyi, I'm a RC patroller & was given the roll-back authority to help in monitoring on Singapore-related articles for such trolls & vandals. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane is my husband. I already let him retire and he will not come back for sure. I hope it can clarify your doubt. In addition, I do not think your claim about what he did for Singapore-related topics are reasonable. Guia Hill 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

The statement I made were based on his pattern of disruptive behaviour as seen from his history logs, talkpage (blanked repeatedly[6]), personal attacks on SG-related articles [7] & SGpedians [8] that also matches similar reports made by other editors/Admins all these while. I'm not alone nor the only SGpedian in making such a statement as seen from this discussion, related disputes & repeated ANI cases initiated unabatedly over the past 2 weeks. Besides the SG case I mentioned earlier, I trust the Wiki community is able to evaluate on any such claims being discussed here & decide on its final long-term solution once & for all as the community has tolerated such behaviour long enuf. The community only welcome & valued volunteers who are civil and constructive to the spirit and aspirations of Wikipedia in the long run. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia anymore. I just make a response here for you. You can leave your message on my talk page if you want. Your claims are entirely not relevant. He already got warnings from someone and this matter was over long time ago. What Jayron32 wrote is also irrelevant. I didn't have much time to read his edit history. But I am sure that Miyokan is the one who voted and really disrupted the FAC process and that is why Coloane reacted emotionally on his talk page. That is why Raul restarted the nomination. Jayron32 didn't read the context carefully. Finally I would like to tell you that this page is not a battlefield for retaliation. I don't enjoy this much. I also trust Wikipedia can foster people how to love and respect each other. Nobody is prefect here. With love and peace!! Guia Hill 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leungli (talk • contribs)

I responded to your earlier replies even though your intervention consitutes a possible COI here. My statement made were backed with factual logs & third-party's reports & I'm not using this platform as "a battlefield for retaliation" as u claimed; I'm expressing my views & concern here in my capacity as a RC patroller. Despite numerous warnings & repeated ANI action in recent weeks, he still persist with his disruptive remarks/action at the expense of the good faith & assistance extended to him earlier. Whether my view or someone else view is being discounted or not, the onus is still left for the community to decide in arriving at a consensus as per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Ask him & yourself honestly this question - what led to this unwholesome karma now? Shld he chooses to return to contribute esp on Macau/HK-related articles in future, we hope he wld have reflected & learnt on this whole episode & to accord everyone the same "love & respect" as u mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a ban from FAC. Long-term disruption leaves little confidence in a change after this. Lara❤Love 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Laralove, Jayron and Aldwinteo. Aldwinteo's remarks about the SG situation cause me particular concern regarding this user. We do not need people taking out vindictive GARs/FARs - it only creates more work for already overworked volunteers. Orderinchaos 08:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Move for closure

Seeing no objections to the course of action, I say that we should notify the user that it has been decided that he is asked to make no further comments to FA and GA discussions in any way, and that such a probation means that if he continues to do so he may be blocked for disruption. Could another admin notify him of this. He already hates me, apparently, and in the interest of representing the widespread support for this proposal, it may be better if a relatively uninvolved admin notifies the user of this decision. If I do it, it may be taken as bullying him or something. Anyone? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is less than two days of discussion really enough to be able to gauge community consensus? At AfD at least five days is required. Guest9999 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this issue isn't only 2 days old. There are prior ANI reports on this user. Its been a frequent topic of discussion for over a week; the priod discussions are linked above. If this were truly only a two day discussion, I would agree with you, however, though THIS thread is only two days old, this problem has been being addressed by admins for some time, and despite this, the user continues the problematic behavior. He knows that we know what he is doing. He knows that we have told him to stop. He has not yet stopped. If you disagree that any action is needed, please say so yourself. The thread is here, and open to comment. What do YOU think needs be done? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could tell (please correct me if I'm wrong) none of the other threads mentioned a community ban. So far in this thread four users (by my count) have supported a ban, two of whom are - or have been - involved in disputes with the user. Other users have suggested dispute resolution or simply unecertainty as to what action to take. Personnaly I do not think that this shows that a community consensus has been formed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that the views of ‘involved’ editors are less valid than those who are - um - uninvolved, perhaps you yourself could comment on the issue (as opposed to commenting on procedure around the issue) – as Jayron has already suggested.

PS, I am what you might call an “involved” editor, and have thus not commented in this thread (until now). --Merbabu (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Their opinions are no less valid, it's just that they have a conflict of interest within the situation that has to be taken into account. The main points I wanted to make were that the discussion on banning had been running for less than two days with four users supporting the idea and two uncertain, to me the length of time and level of contribution - at this stage - does not show the consensus of the community required for such a ban. Guest9999 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I've no prior disputes with Coloane as my only direct contact with him so far wrt to the above case, is my reply to his posting at the Singapore talkpage dated Jan 3 & it ended there with a non-reply from him. Also, I've not advocated any specific action here earlier, except calling for a final resolution done thru' a community consensus when presenting the mentioned case and its relevant facts. If a vote is needed so as to wrap up this case once & for all, I'll cast my vote formally then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

That formal dispute resolution processes are started to receive wider community input on the behavior of editors here. Let's start with an WP:RFC. Any objections to this idea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno how this proposal will go mate, I hope this case will not 'loose steam' again & be consigned to the 'Archives' & forgotten like [9] & [10] earlier. Also, I fear that the longer this case drags on, more 'show-stoppers or proxies' may pop up to derail the case,[11] although it's a clear-cut case of recalcitrant behaviour based on its merits for all to see. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it appears no one here cares much one way or the other, else we would have received more comments on this one. Users have valid concerns about a community ban so far; and if ArbCom will even accept this it needs to be shown that due process is followed and steps are taken at the community level to handle this. RFC seems a reasonable solution... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed immediate topic bans

• After reviewing the diffs above, I support an immediate and permanent topic ban on this editor. Classic disruption, nothing more, nothing less. It's these type of editors that discourage good people from contributing. -- Bellwether ^B_C 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur that, since no editor has come forward to support or excuse Coloane's behaviour (not even Coloane - he now claims to have permanently retired from Wikipedia), an RFC seems a complete waste of productive editing time and give my Strong support for immediate topic bans on:

1. Asian topics other than Macau and Hong Kong
2. FACs and FARs

for a minimum period of 9 months. I am an "involved editor". Alice^✉ 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support of the above including GAC & GAR ban as per his history logs. Unlike wat u think Jayron32, I believe this case is being monitored by many of his past victims & affected WikiProject groups but they're reluctant to comment or support further; either they have given up hope on seeing any final resolution again as per previous long drawn clashes/ANI episodes, or to avoid being seen as 'bullying' or 'involved editor' at this stage now. Let's get this done with so that everyone can move on & get back to our regular tasks in Wikipedia folks. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why this couldn't go to arbitration? Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an administrator who I greatly respect, Carcharoth, so I am a bit puzzled by the implied implication that it should go to the ArbCom; I don't think there is any technical reason for not raising it at ArbCom (although they may decline to accept it). (It can't go to other forms of arbitration, I presume, because Coloane has stated on his user page that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia due to time constraints.) Alice^✉

• Support as this was my idea from the first. However, some users apparently felt this was too harsh. As to why this couldn't go before the arbiters; well it could, and no one can read their minds, they could accept it. However, based on a long history of precedent, ArbCom is more reluctant to take on cases where no prior attempts at behavior correction are undertaken at the community level. If these topic bans (GA, FA, and any Asia related articles except Macau and Hong Kong) are violated, THEN ArbCom will have something to work from. Lets atleast try to handle this at the community level before involving the ArbCom... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Semi-Support - Support ban on WP:FAC and WP:FAR for a period of less than one year, followed by a permanent ban if disruptive behaviour resumes. Final warning for disruptive behaviour on Asian topics followed by an immediate and indefinate ban if there is any further disruptive behaviour. Support ban only if (and then when) the editor resumes editing Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fred_after_pub.jpg

I would appreciate if an admin could restore this image (still hosted at answers.com here) which was deleted without going through the proper ifd process. We are having trouble getting decent free images as it is, so I don't think we need to be deleting images such as this which was highly likely imo to be a genuine upload- it is high res, and the user commented on the image here [12]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review is the best route to take in this instance. The scan seems original, and it was tagged CC-BY-SA. — Edokter • Talk • 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The image didn't satisfy WP:CSD#I9 so I've undeleted it. We have WP:PUI & WP:IFD to deal with suspicious images, and this one appears genuine. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, it should be reviewed in terms of clarifying rights. User's only contribution; no overt assertion of having been the author of the picture or of some other way he'd have the rights to it, which given that it is a picture of a famous person seems particularly an issue (in that someone could well own it and argue that it has monetary value). - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The overt assertion would have to be the upload itself, as supported by the caption and talk page post referenced above. Unfortunately, we have an absentee uploader with no set e-mail address. We are left with two options: AGF given no evidence to the contrary, or delete the image. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or do some research as to whether the picture has been published elsewhere, and with someone else claiming copyright. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should AGF here. The uploader knew when, where and in what circumstances it was taken and made a comment that seems perfectly genuine:

"This picture, taken in 1965 Freddie Mercury and his Isleworth Polytechnic student friends, after a lunchtime session at the pub. His rather conventional appearance hiding his hugely extrovert nature!". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the research approach. So far I haven't found anything using google image search, but if this photograph was previously published it is likely to have occurred in a print biography on Mercury. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit dense here but without a source or the uploader to ask how do we really know that the image is what it claims to be. Can it (or does it need to) be verified? Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Canvass violation here by User:TlatoSMD - review?

TlatoSMD (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Posting this here for two reasons:

• 1. To counteract the serious canvassing by the above user
• 2. So that an uninvolved admin (if there are any) can review the canvassing and the appropriateness of the uw-canvass I left on the users talk page.

^Avruchtalk 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolled it all back (I think). Gave a severe warning. Can you sign the warning you gave them please. Viridae^Talk 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, already have. ^Avruchtalk 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs, I wonder if TlatosMD is a bad-hand account - huge portion of total edits (1/4th of about 200) just to the AfD and article in question. ^Avruchtalk 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RCU check re certain banned editors such as BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc as I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have grounds to make this allegation, please don't say things like this. This user has been editing for a while - at least since early 2006 from what I can tell (considering his user name used to be spelled differently). ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This individual has edited a variety of articles, not just PAW ones. Besides, it makes sense that an editor that has been heavily involved in editing a particular article would be active on an AfD for that article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its a different version of Tlatosmd (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). Lots of edits under that account (including many to anything remotely related to pedophilia). ^Avruchtalk 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No question the user was canvassing. But wouldn't it be better to solicit recommendations from admins not directly involved in the deletion debate? That, after all, is the point of posting to a broader noticeboard such as this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was doing, I think? ^Avruchtalk 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I noticed the canvassing and rolled it back before I noticed the post here. Viridae^Talk 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Requesting an opinion below. --SSBohio 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not really happy with Viridae editing my user page to remove his notice.I see no provision of WP policy to justify it. From WP:CANVASS: "The use of rollback to remove notices from user talk pages is not recommended, as the recipients will read the notices anyway, and will post a large number of complaints on your talk page." If he has done wrong deal with him, not by removing his comments; it's he who should be our concern with. I can protect my own user page and do not need help from others. I can deal with canvassing perfectly well myself also--I do not always give the same opinion upon reconsideration. DGG (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the oft-misunderstood aspect of *random* canvassing - the person is just as likely to oppose as support. Orderinchaos 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion

I don't know how significant only a threat to ban instead of an actual block or ban is, or whether this is the right place, but User:Ryan Postlethwaite has threatened to ban me, somebody that has been editing Wikipedia for years without one single temporary block, simply because I was asking somebody civilly if he was serious about something he has said.

User:SqueakBox has accused me of being a sockpuppet of a banned user here, and says he'll abstain from editing Wikipedia any longer if I'm not (literally he betted his "right to edit"). I then ask him on his talkpage if he's serious about that, and within a minute User:Ryan Postlethwaite not only deletes my question from SqueakBox's talkpage but even threatens to perma-ban me for it. Not reading his message or checking talkpage history within that minute, I put that question back once because I see nothing wrong with it, and it is immediately erased again.

