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

Harrassment from probable RichSatan sockpuppets

• RichSatan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (indef blocked)
• Byaahahaha (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (indef blocked)
• 91.84.95.68 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.179.208 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.177.104 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.153.198.246 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• 82.152.178.70 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

WP:HARASS states that "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behaviour that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."

User:RichSatan and these IPs (which all resolve to the same company on the same street, in the same town, in the same county in the UK) has been making ad hominem and generally harassing trolling comments on Talk:Games Workshop. The purpose of these remarks is to remove User:Cailil from the discussion.

RichSatan (a confirmed Sockpuppeteer[1] and a user with a history of ad hominem attacks[2][3]) blames me for the policy based removal of unsourced and unsourcable "comments and Criticism" from the Games Workshop article[4]. A number of IPs from Exeter, in Devon (UK), have over a period of nearly a year made the same trolling remarks a) about me and b)insisting on the reinclusion of unsourced original research. If RichSatan had not used sock puppets this would be a content dispute but it is now a behavioural issue and in my view a case of harrassment.

Both RichSatan and these IPs claim I am on a "one man crusade" to remove criticism from this page for reasons other than site policy. This is not the case. The material is OR and unsourced. Also consensus has been reached a number of times. An RFC[5] was opened specifically in the matter and previous to that Sir Fozzie was ask for a sysop review of my behaviour[6]. On both occasions the community has pointed out to RichSatan and these Exeter IPs that my behaviour is proper and defined by site policy. (For those wishing to verify the content issue see here This is also a direct link to the unsourced comments and criticism these IPs and RichSatan demand be reinstated into the article)

On Feb 21st User:RichSatan began blanking all references to him on talk pages and in XFDs[7][8][9][10]<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">iracle_of_Chile&diff=prev&oldid=192702963[11]. He was not only removing comments of his that had been replied to by a number of editors but was altering other users (mainly mine) talk page comments. When this was reverted User:Byaahahaha began engaging in the same behaviour[12][13] . When this was reverted by Sir Fozzie (whom I contacted) Byaahahaha blanked Sir Fozzie's page. That account was then blocked for vandalism and as a probable RichSatan sockpuppet.

Yesterday IP 91.84.95.68 (from Exter) made the same RichSatan comments to Talk:Games Workshop. I opened an RFCU case to identify whether RichSatan was a sockpuppeteer or note. It confirmed that Byaahahaha is a RichSatan sock-puppet, but made no comment on the IPs (see here). As far as I can see this is a case of WP:DUCK - all these IPs are making RichSatan's comments. All the IPs come from the same ISP in the same location. The problem is that 91.84.95.68 claims that it has never read the page before. Yet like all the other IPs it has made no other contributions to WP. RichSatan and these IPs have engaged in the same behaviour - trying to discredit, intimidate and undermine my editing, demanding that I do not edit the page and stop my "constant involvement". For the record I have not edited Games Workshop in 2008. In fact in the period August 2007 - March 2008 I have made 2 edits to the page. 1 removing link spam (September 2007)[14] the other (on December 10th)[15] in accordance with the findings of the RFC.

RichSatan's behaviour replicated by the IPs

Insistence on the inclusion of unsourced criticism at Talk:Games Workshop
[16][17][18] by RichSatan
[19] by 91.84.95.68
[20] by 82.152.179.208
[21] by 82.152.177.104
[22][23] by 82.153.198.246
[24] by 82.152.178.70

Current situation

User:Byaahahaha was blocked indef blocked (on Feb 21st[25]) as a vandalism only account and a probable sock of RichSatan. The User:RichSatan is dormant but as yet unblocked for disruption or sockpuppetry (his last edit was Feb 21st[26]). The current Exeter IP is active (User:91.84.95.68) and engaging in the same ad hominem attacks on me and claims of no consensus on Talk:Games Workshop[[27]][28][29]. I'm requesting uninvolved sysop overview and intervention as I think this is a simple case of WP:DUCK - these IPs are probable RichSatan socks and are engaged in a campaign of harassment against me.

Apologies for the length of this post.--Cailil ^talk 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it wasn't already, I've added a link to this section to Talk:Games Workshop Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for placing that link Darkson.

