Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

[1]

Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. WP:DENY, please. If you have concerns or questions of any kind about this, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:40, 02 June 2009 (UTC) (fake time stamp to stop archiving)

Seconding Deskana's comment and request. Newyorkbrad (talk)

Update: We now have the ability to block IP users (and therefore, IP ranges) with the ability to send e-mails from accounts on that range disabled, which with some careful deployment by CheckUsers, should help this problem greatly. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes

Eh? Do you mean, "We have blocked the ip's from certain ranges, blah CheckUsers blah, from being able to use the email function."? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes the CheckUsers are currently working on it. Hopefully these emails would be a thing of the past. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like they already are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Tryde

To Whom It May Concern: Recently User:Tryde has been reverting (see [2]) numerous pages related to the British nobility from individual pages to generic family name genealogy pages (see [3]) with no notification to last editors. I would very much like to know under whose authorization this user is entitled to do this.

Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In future, perhaps you should discuss it with the user? I note that you gave him ten minutes in which to reply or you would "bring this matter to WP:ANI". That doesn't seem long enough to me personally, and you should also inform him that it is at ANI now. I'm assuming that he's redirecting them because they're articles about non-notable people. Simply being a peer does not make you notable unless you've done something else with your life. From what I've seen he's been redirecting the "X was baron of Y. He had 3 kids, one of whom also became Baron of Y" articles to the article on Baron Y, which is perfectly acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not wait because I am angry and I did not know how long it would take for him to respond. His behavior is outrageous. This is an excerpt from User:Tryde's own talk page from another Wikipedian whose pages User:Tryde redirected without notice or authorization: I can't see that this article meets the notability criteria. I thought it better to redirect it than to propose it for deletion. Any reader interested in the biographical details of this peer should be referred to thepeerage.com or some other reference work on British nobility. Tryde (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This user, whose userpage is completely blank, evidently feels entitled to determine what is and is not notable. That is not how we do thing on Wikipedia, to the best of my understanding. He or she should be required to undo every redirect he/she made. And I am going to give the user as much notice that this is now at WP:ANI as he gave to the people whose articles he reverted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? They are against the notability guidelines. AfD is a lot of hassle for pages that are obvious fails - thats why we have CSD, and parts of certain guidelines (such as WP:MUSIC, say) advocating redirects rather than AfDs. Whether or not his userpage is blank is completely unimportant. If you're angry, fine - but come back when you're calm. Being petty, making snide comments about him and going off on one is not going to endear people to you. The guidelines allow for this, so he's not in the wrong. In future you discuss it with him before taking it to ANI, giving him a reasonable period of time to respond. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Auto-notability here is easy to define. If they had a seat in the Lords, then as representatives of their country they are notable, some Irish peers didn't so that is negociable Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I not be given notice that my edits are discussed here? Tryde (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment some of these redirects involve baronets, about whom there is a general view that they are not necessarily notable; some involve earls, where the consensus is probably otherwise. The test of pointy editing is it being indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland naming/disambiguation

Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Im stunned a couple of people have thought they should just jump in and make those changes, especially as all of them know there is the ongoing debate at another location about the Ireland naming dispute. Please stop them from making those changes, they keep undoing SarekoVulcans restoration of the correct article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't say it was the correct article. It just needs to stand until the Arbcom - directed discussion completes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been no violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of a discussion. Nothing was shifted around. Your edit warring based on your POV, with no attempt to use the talk page. Now please show which policies have been violated, and start to use diff's to back up any more accusations you want to make. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that 50 minutes before this post, he stated that "I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article". So, what was that about "Nothing was shifted around" again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and your point is....? I put Ireland text on the Ireland article. Were do you suggest I put it? Make up another name for Ireland and put it there? RoI is not the name of the Ireland, you'd know that only you removed the text from the RoI article. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

His ability to lie like mad despite all the evidence proving him to be guilty as hell is simply incredible, even for an Irish Republican. Whats disturbing is hes still being allowed to run around wikipedia talking nonsense.

In his recent post on the Republic of Ireland talk page he seems to threaten to move the article back to where he thinks it belongs despite this ongoing debate. [4] is nobody going to stop this guy? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi. His nationalistic POV-pushing is not okay. Nor is you making comments about 'even for an Irish Republican'. Please refactor, and again, if I had my druthers you would be instantly topicbanned form anything to do with Ireland for a year. //roux   19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a lier again? Time was when you could be blocked for that! Still does not change the fact that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, and the information which illustrates this and explains the use of the term is removed. So our readers are deliberatly being mislead, or lied to which ever you prefare. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him on that, but I'd hate to block for something factually accurate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for calling an editor a liar, regardless of weather it was factually accurate or not, but then I was an Irish editor. Must be nice being able to pick and choose --Domer48_'fenian' 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BW is causing a lot of disruption. If it continues, I'm going to create a file on all his transgressions and present it afresh next time he causes disruption. Tfz 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we first establish if there has been a violation, and on which article? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert war on Republic of Ireland (was posted simultaneously to the above)

A revert war has broken out on Republic of Ireland.

The substance of the war is on the name of the article. User:Domer48 opposes the article being located at "Republic of Ireland". He describes the article as a POV fork and says the article should be about the term ("Republic of Ireland") not the state itself.

The revert war involves the article too-ing and froo-ing between a new article by Domer48 and the original article on the state.

So far the revert war is thus:

• new article - Domer48
• old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
• new article - Domer48
• old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
• new article - Domer48
• old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)
• new article - Daicaregos
• old article -SarekOfVulcan (admin)
• new article - Sarah777
• old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin)

(The article history is here.)

There is an related ArbCom ruling and on-going discussion on related matters.

NB: This is an article that has tens of thousands of internal links pointing to it. It is also a public holiday in Ireland and particularly warm weather so there are few Irish editors online.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion here. No one disagrees with the RoI not being the State. The article content was on the Ireland, and not the RoI. The information I added to Ireland was about Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knew there was a debate on the Republic of Ireland page for such radical change. You knew full well that the debate about the Ireland naming dispute was being held at the wikiproject and not on just one of the articles involved. Your changes were totally out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ADDS: The edit war is also happening on the main Ireland article. (See article history.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there is a dispute about Ireland. I've not moved any Ireland related articles. What has the Ireland debate got to do with the Republic of Ireland page? Everyone agrees that the name of the state is Ireland, and not the RoI. The content on the RoI article was about Ireland and not the RoI. I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article. My changes were totally in line with our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV to name but two. Please show me were I did not stay within policy, or were I went against ArbCom. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As these are Troubles-related articles, Domer48 has breached 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As ArbCom have yet to agree to the 1RR, no I have not. On a personal note, I wish they would and everyone involved more or less agrees.--Domer48_'fenian' 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This sort of wikilawyering and gaming is precisely why nationalistic POV-pushers should be booted. //roux   16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a core of British Nationalist POV-Pushers continually causing disruption on Ireland related articles, and it turning Wikipedia into a circus. About time something was done about this. We don't have Irish editors trolling British related articles. It must come to an end soon! Tfz 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that comment says it all! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:TWINKLE

There are two users who are abusing the WP:TWINKLE tools. They are reverting content which is not vandalism. Twinkle is a vandalism tool, and should not be used in a content dispute. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has used it twice, both here and here. In addition they will not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts or take part in the discussion. User:SarekOfVulcan likewise is using the tool inappropriately, as seen here, here, and here. In addition they will also not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts, or take it to the article talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a radical change, you know full well the Ireland naming dispute is ongoing. If anyone is abusing wikipedia its you not SarekofVulcan. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, only the revert vandalism function of Twinkle is vandalism-only. The more oft-used rollback tool (which allows one to add an explanation) is simply an alternative of the undo facility. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:SarekOfVulcan appears to be enforcing the Arbcom rulings, which you and others (in depressingly typical nationalistic fashion) seem to be delberately flouting. One of these sets of people is editing in a manner not conducive to continued possession of editing privileges. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as t which is which. //roux   16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a report on the Abuse of WP:TWINKLE, any thing else go to the talk page of the articles. Now please provide a link to the Arbcom rulings. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48, depending on the any thing else... And you know exactly where the Arbcom page is, since you've already supplied a statement pursuant to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no abuse. Sarek provided the link to Arbcom here. Here it is again, but stop the disingenuous act. Since there was no abuse, we may now focus on your behaviour, which you well know is unacceptable. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) After EC, based on Sarek's links, I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can move for what ever you want, but you need to establish why first. I have not gone against any ArbCom ruling. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regular Twinkle reverts may be used in content disputes because it is an alternative to undo. The reason that rollback cannot be used in content disputes is because a) only a small set of users have rollback and b) there is no edit summary. Since any autoconfirmed user can use twinkle and since non-vandalism reverts using twinkle may provide an edit summary, twinkle undos are treated the same as regular undos. Therefore, there is no abuse unless the undo is done using twinkle's "revert vandalism" button. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Oren0, that was very helpful. I'm now stright on Twinkle. Roux open another tread, or join in one of the others which have been open. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

(Cross-posted from WP:AE) With his edit [5], Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste.

Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place here at ANI.  Sandstein  20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Sandstein. Note that Republic of Ireland was protected for two weeks by Canterbury Tail, so this block might not have the desired effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can lift the page protection now through WP:RPP. With Domer48 now either blocked or compliant, it is not necessary any more. Should he or other editors continue to make cut and paste moves, they can be reported to WP:AE to be blocked. That is preferable to protecting a high-profile article for weeks.  Sandstein  20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the C&P wasn't an attempt to do an "end run" around the arbcom injunction - not least because it adds a GFDL violation to the mix - but either way the block looks like it should prevent disruption. Assuming that to be the case, a ban probably isn't necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked Domer48 after he agreed not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met.  Sandstein  20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"what amounted to a cut-and-paste move" is not the same thing as a cut-and-paste move. Either I made a cut-and-paste move or I did not. I made an edit, a very detailed edit! I removed information which was misleading and wrong on the Republic of Ireland article. I suggested on that Article talk page, to leave it sitting there, pending a discussion and got no response. Rather than just deleting it, I merged it with the Ireland Article of which it is a mirror. Now Sandstein's block is "what amounted to" an attempt by them to prevent discussion, and more importantly my participation in discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about my edit here, and their block is what “what amounted to an attempt by them to prevent me the opportunity of defending myself. Notice how you quickly closed the discussion, with no responce nessary to the questions I posed. Now PhilKnight in that discussion said my edit "went against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names." Not that I had violated it! So we have "against the spirit of" and “what amounted to very vague terms used to have me blocked! So Sandstein what we have here by Admin's, is what amounts to arbitrary powers being abused arbitrarily which more than violates our policies, and not just the spirit of them. It might go some way to explain why Admin's are dropping like flies, but none of the bad ones.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand you go right back to being incivil and accusing admins of being arbitrary? Nice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about "go right back to being incivil." Aaaand calling an editor a liar is not, nice bit of slectivity. Or is this a case of felon setting? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we archive this Incidents report? Everything seems to have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the incident I reported originally is settled, and there's another thread down below for people who have issues with my archiving of the discussion. Go ahead and mark it resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Sheepishly) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was directing that more toward any uninvolved admin who wanted to drop in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming redux

Since discussion of the page move was continuing out of the ArbCom-directed process, I just took administrative action to comply with the directive and archived the discussion page on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Is there consensus to overturn this action?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving that discussion page, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Booooo!) shoy (reactions) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be consensus to overturn this actionWgh001 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an Admin, activly involved in the discussions for you to close it was wrong. Now you did not have to come here to be told that. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling you you're violating an ArbCom restriction doesn't qualify as "actively involved", sorry. Beyond that, I think I've edited regarding the name of the article maybe 5 yearstimes over the past three years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. 3 edits on Talk:Republic of Ireland in August 2008, nothing since.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And 1 edit yesterday to Ireland. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You were activly involved, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Now you removed an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion. You were involved on the article, and you closed down the discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, are you familiar with the term "persistent disruption"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week over this diff -- if he doesn't recognize that ArbCom has put a procedure in place to determine the names of the Ireland articles, then he'll just keep edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - abuse of admin tools

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sarek is currently is a dispute with Domer48 of the naming of the Ireland article - some of the nonsense involved in this argument can be seen above at "Ireland naming redux" as well as yesterday episode here.