As for the "canvassing" issue User:Ryan Postlethwaite refers to, that was because a very heated and active AfD was closed, obviously very controversially so when looking what its Deletion Review is turning into now, and nobody was informed at that time at all that a Review had been opened so I told the people that had been involved.

You can see a number of more threats on my two talkpages (User_talk:TlatoSMD and User_talk:Tlatosmd, creating two accounts was an accident years ago) which all directly relate to my interaction with User:SqueakBox, in fact all relating to me trying to tell him in a civil manner his behavior on Wikipedia is constantly disruptive, flaming, and generally unacceptable and intolerable both in talking to other editors and in constant edit warring, even repeatedly against admins, without any consensus in his favor, an issue where I have at least 20 people having encountered him for months agreeing with me, or that I told other people civilly he ought to get a formal warning from an admin. See also the fact he has been blocked several times for his behavior before. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You tried to tell one of our editors (SqueakBox) to leave, I reverted you and you asked him once again. That is harassment, and given you had just been warned for canvassing for the DRV, you should have realised you were on very thin ice. I explained to you that harassment is a banable offence, and I also said I would block you if you continued. We discuss disputes here, we don't try and make people leave the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Ryan Postlethwaite have been notified of this thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Squeak has name-called, harrassed, and not been blocked (since November). There's something wrong with a WikiWorld that will ban someone at the first "problem" and yet allow these personal attacks by another to go unchecked. At this time, the worst ones are a few weeks old (I think), but what kind of precedence does that set? I agree with TlatoSMD and was likewise blocked thrice in 24 hours with minimal warning (the admin and I have come to an understanding since), but when I've been editing since 2005 without even a complaint, I think such an action is easily a personal affront. That said, I want to reiterate that the admin involved in my issue and I have resolved the situation (both of us were over-zealous due to external events, as both of us have admitted). See WP:DTTR for the same sort of mentality that "we" should all have for long-standing editors in not only templates, but in warnings and discussions. WP:AGF would demand no less. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC) :-)

Ban him? I said I'd block him, I merely mentioned that harassment was a banable offence, I have no power to ban anyone of my own accord. Sometimes warnings have to be given, he's just had one for canvassing, then he went to SqueakBox's talk page, that's when he had to know what he was saying had to stop. However long someone has been here for, it gives them no right to ask another editor to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on VigilancePrime's blocks so nobody will suspect us of nepotism, but I endorse his opinion about SqueakBox. --TlatoSMD (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, harassment is indeed a bannable offense, but if there is no harassment taking place, saying so is at best a non-sequitur and at worst a threat. If you considered his actions to be harassment, you could have explained that a bit more clearly. —Random832 14:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that SqueakBox first said, "I'd wager my right to edit that he is the sock of a banned user." Albeit this was likely in jest and not words of a serious nature, I don't see anything wrong with TlatoSMD responding in like. Besides, if TlatoSMD is indeed not a sock of a banned user, then SqueakBox should be careful saying stuff that he did. If he can make such a statement on ANI, why can't the target of his accusation respond in a similar manner? It's quite reasonable to respond to an accusation of this sort on the editor's user page. Lastly, if my memory serves me right, SqueakBox has previously asked or pressured several editors to leave the project. Thus, I'm not sure what all this brouhaha is about. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to make a big stink out of either of those comments. Squeak and Tlato should both consider themselves warned. As long as they don't escalate everything will be fine. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving TlatoSMD's methods aside (which in this case, however well-provoked, I disagree with), I see that SqueakBox did wager his right to edit on his assertion that Tlato is a sock of a banned user. I used to defend Squeak; Once he unmasked himself on my talk page by making vicious and untrue attacks on me, my tolerance for him ended. Squeak is the editor who's brought me closest to quitting this project. The honorable thing for him to do would be to have Tlato checkusered and, if Tlato isn't the sock of a banned user, make good on his wager. Whether he does the honorable thing is his own concern, not mine, not TlatoSMD's. --SSBohio 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As the checkusers say "Checkuser is not for fishing." In other words, he'd have to present them with a banned user and TlatoSMD and say "Are these the same?" ^Avruchtalk 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He did specifically present banned users BLueRibbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as accounts he suspected me to be a sockpuppet of. Maybe being compared to somebody called Voice of Britain might even be an unwilling compliment as English isn't even my native language. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Mango, the "big stink", as you call it, was about the warning made by Ryan. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps created by User:Talessman

Hy, I'm not sure if this the correct place for this, but here it goes. I'm hereby reporting the following incidents and requesting some neutral assistance. In a laudable effort User:Talessman created several maps about the historical nations in wide geographical areas (western and eastern hemisphere, Mediterranean area and Near East). Afterwards he added them into several articles. However his maps are simply unfitting for several articles as they simply show a too wider area. The subjects of many articles (the country in question) is many times hidden among all the other ones and barely perceptible. The maps are also not focused upon the countries in question. If one removes the maps Talessman re-adds them again and again. I believe that he takes any opposition against the maps way too personally (they are his maps in the end). Flamarande (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I add the maps to articles where there are no existing maps of that nation/culture/people, or when the existing maps fail to show information about neighbors, or other nations that interacted with the article's subject. Some of the original maps were challenged because they showed the entire Eastern Hemisphere. So I cropped them to show the Near East, or Asia, during those time periods. That allowed readers to at least see the subject, and when they click on the map thumbnail they can get more info. If they don't want that info, then they don't have to click on the map. Most editors like the maps, some have grudges against them. Flamarande doesn't seem to have a grudge against them in general, Srnec does. When a legitimate grievance is given, and I am given the opportunity or ability to "fix" the maps to make them better for the article, I'm happy to do so when given time. The Byzantine Empire article is an excellent example. I could do the same for the articles Flamarande is talking about, but it will take time. For now the existing (already scaled-down) maps will have to do. Showing "too much information" isn't a crime; it enhances the articles by showing readers who the article subject's neighbors were, giving reader better information not otherwise presented in articles. There's no reason to delete them from the articles, especially when there is no other map available, or when the existing maps don't show relevant information. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition there's edits like this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this guy took it upon himself to delete legitimate content from a page about me, saying that he is "cleaning up" the page. How did he clean it up? He deleted relevant information about who I am. I'm not just a political activist, I'm also a historian that actively contributes to Wikipedia. I've been told by local news organizations that they did check this page when researching info about me. Therefore it should be accurate. I don't embellish or make anything up, just clarify or make easier to read. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined, on the map issue, to lean partially on the side of including them. If NO OTHER map exists, they don't seem to be particularly harmful. If you think a better map needs to be made, do it yourself. If better maps do exist, and consensus exists to replace his map with a more appropriate one, that is fine. THAT BEING SAID, the WP:3RR rule is firm. Multiple reversions are not to be tolerated, and regardless of which side is "right", participating in revert wars merits an instant block, even if you are reverting to the "right version". So, stop removing or re-adding the images until consensus can be reached. If the two sides in this arguement cannot reach it amongst themselves, seek further comment by using dispute resolution venues such as requests for third opinion and requests for comment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as there are indeed OTHER valid maps, the maps made by Talessman are largely not needed. He is including his own maps in dozens of articles everywhere. Just take a look at Domain of Soissons and at History of the Basque people (look at the history page of the second article - I'm simply not savvy enough to show it). There are plenty of users who remove his maps arguing that the maps are simply too large and what does Talesmann? He just re-adds them ad nauseam. Flamarande (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-add them or some other people do. The maps were made to show information that I couldn't find, even when looking on Wikipedia. How many articles fail absolutely to mention who their subjects neighbors or trade partners were? Reading many of the articles on Wikipedia, I walked away with NO understanding of who their neighbors were, what actual territories they ruled, etc. There are only a few editors who remove the maps, and there are a few who add them. But just deleting them off of an article b/c it has "too much info" is wrong, it deprives the readers of legitimate and helpful information, and it is unnecessary. The maps should be left on articles where they show the subject nation. Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User Talessman has stated that he added maps to articles for which *there were no maps*, that is acceptable and improves the project. We encourage original pictures as an exception to original research. On the issue of articles for which there *are* other maps, the specific map to use, should be taken to the Talk page of that particular article to achieve consensus. On the issue of notability of Lessman himself, it's not relevant to this heading, and the article has already been tagged and we'll see what process concludes. Wjhonson (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example, where Thalesman adds his hemisphere map to an article about the Gepids, although a local map was already there. Very inappropriate, I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is using an old example from when I was first learning how to edit Wikipedia. Funny how he doesn't use the current version of the page, which also contains one of my maps at a more zoomed-in version. Notice the difference between the two maps; they both show different kinds of info and both are relevant to the article, even enhancing it. Why is that inappropriate or bad? Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of these maps are simply not useful or informative even when they are the only maps available and so are counterproductive. They are often too large in scale and too simplified of complex situations. Especially the Dark Age maps. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, you say here they aren't useful or informative, yet on other articles you complain that they are too informative. I provide sources on each map's sourcepage. Yes they are large in scale - they cover a wide area and they give a lot of information. But they show relevant and helpful information to the readers of the articles. They aren't imposing, and they link to a larger view of the map which allows the reader to see the subject and its neighbors, trading partners, etc. Since when has providing relevant information at the readers' convenience been a crime on WIkipedia? Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point, that Wjhonson has left above... This is a case of an issue that needs to be taken up on an article-by-article basis and established by consensus on the article's talk pages, and not here. If you can't reach a consensus or compromise on your own, then bring it up at requests for comment and ask someone else to help solve the problem. If the map is added, and then removed don't add it back. Take it to the talk page and discuss it out. Also, don't remove the map from articles where no alternative exists, unless there is a good reason, and if it is removed, please be prepared to have a detailed explanation as to why it should be removed, and leave said explanation on the talk page. Again, if the two of you can;t reach a compromise, use dispute resolution to involve a neutral third party to help solve it. This thread is all heat and no light. Unless someone has violated policy, such as WP:3RR, this is not the place to report it. WP:ANI is not the place to win arguements or resolve disputes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for more points then. He's still editing his own article, adding sources that don't support the claims being made. I've explained here why the sources aren't acceptable, yet he's edit warring and making claims of vandalism and harassment. The AfD is looking like a snowjob, so it might be best just to purge the article sooner rather than later? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a map issue, however asside from the reverting of unwanted edits, you seem to be the top contributor on the article (Thomas Lessman) ^[13]. (related 65.69.227.28, 24.255.216.148). If your Bio survives Afd, please be mindful of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a regular content dispute. Thomas Lessman needs to recognize that if his maps are removed, and reasons for the removal are given on talk, he cannot just add them back, he has to address the issues raised. From there, it's just Wikipedia:Dispute resolution like for everyone else. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. If someone has valid reasons to remove something (in this case the enormous maps, but texts and boxes are also included) one shouldn't simply ignore the fact and re-add the material again, again, and again. I understand this (it is one of the basics of Wikipedia), but Talessmann doesn't seem to understand this policy/philosophy. Flamarande (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note this attack image, Image:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg‎, uploaded by Talessman. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack image, it is a legitimate flyer distributed at an event of the organizaion the article was based on. It's being discussed on the image's talkpage now and is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Talessman, Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself as you did here. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained why I did that, and hadn't realized I had broken a wiki-rule. That is being discussed now on my user talk page and on the image's talk page. Again, it is not relevant to this discussion. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread should be on a talk page somewhere aiming for developing consensus, it's content related and nothing admins can do in this situation. Orderinchaos 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A parting comment on my part: it's important to note that Talessman has put a lot of work into improving Wikipedia. Yes, he may or may not be stubborn and yes, he may or may not have handled arguments over maps the right way. And I sure didn't like the image I cited above. Nevertheless, to me, his good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia far outweigh any problems discussed here and I hope a way can be found to work all this out. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently now I (and others) should be blocked from editing Million Dads March Network on the basis of us "trolling around and vandalizing or attacking". My sole edit to the article was this where I removed the outrageously POV word of "atrocities" in relation to divorce/custody situations. Trolling? Vandalizing? Attacking? None of the aforementioned, and I had no intention of making further edits to the article either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, I wouldn't worry about it or take it personally. It's clear to everyone else that you did not vandalize the article and that "atrocities" had to come out. Nobody is going to block you or protect the article at this point. Jayron gives some good advice elsewhere on this page.--A. B. ^(talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I love me some drama.