Also it might help if a sysop examined whether the main sockpuppeteer account (User:RichSatan) should be blocked and to generally keep an extra pair (or pairs) of uninvolved eyes on the page--Cailil ^talk 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on from 91.84.95.68 yesterday (I may still be, for that matter). I am not RichSatan. I am based just outside northeast London. Probably my IP looks up to Exeter because that's where Eclipse Internet, my ISP, are based. I wish to repeat and reinforce my objections to Cailil's content edits - there are sourced comments in the referenced section. Notice that my objections are to his edits, not to him personally, and I object to the characterisation of this as ad-hominem. I consider that Cailil is using the ad-hominem rules to defend questionable edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The same user starts a section called "Cailil's constant involvement here"[30] - which claims I'm on a "one-man" crusade" and now they describe it as not being an ad hominem attack? This ANI posting is not about the content - its about the fact that one user - always from the same ISP and same ISP location has been making these same claims and demands since February-March 2007. Using multiple IPs is discouraged. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is also against site policy. This person has claimed that they only read the page days ago[31], yet their dynamic IP range (91.84.95.68, 82.152.17x.xx and 82.152.1xx.xx) has made the exact same contributions - attacks on me[32][33][34], demands I don't edit the page[35], and insistence on the reinsertion of unsourced and improperly sourced material[36][37]. A carbon copy of User:RichSatan's (again a confirmed sock puppeteer) contributions to the page[38]. This is about sock-puppetry (or perhaps meat-puppetry) not content--Cailil ^talk 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I am not a "sock puppet", it is not about sock-puppetry - more than one person is questioning you, and you are attempting to dismiss criticism by claiming they're all the same. Again you are attempting to change the subject and attack me until the point where I cannot ignore it. I will ignore it again in the interests of amity but I say again: you cannot expect to continue to act in bad faith and attack me, then make counterclaims in defence. From where I sit, you are making ad-hominem attacks, you are using admin involvement as a threat, you are making questionable edits and you are acting in bad faith. If you continue to do this, I will suggest that you are investigated on suspicion of breaking the rules - not me. Let's make this extremely crystal clear: your abysmal behaviour is being indulged in the interests of amity. I am not under scrutiny here because I have made no edits to the article in question. You are under scruitiny and it is for you to justify your edits. I am the plaintiff here, not the suspect. I will make further comments on the edits in question on the relevant talk page, but I will not be made a victim here. For the record, I have no control over the IP I'm assigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.98 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Having been involved with this from the start, I have this to say. I find it likely that the IP's are RichSatan who has been caught sock-puppeting previously, especially with your first edits to the talk page being an attack on the editor who has edited their only a few times in the last six months, and hadn't edited the article at all since December. However without checkuser level proof, I have to Assume Good Faith and leave off things unless there's a a problem. However, I suggest that you leave off attacking Calil, who has been more then fair with regards to the situation. He has correctly applied Wikipedia's core policies (of Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and Notability especially), and asked for WP:DR via 3rd Opinion and RfC when others would have edit-warred. Please consider yourself warned as to the consequences of your attacks. Discuss the content, not the contributor. SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm willing to undertake any reasonable procedure to verify my identity, but even in that case I can't really prove that I'm not someone you think I am - you're asking me to prove a negative proposition. As such you can warn me all you like, since I am powerless to either obey or disobey. What concerns me about this is that I have offered no attacks upon Cailil whatsoever beyond questioning his edits. If this is a "personal attack" then it is de jure impossible for anyone to ever discuss someone's edits without being accused in this way. Do you not appreciate the problem here? And what on earth do you mean by "discuss the content not the contributor" - doing exactly that (to me!) been Cailil's only contribution here - and I'm the bad guy?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

During the time that I've worked with Cailil (over a year now), his conduct has consistently met all of Wikipedia's conduct and content standards. Indeed, he is so scrupulously patient and courteous when dealing with incorrigible POV-pushers and sockpuppeteers that I wish he would let me nominate him for adminship. I have checked into the IP editor's very serious allegations, and in my opinion they are spurious. Based upon RFCU results and the IP conduct, I recommend a block. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call immediately leaping to complain about me on this page courteous or patient, but I had no personal problem with the guy before it happened. It's difficult to express what it's like to turn up fresh to an article, question something that's been done (note - not dive in and start editing!), and immediately be accused of sockpuppetry, but regardless of whather you consider me genuine or not, spare a half-second's thought to how this looks from my perspective. The operative point here is that the admin's review of the removed material does not support summary removal of all of it, a position that is incorrect and will remain incorrect regardless of what you think of me or how much of a reference Cailil is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You claim that you've only just found that page. These diffs and the public IP information proves otherwise. The same demand to include the same original research was made over a year ago by the same ISP from the same location (82.153.198.246[39] [40] in March 2007 and 91.84.70.216[41] in March 2008). Every time you come back to the Talk:Games Workshop since June 2007 (after I removed the unverifiable and synthesized section[42]) you have started by attacking me, in the same manner. The only other account that has done this is a proven sock-puppeteer. For the record I asked you to desist from the assumption of bad faith on March 12[43]. But your behaviour continued[44][45][46]. Only then, and only on advice, did I bring the issue here--Cailil ^talk 13:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A further small note. The admin who overviewed the section was Sir Fozzie. If he thought my edits were not supported by his analysis I'm sure he would have corrected me himself. Whereas he has explained to you that the removal of that content is defined by WP's policies (WP:NOR, WP:V)[47]. Secondly consensus was sought and found for its removal, twice--Cailil ^talk 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"These diffs and the public IP information proves otherwise" - well, obviously they don't, because I am not RichSatan. Your thesis is self-justifying. I am willing to consider any verification mechanism you find acceptable, but since you are asking me to prove a negative proposition there is probably nothing I can do at this point other restate: I am not he. If I wanted to sockpuppet, I'd walk a hundred yards down the road to the cybercafe and do it from there. The problem we now have is that you have created an atmosphere wherein any future pointing-out of these erroneous edits will be treated as further sockpuppetry, something for which we can all decry RichSatan. This is now a vicious circle which will allow you to dismiss any future support of my position, regardless of the source, on the basis of it being a sockpuppet. In any case, I do not particularly agree with RichSatan. His position is that known fact should be included regardless of verifiability which is quite correctly against site policy; mine is that you have removed verifiable content. Some of it was recently reinserted by someone other than me - are you going to suggest THAT user is RichSatan as well?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 March 2008

Please don't misrepresent my position by setting-up a straw man 91.84.70.216. "You claim that you've only just found that page. These diffs and the public IP information proves otherwise." The diffs and information above doesn't prove you are RichSatan - it refutes your claim to have read that article for the first time on March 12th 2008. It proves you have been making these demands for the addition of OR for a year. It's proof that this is not the first time you have attacked me personally.