During their barney Sarek has used his admin tools to effective silence Domer citing this diff as evidence of Domers attempt to userp the Arbcom system.

I am not interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the Ireland naming I am here purely to hightlight this OTT and uncalled for block. A. The block isnt warranted, B. Even if the block was warranted it should have been discussed, especially one of that length (1 week) and C. an involved admin shouldnt be dishing out a block against someone they are in dispute with. Deja vu!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a bad block from an involved admin who is in disppute with Domer. BigDunc^Talk 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the blocking admin unblock, to allow for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly reblock. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with uninvolved admins reviewing, but they can do it while he's blocked -- his talk page is still live. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Enforcing the Arbcom ruling is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'involvement.' //roux   20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, you were in the middle of a dispute with the editor and were abusing your privilaged tools as an admin. Instead of encouraging wheelwarring you should unblock the editor and see if the block stands on its own to feet by discussing it here! Also is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

These links are helpful: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Because, when reviewing a block, it is helpful to be able to quickly access the block log and talk page of the blocked user. It would have been courteous of you to provide that link in your initial request.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), perhaps you could provide more of a detailed rationale for the block, here? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, it is a joke that Domer is not allowed to come here and defend himself against this farce. This is from his talk page (he should be able to come here and defend himself!) I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it this looks like yet another instance where an otherwise-uninvolved admin engages a problem editor only to be told that he shouldn't do anything because by engaging the editor he became involved. If this point of view keeps gaining support we might as well not have admins at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Sandstein How the hell is showing the block l;og of Domer helpful?? BigDunc^Talk 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The editor was pointed to the correct venue, refused to move, and was - eventually - blocked. Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long - displaying far more good faith than the situation required. Disclosure: I've posted at Talk:Republic of Ireland, but have no view on the naming dispute - other than where discussion should occur. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(various ec's) I agree that, in general, the mere enforcement of ArbCom decisions does not make an administrator too "involved" to block, and I am not aware - to the limited extent I've been active with respect to this area of conflict - that SarekOfVulcan has expressed any opinion in the underlying content issue. But I am concerned that the reason given for the block is "refusing to acknowledge" by this diff that ArbCom has decided something. Having and expressing an opinion, even (as here) a mistaken one, is not blockable disruption. Only the actual violation of the relevant ArbCom decision is, but Domer48's statement does not amount to such a violation. I think this block is mistaken and should be lifted, though perhaps a briefer re-block is needed for the incivilities expressed by Domer48 above.  Sandstein  20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is rubbish to put it politely an editor gets a bad block and when he gets annoyed about it another admin comes along and says block is bad and should be lifted but block him for loosing the head come on. BigDunc^Talk 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to second This flag once was reds synopsis: Good block; if any error occurred, it was extending too much good faith to a problem user. The rest is nonsense and bullshit, so sorry. Anyone who considers Sarek "involved" does not understand the parameters of "involved." KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein -- I have expressed a preference for the location in the past, and the current location isn't it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an extended explanation below. I would not have made that block, but I am now a bit more inclined to view it as reasonably preventative, given Domer48's evident attitude and conduct problems.  Sandstein  21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a SERIOUS ABUSE OF ADMIN TOOLS by someone that shouldn't have access to the admin tools. This is the DIFF that he is blocking the user for and all the user really does in that diff is ask for a diff or some proof that he was not allowed to discuss an issue related to article changes on a talkpage. This DIFF show that this was indeed the DIFF that Sarek blocked him for. Since when has asking for proof or diffs become a blockable offence?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I may be off base here, but I am under the impression that Domer should have been blocked just for changing the articles around as he did. Although I'm not quite clear on exactly when he should have been blocked, it doesn't appear that Domer was operating in good faith. [[User:|Hiberniantears]] (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are way off base would you at least read what is going on here before commenting. BigDunc^Talk 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed look as if you are off base, the guy was asking for diffs and proof. Wikipedia has rules, policies, guidelines and other such things and when an admin is asked to provide such things then he should assume good faith and do so, not block the user that asks for that for a week.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask if it's 100% normal that Sarek move my comments from under his Full rationale piece and up here. Am I not allowed to respond to his Full rationale?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure you are -- but that wasn't a response to anything in the rationale that I could see at the time, so I moved it so that I wouldn't be adding material above your response.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked Domer's talkpage for gross incivility. Feel free to re-enable if I'm mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are mistaken it is against standing policy which allows at least moderate venting w/o further punishment. BigDunc^Talk 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean the opposite of what you wrote. –xeno^talk 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) now fixed [6]

Er, User talk:Domer48 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) is not protected.  Sandstein  21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Domer has been reblocked to disallow talk page editing. –xeno^talk 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are any admins going to unblock Domer from editing his own page per the standing policy? BigDunc^Talk 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Home now. I didn't block the talkpage for calling me a "fucker" -- that's moderate venting, as above. I blocked for being warned by another editor to tone it down, and then posting "he's not running for a bus, he's running for a shovel", after several other civility violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But you have been pretty uncivil yourself yesterday [7]. Maybe that's where a lot of this stuff started. I notice you didn't apologise yet. If you withdraw what you said it might go some way to calming things down. Would you agree? Tfz 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC

Basically, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you should exempt yourself from all forward dealings with these related issues. Tfz 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point to the following as a previous example of bad blocks and immature behavior by the admin SarekOfVulcan Right here.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Tfz, Sarek accused Domer of being a liar yesterday pretty uncivil in my book. BigDunc^Talk 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See link above where I decline to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Which I commented on that your response was incorrect as what Domer stated was that he wasn't aware that he had breached sanctions not that he wasn't aware of the whole process. BigDunc^Talk 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Again with the "can't follow links", BigDunc? "First off, I was not informed of this discussion!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I finally understand - you contend that when he said "this discussion", he was referring to the discussion of the name at the WikiProject, rather than the discussion at the Enforcement board? If so, sorry for the incivility struck out above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek's full rationale

Short form: for disambiguation, the article about the country named "Ireland" is at Republic of Ireland, while the Ireland article is about the island that contains Ireland and Northern Ireland. Domer initiated a discussion at the of Ireland talkpage and decided to be bold and change Republic of Ireland to an article about the term "Republic of Ireland" as used to refer to Ireland the country, and to change Ireland to an article about Ireland the country and the island. I don't remember whether I saw this on my watchlist or if someone else commented on it, but I thought it was too large a change and after Rannphairti reverted and Domer re-reverted, I reverted to the original with the comment that WP:BRD usually involves discussion.

When I went to the talkpage, I saw the banner at the top pointing to the arbitration case and when I checked, I saw that they had directed that there be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion, as specified in the remedies above it. A cut-paste move is still a move, so at that point, I went into enforce-the-Arbcom-decision mode. I posted to ANI requesting more eyes on the articles, as there were Arbcom issues involved. Immediately afterwards, Domer posted accusing Rannphairti and me of abusing Twinkle. It was explained to him by others that using twinkle to restore a previous version with an edit summary was not abuse, and that was resolved.

While discussion continued, Sandstein blocked Domer48 for his edits on the Ireland side of things, but agreed to unblock provided that Domer did not violate arbitral decisions.

Domer returned to discussing the page move on the RoI talkpage, despite it having been made quite clear that discussion should take place within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I archived all the current discussions on the talkpage, and told the concerned parties to work it out on IE-COLL. After more discussion on the RoI talkpage, Domer stated:

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles.

Since he was clearly acting in bad faith at that point, I decided that he could not be trusted to abide by the conditions of his unblock -- after all, if it wasn't an arbitral decision, he wouldn't be violating it, and re-blocked for a week.

That pretty much sums things up, except for some minor details -- like Domer previously participating in the process he was now denying existed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you step aside at this stage, as you are getting further "involve". Can't be policeman, judge and executioner, it makes bad law. Tfz 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And that is the central issue here, not the merits or demerits of Domers actions. I would go further - one cant be the "victim", policeman, judge, jury and executioner - makes for extremely bad law!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, calling me judge, jury, and executioner doesn't make me judge, jury, and executioner. For one thing, he's not banned, so there's no "execution". For another, the jury is the rest of the people here, so that part of the analogy falls down as well. And I never claimed to be a victim here, so that makes you... what, 75% off-base?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So Domer asked you for a diff asking where it state that he can't discuss on the talk page and you block him for a week. Since when is asking for clarification a blocking offence? BigDunc^Talk 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Has ArbCom banned discussion of the RoI naming fiasco on the RoI talk page?". Otherwise SarekOfVulcan is acting "ultra vires". It's a bad block either way, no matter what the answer is. But if SarekOfVulcan has acted outside his remit, maybe he should have his tools nullified. Tfz 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the exact same question that Tfz just asked was the one that got Domer blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being blocked were is the diff that says no discussions on the article talk paged as layed down by the Arbs? BigDunc^Talk

I think the block is extremely unfair. Domer has been "bold" recently but that is not the same as breaking wiki policy or any Arbcom agreement. He hasn't really done anything wrong per se. I think an unblock needs made to be along with the suggestion that Domer continue his points along side the WP:IECOLL process to help forge agreements on the issues.MITH 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that as shown at this diff, he unilaterally decided that the 1RR restriction placed on articles relating to The Troubles was no longer in force. That's not Bold, that's disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with this but I asked Fozz here and he said it was gone nothing unilaterall about that. BigDunc^Talk 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What, you think I can't follow links? "Right now, a lot depends on the administrator who comes in and views it. I think if the 1RR is useful (and it seems to have been, despite the number of times it was used, being high).. that no matter what you think of it personally, that it would be wise to speak on RfArb in support of it."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can you are routing around trying to find some to justify your bad blocks and as Sandstein has refused at least 2 1RR restriction cases regarding trouble articles I think it is gone too. BigDunc^Talk 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Time out

Would both sides please stop sniping back and forth?

Sarek - without comment on the original reblock, I believe that you're displaying clear involvement at this point. I believe you should refrain from further administrative actions regarding that user for the time being or this incident.

BigDunc - please stop pushing buttons.

Others - please respect each other while other uninvolved administrators come in and review the situation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I don't see why the block can't just be reviewed per procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am currently doing - starting with the talk page no-edit reblock, working out to the larger issues. Anyone else who wants to review is welcome to join me.