Please review a block

I am posting this here at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. I hope that I can get some help on this matter.

Dear NewYorkBrad,

I would like you to look into this, please. Recently a new editor logged in as User:Vittala. His first edits were to vote on two nominations for deletion, Jeff Rosenbaum and WinterStar Symposium. When he tried to edit some articles, he discovered that User:JzG Help! (AKA Guy) had blocked him just a few hours after his first edits, saying that he is "a sock-puppet or meat-puppet" of mine. It should be noted that Guy had voted the opposite way on these same two nominations, which were still open when he placed the block.

Vittala is not a sock-puppet of mine. Guy could easily have determined this by checking his IP address; he doesn't even live in the same state. I'm not sure what a "meat-puppet" is, but he did not edit or vote at my request. He contacted me after he was blocked, which was the first time I discovered who the person voting as "Vittala" was, and though he was aware of some of the things I've been going through lately on Wikipedia, I did not ask him to edit or coach him as to how to do it (if I had, he would have signed in correctly, rather than a bot being needed to fill in his name later). I have never used a sock-puppet, though I've certainly had problems with people who do.

Guy did not inquire or discuss this block first with me or Vittala. He obviously did not make his decision based on editing history, since there was none, or based on IP address. I believe that it is inappropriate for one person voting in a matter to block another while the dispute is still open, too. Guy has had a problem with my editing before, and has been IMO a bit uncivil concerning it. I challenged this block on his talk page, but he has not responded. The block he placed was indefinite.

I would request that you look this over, with hope that the block can be lifted. This is a new editor who honestly wanted to edit and create articles; he is his own individual, and no matter what Guy's motives are I think an indefinite block less than five hours later is draconian for the very first edit someone does. I am advocating for this since Vittala is totally inexperienced in such matters, and because I was accused of something of which I am innocent. Rosencomet (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, you'll find information about meatpuppets here. — Scientizzle 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful links: Vittala (talk · contribs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium — Scientizzle 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The operative definition of "meatpuppet" has been expanded greatly in the last few years - it used to mean "someone who's obviously a sockpuppet, but has an explanation that can't be disproven" (i.e. the "roommate"), now it means "anyone who communicates with and/or agrees with anyone else on something that I don't like". —Random832 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse lifting the indef block. Guy seems to have acted a little hastily here. Yes, the contributions to the AFD discussions showed the signs of "meatpuppetry", but coming to help out a friend is hardly an instablockable offense. At worst, this user showed poor understanding of how Wikipedia works, and such problems should be met with help, not insta-blocking. This is a clear case of biting the newbie. No one even attempted to investigate or even talk to this user. A note on the talk page could have gone a long way towards addressing this. Heck, a block notice wasn't even left, leaving the user with no way to even know how to request an unblock. I say unblocking is the proper course of action now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Random832, that's a completely inappropriate comment. Please remain civil. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? You actually think that Random's comment is in any way "uncivil" or "inappropriate"? I dearly hope this is some joke that I am not comprehending. --Iamunknown 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. His incivility, if it could be called that, was directed at an ill-defined word, not any one person. Overuse of a term denigrates its value in describing what it originally set out to describe. Orderinchaos 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess; he's someone you know, either in real-life, or online, and you talked to him (or in a forum he was party to) what you were doing on Wikipedia. He agreed with you, as friends are so wont, and decided that he should throw in his two cents as well. You didn't request him to chip in, but he went ahead and did it. It's a borderline situation, but since the intentions were honorable, I think we can show some lenience here and unblock. Just be aware that in the future, it might be a good idea to go your seperate ways on-Wiki, for the sake of propriety. --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. But whoever unblocks should be someone with the time to "coach" a bit, because otherwise this user will probably wind up right back in trouble. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems an unreasonable request. There is no evidence that this user needs much coaching; the block in itself, if it hasn't scared them off, has shown them that what they have done is probably wrong. They appear to want to edit articles; there should be no assumption of bad faith here because there is so little evidence to go on. Unblock them, leave a mea culpa, leave a welcome template, and leave them alone is my recommendation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In theory, you're right that the block should have set them straight, but without a block notice or message of any kind ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'll keep an eye on them for a couple of days. If no one objects in the next hour or so, I plan to unblock them. Speak now or forever hold your piece. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked this user. The above discussion seemed to be heading that way, and no one has advocated for keeping the block in place. I will keep an eye on them. I have left a friendly message on the talk page, and if the user becomes a problem (I don't expect this) I will clean up my mess... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny business around David Gest

On RC Patrol I stumbled upon a strange sort-of edit war on David Gest. Normally I'd try to get to the bottom of things, but I have to run out the door right now. Any other admins with free time want to take a quick look? I did a semi-protect for 24 hours because there was a lot of traffic from 2 anons, and the most recent edits seemed to be nonsensical (putting a user-warning tag on the top of the page). --Bobak (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For a BLP, the article is woefully unreferenced (particularly given the potentially unfavourable he-said-she-said alleged claims from legal actions). Given a brief check through the history it's tough to find a stable version (this edit war seems to be but the latest that has beset the article). It had a few (not nearly enough) references back in August last year. Given the borderline non-notability of the subject (what exactly did he produce? briefly married to a famous-ish person, small part on a panoply of z-list tv shows) we should hack this back to a sourced stub confined to the matter for which he is notabile (whatever they might be). Recitations of divorce-court arguings and reality show minutiae, even if they were sourced, don't make for a worthwhile article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done the hacking in question, restoring an August 2007 version with many sources. I also chopped a bunch of the sloppy trivia. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate an Admin reviewing my edits there befoer marking this as resolved, just to lend my edits the credibility of admin review per this an/i section. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalkerish

Ntarantino21 (talk · contribs) - does this User's editing remind anybody else of a stalker? These edits seem creepy to me. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. very strange. Now what to do about the account. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've revoked its editing privileges, just as Nickyt41191 (talk · contribs) was blocked before. And it's not that strange. There used to be an explicit speedy deletion criterion for Wikipedia articles that were being abused as solely vehicles for corresponding with the subject of the article. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Currently it's incorporated as part of A3. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Weierstrass

Should be short-term blocked for continued transgressions. Has had 5 warnings now, including "final" ones, for various things, including violations of WP:VANDAL, WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Doesn't seem to be getting the message very clearly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show diffs? I don't see the vandalism in his contribs, perhaps I am being dense. Some uncivil edit summaries, certainly, and I see an edit war with two main participants, but it mostly looks like a content dispute. Why not try Talk:Number of the Beast in the first instance if you have a dispute? --John (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IP range 156.34x

User: 156.34.142.110 has been warned about edit warring (removal of logos). He removed a warning message from his talkpage as seen here. Later on, as User: 156.34.210.147, he continued his disruptive activities as seen here and here. About time he is blocked. Óðinn (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Libs. I don't think we'll be blocking such an established contributor for such a minor transgression. east.718 at 08:45, January 24, 2008

When did edit warring become a minor transgression? And, most importantly, when did a user's edit count start to count as immunity against the administrative sanctions? Óðinn (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Diff question, since when did we start counting the word of anon. new users that their returning anon. old users? MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At least on Evanescence, it looks like he removed a logo from the "Name" field of the infobox, which would seem to be entirely proper due to the fact that the logo seems to have been causing the actual photo of the band to not display. As near as I can tell, this IP only did so once on this article. Nevermind, it was twice. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

...and it looks like there were multiple incidents at Slayer. In that case, the photo looks OK with the logo, so there's no formatting issue from that standpoint. Not discussing the issue is a pretty serious concern, as well. Is there a policy on the use of a logo and photo in the infobox? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. We could do with some more experienced people to comment there; at the moment it is an even split between those who are in favour of having made-up "logos", in most cases just some typography cropped from an album cover, in the infobox of every band article, and those who would rather do without unless there is some verified evidence that it is actually considered a logo. (No prizes for guessing which side I am on!) Edit-warring is certainly unhelpful; then again, so is forum-shopping. --John (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But Libs did not cite "made-up logo" as the reason for the removal on Evanescence and Slayer. Rather, it was something like "image in text-only field". But if the image is removed simply because it's been decreed that name is a "text-only field", then the image should be put somewhere else in the article. Otherwise it's orphaning the image. Gimmetrow 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hence the discussion I refer to above. I don't want to duplicate that discussion here; suffice it to say that orphaning non-free image files which are not essential to the article, and which are in most cases made up, is not necessarily a bad thing. --John (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You talk a lot about the so-called made-up logos. I´d like to see some examples. Was there concern that this or this are not the actual logos of Blind Guardian and Nighwish respectively? How come such concern was not raised first on one by one basis, as opposed to just blindly removing every logo you can come across? In any case, questioning of the logos' validity is not the point here. Edit warring, for which the IP in question has already been warned is. Óðinn (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um?.. An edit that is based on consensus and has a valid edit summary attached to it is not an edit war... its encyclopaedia building. And "the IP in question" is "Libs". It's OK for you to refer to me that way in your biased/anti-anon complaints. The new lean is to move the logos into the article mainspace since the infobox name field is "text-only". There is some debate as to whether the logo should have some claim to notability or historical use... but moving them into mainspace just so the bots don't get them is a fair enough "lean" for now. ( at least it should be because I have been doing it all day ) If someone wants to go back and delete them all that can happen later. For now the only consensus is Name=Text-Only on the grounds that Wikipedia, by its own mandate, is a free encyclopaedia built on free content first. And there just isn't anything more "free" than plain text. And WP:FAIR's foundation is free-use wins out over fair-use... so not only is it consensus to replace the poor quality fair-use graphics with text... its policy. I've been moving poor quality/"questionable official" logos down into article mainspace all day. Since the Evanescence article has been brought up as an example here previously... perhaps one of the earlier editors in this discussion could take the time to move that band's logo out of the infobox. If no one has the time... that's OK... I can always pick it up in my travels. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the user who filed the notice is pushing WP:POINT here. Even on the notice itself there is consensus that Libsey has done no wrong. I don't really understand why Odin is clutching at straws. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please stop edit warring on logo removals. The removals are approaching three reverts all over, which violates Wikipedia policy, and disruptive editing / edit warring short of 3RR on any given article is still blockable behavior." Óðinn (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the best thing would be to provide comprehensive diffs - this includes evidence of edit warring "all over", it also includes showing that he's broken/near to breaking 3RR "all over". That would allow people to make a more logical/fair/just decision. Rather than coming here pushing your own point (You're involved in this because you uploaded the logo's, take a look at the said user's talk page for evidence) and showing a few questionable diff's for evidence. I suggest you relax and a take a breath. It's understandable that you're annoyed because you uploaded all/most of the logo's but you've just got to relax and take it in your stride please, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who goes around and accuses people of being point-pushing stalkers. It might behoove you to follow your own advice. Further, if you have a problem with the warning the IP in question was given, take it up with the admin who issued it. I have nothing to do with it.Óðinn (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to everyone, look at this incarnation of the IP in question. Now he's specifically after the logos I've uploaded, citing the same "consensus" which can't possible exist yet, since the discussion is still in progress. Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking? Óðinn (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And take a look at the Revision history of Epica (band) If that's not revert-warring, I don't know what is. Óðinn (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a plainly sarcastic quip aimed at myself: "Oh, Scarian, were you saying something about stalking?" ([14]). That sort of retort is unhelpful especially when you are requesting advice on the noticeboard. Admins are unlikely to offer help to someone who is being rude. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from engaging in language that could be perceived as aggressive. Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable way to contact this user? I wanted to give feedback on three inappropriate vandalism warnings but don't know how. (156.34.215.223 handed out three vandalism warnings, each of them a "last warning" where no previous such warning was given, and each of them in what looks to me like a good faith content dispute or a slow edit war in which 156.34.x is involved.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of admin action welcome