It's your behaviour that is indicative of a RichSatan sock-puppet. No-one else has claimed or could claim that I have been "constantly involved" on that page - it's just not borne out by the facts. I made 2 edits in 6 months to the Games Workshop article.

Even if I am wrong about you being a RichSatan sockpuppet you are still harassing me. You have still attacked me and are continuing to do so[48][49][50]. You have never rectified your misleading and incorrect statements - that my editing is "widely criticized". You have never apologized for your demands that I stop editing an article that I have not edited this year--Cailil ^talk 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"it refutes your claim to have read that article for the first time on March 12th 2008" - how? Since I really, seriously did read that article for the first time a few days ago, I'd love to see your argument for this. You're just branching off into ever more creative insanity. And I really do resent the comparison: RichSatan was asking for unverified claims to be inserted. I am not. As for attacks, good grief, look at what you are saying to me. Your arrogant presumptiveness is just breathtaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.70.216 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Canvassing

This page Template:Canvassing is worrisome because it encourages violation of our canvassing policy. The editor who created it, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs) was recently involved in the highly problematic Wikipedia:Delegable proxy proposal under a former username, and was blocked for sock puppetry. I am concerned that we have an editor who is engaged in creative disruption. These serious-looking proposals appear to be wasting time and aggravating the community. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Opting in to canvassing.[51] Accounts that don't write articles and only put forth disruptive proposals eventually need to be restricted. Wikipedia is not a game; it's not a laboratory; it's an encyclopedia. What shall we do about this situation? Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the template under WP:CSD T2 ("blatant misrepresentation of established policies"). A template encouraging canvassing seems inappropriate - I'm not really looking forward to hearing "...but they said they wanted to be canvassed to vote in this AfD!" Appropriate notification of discussion does not, and has never, required a template, so it's hard to see any utility here. No comment on the larger issues. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this userbox? — Edokter • Talk • 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel these proposals are a waste of time, it may help to remember that it is not mandatory for you or any other editor to involve yourself in them; you are free to leave it to others. Incidentally, delegable proxy was designed for just that purpose; so that one user could express the views of many and thus save time, while still allowing each user's opinion to be represented. That particular proposal may not have been the best vehicle for doing so, but there's nothing wrong with throwing out ideas. However, this community seems to be pretty harsh and conservative about that kind of stuff. Granted, the methods used to promote WP:PRX weren't all that great. Anyway, it is clear that you can crush these ideas in a lot less time than it takes me to create them. Moreover, I have little to gain by stirring up trouble for trouble's sake.

Creative disruption usually involves trying to find loopholes in rules in order to cause a negative kind of disturbance. But opt-in canvassing seeks to close a loophole, which is that users can presently communicate on IRC, email, and other off-wiki channels that they have established with informal caucuses, and it goes under the radar. Those who have not had time or inclination to set up effective off-wiki caucuses are at a potential disadvantage, which opt-in canvassing seeks to, at least partially, fix.

In the wake of the likely (and misguided) rejection of that, then it becomes necessary to think of another creative solution. Am I supposed to read people's minds and know what they will object to? I have yet to understand what exactly motivates the community to do what it does in these cases, as the logic I'm seeing does not seem entirely consistent. Abd would say that the motivation is a desire to cling to power, although, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm more inclined to apply WP:AGF. The phenomenon I'm seeing here is somewhat familiar to what I've read about in Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of the People.

The standard process for dealing with proposals on a wiki is WP:BRD (see diagram at WP:CCC. Someone makes a bold edit, and if it's not reverted, it becomes policy. Otherwise, we discuss it. There has to be leeway for creative solutions or we stagnate. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn more about Wikipedia before suggesting further changes to policy. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a chat room for exploring novel policy ideas, nor is it an experiment in unlimited free speech. Perhaps you want to obtain a dump of the Wikipedia database and download free MediaWiki software so you can build your own version of the encyclopedia with your own rules. It is disruptive to continuously propose large, unsupported changes in many policies. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the deletion of the template under CSD T2. This should start out as a policy proposal, not a template creation. It's not clear what problem this template is solving. People understand the present canvassing rules, and it's a troublesome topic. There is no reason to revisit that entire area without an urgent cause. The memory of WP:Delegable proxy is not pleasant, and per User:Jehochman's comment about 'disruptive proposals', editors who we associate with that topic should perhaps avoid the subject of policy reform for a little while. Working in safe areas might be a way to regain their reputation and earn general respect for their work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this editor. Obuibo Mbstpo seems to like playing devil's advocate and seems to also be an avid WikiTruth enthusiast. See these edits, where he actually used them as refs: [52] [53]. He's also posting this canvassing proposal at many different talk pages and making policy changes in the interest of getting the proposal passed more easily. No offense intended -- but I've already reverted him a couple of times and I don't want to be accused of stalking, so I just want to bring this to others' attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:24, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