However, the large scale flame war that erupted above was counterproductive and uncivil on multiple sides, and needs to end while calmer uninvolved heads get a look at it all. Fortunately it seems to have calmed down now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the first thing that could be reviewed is the re-block keeping Domer from commenting on his own talk page. While Domer's language may be angry, I don't see too much to be concerned with there. I don't see any harm to the project permitting him to engage in discussion on his own page, and that could be the first step to resolving this. Rarely does silencing an blocked editor help solve the issue. I would propose that be remedied immediately. Rockpocket 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked Sarek about this several hours ago and have not received any response. I have re-asked on his talk page and am proposing here that we undo the talk page edit section of the block later tonight if there is no objection in this thread, subject to reprotection if threats are made. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek left me a talk page note indicating he does not object to this action, so I have undone the talk page edit portion of the block without changing block duration. I will leave a note to Domer to indicate that if he threatens anyone the editing will be turned back off, and that we'd strongly appreciate if he can discuss the situation politely from now on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I would note that Domer is editing from Western European Summer Time (or should I say Am Caighdeánach na hÉireann]] ;) therefore he is unlikely to respond for a number of hours. Rockpocket 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GWH - agreed not to take further action until fully reviewed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you unblock Domer, first (since you were the blocking Administrator)? Then the other Administrators can decide his status. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the admin actions I'm recusing myself from. An uninvolved editor should make that call. GWH is currently reviewing: if he (or another reviewing admin) decides the block was unjustified, or no longer needed, I won't oppose an unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community asked to develop a procedure

1) The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

Passed 8 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Back-up procedure

2) If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

Passed 8 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No moves pending discussion

3) Until the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. This does not constitute an endorsement of the current names.

Passed 8 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Binding resolution

4) Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

Passed 7 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User S._M._Sullivan making a number of suspicious edits to Scientology articles

S._M._Sullivan (talk · contribs) has started nominating Scientology related articles for AFD and raising notabilty issues over clearly notable articles concerning Scientology. I find this highly suspect considering recent events. Ridernyc (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the recent Arb Case, I also agree this is suspect and a strong warning should be issued (or even a block, the case was quite hard on this behaviour) to curb this. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• On first glance it doesn't look like he has had a chance to respond to the concerns on his talk page. Looks like he's been editing a couple years, and I see prod with discussion, another discussion for a nominated article, a notability tag with discussion, and even some support for a scientology article. I am just an amateur myself but it doesn't look like anything intentionally wrong here. What ArbCom case? ZabMilenko 10:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it strange that he is editing only articles about people who have negative views on Scientology and this behavior started a few days after the CoS was banned for making these type of COI edits. Ridernyc (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reading the arbcom case I feel even less qualified to answer that than before. That was deep. ZabMilenko 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant remedy is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. From my quick analysis they have a very high percentage of Scientology edits and the unrelated edits are not consequential. I think this warrants a much closer inspection, but would like to ensure that the user is given an opportunity to comment. I will alert the committee to this thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Review of articles urged and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed. We'll see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for his comment here. -- FayssalF

- ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that many Scientology articles are among our most abysmal and there's nothing inherently POV about nominating them for deletion. This editor's comments on the Talk:L. Ron Hubbard article are reasonable and well argued. I have frequently been surprised by the depth of cover we have given (sometimes based on distinctly dodgy sources) to relatively obscure people on the fringes of the topic and a good shake up of them would do the encyclopedia no harm. 86.149.58.114 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to direct the single edit IP to my case evidence which demonstrated that the topic of Scientology has nearly four times the rate of good articles and featured articles as the military history project. WP:MILHIST is one of this website's most respected Wikiprojects. This comment posted by one of only two female recipients of the MILHIST project's highest service award; I do not edit the topic of Scientology. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on this matter is that anyone working on Scientology articles ought to take regular breaks from them, preferably after a day -- unless one is involved in an ongoing conversation. If you're not a Scientologist, you'll need the break; & if you are a Scientologist, then you shouldn't be editting only Scientology articles. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The pattern of contributions of this account is curious. The editor was inactive for over a year, from 2 October 2007 to 3 November 2008, prior to which he was heavily focused on Scientology-related articles. From 3 November 2008 to 23 November 2008 the editor made some edits to a number of archaeology-related articles, then went back to a long period of inactivity. He's been active again since 23 April 2009, intermittently during May and heavily since 31 May, as before focusing almost entirely on Scientology-related articles. This period of activity began shortly before the recent flurry of media coverage, so evidently wasn't simply in response to that. I'm not sure what to make of it all, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone is suspicious of me or my edits, shouldn't they make it known what they suspect? Am I suspected of being a single purpose account? Looking over my contributions would disabuse you of that idea. Most of my articles have been brief biographies written to assist the bio project. I left after an edit war with people who are now inactive. Finding out that they were inactive, I returned. Now I'm working on the notability project.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your prior interest in Scientology is a point of concern with the recently decided arbitration committee case, yes.

We have a legitimate suspicion that the people behind that problem may return with new accounts, reactivate old sleeper accounts, and so forth.

If you were to stick to non-scientology related articles it would avoid any need for concern.

If you plan to continue editing those articles, at this point in time, you need to be aware of the heightened scrutiny being applied to editors focusing on that area. We might have to ask you to provide proof of identity in private to the Arbitration Committee to confirm that you're not one of the individuals in real life who were subject to the editing restrictions.

This is not particular to you - I believe at this point, any new or returning activity focused in that area will be subject to heightened scrutiny and possibly requests to identify people.

If you are not associated with Scientology or any of the other named parties in the arbitration committee case, I apologize for the extra attention here. But I think we owe you an honest answer - yes, due to the timing it's suspicious, and inconvenient. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Georgewilliamherbert, I am willing to provide proof of my identity to the Arbitration Committee should they request it.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs

Will someone please have a look at the Hey, Slavs article and do something about the chaos? I don't care if everyone including me gets blocked, I'm so sick to my stomach of this petty issue I'd block myself just to have an excuse to get out of this. Pardon the outburst and regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has a position on this article may add their name and describe what concerns you at Talk:Hey, Slavs#Informal Mediation, where User:Dottydotdot has offered to help mediate the open issues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I... I'm not going to get blocked...? blast! :) Well then the article at least needs protection tout de suite, the edit-warring shall certainly recommence this evening (within four hours, CET). As it does every evening like clockwork. My primary goal with this report was to essentially prevent that. (Do not get me wrong, mediation is also very appreciated.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

k, thanks a lot. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse (Impartial Help Needed)

I'm writing to file a complaint that the Administrator known as Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is violating their status as Administrator on Wikipedia.

On repeated occassions, I have edited an entry on the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series page where other users keep posting that the Knight Rider TV series has been canceled. IN an effort to clarify this problem, I have edited the entry on numerous occasions to reflect that NBC/UNiversal has yet to release a press statement indicating that the series has been canceled. In effect it has not.

Because I had been doing these edits without logging in, Ckatz had blocked my IP Address from editing the page and he's been the one who has been placing this incorrect information into the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series page/entry. He keeps posting links to websites that report 'rumors' and 'speculation' and even the Moderators have informed me, on the discussion page for the Knight Rider 2008 TV series page that they can't catch everything and they've actually edited the page a few times.

The incorrect information involves this: On December 3, 2008, NBC reduced its season order to 17 episodes. The series finale aired on March 4, 2009. On May 19, 2009, NBC announced that they would not renew Knight Rider for a second season.

I had replaced the incorrect text with this: On December 3, 2008, NBC reduced its season order to 17 episodes. The season finale aired on March 4, 2009. It hasn't been decided what Universal plans on doing with the series. To date, no official press release has been issued regarding the show from NBC Universal.''

However, the Knight Rider page still contains false and rumored information and Ckatz has personally targeted my edits for this page because of this. I have posted in the discussion page that someone needs to provide a link to any press release from Universal that lists the show as being canceled and, to date, nobody has posted one. Posting links to Entertainment websites aren't official as they don't speak for the studio and none of these sites even posts anything referencing that NBC has officially canceled. They're just reporting that, since it doesn't appear on the broadcast schedule for Fall (September schedule) that the show has been canceled. This merely means that the show is on Hiatus. Studios do this quite frequently. Especially if a new show doesn't do too well and they end up bringing the show back as a mid-season replacement.

Even NBC/Universal's packaging for the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series Season 1 DVD release announces the set as "Season 1" and not as a "complete series." When a studio has canceled a TV series, they will release the DVD set that is printed on the cover of the DVD packaging as "the complete series." When NBC canceled Surface, they released the DVD set as "The Complete Series" indicating the series had been canceled. With Knight Rider, NBC has not canceled it otherwise the DVD packaging would read "the complete series" and not "Season 1." (See Links Below)

Knight Rider DVD Packaging: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Knight-Rider-Box-Art/11919 Surface DVD Packaging: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Surface/5855

Since both sets had the same type of release schedule after the season of each show ended, it just shows that NBC still has hopes for the Knight Rider series as seeing that they are retooling the second season of the series with the return od David Hasselhoff, who appeared in the original series as Michael Knight, the main character.

I would like the abuse of this page to stop and for someone to inform Ckatz of his personal vendetta against my edits of this page.Wolfe426 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly - which is considered a reliable source for such matters says it's officially cancelled. I see nothing to discuss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

further - it seems the article already has 4 reliable sources about this matter. we don't actually require an official statement from NBC - those work fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Wolfe426 is likely 68.41.246.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posting from another account since their IP is blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Even NBC/Universal's packaging for the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series Season 1 DVD release announces the set as "Season 1" and not as a "complete series." - that would be what we call original research - looking at a primary source, comparing it with another primary source and asking our readers to come to the same conclusion you have, Wolfe426. We don't do that. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't replying from a new account. I was just correcting the information that is inaccurate. Wikipedia is supposed to be about factual infomration and not rumors or speculation.Wolfe426 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add that it was my attempt to post correct information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Instead, links are posted that rouse rumors of the show's cancelation and I thought that wasn't allowed?Wolfe426 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources used in the article are what we consider "reliable" - if they say it's cancelled, then that's good enough for us. We don't actually need NBC to confirm it (and in many cases, the TV companies never release such statements, shows just disappear). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my instance on this, Cameron, but if that's the case, then Wikipedia is nothing more than "rumors and speculation." And studios always release infomration or press statements saying that a show has been canceled. IN any event, UNiversal's own packaging for the Knight Rider upcoming DVD release indicates that the series isn't canceled.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why I don't take Wikipedia seriously and why I've banned members of my own website community from posting links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia.org isn't interested in providing factual information about something and insists on referencing speculation about a subject.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't take wikipedia seriously, there is no big lose for you. Goodbye. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. Why nobody trusts Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. I just think that Wikipedia should make th effort to make that information is as factual as it can be. Ckatz abused his right to the page since the issue had already been resolved by a Moderator, determined that the series had not been officially canceled. If users make the attempt to make sure that the information posted is factual then why highlight the fact that Wikipedia doesn't make the effort to make sure that Wikipedia entries are correct?