I know that AN/I is often flooded with editors crying "admin abuse" at the drop of a hat, but I am somewhat concerned about this one. With the current arbitration case about episodes and characters, especially concerning redirects currently carrying on, it was disappointing to see another edit war on an article last night. What is very concerning, though, is admin User:PeaceNT's last edit to the article, restoring their preferred version whilst the article is in full protection. Whilst PeaceNT at first claims that this version is not their preferred one [15], they later admit that the edit "was done under IAR" and to "protect Wikipedia" from either ArbCom or deletionists - I'm not sure which ([16]}. This last comment really concerns me, as it suggests that not only was the article reverted to a preferred version (which is not good to begin with), but it wasn't even done through any semblance or intention of following policy. Comments welcome. BLACKKITE 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, a long edit war with accusations of bad faith all around and virtually no discussion on the talk page. Given the length between the first redirecting and the edit war, as well as the somewhat unchallanged claim of individual notability, it seems quite unapparent what the correct wrong version is (unless the discussion took place somewhere else and I'm just completely unaware of it). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I IARed and reverted what I perceived as the evidently non-consensual version, whether I preferred it or not didn't matter. Editors are certainly not allowed to delete/redirect articles on a whim, then persist on warring to get the page protected, especially when their conduct is being examined by the Arbcom. That said, I would have no problem if they use discussion and redirect the article based on consensus, when such thing is reached. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't the point here. You do not IAR and revert when an article is fully protected, even if it is in the Wrong Version - which, actually, I agree it probably is. That is unless there are serious issues such as BLP, which there aren't here. Your reasoning for doing so, which appears to be related to the ArbCom, strikes me as seriously worrying. BLACKKITE 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am party to no Arbcom procedures. PeaceNT points at a lack of consensus for the redirect, and she has a weak point. There probably isn't one among Pee-Wee Herman fans. Still, the article is a 6 paragraph plot summary with no sourcing, so even if all the Pee-Wee Herman fans said "no redirect", policy would indicate that redirection was appropriate. Remember, this is not a democracy, and only arguments that are weighted in policy have weight at all. Given that, there is no urgent matter that required violating standing policy: PeaceNT was absolutely unjustified in editing the article in a protected state. A second admin, Merovingian, has also edited it while protected. His edits were mechanical, so I can't get too excited about those, but they still irritate me.Kww (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two names of the article: Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special is at present an article, and apparently the one at controversy. Pee-wee's Christmas Special is a redirect to the list of episodes. DGG (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the issue that article was protected for, is a no-no. Full article protection should apply to admins too. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

is a reasonable argument on the talk page over whether the notability of this episode, which apparently individually won an Emmy, has adequate sources. This is enough that consensus is required for the particular redirect. My personal position is that the change to the redirect for these articles, earlier and now, constituted vandalism, and any editor may revert as needed, and any admin can protect in the unvandalized state--but I know not everyone agrees with this evaluation of the overall situation. One could certainly say that changing back to a revert while the original series of reverts was under arbitration is not acceptable. An alternate technique, waiting until the article happens to be in the state you prefer, and then protecting it, is as much as violation of the spirit of the restrictions on administrative action as changing it first, though there is no explicit prohibition. Given the dissension, I wouldnt have done what Peace did. It was at best a little imprudent and aggressive. DGG (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up note : PeaceNT seems to be moving in the direction of undoing redirects where she isn't personally convinced of the consensus. Fans of Bulbasaur are all upset because their favorite Pokemon isn't deemed to be more important than the other 400. So, today she agreed to revert a redirect (and presumably stand guard over it). At this time, she hasn't edited that article in its protected state, but even her stated intent establishes a pattern of editing. I have a hard to giving credence to her protestation that the unredirected version of the Pee-Wee article isn't her preferred version.Kww (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Chicagofacts

Chicagofacts (talk · contribs) had been making what I believe to be good faith, but confrontational and edit-warring, edits in many gang-related articles. One of those articles, Latin Kings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject of an edit war by him and an anon, to the point that I decided to impose protection to get them to discuss. Chicagofacts responded with this: [17], accusing me of being "high and mighty over something [I] clearly have no idea about." My response[18] apparently fell on deaf ears, as neither he nor the anon has tried to discuss at all.

Today, he was apparently editing as 24.12.248.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when he placed this[19] on my talk page, right after blanking the section on Talk:Latin Kings in which I had asked for discussion, along with other sections.[20]

I'd like to ask for the account and the IP to be both blocked for a moderate amount of time, in light of the continued refusal to discuss, the effort to stymie discussion by removing sections from the talk page, the blanking of his own talk page,[21], and what I see now as harassment. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will short term block the ip that commented on your talkpage - I don't see the point of checkusering to see if it really was Chicagofacts, it could easily be someone shopping for a block instead but why bother? I will also leave a message on Chicagofacts talkpage commenting on what it is that sysops do. If this is ineffective then best bring it back here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:Reino Helismaa

Plz, take the attention for Reino Helismaa (talk · contribs). His ru-wiki account ru:User:Reino Helismaa(block log) was blocked by me (as ru-wiki-sysop ru:User:Alex Spade) for a month, because his vandalism and sock puppets: ru:User:87.240.15.25(block log), ru:User:Pmmm(block log), ru:User:Hiljainen Soittaja(block log).

After that he have started to change the personal page/information in En-Wiki.

• [22], [23], [24] - assertive changes of my attribution.
• [25] - change of my language status.
• [26], [27] - the non-authorised upload of my photoportrait. (1) He is not author - this image was created in 2003 on Starcon-2003 (annual Russian Star Wars fans gathering) by another. (2) I'm not АЛЕКС СПАДЕ (or Алекс Спаде). My pseudonym is Alex Spade (Latin) or Алекс Спейд (Cyrillic) and nothing else - this is my attribution and only these variants of pseudonym is permitted. Alex Spade (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Заблокировали меня не Вы, а администратор Кalan, на срок до 6-го января. Вы лишь совершенно произвольно переблокировали на бОльший срок, чем предусмотрено правилами, без соответствующего решения АК; по электронной почте присылали оскорбительные письма с угрозой бессрочной блокировки. Так что не надо врать.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No hablamos ruso aquí. Hable inglés por favor. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservation for removal of misunderstanding. I haven't been asking to analize and take into consideration actions of ru:User:Reino Helismaa in Ru-Wiki - this is just a prehistory. I am asking to analize only five actions, which are mentioned above, in accordance to Wikipedia:Civility in point "Defacing user pages" and some others. Alex Spade (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of at least attempting to understand the above statement by Reino, I ran his text through Babelfish. Here's what it gave me. Do with it what you will:

• Blocked me not you, but administrator k.alan, for the period up to 6th January. You only completely arbitrarily interlocked for larger period than it is provided by rules, without the appropriate solution OF AK; insulting letters with the threat of termless blocking sent on the electronic mail. So that it is not necessary to lie. <--- babelfish translation of above.

That's all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If en-wiki-sysops are interested in more commentaries - why and how much times was Reino Helismaa blocked in Ru-Wiki - the brief review can be given. Alex Spade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to, I am not sure it will inform here, and can only serve to bias admins from making a neutral assessment of the situation. For the record, I gave him a stern warning at his talk page about vandalising other people's user pages. I consider that such a warning is sufficient action at this point. If he returns to vandalise your user page, even once more, or does so to any other user, a block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a few interactions with this editor, who has been creating Finnish-language articles on the English Wikipedia, has uploaded a lot of images without valid copyright statuses, and doesn't respond to messages on his Talk page. He may have a communication problem, but the problems with him are escalating. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate, and refusal to acknowledge and react to warnings is still blockable as disruptive. If a user is warned, and the behavior continues, why not block? I have no idea if this is warrented here, but just a general statement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange user creation bug at Special:Userlogin

When I created a doppelganger account with my (current) IP address in it, the system seemed to allow it for some reason. Is this a bug that I should raise at bugzilla??

Either way, I did it per a suggestion on User talk:68.39.174.238, where they suggested to the IP editor to create an account as My IP Address is 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This is weird, I thought the system didn't allow IP addresses as usernames, but for some reason it does! Anyone else found this happen to them?? --Solumeiras (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any automatic prevention of creating usernames containing (but not being) an IP address, but they can be blocked for having a confusing username like many in User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a criteria that would fall under the purview of WP:UAA? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is 32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS (talk · contribs) upto? Woody (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing good, but blocked by Majorly. Imo a username that does not only consist of an IP address is not directly blockable at WP:UAA. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what User:32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS is up to, but the username is ironic to User:PrimeHunter/IP-like user names being sorty WP:BEANsy, considering the page is a prime target and encouragement to create inappropriate usernames to end up on the list. — Save_Us † 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I created it for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 6#IP addresses and have no plans to ever update it. It's only linked from there and here but I will delete it if people think it encourages misbehaviour. I have not gone through the list to examine contribs and blocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the name 32.43.142.33 WP:BEANS is a WP:POINT violation - trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove the point that talking about this stuff is a violation of WP:BEANS. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Crisis on an article about a crisis in the middle east

There has been much debate at the article Iran-Iraq War. Some believe the US should be listed as a combatant, some disagree, and some believe the combatant part of the box should be sacked altogether. Both sides have very convincing arguments. Maybe a few admins could look at this, as now there are accusations of racism (or is it xenophobia? probably racism), bias, and caballing. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to calm this down a little: see my comment on the talk page. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good temporary solution. I think the box should just be removed. It can't express the actual degree of involvement, and there is no consensus either way. The box is optional, and sometimes no information is better than controversial information, regardless of whether it's right or not. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A caution on BetacommandBot deletions related to disambigation pages

There's a problem with the way BetacommandBot handles disambiguation pages, which results in deletion of properly tagged fair use images. The usual sequence of events is:

1. Uploader uploads image, links it from page A, and provides proper fair use template for page A on the image page.
2. Another editor moves A to B and makes A a disambiguation page, but does not change the fair use template. (Arguably, they should have fixed the incoming link from the fair use notice to A, but it's not a link from article space, so it's not customary to fix it.)
3. At some later time, BetacommandBot finds the image page, checks the incoming and outgoing links, notes that there's an incoming link from page B but no outgoing link to page B, and flags the image as lacking a fair use template. The image uploader is notified, but not the creator of the dab page. (Arguably, BetacommandBot should check the page move history, notice that B used to be named A, and fix the fair use template.)
4. The uploader gets a talk page message from BetacommandBot, but doesn't act on it. (It's not really the uploader's problem; their work was done back at step 1. The uploader may not even be active on Wikipedia.)
5. One week later, BetacommandBot schedules the image for deletion.
6. An admin, working off the BetacommandBot list, deletes the image. (Arguably, the deleting admin should manually check for this situation.)

The author of BetacommandBot says it's the responsibility of the creator of the dab page to fix this. (ref) A comment in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation says the deleting admin should check. I'd suggest that BetacommandBot needs to be smarter and check move histories; it has over 700,000 edits, and humans can't keep up. Meanwhile, admin caution at that final delete step is indicated. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot has had problems like this for some time. It does good work, however the number of false positives due to misinterpreted redirects and dabs is unfortunate. Betacommand has been made aware of these issues in the past. I will not speak for him, but when I brought this same issue up before, he denied that the bot did this at all. If this is a problem, it is helpful to know ways in which the bot is making confusing and/or problematic tagging so that it can be made to run more efficiently in the future. I agree that this bot function is important, but I would like to see more responsive upgrades made to the bot so that its work results in less false positives like above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous issues were with redirects, which were apparently an issue with the MediaWiki API. The bot should be able to follow redirects, it can't however, determine which article on a disambiguation page to follow. Mr.Z-man 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

there is not a simple method of parsing DaB pages. some of the move,redirect,DaB creations are very complex and not parsable. And links in NFUR's that are Dabs, mean that the rationale for that image/use is invalid. β^_command 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS you also forgot to state that BCbot leaves a warning about the image on the talkpage of every page where the image is used. β^_command 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats rational. I agree; with regard to dab pages, the bot (and other users) should not have to decide which page in the dab it is supposed to follow. Perhaps, could the bot somehow provide a different warning for situations where it appears that a move-redirect-dab construction is the fault? Such as a special warning like "The fair use rationale currently links to a disambiguation page. The rationale may need to be updated to reflect a page move. Please update the rationale so that the image will not be deleted." That seems a reasonable thing to do; the bot should be able to look for markers on special kinds of pages and then tailor its warning messages based on the type of problem it encounters, shouldn;t it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the issue is the bot only sees the pages where the image is used (and redirects to those pages). the bot does not examin what links here, or even the links on that page. what the bot does see is a blob of text and a list of page titles where the image is used. it then checks the text for at least one of those. it doesnt do anything fancy it does not check for wikilinks all it checks for is the name of the article. β^_command 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Most dab pages are easily identified by a machine, due to the use of a template that includes the word "disambiguation". I suggest Betacommand upgrade BCbot to detect this situation and put such images in a separate clean-up category. I also suggested that the image page be checked for the existence of a non-free rationale template in general, so that images with rationales can have their links fixed by humans, as opposed to pages without rationales where a human has to do more work to fix the image (if needed). Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Arab League images

User:Arab League has recently created several articles about several organization that most of them has been put for deletion. For those articles, he has uploaded several pictures and flags all with "PD-self" tags. There are two options:

• He is a member of all of those organization. So, there MAY be a probability that he is the creator of those flags. This arises concerns about confilict of interests.
• He is not a memeber of those organizations. So, definetly he has not created those flags, but for what he calls "truth" in here he has uploaded them with bogus tags. --Pejman47 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

the final touch?