:::Am I really that drunk? Or are there actually double edits above...? _GB^T/C 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Turns out neither... _GB^T/C 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There were, that was my mistake :) Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the idea Obuibo Mbstpo is the new User:Radiant... except has more trouble keeping his nose clean. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) A possible hypothesis is that he's simply not dutch enough ;-)

Just to note that following the deletion of this template under CSD T2, the user simply went over to WP:CSD and deleted T2, marking it a depracated (without discussion). It is certainly a novel way to go... "If what you are doing falls foul of a policy, unilaterally revise that policy to allow you to do what you want. Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

On Village pump, this same user, Obuipo, proposes a similarly bizarre pro-Myspace class system. See here (subsection). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, I'm no one that anyone has ever heard of to the extent of someone like Radiant. Anyway, I don't mind people watching my contribs; to paraphrase Barney the Dinosaur, "I stalk you, you stalk me, we're a wiki-family. With a quick revert, we're back to status quo; AfD the rest and make it snow!" (Actually, most of my AfDs don't end that way, but I was having trouble thinking of a rhyme.)

Anyhoo, if you want to settle this once and for all, might as well force the issue and take it to RfC, and see what the wider community thinks. I'm going to continue coming up with creative ideas and being bold about implementing them, or at least throwing them out there to get the creative juices going. And the reason I think that's okay is that while it's an encyclopedia, it's also a wiki, and we're screwing it up by compromising the wiki aspect in ways that aren't necessary to preserve the encyclopedic aspect of it. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy, you have to go through proper channels to do stuff; here, you are free to make good faith edits without asking permission, as long as the change you make is easily reversible.

I'm pretty well-versed in Wikipedia's policy, although there's always something more to learn. Then again, You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Ah, Wikipedia. So many paradoxes. Enough that you can claim policy is on your side no matter what you do; or conversely, that you can accuse anyone of breaking it if you don't like what they're doing. As long as the mob's on your side, you're OK. Unfortunately, the mob does not appear to be on my side. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with WIARM and IAR and BOLD, I do not particularly like being called part of a mob. But thanks anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All well and good. However keep in mind that if we think you're just throwing out ideas for the sake of experimenting, there are things that can be done to put a stop to it, despite you feeling that it's beneficial. Just a heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:58, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And Obuibo, if you spent as much time making sure your "contributions" to policy discussions were valid, novel, and appropriate as you did to making sure your "barney quote" that you revised a couple of times, was appropriate, you might get a better response. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to get it juuuuuuuuust perfect. However, you are welcome to be bold and improve it. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OM: You need to realize these people have a point. You're very energetic, but your ideas are missing the mark badly, probably because you don't really understand Wikipedia. The best way to gain that understanding is to participate more in it without trying to change it. You know the basics, I think, but you don't really have a sense of the place. Mangojuice^talk 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OM: Dude, I figure you have the right idea. You just need to go slower early on, so that you can pick up feedback and respond to it before you get into too much trouble. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there are a couple problems (in addition to my approach): (1) People don't give ideas a chance to be tried, and (2) They take my ideas as immutable proposals that needs to be shut down rather than as something that maybe we can tweak, build off of, maybe take a few aspects of the concept and work with, etc. Obviously most of the stuff I propose isn't ready for prime-time, but I put it out there to get feedback, and people feel the need to MfD it. If you conceal it from view, how will it be improved upon?

But in most cases, people say the basic ideas are flawed. That is pretty much the most common problem I encounter when I try to reform anything, whether IRL or here – people saying, "What we have now is fine." If it's working so well, why are we going downhill? By the way, some people find it objectionable that I quote from Wikitruth but I feel pretty much the same way they do: "Make no mistake, we wouldn't be bitching this much about Wikipedia and Wikipedian failings if we didn't, at the core, love the whole concept."[54] (Right on, brothers!) By the way, I hope I don't come off as shooting the messenger here. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most of your knowledge of Wikipedia comes from WikiTruth (you even created a userbox denoting that, I believe), and their information will obviously be slanted towards the viewpoint that Wikipedia is broken and needs to be changed. So it makes perfect sense that you're immediately trying to make such sweeping changes. As everyone else here has already advised, I too suggest you gain more knowledge from experience first. Wait a while before you decide things need changing. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:34, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Users with less experience here than Mbstpo seem to think this. He has the experience. He also has ideas. There are serious problems we have; there is a project Mbstpo started to collect "exit interviews." We can already see, in the parting comments of many ex-administrators (on and off-wiki), that something has drastically shifted. Sweep it under the carpet if you like, but don't complain if the carpet starts to get lumpy. What worked some years ago isn't working so well any more. Edit patterns are shifting, and more and more editor time is wasted in just maintaining articles from vandalism and POV-pushers. It's a losing battle, in fact. Vandalism, easy. Long-term dedicated and cautious POV-pushing, well, from my observations, we're a push-over. All it takes is patience. We have substantial effort going into AfD, and the argument for AfD is based on improving the reputation of the encyclopedia for reliability, but deleting non-notable articles does not improve the reliability of the encyclopedia (particularly as long as they meet WP:V). The reliability problems that harm our reputation are with more substantial articles. And we are not addressing the problem, we haven't even begun to address it. To do so will take structural changes (not, by the way, changes in policy, which is generally quite good; the problem isn't policy, but how policy is applied -- and misapplied). I follow Mbstpo's Talk page, and I'm not seeing warnings of substance. There is no pattern of tendentious editing, no incivility beyond some occasional sarcasm, quite mild by Wikipedia standards. Abd --23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially by the standards of Talk:IRV. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, MfDs aren't started in order to conceal things from view. If something doesn't belong on Wikipedia, it's simply deleted. We don't keep things around on the basis of experimentation. Also: No one finds it objectionable that you quote from WikiTruth. But they aren't a reliable source so you can't use them as refs in articles. Plus, this edit in particular is of course not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, as the only point of it seems to be to criticize use of the word, and offers no actual information. It may even constitute intentional disruption, ie. vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:56, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The intent may not be to conceal stuff from view, but that's the end result. Also, I didn't get most of my knowledge of Wikipedia from Wikitruth; I just happened to stumble across that site a few days ago and was like, "Whoa, this is awesome." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The point applies nonetheless. We don't keep things around just so that people will see it. If it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, it gets MfDd. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