Cameron, you said it yourself that Wikipedia doesn't need confirmation. The whole point of Wikipedia is to ensure that information is as factual as it can be. This isn't served when users and administrators continue to post misleading and incorrect information.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is factual the statement uses multiple reliable sources. As others have stated move on already. Ridernyc (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple rulings from ArbCom regarding administrators using their powers in content disputes. There has been recent discussion regarding the status of this series at Talk:Knight Rider (2008 TV series). Yes, the IP in question has been involved. Ckatz has been active on the article since April 4, 2009, editing more than a dozen times. He's also been directly involved in the content dispute, but has so far refused to engage in discussion on the talk page. Despite this, Ckatz blocked the IP. ArbCom has made past decisions regarding the use of administrator privileges in content disputes. Quoting from Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Administrators, "(administrator) abilities must ... never be used to "win" a content dispute." Further, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used notes "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". Ckatz made a serious error in judgment in using his admin privileges. The IP that was blocked may have been on the wrong side of the content dispute, but that did not give Ckatz leave to act as he did. Ckatz has been an administrator for more than a year. He clearly erred, and he should have known better. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all I'm saying, Hammersoft. Instead of making a reference that while "many websites report the show as being canceled" that maybe an indicator such as "neither the NBC nor Universal have verified the cancellation of the show" in addition to the other information posted about the show. Wolfe426 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• In a casual review of Ckatz's blocking history, it appears this may not be an isolated case, but that he has at least on a few other occasions used his blocking privileges in content disputes. An RfC regarding Ckatz's conduct may be in order to help clarify to him that this behavior is unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm hoping that some of the other Administrators or High-Level Management can review this issue with Ckatz. While I realize that there may have better ways to go about it, which I have tried a few, Ckatz could have gone about a better way instead of just telling me "to stop editing the page." That's the only message he sent me and it wasn't a polite message. If he had bothered to read the discussion page, he would have realized what the issue was about instead of abusing that right. Considering that he's an Administrator of Wikipedia, he should be setting the example instead of just issuing directives or abusing his authority. Ckatz obviously made it personal because there was very little communication except for one message telling me to stop editing. He just didn't act like an Admin.Wolfe426 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

People are edit warring over this? Here's the full NBC fall lineup. No "Knight Rider". The Hollywood Reporter in 2008: "The revival of "Knight Rider" on Sunday night should gladden the hearts of viewers, at least those employed by Ford. For the rest of us, the two-hour film -- really, an elaborate commercial around which bits of story are sprinkled -- was an exercise in prolonged car sickness." With reviews like that, the industry usually prefers to let the show disappear quietly. A press release isn't necessary. --John Nagle (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The issue isn't whether the series has been canceled. The issue is that an administrator used their admin privs in a content dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, I've replied in greater detail below. However, I would say that it is grossly unfair to make such sweeping (and serious) allegations without a) having the courtesy to ask me about it; and b) without providing any proof to support your accusation. If you can justify your claims, please do, so that I can fairly defend myself here. Otherwise, I suffer the distinct disadvantage of being publicly accused without proof or detail of the supposed "crime". I'll stand behind any actions I take on Wikipedia, and furthermore I will take full responsibility for them. I do, however, expect the discussion to be fair and open. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

John, that's only speculation and not verifiable by the studio.

Also, it seems that Ckatz has gotten really personal about it on my IP talk page. Here's what he said:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I appealed my IP block one time and he's already warning me against abuse of the unblock? I can see where if I had filed unblock request after unblock request but he warns me after one request? Somebody really needs to reprimand him. He's gotten personal over this.Wolfe426 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Slow down Wolfe426. I don't see the diffs you claim Ckatz made. I see a warning template [8] and later a block template [9]. What are we missing here? Diffs please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The unblock language is standard template stuff, he didn't write it. The cancellation news is unlikely to be only speculation, Wolfe426, I think you should think about going with consensus here (do what you please on your own website, since you brought that up). There does seem to be a worry about Ckatz's use of the admin bit in a content dispute, but let's give him a chance to say something about it himself before taking this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with abiding by whatever an impartial Admin determines but I do believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed. My main contention is that the edits I committed to the page were accurate regarding the Knight Rider series and I end up getting my IP Address banned from editing with no warnings whatever and without the Admin involved looking at what had transpired in the discussion page.

If Ckatz wants to keep it in that the series has been canceled, then, at least, include some kind of notation that the infomration has not been verified by the studio producing the series. Is that so much to ask?

As far as the warning goes, there was no reason for Ckatz to post that since this was the first time I filed the unblock request. It was a deliberate attempt to intimdate me from filing further unblock requests. This is noit how a Wikipedia Admin should be acting. If I had filed multiple requests, I could see the reason for the warning, but he made this an issue.Wolfe426 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can find no evidence that Ckatz warned you not to make further unblock requests. Would you please provide a diff showing this? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The only worry I see here is that an admin may have been using the admin bit in a content dispute. Again, let's please wait to hear from Ckatz now. So far as the content goes, there is nothing untowards about saying the studio has not announced any cancellation, but only if you can find a reliable source to confirm this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's attempting to prove a negative. Rather hard to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, it's not proving anything, it's citing a wholly verifiable assertion ("the studio has not announced X."). If the assertion goes into the text without a citation, it can be removed as original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• If an announcement has not been made by NBC how do you cite something that doesn't exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we know NBC hasn't made an announcement? en.wikipedia is not truth, but uncited assertions can be removed. I mean, I know you know about all this, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way: Writer for Variety calls someone she knows at NBC, asks if they've made a cancellation announcement, confirms they have not, publishes a blurb, blurb is cited on en.Wikipedia, no more WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, regarding the warning, you can find it here on my IP Talk Page: [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfe426 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a standard footer for that unblock declined template, which was placed by another administrator, not Ckatz. –xeno^talk 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Xeno. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As an impartial observer (I have not worked on the page in question), it seems to me that the only issue for discussion in this topic is: Did the admin violate the rules governing the use of admin tools? Other admins should be able to determine that by looking at the admin's editorial involvement on the page and how the admin used the tools. The particulars of the content disute, other than the admin's editorial involvement if any, should have nothing to do with deciding whether admin tools were used improperly.

As to the content dispute (which, as I say, is not the issue to be decided here), it as obvious that the full situation could be concisely described in the article without saying flat out that the series was or wasn't cancelled; NBC's press releases page would be a WP:RS for the fact, if it is a fact, that NBC did not announce cancellation. For example: According to so and so it was cancelled. The show is not in the lineup for the fall 2009 season. However, NBC has not announced cancellation of the series.^{[Citation to NBC press release page, if it shows that there was no cancellation announcement]} Finell (Talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are so many reliable sources that say this series has been canceled, that I agree - the only question is the admin's actions. We shouldn't be wording our articles based upon the hopes of forlorn fans that their show might, possibly, still magically appear in the schedule. -->David Shankbone 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Finell, that's all I'm asking for. Wikipedia, at least, should be able to identify in an article or entry, that if a series is affected in some way, to have it included in the entry that something is official and unofficial. While, in this case, many sources suggest that the series has been canceled, that it should also be noted that the studio hasn't officially canceled the series. Ckatz edits for that page suggests that it has been officially canceled. My dispute isn't with the edits but how Ckatz acted. I'll concur with Gwen on the issue on the Admin abuse situation, but I think it's unfair for Ckatz to edit out remarks to the page that NBC hasn't officially canceled the series. Finell's posted remarks about what to add to that page would be sufficient but I know if I were to add that in that Ckatz would simply remove it.Wolfe426 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should word the articles to satisfy fans of the show but we should make every attempt to make sure that the entries are as accurate as possible and not misleading.Wolfe426 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your premise only works if NBC announces any cancellations. Can you produce a press release by NBC for any series you know is canceled? When I looked at their press releases I saw nothing but the announced schedule. They don't appear to make those kinds of announcements, so WP:RS kicks in, and here, multiple RS are stating its canceled. So, Ckatz appears correct in the issue of the content dispute, and what is being decided is whether he was correct in his use of admin tools. The series is canceled. -->David Shankbone 19:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

David's wording isn't the same as mine, but I'd say we agree. Perhaps another way to put this, Wolfe426, is that uncited assertions can be removed in good faith by any editor (lacking pointyness), even if they're followed by a {{fact}} tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do understand the reasoning behind that Gwen. At the same time, is there any harm is posting for that entry that the cancelation hasn't been confirmed? All I'm saying is that, even if NBC doesn't issue a press release or a statement, that there should be an indicator that because the show hasn't appeared on the Fall/September listings that it doesn't mean that the show has been canceled. NBC had announced earlier this year that they were retooling the show's second season to resemble that of the original series and that David Hasselhoff would be appearing in the second season.

According to their own website, to NBC's own website, as of four weeks ago, NBC has not canceled the show: [11]. The user, cotton777 posted that the studio had not canceled the show yet. This can be taken as meaning that the show is just on a temporary hiatus.Wolfe426 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While the topic may be innocuous, your hope might fall under WP:FRINGE. How long are we supposed to keep it uncertain, when certainty in the sources we rely upon (we are only good as our sources) abounds? Why should Wikipedia be the hold-out? How much time do we wait before we decide, 'Okay, it's been canceled' since they don't formerly announce cancellations? Regardless, your turning the thread into a content issue and not an admin issue. Please try to stick to the discussion about the improper use of admin tools, which is the only thing this board will deal with here. This isn't a place for content disputes to be decided. -->David Shankbone 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Users posting to comments sections on entertainment websites are not reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment A fun thing to wake up to, indeed. I'm really irked by some of Hammersoft's unfounded and unvalidated allegations, so I'm going to take a short break to cool down before fully responding, if that is OK. However, I do want to post a few quick points in regards to this so that the discussion can continue:

• • The notice I left on the talk page is the standard block notice; it wasn't in response to the IP, but just part of the standard notification process. The IP posted their comment before I did, hence their confusion.
  • The IP (one and the same as "Wolf426 based on contributions) has been disrupting the page for some time, as seen through their edit history. He/she has acted as a single-purpose editor who has repeatedly reverted several editors (not just me) to retain their POV, removing referenced material in the process. This is not a content dispute, it is disruptive editing bordering on vandalism.
  • It's hardly "personally targeting" the IP if he/she is the only person making the disruptive edits.
  • As an aside, I'd also point out that this sort of behaviour is not isolated; it is very common, following the demise of a series, for devoted SPA fans to refuse to accept the end. I can point out numerous other articles where this has occurred, especially in sci-fi related topics.
  • Statements like what the IP posted on their talk page ("I will continue editing out 'rumors' about the series being cancelled." and "I'll keep editing the same remarks") clearly indicate their attitude towards this matter and the idea of consensus.
  • As far as the alleged "admin" factor, I'm not aware of when we redefined "being part of a content dispute" to mean "reverting the deletion of cited material by an SPA IP". Have I edited this article in the past? Yes, along with thousands of others. Was I an "active editor" on this page? Well, let's look at the actual edits: removing spammed links (as part of a wider series of edits on multiple articles); correcting tense-related errors (as I do on dozens of series articles, especially with regards to the "is"/"was" problem); removing minor vandalism (since it was on my watchlist, along with 6 000 other pages); and dealing with a repeated series of POV reverts and changes by a single-purpose IP. If that makes me an "active editor", then we have a real problem in that most of Wikipedia's admins will have to recuse themselves from any of the articles they actually monitor.
    • As an addition to the above, please note that the first time I reverted the IP's edit was on May 22nd, his/her first edit to the article, which involved removing properly cited material.
  • Finally, I'm really bothered by Hammersoft's statements (about content disputes and supposed "abuse" of the bit), especially without citing actual events. I can understand checking edits to see that all is OK, but making broad statements without even the courtesy of discussing it with me first is very annoying. I'll elaborate more about this later, but I really take issue with unfounded accusations about supposed misuse of the bit. (Sorry if I sound frustrated, but I've had enough of this sort of behaviour from a supposed "senior" editor in the MoS dates dispute who has repeatedly made accusations against fellow editors that fall completely flat when one actually looks at the facts.)