Graham Wellington (talk · contribs) is a long-time problematic editor with highly dubious intentions. See his talk page and contrib history. Until now, he has managed to stay just below the action-taking point. This edit summary, however, puts it over the top. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess next step is RfC? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? That would seem to be a POV-loaded edit summary, but what's actionable about "the beauty of Judaism"? - Revolving Bugbear 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something. Adding that a criminal is Jewish doesn't bring out the "the beauty of Judaism." And that's his modus operandi - plastering "he is jewish" on criminals etc....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to see it in context of previous edits; a lot of his previous edits are adding Jewish categories to the likes of criminals, porn stars etc. (Though, there's also what look like good-faith edits too). BLACKKITE 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't looking at the article, just the edit itself. Sorry. </stupid> - Revolving Bugbear 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs history, his edit summaries are VERY problematic, and looking at his user page he has been warned before. A choice collection of OTHER edit summaries, in addition to the one noted above:

[28] threatens other user with admin sanction...

[29] additional questionable statements about jewish people.

[30] crackpots???

Additionally, his entire edit history consists almost ENTIRELY of:

Dubious "proof" that various mass murders, notorious criminals and other "unsavory" people were Jewish [31] and [32] and [33] and [34]

That other notable Jews were guilty of or suspected of crimes [35]

This seems like a suspicious pattern of edits, and needs to be addressed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that he also views Albert Einstein as a fraud and is unwilling to credit him with E=mc2 ([36]). Given this editor's particular history, his interest there could credibly be thought to stem from the fact that Einstein was Jewish, rather than his deep abiding interest in the history of 20th-century theoretical physics. Even assuming the most optimistic best-case scenario about his intentions, his edits fall entirely into the patterns described above of ascribing Judaism to distasteful figures while minimizing or discounting positive accomplishments by people who happen to be Jewish, and I've blocked him for 31 hours for disrupting Wikipedia to advance his point. I would suggest that an RfC proceed to explore the question of whether he might expand and improve his editing, and whetherh his continued presence on Wikipedia would be constructive. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A bold move, but I don't disagree with the final result. I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits, and the longer he is editing articles, the more clear his POV-pushing has become. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how a block will solve the underlying problem, and I cannot say I'm looking forward to the RfC. DGG (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

a block will stop his disruptions. i favor a indefinite community ban for this user, to be repealed ONLY in the evnet of genuine contrition and a promise to attempt to wokr with other editors instead of warring against them. Smith Jones (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, an RFC in this case will atleast show due process. I agree it will be messy. I see an ArbCom in the future over this issue, but we should atleast exhaust all other routes before this gets that far. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Has this editor added any value to this project? I confess, I'm missing the part where we should use kid gloves in handling a hate-monger and anti-semitic. I don't see that its worth wasting time on this. Please let me know why we aren't simply blocking this editor for a month or three hundred, and re-blocking every time he does it again, up to and including indef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea why not KillerChihuahua. all this dickering around does is encourage the vandal. i can understnad the desire for 'due process' by forming an RFC (although it wl be a waste of time -- the user has showns no interest in wikipedia and while i try to asume good faith this user seems to be acting maliciousl and with disregard for the feling and sentiments of his fellow users. i recommend an indefinite ban that will only be lifted if the user apologizes an d promises to try to work with other users against instead of using violence and racism. Smith Jones (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: SERIOUSLY look at his diffs. he blatatly tries to use his admin status to force andother user to kowtow to his demands.

and if you look mclosely at his other difs, you will jnotice a virulent strain of politicla hatread and anti-Semitism. that is unhelpful tow ikipedia orwikipedia's ineterests.

and furhter more,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

I think that may go too far at this point. If an indefinite comprehensive ban is imposed, it is drastic enough that an ArbCom decision should give it, not us. Also, the RFC in question may reach the conclusion that a community topic ban on all articles relating to Judaism, and on all edits regarding Jewish ethnicity may be enforced. Likewise, the admins here at ANI may reach the same conclusion, and enforce their own community ban. There is good reason to let due process run its course. I will admit that this users past edit history is not encouraging, but lets at least GIVE him enough rope... and wait to see what he does with it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Due process? You mean Rules-Wankery? I've made 49 indef blocks. None were a result of an ArbCom decision. None have ever been overturned. I will cheerfully6 paste them all here, or email to anyone who emails me and asks for the list. An indef block is simply a block with no expiration, which can be overturned by any admin. No need for ArbCom. No need for Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made many indefiniate blocks myself, for clear-cut cases of vandalism and abusive sockpuppetry and other clear cases. However, this is not one of those cases, in my opinion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? This reads as short, I apologise - its a simple question. I honestly don't see why not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you state "I think the user has yet to show any good-faith edits" which means he has no value-add. Why do you think this is "not one of those cases"? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I considered just blocking him for a longer period, or indefinitely, and being done with it. In fact, I had "1 month" in the drop-down window and changed my mind at the last moment. In the end, the pendulum has currently swung to a point where even blocks of editors with long track records of being up to no good are controversial, or likely to be overturned because shorter blocks hadn't been imposed first or an RfC hasn't been run through. So I decided to balance rougeness with my lack of desire to squabble over an longer block. Admittedly, though, this could be viewed as a punt. I will go on record as favoring a longer block of 1 month to indefinite, and being willing to impose it, if there is reasonable agreement here and no major objection (of course, if you support the block, you'll probably end up in the dock before ArbCom next to me as part of the "kangaroo court", so be warned...) MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

NB there is an {{unblock}} request up, based on free-speech and other grounds, which I'll leave to someone uninvolved to review. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a comment pointing him to WP:FREE before I saw this here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I had prepared a report for AN/I many weeks ago should circumstances dictate. To summarise, my good faith has long been exhausted and I would endorse an indefinite block of him. I first contacted "Graham" when I reverted an edit adding an unquestionably irrelevant link to the King David Hotel bombing. Cursorily glancing at his talk page caught my attention and, having reviewed his contribution history and interactions with others, I decided to leave a more substantive message than I originally anticipated. My intention was to communicate my concerns (as both an editor and admin'), introduce him to the fundamentals of Wikipedia, give him the benefit of the doubt, and hopefully allay concerns that had already been expressed long before my first message. He has demonstrated that he has no intention of heeding such advice and his continued behaviour and editing pattern is unquestionably consistent with an editor who is engaged in a disruptive agenda that is inherently incompatible with the project.

His avowed ip 67.83.219.204 (talk · contribs) has exhibited a similar pattern, including this edit - the implication is explicit when one factors in that Google suggest he is/was in reality Catholic. He has gravitated predominantly towards controversial articles, with a BLP dimension, invariably to identify someone as Jewish - usually implicated in some form of criminal activity (one of the most inexplicable) ). Relevant discussions are located at the talk pages of Graham Wellington and Brewcrewer (talk · contribs), whose well-intentioned comments and legitimate actions were (repeatedly) described by the former as vandalism. I had originally hoped it was the result of inexperience, Wellington nevertheless continued to accuse Brewcrewer of stalking long after the original discussion here. There have been many disturbing comments authored by Wellington, many of which have been highlighted on his talk page; an example: [37]. Wikipedia must not indulge those who exhibit all the characteristics of an unashamedly tendentious editor. Lets keep things in perspective. SoLando (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've seen enough to extend his block to indefinite. I don't think that Wikipedia needs to play host to the sort of campaign this user is apparently engaged in, and if a year on-wiki isn't enough for constructive contributions to emerge then there's reason to be pessimistic for the future. I won't object if another admin decides to unblock him, though I would ask in that case that the unblocking admin be willing to follow up on further complaints against this editor. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, and add that anyone who wishes to unblock should post their rationale here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. SoLando (Talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as nom ;-).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pffft, objection? No chance. Endorse. BLACKKITE 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball endorse FWIW. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh... Probably a fine move. It would have been interetsing to see where he would have gone had he been aloud to continue under a topic ban, but admitedly my good faith in this user was nearly spent. End result was what I expected, even if I was willing to give them another chance. No big loss here. Endorse as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelo De La Paz

Dear Wikipedians User:Angelo De La Paz of buddhist vietnam origin is not allowing others to edit Islam in India the user is also vandalising article by taking out important paragraphs, decreasing numbers and so on. I provided User:Angelo De La Paz with lost paragraphs and upto date numbers along with Refferences in users Talk Page. please deal with user accordingly. please view users Talk Page first column Islam in India . Thanks. --HinduMuslim (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning at the user's page to stop reverting the article, and instead seek alternate ways of adressing the problem. He has been instructed to use the talk page to discuss reverts, and to build consensus before doing so again. He has also been told to attempt dispute resolution before attempting to revert the article again. He is now aware that repeatedly reverting the article is a violation of the Three Revert Rule and can be blocked for doing so. At this point, I don't see much else we can do. Since he has been warned, he may be blocked if the behavior continues, let us assume good faith for now and see if he follows my suggestions or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK!Let's see who was the truly vandal!Please see what were you did in your contributions, note: 99.237.253.131 is another IP adddress of HinduMuslim
• Your attacks in my Talk Page:

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Islam_in_India
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#India_holding_2nd_Largest_Muslim_population_in_World

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

HinduMuslim, could you please explain what the signifcance is that you feel the need to indicate that Angelo De La Paz is of Vietnamese Buddhist origin? That's skating really close to a personal attack violation. Somebody's background shouldn't be of import when discussing a difficulty, only their behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But user has no Idea of Islam in India no disrespect but user should allow others to edit article as well.

These are separate issues, and should not be conflated. Neither user has behaved in a particularly good manner over this issue, and the idea that dispute resolution should be used applies in this case to both of them. Both should stop all editing of the article, and seek outside intervention. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting community ban for two tendentious, disruptive editors

Please look over this action and comment about my proposed remedy here. It is time that the community of administrators took action against those forces seeking to disrupt Wikipedia for their own goals of promoting fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant move, this may be the first time in a year I've seen anything worthwhile come out of an Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Abridged is looking for a graceful way out. I know nothing of the underlying issues, but if they choose to exercise their right to vanish, perhaps we should let it go at that? Of course, there's the issue of whether they are still in good standing. Anyway, just a thought. — Satori Son 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted here explaining why this proposal is utterly ridiculous... and shameful. Lara❤Love 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unnecessarily harsh reaction to a proposal from a number of long-term constructive editors. I will assume you merely are unaware of the background to the situation, since you stated previously that you were "too busy" to read the full story.[38] Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond Arritt. Lara, you do not understand the real story here. The community is speaking. It is appropriate that you listen to what the community is saying.--Filll (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "unnecessarily harsh". I don't care what the background is. If I don't have a blocklog or links to RFCs or other processes we use here to deal with disruptive users, then I don't agree that requesting a ban is appropriate. I look at it as laziness that nothing was done before. And now people want to jump at an opportunity to ban the users for abuse of process when one has less than 1000 edits and less than 4 months experience. Is that overly harsh? Does that not make sense to you? Lara❤Love 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2 Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You've argued that one of them is inexperienced and doesn't know better; you've argued that the other should be respected because of his experience. But you apparently have no interest in the obvious question: why didn't the experienced editor counsel the inexperienced one that this was totally inappropriate? You can't have it both ways, Lara. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I am forced to spend 50 hours or more to build up a case against one or both of these tendentitious editors, that is just time I will not be spending on the project. And then someone like Lara will just let them go without even a warning, or unblock them after some other admin blocks them. Whig has an ugly track record. And anyone who has edited with him knows it. How about this, Lara. Show me some productive edits from Whig, instead of forcing me to spend dozens of hours compiling his record of unproductive edits? You are claiming it is your right to force us to deal with a nightmare so maybe something good will come from either of these two editors in a few months or years time.--Filll (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is warn, then blocks, then a ban. Sort of that whole protocol thing. the_undertow ^talk 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC, but to what I don't know) Or not, Filll. The burden isn't on me. You can't just ban a user that has never been blocked or through any of the processes we have in place here for disruptive editors because you've not been inclined to do anything about this behavior that is so outrageous to you. And Raymond, I never said Whig should be respected. I said that considering he is an established editor and encouraged Abridged to file the RFC, that should be taken into consideration in regards to AGF on the part of Abridged. Lara❤Love 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I already did most of the research to respond to some accusations Whig made in the RfC:

Requests for comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2

Start by reading these threads in ANI archives 311 and 317: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive311#User:Whig, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig

Here are some recent diffs:

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it: 15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI: [39]

• 6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
• You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

FT2 goes on to say: "The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury."