break

I figured this template didn't actually endorse canvassing, and tried to clarify the matter on the talk page, but since it's deleted no one can see those comments, nor do I know if I ever got a response. I wonder if the deleting admin even took the time to read those comments. In a nutshell, this seemed to be a poorly named template that should be used when someone wants to indicate they're not bothered by receiving lots of notices, which is one small reason we discourage canvassing. Besides the name itself, I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourageencourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc.

So I have to ask, are all of you just responding to the name and what you thought would happen, or did you look and see what it actually was? -- Ned Scott 08:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

oops, meant encourage, not discourage. -- Ned Scott 12:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding based on the VPP discussion so yes I know what the proposal and template were about. Your comment confuses me though Ned -- "...I saw no indication that the template was trying to discourage the other aspects behind canvassing, such as a selected audience or biased messages, etc." -- If it wasn't trying to discourage those negative aspects of canvassing, isn't that a bad thing? Equazcion •✗/C • 09:33, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Equazcion knows or should know about the template. But others don't, and will comment here based on the report. What could Ned have possibly meant? From context, it's pretty obvious that he meant to write "encourage" and simply slipped and wrote "discourage." The template did not encourage any prohibited form of canvassing. My opinion was, from the beginning, that the template was a bad idea, not because it would create policy violations, but because it was essentially useless. However, "useless" is a judgment, and judgments can be wrong, and we should give new ideas their day in the sun. If the template was misleading, the wiki way would be to fix it. So I'm getting tempted to DRV this.... I dislike that, because it wastes even more time.--Abd (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, my bad, I meant to say "encourage". -- Ned Scott 12:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. What could we fix about it? As the deleting admin more or less noted, its fundamental purpose is to attempt to violate a policy. Canvassing is just not allowed on Wikipedia. Whether or not the template specifically said canvassing was okay or told people to do it, it's still not appropriate. Canvassing is not allowed even if someone states they don't mind being canvassed. People don't have a choice, to be canvassed or not. It's simply not allowed, at least with the current policies. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:59, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

...which you don't agree with changing, either, as noted in your Village Pump comments. The closed-mindedness of this community toward even giving a new idea a try amazes me. I think that despite the problems which are becoming more statistically evident, Wikipedia can coast awhile on its current momentum. But the situation is pretty ripe for a paradigm shift. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to call people closed-minded. The other possibility is that your ideas are just not good. Don't be so quick to judge people -- especially so many of them who all disagree with you. It's not all that likely that you're right and everyone else is wrong. And trust me, I myself am not inclined to agree with everyone else just because I'm part of the community. Take a look at my block log. When I feel it's necessary, I do take a stand, but your ideas just aren't good. Sorry. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:34, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they're bad ideas? The community won't allow (e.g. in the case of Template:Prob) enough slack for it to be determined whether it works in practice. So it's basically repeated iterations "will not!" "will too!" You just happen to have more people on your side. So be it. You win – kinda. But I think in the end, all this stuff is likely to become irrelevant, perhaps with the application of interwiki subversion branching, so it's kind of a moot point. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I know it. But in order for an idea to get tried, especially one that would mean significantly changing a current policy, enough people have to agree that it has potential. Without support, there's no reason to try an idea in practice. I don't support your idea, and neither do the vast majority of others who've heard it. It would be pretty counter-productive to try out every idea that anyone happened to come up with. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:56, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little puzzled why an admitted sock of an already indef banned editor is not shown the same door. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• The block was lifted, OM has agreed to restrict himself to one account. See his talk page and the note from Jehochman. Mangojuice^talk 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the basic concept a bad idea at all. I've let a lot of people know that I'm always open to their requests for comments, even if it's something I'm not really interested in. As long as they're telling me in a neutral way, and are not telling me because they want a specific response, etc, I don't mind getting a lot of messages. That is assuming that this template was only meant to wave the "spam" portion of CANVASS. -- Ned Scott 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if you read the proposal, as posted in many different places by this user, it will become apparent to you that neutral notifications of RfCs and such are not all that OM has in mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:58, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (talk · contribs), ban evasion, and enabling

Davkal (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked/banned prolific sockpuppeteer. He's currently socking and evading his ban fairly actively to advance his view on the SPOV/expert withdrawal issue. A representatively constructive comment describes opposing editors as "sucking <James> Randi's cock each night before bed" and boasts of a much larger sockdrawer. Most recently he's evading his ban to lob inflammatory "questions" at the proposed Martinphi-ScienceApologist interview.