Hopefully, this helps with your discussion. I'll keep reading here, and will pop back in later to elaborate further (and hopefully address any concerns that may still exist.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I figured this was the case. I don't see any abuse of admin tools here. Ckatz's reasoning for reverting continually replicated edits by an SPA, albeit one who sounds reasonable, is standard. I see little merit in Wolfe426's reasoning for removal of the text to judge that both sides are equal; the show is canceled. Wolfe426 simply wants NBC to say it plainly, and they don't appear to do that for any of their canceled shows. EntertainmentWeekly doesn't pull their stories out of thin air, and Wikipedia is little more than a parrot, per WP:RS and WP:OR. We say what the reliable publications that cover those topics say. It's not a gray area, Wolfe's arguments sound like WP:FRINGE to me, and Ckatz was justified. If Wolfe had an RS stating the show was on hiatus, or something besides just hope, it might be a different story. -->David Shankbone 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read Wolfe426's input on this topic at length, I don't see any admin abuse here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stating either way that the show was canceled or put on hiatus. Even Michael Ausiello, writer for EntertainmentWeekly has retraced his remarks on shows because he was wrong in what he reported. I'm not saying either way where the show has gone but it's not too much to identify the information as reliable. Not even EW has posted anything that the series had been canceled. They simply put it on their so-called list simply because the show didn't show up on the Fall schedule.Wolfe426 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not too much to ask that a comment or remark be posted to the page indicating that the information about the future of the show hasn't been acknowledged. If it had been canceled, NBC/Universal would have posted it to their site in the 'news' section. Websites aren't what I would call verifiable sources. 100 different websites could post tomorrow that 'this television series' or 'that television series' has been canceled and report it as official but if the studio doesn't acknowledge it, it doesn't make it any less true. What's the harm is indicating what Hammersoft posted? Just because the EW website posted something doesn't mean they never get their information wrong. It's just merely speculation. Instead of remarking that 'many websites report the series as being canceled but remain unverified by the studio' the Wikipedia entry leads everyone to falsely belief that the report is official, citing website sources that cannot be verified. The Wiki entry just perpetuates rumor, speculation and innuendo about the series.Wolfe426 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And, if the series had been canceled, the DVD packaging for this new Knight Rider series would say "Knight Rider: The Complete Series" and not "Knight Rider Season 1." That seem to indicate an official response from the studio that they have future plans for the series to continue. Since the DVD release is from NBC/Universal, this would tantamount to an official statement.Wolfe426 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This project page is not meant for ongoing discussions about sourcing and content. Please take this back to the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this still an ongoing concern? I've been semi following it since it started, and completely agreed with Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)s reasoning. User:Wolfe426 needs to pack it in and call it a day. This is not the place for content discussion. And even if it were, in many off topic discussions his position has already been explained to him as being untenable, numerous times by several editors. In my opinion he's now crossed the line into disruption. Go write an encyclopedia and stop with the nonsense. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've responded to CKatz's concerns at his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a "bastard admin" (think rouge but less funny) I have to point out that Wolfe426 is technically evading a block by posting here - they effectively admitted that by describing User_talk:68.41.246.248 as "my IP talk page". I'd also like to add myself to the list of editors saying paradoxically that on the one hand, Wolfe426's position in the content dispute is at odds with our No Original Research policy, and that on the other hand, this isn't the venue for a content dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd thought about a block the other day but didn't see how it would help him understand what was going on (as to sourcing and OR), I've left a note about this for Wolfe426 on their talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wolfe/IP did need to be blocked; or not. Perhaps there's a violation of NOR; or not. Perhaps there's an evasion of a block by posting here; or not. Perhaps Wolfe is right about the content/verification; or perhaps Ckatz is. These are irrelevant, and we do this process a disservice by writing a metre of text that skirts around the only issue that matters: whether Ckatz was involved in his use of the admin tool to block, and whether he should have asked an uninvolved admin (such as Gwen) to quickly assess the situation and judge for herself whether to block or to take other action or simply to talk it through. I haven't been to the page, so I might be wrong, but it does look like a prima facie case of a breach of the "uninvolved" policy.
• To Wolfe, I say three things: (1) Acting through an IP account is not a good idea when there is tension; you can expect to be treated less well if you don't make the basic commitment to WP by logging in—it's not a condoned attitude, but just human nature. (2) I trust that there are no conflicts of interest in your association with the other site. (3) A less emotive title to this section would have been welcome.
• Ckatz, you have not addressed the "uninvolved" issue and you need to. If you have breached the policy, please just say so, apologise, and we'll all move on (perhaps the user should be unblocked just this time, with advice to ask for assistance earlier if such an issue arises again—I'm unsure); if you believe you have acted in accordance with it, please justify, keeping strictly to that issue rather than the nature of the content issue. Tony (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, (for the fifth? sixth? time), please properly and fully review incidents before assuming the worst. For that matter, please read this page, seeing as how I've already written in detail about my role, and two admins have already said there was no breach. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, Ckatz addressed his position pretty clearly. He has edited the page. The page has sourced information. IP came along and removed sourced information with only circumstantial evidence for why it is wrong, supplying no sources. Ckatz restores, and IP reverts, repeatedly, giving no sources to back up their claim. Ckatz blocks for repeated removal of sourced content. IP registers, evading block, and comes here saying "Admin abused tools in content dispute." There is no content dispute, as the IP has no WP:RS to back up claim. That's not abuse - this happens routinely. -->David Shankbone 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My response above would have been very different if I hadn't believed the central question to have been resolved by Ckatz's response of 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC). As far as I'm concerned, the only issue that might need admin action is Wolfe426's conduct, and per Gwen's reponse above I'm not sure any action is needed there either. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say, I've blocked User:Wolfe426 for legal threats against Ckatz. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of my content without explanation or communication

Resolved

 – Not appropriate for ANI Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the page "United States Ambassador to the Holy See," two users have repeatedly deleted my original content without adding anything constructive, indicating their grievance about the material, or communicating with me. The contributors are ADM and PassionoftheDamon. They keep reinstating various versions of the original article, which is itself erroneous. The current version states, "In 2009, the seat of ambassador had remained vacant for several months because of alleged tensions between the Vatican and the White House over the issues of abortion and marriage.[3] Three candidates were mentioned, including Caroline Kennedy and Douglas Kmiec, but they were ultimately not selected because of disagreement on these matters.[4][5][6]" This version does not state who the third person is, and the supposition that they were not selected because of disagreement on abortion and marriage has been repudiated by the Vatican in a reference they have repeated deleted.

I would like to request that these kinds of destructive edits be blocked.

With my thanks, Patrick Whelan MD Patrick Whelan MD (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You might've tried talking to these users first, which it appears you haven't done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; please discuss on article talk page and/or with the other users first. I don't see any need for admins to get involved here yet. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Krishna Vyas AfD page vandalism

User:Oa012585956 has removed two delete votes from the AfD page. This user and User:Phsozzyosborne appear to be acting in tandem, neither of them with any significant edits outside of this topic. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting secondary admin review, indef block

• Blackknight12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reviewing the contributions of this user for copyright infringement, as he made his second appearance at WP:CP yesterday, with text added months after he was given notice of our policies and a block advisory. (Also worthy of note, he removed the copyvio template blanking pasted text here without comment on May 31]. I blocked him for 72 hours to drive these policies home, but my subsequent investigations are showing that he has a history of this, before and after that advisory, from sources as diverse as the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence (which does not allow modification) and CD baby. So far, I have identified 10 articles into which he has introduced copyright infringement (again, before and after that advisory), including reintroducing part of the copyright infringement for which he was warned in March of this year within days of receiving that warning. He is a native speaker of English and so has no reason not to understand our policy or that caution. Given his reintroduction of some of the same text into that article and his removal of the copyvio template, I do not believe we have reason to trust him to continue to edit with policy. Accordingly, I have blocked him indefinitely pending some plausible showing that he understands and intends to comply with WP:C. I don't believe this is excessive, given the seriousness and severity of copyright concerns.

Since some of his edits (including adding tables and templates) seem constructive, I am requesting additional review.

And while I'm here, please weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_violations#Policy on massive infringers: cleanup and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations#Policy on massive infringers: rehabilitation if you have interest in helping to clarify policy for such situations. Help much appreciated. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And oops on the inadvertent page transclusion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not half embarrassing, is it? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought you might be trying to be showing something untowards about all those userboxen but... nah! : D Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Whether it's willful or just blockheadedness, we need to prevent that particular form of damage until we can engage the editor in meaningful conversation about it. I wouldn't unblock until they display understanding of our copyright policies and willingness to abide by them. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, and indefinite blocks last for precisely as long as there is potential for disruption = endorse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) I appreciate the feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Class project/meat puppetry/something big on serial killer

Resolved

 – I think we have this sorted out now. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am bringing this here as I'm not exactly sure where to discuss a concern like this. Recently the serial killer article has undergone many drastic and extensive changes by a whole slew of brand new user accounts. The kinds of changes aren't typically changes in punctuation or adding of a see also or so forth that is typical of new users but adding huge sections of new material without discussion. The first example I ran into had obvious WP:OR problems (speculating at the reasons for the alleged differences between U.S. and French serial killers), and when it was clear the account was going to edit war to put it back I filed a WP:3O, an either through that on his/her own another editor came along and agreed and removed it again. Since then, which was not even two days ago, 13 different new user accounts jumped on the article (and occasionally a related article) and made extensive additions that were clearly written up beforehand and just waiting to be added. Some of these may be acceptable edits with some clean up, lots of them simply are not (one of the new sections was largely sourced to an online senior thesis paper by some student, for example). The actions of the accounts and wording of the edit comments at first made me think maybe this was a series of sockpuppets, but now I think it's some group of students somewhere. Some of these accounts were active for one or two edits a months back, and in one a person mentions "Cut words - class project don't be mad I am sorry :(".

I've left notices on the user talk pages asking for clarifications, but the ones I left yesterday have not been responded to yet even though some of them have continued to edit. I also left information about our WP:BRD cycle to hopefully get them talking on the talk page.

While certainly we should encourage new users, and some of these edits will be quite valuable once they are discussed and tweaked (while others will simply not be acceptable), I am concerned about the implications for being able to check new content and dealing with WP:CONSENSUS issues when masses of new accounts make such drastic changes all at once, seemingly as part of some organized outside project. Overall there's some great potential here, but some small scale edit warring already started, and I don't want people to think they can just take over and make changes as some fait accompli without discussion on Wikipedia instead of just offsite somewhere.

Surely something like this has happened before and people have suggestions on how to handle this -- or if this somehow hasn't yet we should probably devise some sort of standard response.