Whig's recent behaviour has also been poor. For instance, he has:

1. done a tendentious Afd on Quackery AfD [[User_talk:Whig/Archive_1#Re:_Quackery_AfD|Discussion about it, warning him for his behaviour] To quote East718:

Like I said, that was a colossal mistake at best; more likely it was you trying out subtle disruption. A dispute of that sort would be best resolved by posting a polite and narrow message on the talk page, requesting third opinions, and then going down further steps of dispute resolution if conflict persists. Please don't repeat such behavior.

1. He was soon after in trouble for edit warring - despite the 1RR.

Also to the point is this in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive356#Incivility_by_Peter_morrell. I've added some emphasis.

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Adam Cuerden is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this in his RfC.[40] Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Adam_Cuerden.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to look at Adam's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Adam is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Viewing the situation, their RFC against Adam appears to me to be nothing more than a strategic move on their part intended to waylay an opponent rather than a good faith effort at DR which was already underway with Adam's RFAR and original RFC. That being so, their filing of an additional RFC is tantamount to repeatedly poking a caged animal with a stick, and for that sort of incivility and disruption and absent any indication from Whig that he'll steer clear of Adam in the future I support some sort of a ban to end the disruption. FeloniousMonk (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC per above

For further comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3 may be useful. May as well spend a week and do this properly, so that the ban will stick. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This still has nothing to do with Abridged, which the editor I've been concerned with the whole time. Lara❤Love 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Abridged should be blocked, and never said she should. She has been a productive editor on the whole, and some simple advice should be enough to get her past this thin-skinned phase, or so one can still hope. It is possible that problems might continue - her recent stay on Wikipedia has been more problematic than her former one - but I worked productively with her for a couple months a while back, and this recent behaviour seems atypical. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than banning

Problems should be solved with less force when possible. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Cuerden 2. I hope that isn't vexatious. Jehochman ^Talk 10:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

auto(un)block review

I just undid the autoblock that User:Trimy67 was stuck under. Trimy seems to be an actual non-trolling editor, even though some of his edits are a little problematic. (Hia998 was the original blockee.) However, as I was undoing the block, this happened.

Er... ? - Revolving Bugbear 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit might provide some clues. Pairadox (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleven day-old MfD

Would an admin mind cruising over to MfD and close out the entry from January 13? It has been open long enough. Regards. --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Compare Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Request_for_comment_on_Finding_of_Fact_.239_.28Adam_Cuerden.29

with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Adam_Cuerden.27s_use_of_administrative_tools

Note that there are new votes on the second one. New support votes

Question: Has the Arbcom even bothered to read this RfC that they ordered? Because I have been asking them for two months to explain that finding of fact, and brought it up in the RfC because it seemed so problematic, but they refuse to comment on it at all.

The arbcom, after this RfC have now added another, new way to desysop me to their list of proposals - one that says that I can't be trusted as an editor either. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Proposed_decision_-_Adam_Cuerden

Is there evidence for that new, bold assertion that I can't be trusted to follow community norms as an editor? If so, it's hard to see where, since, you know, they don't bother to say.

In short, I have no faith whatsoever in the arbcom's ability to reacch a fair decision, since they show no signs of reading what I e-mail them, whether through Jimbo, (as was done two months ago), through Arbcom members, through mass mailings. They seem to be ignoring the RfC as well.

Can anything be done about the Arbcom, in situations like this? I edit under my own name, and am not looking forwards to having these things show up on google for the rest of my life. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to be more disruptive, and tenaciously promote far-fringe agendas or conspiracy theories. Then people will rush to your defense. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The case is resuming. It is not being handled as I would have advocated, but when things are handled by a committee of 15 people, sometimes they are going to disagree about things. I thought that arrangements had been made such that project-space pages no longer showed up on Google, but if that is not the case I can have the arbitration pages courtesy-blanked after the case is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See [41] Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad, finding of fact 9 makes very specific claims that appear to me to be obviously and unquestionably not true. Adam has asked directly about it here and on the RFC. I asked directly about it on the proposed decision talk page a month ago, as did others. In the case of Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas, no reasonable person could say that Adam used the tools in such a way as to gain an advantage. Could you, or another arbiter, explain this finding of fact? Thanks. --B (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also annoyed that the new proposed remedy compounds this by implying that my editing behaviour (as opposed to admin tool use) has not been within community norms, and requires 6 months monitoring to make sure I can edit appropriately to community norms. Where on earth is that suggestion coming from? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse me for being sarcastic, but if Adam started making articles like Blue Cheese Moon, Time is like an oval, Telepathic animal husbandry and Magical talking rocks and so on, and fighting frantically for the value of these, then Adam would come under the protection of senior members of the community and be a protected trusted contributor to Wikipedia. Adam's fault is that he tries to defend NPOV and mainstream science. He is on the wrong side.--Filll (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Adam's initial post and Raymond's response) Sarcasm aside, this was one of the most bizarre and unsatisfactory ArbCom cases I've ever witnessed. The case was brought by a sitting Arbitrator as a "test case" to examine the principle that we should desysop people more aggressively, or something. This was in the added, and explicitly stated, subtext that Adam was running for ArbCom at the time. It opened with rapid acceptance of the case in the absence of typical dispute resolution, in response to a slew of still-unrefactored personal attacks and abuse from the initiating Arbitrator. Within 12 hours of the case opening, there were draconian proposals put forward by Arbitrators for wide-ranging disciplinary action against Adam, including desysopping with extreme prejudice and barring Adam from any future RfA, as well as formally censuring a passing admin who declined an unblock request. There was a period of reactive sanity where a few of the more draconian or factually incorrect findings were withdrawn, and ultimately the case was suspended for an RfC which ought to have been a prerequisite for taking the case in the first place. The RfC showed community disapproval of some of Adam's actions, but general support for retention of the sysop bit. Now the conclusion is that he should be desysopped for 6 months and remain on probation for another 6 months after that, because resuming the case would be "problematic due to passage of time".

The problem here is that Adam's selection as a "test case" was, to the outside observer, highly capricious and arbitrary. While he had made mistakes, he was not afforded the usual dispute-resolution and feedback mechanisms; instead, it was decided to make an example out of him pour encourager les autres. That is bad for morale; the fact that the test case devolved into a mess doesn't help. As to what can be done, the answer is probably not much. ArbCom is composed of human beings. I think the best that can be done is to recognize that ArbCom is made up of human beings, to note the RfC findings, request a courtesy blanking, and make a decision about how strongly you want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. At the very least, hopefully we've seen the last "test case", but that's not much comfort. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - is there evidence that has been submitted privately that we don't know about? Quite frankly, this case is nothing but a chilling effect for all admins - you better hope you didn't make a bad block based on bad advice six months ago or you may be desysopped. Now that an RFC has expressed overwhelming opposition to the desysop proposal, the committee is drafting a new proposal that will prevent undoing the damage via an RFA (which, based on the RFC, probably would have passed within about 1 week and 20 minutes after the desysopping took effect). Is there something that the arbiters know that we don't? Because if not, I must have really bad reading comprehension skills. --B (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, this seems like making mountains out of molehills here. I do not intend to alter my blocking or protection habits at all based on this. For the record, there does NOT, as noted in the RFC and above, appear to be a push to remove his sysop tools and block access to RfA. The solution with the most support at this point appears to be that he is desysoped at this point, but is fully free to reseek them at any time, including by RfA. Also, Adam's own proposed solution, that he is on admin waiver for 6 months, and be regranted his tools upon showing good behavior, seems to also have some support among the arbcom. Let's not take an "us against them" mentality with the ArbCom. I am not sure such a mentality is terribly productive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

...I never suggested that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, nor I. ArbCom does a remarkably good job in the vast majority of the very difficult cases which come before them. I'm saying that I think this particular case was poorly handled. Whether it's a mountain or a molehill depends on whether you're Adam, I suppose, or on how closely you can identify with his situation. Having been tentatively shopped as a "test case" myself, maybe I'm overly sensitive. MastCell ^Talk 06:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

B, I think they are looking at the RfC closely- at the defense, not at the votes per se. I don't think other admins have anything to worry about. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam, maybe saying this is not going to help because of who I am. But please give it a chance and listen anyway. I said during the RfC exactly what I thought you needed to do- the first thing was to basically stop the general user behavior which you think is alright because you undertake it in the defense of what you believe is scientifically correct. I can sympathize with the view that if one user is right, their actions should be given license because of it. But I don't think that is what the ArbCom wants to hear. I tried to tell you, anyway. I think you're a good guy and a good editor, and you can have your tools back someday. Just don't act like the fringies are an inferior lot and get to be treated badly because of it (even though you think so). I genuinely think that factor, and the defense which grew out of it "look at what the fringies did, so what I did was OK," is what pushed it to this stage. Stop listening to those who tell you this: they are wrong, and you are losing your admin tools because of it. Maybe it isn't fair that you are the one to be made an example of, but the ArbCom is pretty obviously talking about the general situation. It is also probably talking about the defense on the RfC, judging that the defense "look at the fringies," and the user behavior which occurred because you are fighting the fringies, was not according to community standards. What other behavior could they be talking about in the new thing about general user conduct? I'm not meaning to poke you while you're down. And believe it or not I'm not here to gloat, because I really would have been happy if you'd just stopped acting as you were. I'm really trying to help, and I believe you will be an admin again. And a good one. Let me know and I'll vote for you per the ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Query to folks who have the tools

During the RFC phase new evidence came to light. Adam had been brought to arbitration for a "bad block" on an account that he thought was a disruptive sockpuppet. Those of use who aren't sysops can't examine the new evidence because the entire editing history of the possible sockmaster account has been deleted - we can only gather from administrator conversations that this second account may have been a sock of the same editor. Could someone who has the tools please summarize this for the rest of us? Seven arbitrators still maintain that Adam's blocks were outside policy and six of seven have still signed onto a finding that affirmatively states There is no evidence to suggest that Matthew Hoffman is a sock puppet. Is this correct? Is there no evidence even suggestive of that? Since this was the ostensible reason for opening the case in the first place, I'd like to understand. Durova^Charge! 07:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any hints as to the name of the hypothetical puppetmaster? Don't say it out loud; just point in the appropriate direction. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Durova^Charge! 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mateohoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've reviewed the contributions (active and deleted ones), and I can confirm that though the MatthewHoffman account (1 October 2005) was created before the Mateohoffman account (6 May 2007), the editing history does not overlap. MatthewHoffman edited from 15-16 September 2007. Mateohoffman edited from 6-9 May 2007. Mateohoffman has only deleted contributions to Matthew Hoffman and Talk:Matthew Hoffman (what looks like an autobio). Mateo can be a separate name to Matthew, and can also be an alternate version of Matthew. There are also lots of Matthew Hoffmans around. The autobio content is suggestive of certain conclusions, but should not be discussed as it contains private information. It is possible these accounts were created by the same person. It is also possible that they are different people. The same almost certainly applies to the accounts pointed out by RBaley below. I would urge those who think this means anything conclusive to look through the user logs and see how many accounts are created by people with similar names. And to remember that religious and science areas are a popular area to edit. It is not inconceivable that two people with similar names will (a) edit Wikipedia and (b) edit the same area (or display an interest in the same area). It would not be fair on this Matthew Hoffman, or the other Matthew Hoffmans, to go any further with this. Adam has expressed concerns about how this will impact on his name. The same holds true for the Matthew Hoffmans of this world. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if these registered names are relevant or not but they are similar. . .R. Baley (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mathoffman99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Mathofmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Matt hoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Matthewhoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Matthoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Matthoff96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Matthoffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Mattius Hof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Mattmhoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Mattyhoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Hoffymatt76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And for the record, the vast majority of the above accounts are completely inactive - maybe only created to enable certain viewing preferences. Creation dates (where available) range from 2005 to 2008. The only deleted contributions made by the above accounts are to Matt Hoffner by the Matthoffner account (another nn-autobio) and to Daniel M. Cook by the Mattius Hof account (again, another nn-bio, note was left on the talk page of the account linking the two, so revealing this here is not a breach of privacy). The three nn-bios all describe different people. Which kind of proves my point. Let's stop trying to ferret out sock-puppetry when the point here is that relatively inexperienced edits (the top-posting, for a start), with a knowledge of policy (pages anyone can read before beginning to edit) were met with a bad block that was compounded by bad advice and an extension of the block to indefinite. I haven't looked through the recent indefinite blocks, but I hope the situation has improved since. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