The problem with revert, block, ignore is that he's receiving encouragement from Martinphi. Example: one of Davkal's socks inserted the same comment (targeting an old antagonist) 4 times in rapid succession ([55], [56], [57], [58]). He was reverted each time, as a banned user. After the 4th incident, Martinphi adopted the questions as his own [59]. He was well aware at the time that this was a sock of a banned user ([60]). Martinphi defends Davkal's comments as "useful" and "helpful", despite objections from the moderator, among others, that they are simply argumentative. I raised the issue on Martinphi's talk page here; Martin's response was that Davkal is "behaving well" and "deserves to be heard" ([61]).

Davkal is, quite properly, banned. Banned users are not welcome to contribute. If the input truly was helpful for the encyclopedia, that might be one thing, but it's simply argumentation and pursuance of one of Davkal's old grudges. He's not "behaving well" at all. While Martinphi may find Davkal's input "useful", I think Martin has crossed a line in terms of enabling and encouraging Davkal to continue to evade his ban and pursue his old grudges, which is inappropriate behavior for an established user.

Martinphi is already under ArbCom sanction for "a variety of disruptive behavior". I'm not asking for any administrative action at this point other than some feedback about this issue. We should be reverting Davkal on sight as a banned sockpuppeteer. Martin isn't obligated to revert him and enforce the ban personally, but he can at least resist the temptation to enable and support Davkal's abuse. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi should be warned for disruption with specific diffs and citation to the relevant policy and arbitration case. If the behavior continues, then report to WP:AE or block, as appropriate. Proxy editing for a banned use is not allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you, or any other outside admins, be willing to oversee this? I have enough involvement with Martinphi that it would be inappropriate for me to block him or use the tools under pretty much any circumstances. Also, his ArbCom remedy allows for banning him from pages he disrupts - it wouldn't make much sense to ban him from his interview page, so if any remedies are appropriate they would be outside the letter of the ArbCom decision. MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, the problem has already been solved. I re-inserted some of the stuff Davkal contributed because I thought the content was good, and because I personally was willing to take responsibility for that content. I wasn't enabling a specific editor. Since then, I agreed not to do that, but merely -if the occasion arises- to take his ideas and insert them as my own. Thus, the appearance of my "enabling" him would be eliminated. Though, why his good edits shouldn't be enabled, I'm not completely sure.

In other words, I said I'd do as MastCell asked, except that I don't want good ideas to be rejected merely because of the source. So, if it comes up again, I'll take the source's ideas and insert them in my own words, without reference to the source. There isn't anything wrong with that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Interview? Is this an encyclopedia or it is Crossfire (TV series)? If a deliberately dramatic clash of POVs is stage-managed then what do you expect but drama? <shakes head>. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL at colonel Warden. Anyway, tThey're not really inflammatory questions. The first one asks about ScienceApologist's dismissal and misrepresentation of a central tenet of scientific skepticism (according to CSI); and the second asks for some explanation of the fact that a professor of biological sciences (Curtis Clark) recently referred to ScienceApologist and others as "fundamentalists" and only took consolation in the fact that while his edits could be edit warred out by the "fundies" at least he would know that he had acted as a scholar. In the context of the interview at hand these are highly pertinent questions and it is little wonder than martin would feel they should be addressed.

Colonel Warden, (-: Well, quite so, and actually in this case drama is actually somewhat constructive (entertaining, and also instructive). Anyway, I don't know why MastCell reported this, when I already said I was going to do things differently. I don't happen to know the rules as apply to banned users, never came up against this before. I thought it would be just fine as long as I took the responsibility for the content. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[Post from banned User:Davkal redacted]