Suggestions? Anyone else want to wade in? DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• (Non-admin) I can't see any that have edited since your warning, to be honest, though that's not really the point - just a small crumb of comfort...! They all seem to have edited in early April (typically one or two edits) and then again between 31 May and today (twice as many edits, roughly). I'd tend to go with the "class project" idea at this stage, at least until anything untoward happens. With that in mind, I do remember similar cases before - but on a larger scale, where it was possible - eventually! - to contact the teacher responsible. I'm not sure that that will necessarily be possible this time, since there seem to be very few edits from each user, but that may change - it's possible that we'll see another flurry of edits from these users in another couple of months?

  Anyway, at this stage I'd continue to welcome/warn the editors. Personally, I'll watchlist serial killer - shout if I can do any more.

  Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:School and university projects is the place to go, for both instructions and coördination with other editors. Uncle G (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This was posted at the talk page [12] Thanks, I too was concerned by the new attentions that DreamGuy mentions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also got a comment on my talk page about it. I've pointed the professor to the link Uncle G provided above and will see what we can do to take advantage of the good aspects of having new blood on these articles while minimizing any potential downsides. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag and editing on Ruhollah Khomeini

User:Mitso Bel has been undertaking quite a few POV edits lately, including page moves and mergers where there has been no consensus, and which indicate his POV (see History of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and Stop Child Executions Campaign). Recently on Ruhollah Khomeini, User:Mitso Bel has been putting a POV tag at the top of the article because in the lead section it states that Khomeini was Time Person of the Year in 1979, and it lists why they chose him; it is not particularly flattering. Mitso thinks Time magazine is inherently POV, since it is American, and America's government did not get along with Khomeini's. He originally put the POV tag on May 19, and then did not return until today, griping the tag was removed while the discussion was still "open". A small edit war over the tag and the reasons has ensued between he and I. Could we get a few more eyes/voices on this "American media is inherently POV against Iran" issue? -->David Shankbone 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He is also removing the reliably-sourced information, and inserting his own from an unreliable source. -->David Shankbone 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is helpful to have admins involved in this story. The User is choosing one sentence from one paragraph in Times magazine and another book and is trying to give the impression to the reader that this is the reason behind the title "the man of the year". The User as well deleted my sourced information. For further discussion, please see the articles talkpage. The User also refused to discuss the issue in the talkpage and instead kept deleting my pov tag. Mitso Bel (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Mr Taz

Resolved

 – blocked for 3 days

Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding nonsense to the Foundation Day page. Mr Taz believes there are real days called Foundation Day (Great Britain) and Foundation Day (United Kingdom), and has three times created these as redirects to British Day (while there is a proposal to have a "British Day" on May 1, it is one of many proposed dates and there are no sources calling this proposed day "Foundation Day"). After the second time I nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8, and they were deleted. When he created the redirects again following their second deletion, they were deleted for a third time and protected from being created again. Today he has again added the links to the disambiguation page, for the fifth time overall. And now, to get round the protection of the previous two deleted redirects he has created them at Foundation Day (GB) and Foundation Day (UK). I feel that his persistent disruptive violations of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day require administrator intervention. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him to alert him to his erroneous ways since he obviously wasn't heeding the intent or context of the warnings decorating his talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:NBeale

I'd appreciate some assistance regarding Nicholas Beale. It was created on April 1, 2007 by Chiinners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—a suspected sockpuppet of the article's subject, who edits as NBeale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and who wrote most of the article. [13] It was deleted as non-notable after an AfD on April 30, 2007. [14] NBeale complained that correct procedure hadn't been followed, and a second AfD was held on May 11, 2007. The result was delete again. [15]

The subject posted the article to his userspace at User:NBeale/nclb. Laura H S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with very few edits, moved it back into mainspace on March 24, 2009. [16] I restored it to userspace on March 29. [17]

Today, Sofsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another account with very few edits, moved it into mainspace again. [18] I restored it to userspace [19] and advised Sofsonline and NBeale to go to DRV. [20] [21] NBeale has now moved it back into mainspace. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_Beale&diff=293996705&oldid=29396177

Some more discussion here from March this year, where Snalwibma, Plumbago and I advise NBeale against recreation.

There's a clear conflict of interest, not only because the subject has written and keeps restoring the article himself, but also because most of the sources were written by him too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as the article itself goes, I'd say that if you're concerned about notability AfD is the best place to go now. It should've been taken to DRV before it was moved back (and I'll say as much to NBeale), but now that it's in article space there's no point going to DRV just to have DRV say "Go to AfD". Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a speedy WP:CSD#G4 candidate to me, unless there is a valid DRV overturning the previous AfD. I don't see a point in going to AfD just to have the consensus there be to speedy it and take it to DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject has hinted that I have some ulterior motive for wanting it deleted (for the record, I'd never heard of him before March this year), so I can't speedy it myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{g4}} (and warned NBeale) rather than speedying it myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• My concern is if the edits to the article from being userfied to when they were placed back in the mainspace constitutes the "explicit improvement" caveat of CSD#G4 noted above. Is there a notability indicated now that was not apparent when the article was AfD'ed? If not, then G4 speedy would be in order - if not apparent then another AfD seems to be the solution (I am assuming that notability is not obvious otherwise there would be no discussion here). The actions of a couple of accounts who fortuitously "found" this article, after varying spells of not editing at all - but on related topics when they did, and moved it into mainspace may appear suspiciously opportune in their timing, but AGF dictates we consider the content primarily. While not anticipating an AfD, the question is if notability has been established while the content was in userspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW the stated reasons by the editors for moving it back were that the subject had co-written Questions of Truth which was not the case when the earlier article was deleted 2 years ago. (BTW FWIW none of the editors mentioned is a sock-puppet, it was a 3rd party who put the article in my userspace, and the only time I moved it was to undo the 2nd unilateral reversion by SlimVirgin (who had clashed with me on another matter) NBeale (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that the a major contributor to Questions of Truth is one NBeale, and I would comment that being the author of a notable (in the Wikipedia sense) book does not confer notability upon the author. As regards the other editors who unilaterally decided to move the content into mainspace in their first edits for a greater or shorter period of inactivity... do not protest too much. I note the article is again tagged for speedy deletion, and it may be wise if Laura H S or Sofsonline - should they be reading this - were not to remove the template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm surprised this has happened again. But I'm disappointed that NBeale persists in getting involved with his own article so flagrantly. We've warned him time and time again not to get involved on grounds of WP:COI (and plain common sense), but it would appear that he can't stop himself. It's bad enough that he's vainly edited his own article so thoroughly, but to restore it to mainspace is frankly ridiculous. Especially since WP:DRV, at least as I read it, requires more than this. As for the new user who restored him, they're another of these "light" editors with only a handful of edits to their account. I'm certain that they're not a sockpuppet, but previous attempts to create/restore Nicholas Beale have involved meatpuppet-like editors with similarly "light" contributions. (As an aside, NBeale has solicited for the restoration of his article on his blog.) Anyway, I'm not sure of the best way to proceed from a policy perspective, but a review along the lines indicated by WP:DRV may be in order, and I would (again) strongly advise NBeale to watch from the sidelines. Not least because his activity to date is exactly the sort of behaviour that's liable to turn editors against him and prevent an objective assessment of the notability of Nicholas Beale. --PLUMBAGO 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if Nicholas Beale may be borderline notable – but (assuming that User:NBeale is indeed the same person) what makes it so difficult to tell is that the article is almost entirely written by the subject himself, based on sources (his recent book, his blog) written and controlled by the subject himself, and bootstrapped into notability by (a) wikilinks to and from other articles largely created by the subject himself and (b) a claimed association with number of moderately well-known people (he once dedicated a book to Charles Handy, we are told!). There is almost nothing outside this self-generated web of material to support the claim of notability, and almost no external evidence that he has done anything of note in “social philosophy” or “management consultancy” (the two phrases he uses in his article to describe himself). What is really worrying, however, is NBeale’s obvious burning desire to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, the massive conflict of interest involved, his blatant canvassing of support for his “cause” on his blog and on WP user talk pages, the massive contributions of single-purpose accounts and meatpuppets to that cause, and the subject’s breathtaking arrogance and refusal to follow the advice he has been given and stay out of the discussion. He is trying to bully the Wikipedia community into submission, and this misuse of the project should not be tolerated. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snalwimba. Is fair to make so many (demonstrably false) accusations and then demand no response on the grounds of COI? The article should surely be considered on its merits. I am certainly not seeking to "bully" anyone. NBeale (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which of the things I have said is false? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• These accusations are very concerning and if NBeale is in fact violating policy action should be swift. However, in regards to the article, I think there is a marginal level of notability, especially following the release of Questions of Truth. That book has gained recognition by the mainstream media and has put the author ahead of most in his field popularity-wise sayeth Amazon.com. I would hate to see an article be punished by the actions of an editor. God knows how many popular wikipedia articles have been created by banned users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability is not popularity. Don't conflate the twain. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a fair assessment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I move that NBeale be sentenced to indefinite blocking per his years long insistence on engaging in COI (he created the article on his book as well). I also move that his sentence be suspended per his making no edits to any article subject in which he has any involvement. Should he violate this condition... "Hammer Time". ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr. xaradnaM

Just wanted to report that this SPA created yet another in a long string of articles about an imaginary television programme -- something to do with Martinez and Caldwell. Since I've seen at least three of these go by in the last month, all from different user names, I blocked the user immediately; I know this must be a part of some sockpuppet investigation even though I can't find out exactly where. I'm also very inexperienced in the ways of sockpuppet investigation. Any information or direction that anyone cares to provide would be most welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard, as I believe this is the ongoing and long-term investigation. I'd like to be as helpful and useful as possible; if I've neglected to do something of which I'm unaware, I'd appreciate hearing about it. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That avalanche of article clones was slowed considerably when some of the anonIPs listed at the checkuser and sockpuppet pages were blocked last year. All but perhaps one of the blocks on the anons have expired since then, which may be why the frequency spiked again. — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Threats from User:Mathsci

Resolved

 – TheThankful indef blocked as sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Gregory Clegg

I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Wikipedia, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards--TheThankful (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheThankful resuming preblock behaviour

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Edit_warring_on_Europe
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheThankful
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Threats_from_User:Mathsci

This user was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Europe and Western Culture. This block was extended for a further 48 hours for block evasion through a sockpuppet. His proposed edits to the lede of Europe have been rejected by all editors. As soon as his block expired, he resumed arguing the change to the lede that had been rejected. When I explained why his change was POV-pushing and might if he continued reverting result in a future block, he made a report on WP:WQA about me without informing me. He interprets my explanation that his continued pre-block behaviour could result in further blocks as a threat. He is continuing to argue tendentiously. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I see he has posted here as well, so he seems to be forum shopping. Please could someone reblock him for disruption and harassment. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your situation, it seems to me that it'd be premature to block for either of those reasons, as he could just not know the proper way these kinds of things should be handled. If he is as you say continuing pre-block behavior (edit warring/use of sock) report him for that. If he's not gone that far yet, maybe the situation can be defused instead of escalated. DreamGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my above request. I have not made any edits to the Europe article, so I do not see how I should be blocked for returning to an edit warring behaviour. I have posted sources on the talk page that support my contention that the article is in error. If someone could explain how I am able to present and discuss such information in a manner that does not get me blocked, that would be awesome, as I was under the impression, this is what the talk page was for: discussing ways to improve the article. If Mathsci is in fact in error about my "disruptive" posting I'd appreciate that being made clear also.