the committee is drafting a new proposal that will prevent undoing the damage via an RFA (which, based on the RFC, probably would have passed within about 1 week and 20 minutes after the desysopping took effect). - then this can become a test case on whether Arbcom really does have the authority it claims to forbid an RFA. It is manifestly unclear where this supposed authority derives from, since Arbcom's authority is an extension of Jimbo's authority, and Jimbo's authority derives from being a highly respected user on en.wikipedia. I see no legitimate basis for Arbcom to override the will of the community. —Random832 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• on the original question perhaps it should be reiterated as policy that WP space is off limits to Google. I too thought that was the policy. People can still search the material from within WP , and that is all that is necessary for proper transparency. DGG (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Undelete Request for “Civility of Yankee Imperialism”

Resolved

 – This is a matter for Deletion Review. — Satori Son

A new page: “Civility of Yankee Imperialism” was recently removed: “The result was delete as original research. Closing under WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC).”

Every sentence on this new page, reproduced below the text of this paragraph, is a verifiable assertion derived from one or more of the reliable sources provided. These sources are academic books and articles that passed through a rigorous process of scholarly peer-review before being published by well-known presses. The views of the competing scholarly schools discussed on this page are represented fairly and presented, as far as possible, without bias in a manner inclusive of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources addressing the subject of the proposed Wikipedia entry. This page contains no original research whatsoever! The notability of the entry can be gauged in the scholarly reviews of the new entry’s most important source: Steven Schwartzberg, Democracy and U.S. Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 2003). Excerpts from these scholarly reviews are accessible at: [42] Longer excerpts are available at: [43]

Click [show] at right to expand text of deleted article.

A debate among diplomatic historians and Latin Americanists has emerged in recent decades centering on the dynamic relationship between US policy and political developments in Latin America during the period from 1944-1954. The two sides in this debate on the character of US - Latin American relations during these years might be referred to as the cynical school and the civility school. Most of the scholarship of the last generation or two has remained within the confines of the cynical school. This scholarship emphasizes the influence of the Second World War, and the growing Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, in determining US policy and shaping political developments in Latin America. It emphasizes US covert intervention in Guatemala in 1954 and the role of US condescension and racial prejudice in combining with selfish US interests (especially security and economic interests) to determine US policy.

The scholars of the civility school maintain that different expressions of concern for the common good determined the ways in which more particular US interests were understood and pursued. They argue that US officials, depending on how much they cared for the human rights of individuals relative to the dignity of nations, expressed concern for the common good in support for democratic solidarity and in respect for the national autonomy of others. They hold that there is a liberal tradition in US policy that has promoted a shared commitment to democratic progress as a foundation for international cooperation in the pursuit of common values and interests (as well as for the pursuit of more particular US values and interests) and a conservative tradition that has promoted mutual respect among diverse countries for the autonomy of each as such a foundation. The scholars of the civility school focus on the ways in which these liberal and conservative traditions have informed the conduct of US policy. They also emphasize the ways in which political developments in Latin America are largely autonomous of US policy and help to determine changes in US policy while being somewhat affected, in turn, by these very changes.

US Cold War interests contributed to policies that at times had a decisive effect on instances of regime change and regime maintenance throughout the period from 1944-1954. So did Cold War concerns within the internal politics of the countries of Latin America. The fairly consistent strength of these interests and concerns was compatible with an extraordinary wave of democratic openings that began in 1944 and with a subsequent reverse wave of democratic breakdowns and military coups that began in 1948. The relative ascendancy of liberalism or conservatism among US officials determined the ways in which US Cold War interests were defined and pursued. The balance between liberalism and conservatism in US policy was determined by the moral convictions of individual US officials, by their optimism and pessimism, and by the strength of largely autonomous democratic movements on the ground in Latin America.

US policy played a decisive role at only four, or perhaps five, critical junctures in the history of Latin America during the period from 1944-1954. It did so by helping to tip the balance to the democratic side in a few close contests: in Cuba in 1944, in Ecuador in 1947, and in Costa Rica in 1948. It also played a decisive role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Guatemala in 1954. The president and other important leaders of this Guatemalan government, however, considered themselves Marxist-Leninists and their long-term commitment to democracy was dubious to say the least. US policy provided the democratic side in Brazil with significant assistance in 1945, and inadvertently provided significant assistance, perhaps even decisive assistance, to authoritarian forces in Argentina in 1946.

References

• Bethell, Leslie and Ian Roxborough, editors. Latin America between the Second World War and the Cold War, 1944-1948 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

• Blasier, Cole. Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985).

• Diamond, Larry and Juan Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset, editors. Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder: Lynn Reinner, 1988).

• Dozer, Donald Marquand. Are We Good Neighbors: Three Decades of Inter-American Relations, 1930-1960 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1959).

• Gleijeses, Piero. Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

• Green, David. The Containment of Latin America: A History of the Myths and Realities of the Good Neighbor Policy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971).

• Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan, editors. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).

• Lowenthal, Abraham F., editor. Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).

• May, Ernest R. “National Security in American History,” Graham Allison Gregory F. Treverton, editors, Rethinking America’s Security: Beyond the Cold War to the New World Order (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), pages: 94-114.

• Rock, David, editor. Latin America in the 1940s: War and Postwar Transitions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

• Schmitz, David F. Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999).

• Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).

• Schwartzberg, Steven. Democracy and U.S. Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 2003).

• Schwartzberg, Steven. “Rómulo Betancourt: From a Communist Anti-Imperialist to a Social Democrat with U.S. Support,” The Journal of Latin American Studies, Volume 29, Number 3 (October 1997), pages: 613-665.

• Shils, Edward. The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society edited by Steven Grosby (Indianapolis: Libery Fund: 1997).

Steven Schwartzberg Steven Schwartzberg (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. You're in the wrong room. deletion review is two doors down on your left... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayron is correct. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civility of Yankee Imperialism, next step is Deletion Review. — Satori Son 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: Rouge admin needed

Rouge admin desperately needed.

I noticed on the Reliable sources noticeboard and Fringe theories noticeboard, there have been a lot of politics brought up, recently.

So, I did some searching at Special:Linksearch of political websites which would typically be unreliable. Here's a brief list of what I found:

(left-wing)

• Media Matters [44] [45]
• Gatewaypundit [46]
• DailyKos [47] [48]

(right-wing)

• Newsbusters.org [49] [50]
• The Jawa Report [51]
• LittleGreenFootballs [52] [53]

(non-partisan\third party)

• Politicalgateway [54]
• CATO [55] [56]
• Lew Rockwell [57] [58]
• Mises.org [59] [60]
• Geocities.com [61] [62]

Now, per WP:Anti-elitism I know what the knee-jerk response is going to be and I have my counter-rebuttal prepared: Yes, I know that extreme, self-published, or biased sources (like advocate groups or political opinion pieces) aren't necessarily unusable sources, if the subject involves the source itself or the article otherwise is referencing a notable opinion. However, that's not what's being done here if you take a look at the links above, and there are rampant violations of policy which are being ignored. If you dig through those sources, you find plenty of them being used to establish facts on major articles, in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Any good admin needs to run through there with the banhammer.

As noted above, that was just a brief list I made. More extensive searches and lists of URLs frequently used as unreliable sources should also be pursued. As a few particularly horrible examples, the white supremacist forum, Stormfront.org [63] is currently used as a source for the article on National-Anarchism [64], on Anarchism and Nationalism [65], and on the biography of Gerald Fredrick Töben [66] On that last point, Gerald Töben is an anti-semitic nutcase, but nevertheless, it's a blatant violation of WP:BLP to be making claims that he's "a favorite among white supremacist organizations such as StormFront" and cite that using a forum post on Stormfront.org. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my word, what a mess. This needs more time than I can currently spare. For now I've killed the uses of Stormfront as reference but the rest of the points Zenwhat brings up need very careful looking at. At the very least, cluebats for people who think Stormfront is a reliable source are certainly in order. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did that a while back. Find who reinserted them and LART them, I would suggest. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt stormfront.org is a reliable source; I would be leaning more towards the spam blacklist for it... Stifle (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, Wikipedia is not censored and it was noted a while back on WP:VP that the spam blacklist is a bit too rigid. There are some rare cases where Stormfront might be reliably sourced. Examples:

• Stormfront, White supremacism, and White nationalism - (obvious)
• David Duke - He has an account in their forum and has posted there before and some of his remarks there (or remarks by other well-known racists, maybe?) may be used as a primary source.

I will say, though, that it might be OK to blacklist stormfront if there were some way that administrators could approve the rare exceptions to the blacklist (something nobody can currently do), since although 99% of the time it's used by vandals, Stormfront might be used once or twice on Wikipedia appropriately.

Also, another comment too: Media Matters, Newsbusters, etc., are frequently prone to misleading assertions because they're advocacy groups, but they often do cite primary sources, like videos and articles in the mainstream media. Instead of just removing the sources immediately, it might be a good idea to quickly check the sources briefly to see what sources they, themselves, cite and then replace the URL with that citation instead.

In the meantime, it occurred to me that it would probably be a good idea to create what could be called a "greylist," a list of URLs I know that are regularly abused by trolls. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat/Greylist. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been a bit rogue here, and added all of them, except for geocities (should I add that one as well?), to the revert list of User:SquelchBot (the replacement of User:AntiSpamBot), new accounts and IP-accounts (except if they are whitelisted) will now be reverted and warned. This does not disallow the use, but gives a warning to new users to check the use of these links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add, due to several issues with blog sites (WP:COI, WP:RS, [WP:OR]], WP:EL etc.), blogspot was already on that list. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this is really bad. I removed a few egregious examples, including some where claims on BLPs were sourced to these political fringe sites. Much more work is needed. *** Crotalus *** 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

even Stormfront is a RS for saying that something has appeared on Stormfront, if that is relevant to the article. DGG (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletions broken

Don't know where else to post this as it concerns admins only, but the page for image deletions has been broken ever since the new preprocessor went live (try here). The dropdown box was borked until I fixed it somehow earlier tonight, but another problem is that there's two hanging <td>s in the HTML of the page, which is breaking all scripts right now. east.718 at 10:10, January 25, 2008