As far as I know, people can be blocked for proxying for a banned user. Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly dare say it, but Davkal is right that they weren't really inflammatory questions. See what I mean about his having good ideas? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you're not doing things differently but continuing to encourage him. If Davkal wants to fix errors in the Wittgenstein article, I doubt anyone would notice or care. The objection is to continuing to pursue a pet grudge which led, in part, to Davkal's banning. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly unusual case, and from a moral POV, one could argue Davkal has a right to be in on it, since as you say he was banned partly through contact with SA. But I'm not making that argument. Since I already said I wasn't going to do what you asked me not to (encourage Davkal by putting his material back into the interview page), I don't understand why you continue to persue this? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I pursue it because when I addressed the issue directly with you on your talk page, you repeatedly asserted that you would continue encouraging Davkal's input if you found it "useful" and "helpful". I appreciate that he often echoes your arguments, but I don't see that as an acceptable approach to handling a disruptive banned user. So I came here. For outside input. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I really said was that I'd use his ideas as my own if I wanted to (if they were good), but not insert his own edits, nor give him credit. You already had what you wanted. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds almost as if you are saying that you intend to continue proxying for Davkal, but that in the future you will be careful not to get caught at it. If that isn't what you mean, what do you mean? Cardamon (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So if we get a good idea from someone blocked or banned, we should repress it? Frankly, I find this rather scary. I think I might need to set some watches, it's almost midnight. I don't think that some understand the principle that we are responsible for what we write here, regardless of where we got it. And we can report what a banned user has said elsewhere, if this benefits the project; we are responsible for making that decision. So if a banned user says that so-and-so, a user here, is a total jerk, that wouldn't be proper to report. But if the banned user makes a possibly useful suggestion, that can be reported and attributed, and if there is policy otherwise, I'd like to see it. That is not "proxying," which is passing on without filtering. --Abd (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I think that, if you compare the diffs [62] and [63], you will find that Martinphi copied Davkal's questions verbatim. In my book, that means that there was no filtering. Also, there was nothing helpful or useful about the question "Given that SA portrays himself as a staunch advocate of scientific skepticism, my question is this: did he deliberately misrepresent the central status this idea has within scientific skepticism, or did he genuinely not know about it?". Its structure is that of the classic sleazy prosecutorial question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" in that it makes an accusatorial assumption (which does imply that SA is a total jerk) and then demands that he choose between two different ways of admitting it. If I understand your criteria correctly then, even by your criteria, Martinphi was indeed proxying. Cardamon (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, Davkal has no right to be in it, either personally or by proxy, because he is banned. If he wants to ask ArbCom for a temporary lifting of the ban then he can do so, but while he is banned he is not welcome. Editing on behalf of a banned user is forbidden. Don't do it. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy, the policy is more nuanced than your take on it. If an editor believes that the contributions of a banned editor have merit, they may inlcude them. Thus, the rule for editing on behalf of banned users says "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." [Emphasis added.] Similarly, after such edits are reverted the policy says "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." In other words, there are times when it is acceptable to reinstate edits made by a banned user. Once someone has done so, they are no longer the contribution of the banned user. For interview questions, verifiability is only relevant to whether the assumptions underlying the questions are correct. (I.e. in a question "why did you X", what should be verified is that X was done by the questionee..) The interview exists because SA and Martinphi are perceived to be leading representatives of two battling points of view, and thus we all know that Martinphi has adequate reasons for wanting the best possible questions posed to SA. Martinphi is completely correct in being supported by policy on this. (I happen to think the whole interview is a poor idea, but that is another issue entirely, and certainly not Martinphi's fault.) GRBerry 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response below, but briefly, to allow a banned user to continue pursuing a grudge and agenda which led to his banning, so long as his sockpuppet's removed posts are repeated verbatim by another editor who shares the same grudge and agenda, seems to contravene both the spirit and probably the letter of the banning policy. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is this complaint being forum shopped? Forum shopping is not appropriate behavior. GRBerry 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In what other forum(s) has this complaint been made? I just had a look, and couldn't find any. Cardamon (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I raised the issue directly with Martinphi on his talk page. Finding his response there unsatisfactory, I brought it here for outside input. Could you clarify what you mean by "forum-shopping"? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was probably confused then; I knew I'd seen it somewhere else, but didn't realize it was only on Martinphi's talk. Sorry about that. GRBerry 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell states that he is too involved for it to be appropriate for him to intervene in this case. With that in mind, I would be interested in seeing the input of an uninvolved admin (i.e., not GRBerry, who has staked out positions on Martinphi's behaviour elsewhere). Antelan ^talk 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry brings up a very good point, one that I think needs to be clearly addressed. The Banning policy editing on behalf of banned users states "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.". Two questions on that, did Martin have independent reasons for making the edits, or was he "directed" to do so by Davkal? If there were independent reasons, as Martin states, then GRBerry is absolutely correct, there is no violation of policy. As far as "filtering" goes, which I assume is a shorthand way of interpreting the statement that says the "changes are verifiable", what exactly wasn't "filtered" that so violates this portion of policy? this edit was used as evidence of the lack of filtering, but the question seems to be a viable one considering the statement above it. And if this is indeed a lack of filtering, is it a truly disruptive and blockable event? From the above statements, it appears that Martin has agreed to follow that particular aspect of the policy in the future. So what is the issue? Dreadstar † 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That portion of the policy appears to be aimed specifically at articlespace: it states that edits may be made at the suggestion of a banned user if they are "verifiable", and verifiability has no meaning outside articlespace. For instance, if Davkal suggested we correct the Wittgenstein article, and Martin did so, that would not be a problem. I don't see anything in the letter or spirit of the banning policy that indicates it's OK to assist a banned user in pursuing his meta-agenda of targeting and criticizing another editor, especially when Davkal's pursuit of this agenda was a major factor in his banning and he's hardly become more civil or less disruptive in his sockpuppet incarnations. All I'm asking is that Martin not actively encourage and enable Davkal to evade his ban. If he's OK with that, then there is no more issue. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but verifiability (not WP:V but the general concept of verification), can certainly be applied to the content of talk pages or RfC and ArbCom cases - so I don't know that it's aimed specifically at articlespace content. For instance if SA said he never called someone a "crank" and Davkal posted a diff showing that SA did in fact do such a thing, and it was removed, then since the diff can be verified and someone agreed with it, then it could be re-posted. Apparently, Martin has agreed to what you asked, or do you think he needs to make a clearer statement? Dreadstar † 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Davkal is banned. He has absolutely no place inserting himself into a dispute involving ScienceApologist (one of his old nemeses) or anyone else for that matter, in any context. I'm asking only that Martinphi respect this. If Martin has agreed to do so, then I don't think there's any more that needs to be said or done. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Obuibo Mbstpo