Thanks again.--TheThankful (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

i think both of you need to cool off a bit here. Mathsci was right to warn you about your behavior in general, and you shouldn't have been posting the same complaint multiple places (personally I think the WQA one should have been left open and this one closed). DreamGuy (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the last report [22] where TheThankful lied about his sockpuppetry. He is continuing to lie. Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please don't comment if you have no familiarity with the previous recent event. This is quite unhelpful on your part. Leave this to the two blocking administrators and the third administrator who said they would watch TheThankful's behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dreamguy, I certainly didn't close the other thread. As I stated I was unsure about where to post.

This is an example of the personal aggression from Mathsci This is just your own personal synthesis. If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.

I don't see how calling me confused or telling me to "go someplace else" is in any way civil. I am asking for assistance in dealing with this. If it belongs on another forum, please direct me there. As for the warnings about my behaviour, could you please elaborate? I don't see how posting sources on a talk page constitutes reverting to a 3RR behaviour.--TheThankful (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, I am certainly not lying. Anyone can go and check the words that have been written. Lying just isn't an option. ;-) --TheThankful (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You resumed the same disruptive behaviour prior to your block and are now POV-pushing in exactly the same way that led to your previous block. You lied about not using a sockpuppet User:LemborLembor, which has been indefinitely blocked. I cannot threaten with a block, but can warn you that if you resume the behaviour that led to your first block, you will receive even longer blocks. That is it is not an uncivil threat; it is wikipedia policy. In that sense you chose deliberately to misrepresent and harass me by forum shopping. Your activities on the talk page were a resumption of the arguments you were making prior to your block about the edit you were warring over which has been rejected by mutliple editors.Mathsci (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The precise place where TheThankful is lying is in saying that I reverted his edits several times. In fact five or six editors reverted his edits. I composed the new compromise sentence which is now in the lede, was sourced and which has acquired consensus. (See the ANI report cited above for a record of TheThankful's previous disruption and lying.) Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's a resumption of the position I took, because I was not blocked for taking that position, but for making 3RR. I have ADDED to the position with many sources, where previously there was one, which you disputed. How is this not kosher? It seems odd that rather than argue the position and the references concerned, you're arguing with ME and seeking to have me blocked. This to me feels like unnecessary aggression, which is why I posted here.--TheThankful (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour continues to be disruptive. Multiple editors disagree with the sentence you want to include and yet you p:ersist. You are arguing tendentiously on the talk page. If you wanted to add substantial sourced new content to the main body of the article with precise page references from sources, that would be a different thing. Instead you want to insert an improperly sourced sentence in the lede that you concocted yourself, that nobody else agrees with. Remember the lede is a summary of what is in the main article. But your disruption didn't end there. It consisted of you reporting me twice by forum shopping, which precipitated this report. You also followed me to Cailil's talk page, which seems to be harassment/bullying. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I do want to add substantial new material. But if I can't even fix one sentence, why would I try?--TheThankful (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The normal method with a big established article like this is to add sourced content to the main body of the article first and then possibly adjust the lede afterwards if need be. Removing sourced content, however, is not usually an option. I understand that you have edited very few wikipedia articles. You have edited some articles connected with a church in Singapore, where some of your edits were based on personal communication with members of that church. This is not usual WP sourcing policy and you might have got the wrong impression from that. Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How is my editing of the Singaporean article pertinent? For the record, I was replacing a reference from an alleged private email, with known facts which included a newspaper interview. In the end a neutral statement resulted. But that's completely beside the point and a straw man. The ajustment of the lede was a precursor to any further edits. Bear in mind, the initial lede which I changed credited WESTERN Europe as the origins of Western Culture, before it settled on the Greece sentence. I went for a neutral statement. If there wasn't such a broohar I would have written both positions, and sourced the Mesopotamian origin position. --TheThankful (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It was improperly sourced for a BLP. [23] Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• First off both of you disengage. Second Mathsci's warning was appropriate and the above thread by TheThankful is not constructive. I'll warn you once TheThankful to reflect on the tendentious behaviour that got you blocked previously and not to repeat it. Also TheThankful forum shopping is not impressive please stop it--Cailil ^talk 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, thanks for that. If you'll notice I have not edited the article at all since being blocked, so why am I being warned not to tendentiously edit it again? Am I being told not to post sources and argue how the Europe article can be made better? Is there something on the talk page that contravenes Wikipedia law? If so, I would appreciate being informed so as I am, as Mathsci likes to point out, a complete novice at Wikipedia and somewhat confused. Thanks for your contribution. --TheThankful (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TE applies to comments and talk page discussion also. These comments are not civil or constructive [24][25]. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL - just becuase you've got sources doesn't mean you can ignore behavioural and/or talkpage guidelines--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<-While looking into this, I rechecked User:TheThankful to make sure he hadn't resumed using sockpuppets. Much to my surprise, I discovered that he IS a sockpuppet from the Gregory Clegg family of puppets. I have blocked him. --Versageek 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All's well that end's well :-) Mathsci (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blanked User talk:TheThankful, as he was using it to soapbox while blocked. It may be necessary to lock that page if this continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue with user escallating - requesting review of the situation

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Late last week, MikeyCMS (talk · contribs) created the M3 Rock Festival, which instead of going through db-g11 was submitted to an AfD.

Since then, the user repeatedly attempted to remove the AfD tag from the article. Then yesterday, he did a NPA violation against the one of the commentors on the AfD [26]. When I warned him about NPA, he has now done another towards me [27] and released a bit of a rant on the AfD page as well [28].

As his anger is directed at me for the moment, I would rather someone else (non-involved party) take a look to see if they can either get him to relax a bit, or if necessary perhaps an admin could temporarilly block him to encourage him to release his frustrations elsewhere for a while. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

With this edit, I'd say a block is in order. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and blocked indefinitely. Childish personal attacks from a single purpose account here solely to promote a music festival that happened two days ago doesn't do us any good. --Leivick (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Userpage strangeness - this is making my head hurt...

Could someone please take a look at the contribs (deleted or otherwise) of the following users (who appear be the same person) and give their opinion on what exactly is going on here?

• Alex Curran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex Curran Discography (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex Curran (Singer) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sugababes_(Girl_Group) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Sugababes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atomic Kitten: The Hits Tour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atomic Kitten (Girl Group) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would seem that someone really wants to get their name into WP or perhaps onto the first page of Google hits - by copying WP articles to userspace and replacing the names of various pop singers with 'Alex Curran'. Whether it's some kind of roleplaying game, or an attempt at self-promotion, I honestly have no idea. I notice that User:Sugababes_(Girl_Group) has already been blocked as a username vio and I'm tempted to block the rest and speedy all their contribs myself. Thought I'd bring it here for input first to avoid making a mess on the carpet. Any suggestions as to how to proceed here? None of these accounts appear to have any contribs outside of userspace. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• (non admin response) - I would recommend a checkuser to make sure that all are the same user, if they are a final warning that they need to edit something other than userspace...that Wikipedia isn't MySpace or Facebook. If they don't get it, blocks for all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kurt. All of them could probably be blocked as impersonator accounts. I can't quite work out the motivation for this, though I would propose that Alex Curran is not the name of the individual behind the account, but a reference to Steven Gerrard's wife, Alex Curran (though why she is deemed notable enough to have her own article, God only knows). I'd say go ahead with your suggestion. Rockpocket 01:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found several more accounts in the same vein with interconnecting edits (see deleted contribs). Curiouser and curiouser. I think that a checkuser may be warranted here, just to see how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. I don't doubt that there's more.

• Thankful (Album) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jason James Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sony Music Entertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• V Festival (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<- I was going to list additional accounts I'd found so far (via CU).. but the list got too long.. they've been at this for quite some time. I'm going to start blocking in bulk for abusing multiple accounts, if someone has time - pls check my blocks and clean up the debris as needed. --Versageek 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it a little more, I bet they are probably good faith attempts by an editor to create an article of the same title of the account (see for example, Atomic Kitten: The Hits Tour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The copying of WP articles to userspace was probably just a way of getting a template for the structure of the article (copying the Beyonce article across as a template for the Alex Curran article, for example). However most of them do not appear to have got past the swapping of name in the opening sentence. All their attempts currently have articles anyway, with the exception of Atomic Kitten: The Hits Tour, and I don't really think that is sufficiently notable. I would still recommend blocking the accounts per WP:USERNAME, as creating a new account for each article title is not to be encouraged. But I don't think there is really any malice in this and its pretty obvious from contribs that they are likely the same person. Rockpocket 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All the accounts I listed have been blocked as either username vios or for abusing multiple accounts, per Versageek's comment... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, you weren't kidding! --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I listed all of them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jason James Scott so we have a record of them. I blocked them all with a message which suggest that the person stick with a single account, although I suspect they've been given this advice in the past (see comments in the archived SPI report). Some of these accounts were editing today, so apparently they didn't pay attention.. --Versageek 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• I've deleted the one(!) page that Kurt Shaped Box apparently missed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Docu and AFD closes against consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Docu (talk · contribs) is now restricted from closing deletion debates, which are related to the topic “x and y relations”. — Aitias // discussion 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Docu, a long-time admin, has now twiced close AFD's of the x-y relations megillah variety, against what appears to have been clear consensus. The first time was a few weeks ago, in which he elevated 1 keep argument against 5 arguments for delete to keep yielding this rather solid trout-slapping of a DRV for his action [29]. Today he closed another in this category as "no consensus" (though his edit to the talk page in question says "the outcome of the discussion was keep [30]) despite 8 arguments in favor of deletion and 3 in favor of keeping (one a "weak keep" though i've never understood either the force of "weak/strong keep" or "weak/strong delete"). I've opened a DRV on the close here [31]. All well and good. However, a reasonable presumption would have been after the last DRV that he would either avoid closing in this area entirely, or be careful about abiding by clear consensus if he did close. In this case, he just flaunted consensus. As an editor in good standing i'm expected to abide by community outcomes when i personally disagree with them and I try to. Docu, in my opinion, has now twice simply substituted his own judgement over the will of the community's because of his opinions on the matter. The admin intervention i'm seeking is to either get a consensus to tell User:Docu to leave AFD's alone, or strong reminders about what it means to abide by consensus, with an understanding that if he flaunts consensus again community action will be taken. He appears unable at this point to divorce his opinions from his duties as an admin in this area. To allow an admin to run roughshod over a community process like this (and it would be just as bad if an admin ignored consensus to come down on the side I favor) reduces faith in the AFD process.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with this assessment by Bali ultimate (talk · contribs). User:Docu should refrain in the future from closing AfDs of the x-y relations nature. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• If AfDs are indeed note votes and we went by strength of arguments, I could not imagine any neutral, objective admin closing as anything other than "no consensus" in this case. In addition to the sources found during the discussion, I even found and added at least one afterwards. The two countries do indeed have bilateral relations and to suggest that agreements and contacts between countries with millions of inhabitants whose relationships affect a number of these inhabitants' jobs and well-being is "non notable" is absurd. The three keeps address specific aspects of the article and specific sources. While a couple deletes do so as well, a number of deletes falsely claims "no" reliable sources exist, which is just not true. So, using administrator's discretion, any reasonable admin would be able to read that discussion and determine that the three keeps (also the only participant in the discussion who actively improved the article in any manner was one who said to keep) carried more weight. Given the numbers, I can see a "no consensus," but given an objective read of the validity of the comments, it would not have been deleted. If Docu does have a strong opinion on this subject, then he might consider recusing himself from closing them to avoid any controversy, but that aside, his close was correct at least. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu (talk · contribs) is most certainly not a neutral, previously uninvolved admin on these particular x-y relations articles, and should not close AfDs related to them. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be churlish, cirt. I can't imagine any neutral, unbiased admin disagreeing with me either. In fact, all the admins that agree with me are even more handsome and humble than i am. Those that disgree with me are ugly, twisted trolls. Poor dears. This line of reasoning is the one thing nobody and i have in common.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (bali ultimate in his preceeding comment was using irony to point out the absurdity of "clearly unbiased, neutral admins agree with my view" in the preceeding comment, which was not directed at cirt, who has in fact been far from churlish here.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