Works fine for me, but I don't use any scripts. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would head over to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if it hasn't already been fixed. (I don't use scripts either). Woody (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

can someone deal with this please

Someone feel like dealing with these gems please: [67] [68]. Before someone points out the obvious, it was NOT an attempt to bait him, I honestly do feel very sorry for him about his recent circumstances, as Dan said - I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. That said if he is going to participate in admin actions he is still required to explain his actions, wikipedia is not and never will be, therapy. Can someone also post the relevant notice on his talk page, me doing it would look like antagonism and is ulikley to get a good response. Viridae^Talk 12:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, can you explain, please, why you unblocked without discussion just because it was mentioned on Wikipedia Review? When I last checked, the blocking policy was very clear that admins should not unblock without discussing it (properly) with the blocking admin, or on AN/I if the admin's not available. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JzG for 24 hours. I don't care if he's an admin, has been around for a while, has lots of friends, and has just suuffered a loss; edit summaries like "Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period" are not acceptable. There is a limit, and Guy crossed it. I confidently expect someone to unblock him on some specious reason without discussing it with me. Open for discussion here, though. Neıl ☎ 13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, that is extremely unhelpful and misses the point that the unblock was very provocative. Please unblock him so we can all discuss this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, I urge you to reconsider. Blocks are preventative, not punative. Blocking Guy will mean he cannot (unless he unblocks himself) add input here. And whilst I agree that his loss is not "carte blanch to act like a dick",[69] that's still a hard stance and an unhelpful comment on his talk page at this time. IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries and blanking comments from his talk page are hardly new behaviour from Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, blocking is overly harsh. Please unblock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ecx4)Please unblock JzG. He is a grumpy editor but common decency means he is allowed to be particularly so when being trolled at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! —Preceding comment was added at 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. That 4 people above (5 if you include me) thought it appropriate led me to do so. As an aside, blocking is not to be used in this way; not against admins and not against "regular" editors. There was no iminent danger to the encyclopedia because Guy was rude in an edit summary. Yes he was rude. Yes, he has been so before. But unilateral blocks are not "punishments" for bad behavior, and should not be used simply to correct someone's behavior. There are other avenues to fix this, and blocking is not one of them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it another half hour for feedback - if none is forthcoming then I'll unblock (although I personally feel a block was entirely appropriate, and there's nothing stopping Guy discussing it on his talk page, I will go with the majority here). Neıl ☎ 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's moot as Jayron didn't even give me a chance to respond. Clearly, 22 minutes was enough for a full and frank discussion. Sigh. Neıl ☎ 13:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Jayron's unblock and his reasoning. Sorry, Neil, but I don't see what you planned to achieve by blocking him for a day. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted with notice of unblock) I don't really see trolls as a reason for blatant incivility towards another user, especially towards a fellow administrator, no less. I would remove the block on JzG that was just placed on him, but once he is unblocked, he should not to be permitted to continue without consequences. — Save_Us † 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking an editor he blocked without discussing it with him is improper; attempting to discuss it with him is trolling. So just what is somebody who disagrees with him to do? I sympathize with his family loss (though when I tried to express sympathy earlier it got taken the wrong way, so I've stayed away since), and would fully support everybody laying off him if he took an understandable wikibreak, but his situation is not a blank check to let him keep jumping into controversial situations, act uncivil, and expect everybody to keep cutting him slack. This runs out eventually. There's a "sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" issue in saying that blocks are not supposed to be punitive as a reason to undo the block on him, when he's long been a prominent member of a faction that treats blocks in a highly punitive way. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy gets away with murder, such as here, where two rancorous and foul edit summaries were met wit a short block to prevent further incivility, and within 22 minutes he was unblocked without my even having a chance to respond. Is he really that above the law at this point? Neıl ☎ 13:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy is always above the law, as far as I can see. I really wish this hadn't happened at this time in his life, but he really used up any slack long long ago. DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, your "short block" would not have prevented further "incivility", since the offending edit summaries were made on his talk page where he could edit despite being blocked. Furthermore, his edits were not "uncivil", since they were not "personally targeted behavior", though they were rancorous and foul (though perhaps understandable so). --Iamunknown 14:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: Viridae undeleted an article I deleted as an unambiguous WP:CSD#G5 by request of the banned user at Wikipedia Review, unblocked Veesicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after this [70], unblocked Sannleikur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after discussion only at Wikipedia review, and chose to post about it on my talk page which, right now, contains only comments about my father's death and I would quite like it to stay that way at least for a short while. Yes, this looks like harassment to me. But for some reason Neil thinks it's me doing the harassing. Put simply: Viridae is baiting me, and appears to be pursuing a personal agenda based on comments made at WR to the effect that Viridae wants me gone as an admin. I really do not think that trolling other admins at times of immense personal stress is a helpful way to resolve disputes, especially when those disputes are on another website and have not even been raised on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really am trying to be delicate here - if you're under such stress (I know what it's like), perhaps you might consider stepping away from Wikipedia for a day or two? Neıl ☎ 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:JzG#Kindness. I am doing a few edits here and there, not least while making links to my page on Dad at my personal wiki, which has links back here. I am not doing much at all, and I have no wish to do so. There was no hurry, no need to intrude. The user had not asked to be unblocked, there was no discussion at ANI, the only discussion was at Wikipedia Review, and even there no unblock request was made that I can see. Why troll people at times of stress? I did not seek out this confrontation, Viridae did. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can at least agree "fuck off" isn't appropriate no matter what the events, and you don't speak to anyone like that again on-Wiki, then it's a reasonable outcome. Neıl ☎ 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's not, any more than trolling me at this time is appropriate. I hate it when people provoke me to anger. I would point out: on Jan 20, Dad was being treated in hospital but with a prognosis that did not include death; we were waiting to find out if he'd had another stroke. He was weak but conscious and alert. On Jan 21, at around 9pm, he was dead. See how many edits or other actions I've made since Jan 21. Anyway, this is pointless, I'm off to potter round the house. Thanks for listening, I'm going to walk away from this I think. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be best. I'm going shopping. Neıl ☎ 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has to do something about this editor. How do we deal with this? This started on Jan 19th.[71] Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not beating dead horses. — Save_Us † 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As did I. See below... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Block review

See block comment and Sannleikur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block on the user because Sannleikur was clearly being disruptive with his editing. Despite that though, you were overly anxious with assuming there was a sockpuppet without any evidence being provided. Then on top of that you were grossly incivil about it and decided to wheel war the block once it was removed. [72] The wheel warring and incivil comments is something you could have done without. — Save_Us † 12:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As is trolling me while I'm arranging my father's funeral, of course. But that's an aside. Even the most cursory inspection shows that this account stinks of week-old socks, and unblocking is inexplicable given that the user had not even requested unblock - the only comment I can find was made at Wikipedia Review by someone other than the user. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your father. It must be very stressful for you at the moment. Take my advice. Have a break from this place for a bit. It can get nuts here and you need your whits about you. Personally I never read wikipedia review, bunch of nutcases. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As Theresa says - if you're arranging your father's funeral and are under a great deal of stress, maybe Wikipedia's not the best place for a day or two. Neıl ☎ 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have done nothing if the orange bar hadn't lit up when I saved Queen Mary trailer. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Do nothing. Seriously. Return to status quo. I think the extended block is probably excessive, and should be returned to its old state, and that everyone should go back to what they were doing. Guy has been unblocked, and is aware that people don't find his rude edit summaries helpful. That this discussion has happened has put everyone on notice, and any further discussion here would only generate more heat, and little light. No further admin action needs to be taken; while I have no prejudice to use of RFC or mediation at this point, there doesn't appear to be anything gained by argueing about this here anymore. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, a suggestion to JzG: Don't read WR when you're under stress -- it won't help to relieve the stress. (I don't know if you were actually reading WR or not, but now's not the time to be reading it.) (Also, I should take my own advice. I read stressful sites when I'm under stress, so maybe I should stop.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice. Wikipedia should probably be categorised under a "stressful sites" (I know I find it stressful sometimes :-(). Zomg! WP:STRESSFULSITES!  ;-) --Iamunknown 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue raised here

I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if my comment is appropriate, but when reading Guy's reply above, this passage stood out: "...The user had not asked to be unblocked, there was no discussion at ANI, the only discussion was at Wikipedia Review, and even there no unblock request was made that I can see..." I've been wondering when I was going to start seeing manifestations of this sort of activity, where WR is seen to serve admins as a back channel in talkspace, like IRC is in realtime. The tradition, as I understand it, has been to discuss blocks and unblocks in transparent wikipedia space, as opposed to personal talkspace or IRC, unless something very dramatic and/or compelling occurs which forces creative admins to break all rules to solve. Is Guy's account correct? I join other editors in urging him to consider signing out for a day or two, or at least avoid reading WR and admin spaces. I think we can all agree that firing off F-bombs early in the day will draw any editor's attention. I feel awful even to have to admonish user in the least; there have been some particularly unhelpful threaded comments aimed at him above which might have been saved for a more worthy opportunity, and the colorful language was not his finest moment today, but even in his anger and grief, user does tend to cut through the crap and point out a lack of transparency of process which needs to be addressed. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns, as well, but the essence of the consensus here is this:

• Viridae should not unblock users without discussion (either with the blocking admin or with the general community at ANI).
• Guy should not tell other users to “fuck off” (in edit summaries or otherwise).

Further discussion is unlikely to get us any more than that. — Satori Son 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to know we're confirming WP:BLOCK and WP:CIVIL. --Kbdank71 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. — Satori Son 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe now everyone will follow them. Hahahaha. I think this can be marked "resolved" and whisked under the carpet. Neıl ☎ 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Groupakarl

This user is a consistent uploader of copyrighted images (see the long list at User talk:Groupakarl). It seems with all of those notices he'll never cooperate with other people (mistaking it for another bot-notice. What should be done about this? --Howard the Duck 12:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse talk pages than that. How about sending him a hand-written message about Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and watch his uploads? — Save_Us † 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

vandal TaskBOT

Resolved

 – blocked

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

A sock/vandal, not a bot; it is User:Runningman01 removing sock notices. Block, please. --Jack Merridew 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. BLACKKITE 12:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jack Merridew 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering and Dalai Lama

Not really sure how to handle this one. User:B9 hummingbird hovering is a prolific editor of Buddism-based articles; he doesn't however, appear to mind that by rewriting them almost entirely in jargon is detrimental to their readability. His edit summaries, when they aren't just reiterations of the text, are incomprehensible; his talk page edits likewise.

His talk page has a whole list of examples of cases when he's been difficult to work with in the past. Right now, on Dalai Lama, he continually rewrites passages to make less sense to uninitiated readers. Nor does he take too kindly to having edits reverted (that example got him a 31-hour block).

Turning away productive editors isn't a good idea, but neither is the gradual translation of every article on Tibetan Buddhism into Tibetan. Any suggestions? Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation on main page?

Significant portions of text on The_Drug_Years are identical to pieces from this apparently copyrighted reference noted on the article. I can't see any mention of copyright matters and there are no significantly different versions in the article history. Second opinion wanted. Kosebamse (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bwah, this should probably have gone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. My apologies. Kosebamse (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ERRORS is probably a better place to discuss errors and problems on the main page. Items posted at Template talk:Did you know are supposed to be reviewed before they get posted to Template:Did you know/Next update and then to Template:Did you know, but this one apparently fell through the cracks. (I'm not perfect at reviewing the submissions either.) Any help reviewing submissions at T:TDYK would be appreciated. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised the copyright bots didn't pick up on this, as it was a word-for-word copy. I've stubbed the article. Newswire asserts copyright over their releases, and even if they didn't it's shoddy to copy-paste a press release. --JayHenry (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to inform Conman33, the creator of the article, about this. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the standard {{uw-copyvio}} Woody (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD for article on Main Page?

Resolved

 – Keeper saved the day! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to Speedy Close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Italian political crisis since I thought there was a guideline against nominating an article currently on the Main Page for deletion (ever since the ill fated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cynna_Kydd), but then looked at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion and couldn't find it. Did it go away? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. Either way, I would speedy close it. Garion96 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If required, ignore all rules on this one - it's not going to be deleted per the current consenus, and I very much doubt it will get merged. Given a lot of people will be clicking on it, it's not going to do our reputation any good having a high profile article on the main page up for deletion. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76 did it. Thanks, Keeper! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I just closed it as Keep per WP:SNOW and referenced this discussion. Keeper | 76 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More protection fun with PeaceNT, now with meat-puppeting potential

Another long-standing redirection battle has been around Bulbasaur, one of the 400 Pokemon articles that was redirected to a list of Pokemon characters. This morning, while the article was full-protected, PeaceNT promised to restore the article from re-direction, calling the redirect "blatantly unjustified". Perhaps mindful of the controversy of her earlier editing of Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special, where she also ignored all rules about the editing of protected articles, she did not do so. Instead, a couple hours later, User:Trialsanderrors changes article under protection, for the purpose of restoring an article, and adding an AFD notice, even though no one has been campaigning for deletion, just a redirect. Now that it is in her preferred state, PeaceNT unprotects, and now the AFD notice has been removed because, as Uncle G points out, no one ever requested a delete in the first place. Doesn't article protection mean anything anymore?Kww (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)