You misinterpret what I have said. Administrators should not close AfDs on topics where they have a vested interest and regularly particiate/advocate for a certain POV, which Docu (talk · contribs) does often on this topic. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Has any other admins who closed these discussions also commented in them as well? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They should not be closing them if they have. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to list all of these to see? On a side note, something should be done about disruptive renominations of ones that were kept only a month or so ago. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly support Bali ultimate and Cirt on this one. It should be noted that following this deletion review, Docu not so subtly tried to restore the article, circumventing DRV, AFD and not actually consistent with WP:DAB. see [32]. This is echoed by [33] and [34] and [35]. Docu's behaviour in closing bilateral articles is unacceptable and should be left to the many other admins who are already closing this. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - given this recent AN thread, where several users suggested Docu recuse himself from closing such debates in the future, and given that he lacks the confidence of a number of editors in his ability to act impartially when making such closes, it seems high time for Docu to formally cease doing so. We want to be able to trust administrators' impartiality, and that is not possible in this case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and seconded. seicer | talk | contribs 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed I think it would solve the problem if this admin voluntarily stopped closing AfD's, at least on this "x and y relations" topic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

• • Can somebody do a count of this admin's closings on the subject, in comparison to those of other admins who close on this general subject? I do not support non-neutral closing, but I wonder just who is neutral. DGG (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the only AfDs I've ever seen Docu close in the past month or so is bilateral articles... this is unlike other admins in AfDs who close a large variety of AfD topic areas. specifically closing 1 topic (and no others) always as keep is not neutral. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this comment by LibStar (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have any other admins who have closed any bilateral relations AfDs typically "voted" to keep or delete in them and have closed ones as such as well? We need to be sure we are not targetting Docu unfairly here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More or less been done here [36] with this thread as your update. There is no admin who has been this out of step with what's going on in the actual AFDs.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go through User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations to see if there has been other potentially biased closes. My take is that 1) those with bias should recuse themselves, but 2) even if Docu did not close it, other reasonable admins could/would have closed as "no consensus" as well as one has already said, i.e. the close itself was correct, although I agree that unbiased editors should not close AfDs (after all, you don't see me closing AfDs!). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this situation and the relevent AFDs, I would completely agree that Docu should not be closing these AFDs. He does not give the appearance of an uninvolved administrator; that he selectively and only closes the x-y relations types, and only closes them as keep, seems a particularly troubling pattern. Its like he's decided these should all be kept, consensus be damned. Certainly, I may have also closed some of these as keep as well, or possibly no consensus, but the compelling issue here seems to be the pattern of behavior. I would hope that reading this discussion, he would recuse himself from this issue in the future, as it does not reflect well on him in particular, nor on admins in general, to have one behave in this way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed Docu should not be closing these. There is no room for the appearance of bias in the closing of AFDs. Edison (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus seems to be that Docu is no longer permitted to close these AFDs. Could an admin please notify Docu of the restriction and wrap this up? //roux   18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User:FresherFreshStart

Resolved

 – VOA, indeffed.

This appears odd... anyone know if this is just in bad taste, or a real issue? (It appears to be from IRC.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the rest of the users edits besides that one do not hold out much hope for his becoming a positive contributor to the 'pedia. If I were a betting man, I'd say the over/under on his being indef blocked could be measured in hours, if not minutes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please proceed to the window and collect your prize. (Indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account.) I had a feeling it would go this way, but I brought it here because of the WoW/IRC reference. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued incivility and baseless accusations from User:Jayhawk of Justice

• Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some of you may remember this user, some of you may not, either way, awhile ago he was blocked, mainly for saying stuff like x is on the side of vandals, x is trolling. This user, after almost half of a year of inactivity since their block, has started up again, and is on relatively the same path, calling editor's opinions and reasons 'agenda driven'. Besides that, after their half-year of inactivity, they immediately come to my talk page in order to taunt me and accuse me of things without citing evidence, which, by policy, is a personal attack. Clearly this user has not learned from their first block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• People can hopefully see through this. I've created some articles on Wikipedia and I try to keep an eye on them. Within the span of six or seven months, Daedalus has attempted to delete one of my articles four times. One of them, he attempted to delete as soon as I returned to editing yesterday. He has me on some sort of list of people he "hates" (I know that's not the right word, but I don't know what else to call it.)

  He is also obviously trying to bait me into an argument by posting an ANI about me and leaving a template on my talk page threatening me with a block. Why is Daedalus allowed to do this? Look at his edits. He always drags people to ANI. He accuses what seems like every vandal or uncivil editor in Wikipedia history of being one of his or Gwen Gale's stalkers (why does she need him to keep a list for her...).

  If you don't believe this guy is a loose cannon, look at all of his requests for checkuser. It's not for fishing, and yet he has incorrectly attempted to link vandals together dozens of times in some bizarre effort to claim that numerous editors are all actually one person stalking him. Isn't that odd?

  Note how about once a week he gets reminded to tone it down. When will the warnings cease and the blocks begin?

  Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • They are not YOUR articles. Once you hit that "save page" button, it becomes the community's article; if you don't wish for your stuff to be mercilessly edited by others, then you shouldn't submit it. Also, looking at your contributions since your last block, things are not looking good, especially vilifying Deadalus969 of hooliganism and using non-English terms Internet slang like lol in edit summaries. MuZemike 07:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Um... not in any way commenting about the pros and cons of either editor here but ... since when is using an abbreviation like "lol" in an edit summary a transgression? BTW and FWIW, AFAIK abbreviations and initialisms are NBD. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's how it's used as opposed to when it's used. MuZemike 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh sure, I've got no problem with the idea that innocent words or expressions can be used in ways that are meant to be biting or insulting, I was just thrown a bit by the use of "non-English terms" in your description. As my mother always told me: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Made more clear above. MuZemike 07:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
            • It is still in error, however. Note that "I see you've got me on some sort of list of hooligans." is not a statement that the person being addressed is a hooligan. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that at the AfD, four editors are making note of the repeated attempts by a single nominator to get the article deleted, and multiple comments run towards observations of a very personal nature to the nomination. It's hard to not see harassment in four nominations of a single article by one person. ThuranX (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I totally agree with this assessment. The same editor nominating an article 3 times in less then a year is bad faith in my eyes. If the article truly deserves deletion someone else will take care of it. I can understand why someone would feel harassed and make accusations about another editor, I don't see a failure to cite evidence, the 3 AFD's speak for themselves. Ridernyc (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Seems right. @JoJ; it's late here, but if you'd like to have a chat tomorrow, I'm up for it. It looks like you could use a few pointers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to ask these editors to avoid one another and to enjoy collaborating and engaging in civil discussion with the many other editors here on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC) JoJ's edit summaries leave a lot to be desired, they obviously have a problem with Daedalus and it would be best if they not ineract. Having said that, I strongly disagree that the AfD nomination is bad faith. Have you read it? Since when do we give "a pass" to somebody with the hopes that someday they become notable? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)!

Sockpuppetry to attain consensus

Resolved

 – Saviour09 blocked for 24 hours by Redvers

I have a feeling that this IP and this new user are sockpuppets of each other and maybe of User:Rub rb. My suspicions were triggered since all of them started writing at the same time at the Talk:Lady Gaga discography page regarding a matter of consensus and started reverting the article regarding some change which involved removing a country's chart being a minor market. Please administraters have a look. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP blatantly posted on my talk page when warnings were given regarding WP:NPA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Deferred sockpuppet investigations -- Luk ^talk 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP and its sockpuppet are now resorting to vandalism on the page even when being reverted by an admin. Please help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And is now continuing vandalising other pages like The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP is blocked for 3RR and SoWhy has protected the disco. Law _{type! snype?} 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but the IPs sock is continuing the vandalism in the above mentioned article. Its clearly a sock. Please look into it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof of sockpuppetry. The user is removing content from the above article even though a consensus had been reached before regarding this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I donot want to revert anymore for fear of 3RR but this is getting out of hand. Clearly a consensus has been reached at User talk:Kww regarding the changes this user is making but isn't any admin going to take notice? How long will this vandalism continue? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I took it to WP:AIV. An admin will take care of it shortly. MS (Talk|Contributions) 13:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bert Schlossberg

I tagged KAL 007: How it went astray until attack as a copyright violation of this. Bert has since pointed out that he is the author of that article, and has claimed to be the author of this book. There are a few potential WP:OR and WP:COI issues that need to be addressed, among others, and I was hoping someone a bit more experienced in this area could lend a hand. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the user Schlossberg's claim is true (and how could we tell if it were so?) and if he posts his own writing here, then he is relinquishing his own copyright on it, I would think - he is making it public domain. Why would an author do that to his own book? Sounds fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3 is not the same thing as the public domain, Bugs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the correct procedure to get this material included in the encyclopedia would be for Bert Schlossberg to prove his identity to OTRS. Since it seems to be completely unsuitable in the first place, the question doesn't even arise. It's often easier to get rid of such obviously inappropriate texts by proving they are copyright violations than by arguing with the editor who added them, but as we have no reason to suppose he is lying about his identity that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to see what he has to say about relinquishing his copyright. That consequence might not have occurred to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the answer [37] and he says he "wants to bring this matter to a greater number of people". That is not an appropriate use of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Bert Schlossberg also created KAL 007: The Search in International Waters. I haven't evaluated it for copyvio, but it does read like an essay full of original research. These articles deal with issues covered mainly at Korean Air Lines Flight 007. User:Bert Schlossberg has been politely cautioned about WP:COI by others. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Cossey

An anon user has been repeatedly removing Ms. Cossey's birth name from the article, apparently on the grounds that a) the information is already in the infobox and does not need to be duplicated, and b) that this information somehow violates BLP and constitutes some form of "humiliation" towards the subject. This in itself is nonsensical because the two arguments are incompatible, and I have reverted several times now because a) an infobox summarises article content, it does not replace it, and b) the details of Ms. Cossey's childhood are public knowledge and are covered extensively in her own autobiography. I think I'm right in saying that there are no BLP issues here and I think I'm right to revert, but I have no desire to edit war and would appreciate some input from a third party. PC78 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe request a "semi-protect" at WP:RFPP? Just a thought. Commented on talk page. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)