I know there is already a thread above, but taking a glance at the user page of this user, he/she admits to being a sock of several indefinitely blocked socks of User:Ron Duvall. Obuibo's first contrib to create his/her own userpage uses the edit summary ban has apparently been lifted. linking to previous accounts. Was there a ban, and has it been lifted, or should we be blocking this latest reincarnation of a disruptive user? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

However, Jehochman (talk · contribs) has agreed to unblock them, so long as they agree only to use this account. The issues with the previous account was poor serial account identification, so this account stating all prior accounts is a step in the right direction. MBisanz ^talk 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This User_talk:Obuibo_Mbstpo#New_account gives the history of the matter. Don't see a need to block this new account unless there are SSP issues I'm not aware of.MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I needed to know! Thanks, I couldn't find the history amidst the myriad of block logs....I won't be blocking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This user was never guilty of sock puppetry, and he wasn't blocked for sock puppetry, he was blocked, on the face of it, for insulting an administrator. However, he did not protest this through standard means, because he had abandoned the account, having scrambled the password. Following proper early dispute resolution (discussion with the blocking administrator), an unblock was negotiated. The notices on the various accounts are incorrect. Here is the relevant history.

This user edited under a prior name or names, and those accounts were abandoned. After a lapse of months, the user returned as User:Sarsaparilla. As can be seen, this user nominated me for administrator, prematurely. As part of that process, he played a prank: he went to another RfA, that was snowing Support -- so it was irrelevant -- and offered to trade votes. If the other nominee voted for me, he'd vote for the other nominee. As soon as I found out about this, I went to that RfA, read it, and voted for that nominee, and repudiated any connection with this action of Sarsaparilla. Something has changed with this user. I've reviewed old account history, and, if this new phenomenon is there, I've not seen it. He questions the edges of Wikipedia policy. He does things that are not clearly prohibited, such as offer to vote-trade in an RfA. He did this in the full light of open edits, in a very visible place. If he had actually wanted to vote trade, he'd have inquired secretly, through email. Anyway, shortly after this, he abandoned that account and opened up the new account, Ron Duvall. This was the only account move that was marginally improper, because there were open discussions that Sarsaparilla had participated in -- such as the creation of WP:PRX, and then Ron Duvall was saying basically the same thing. Some protested that this created an appearance of more support than was actually present. However, there was no evidence that he intended this appearance, and he certainly did nothing to conceal it; he continued discussing the same issues with me, on my Talk page, under the new name. And, indeed, it was quickly noticed and an SSP report filed for Sarsaparilla and Ron Duvall. This process also dug up his old user name, which was irrelevant. There was no abuse, or charges of abuse that I've seen, on that account, clean block log except for an admin error quickly corrected. Because of this, I requested that the SSP report be deleted, which was done. This user has real-world reasons for not wanting his old user name be obvious; from my point of view, it would be much better if it was open, he was a long-time and very productive editor. So this time he created another user name, Absidy, and noted the connection immediately with the user registration. In no case that I've been able to find did one account edit after the creation of a new one. There were no multiple !votes; the only situations were the appearance of more comment on a few talk pages. This is not violation of WP:SOCK. He later stated that he did not realize certain possible interpretations of policy on changing accounts. However, in all this, as far as I've seen, there is only one minor violation, quickly corrected, of even that, the rapid shift from Sarsaparilla to Ron Duvall. Everything else in recent history has been completely open. This sock puppetry charge is repeated over and over. Those claims should be removed from his old user pages. It's enough that they point to his present user page. It's a continuing account, not a sock puppet. Given the notice above from Keeper76, and the likelihood that this concern will be raised again, definitely, the sock charges should be removed from those pages.--Abd (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only come across this editor for the first time today and I cannot say I'm overly impressed - look here where he is "fighting the power" here, here, here, here and here. Does anyone consider that a useful contribution to the AFD process, because I don't. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a radical inclusionist and proponent of WP:PWD, and don't believe in deleting anything other than what we're legally required to remove. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, so in order to make your point about that, you disrupt the current process? You're not helping. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No; in a system in which the political question of where, exactly, Wikipedia should stand on the subject of notability, etc. is decided through deletion debates, rather than policy debates, there is little choice but to push one's agenda via that designated forum. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mbstpo is, unfortunately, correct. There seems to be a growing realization that deletion process based on notability issues, in the absence of clear standards approved by true consensus, is inherently contentious and divisive, and it's clear to me that it is damaging the project. A user reads "the sum of all human knowledge, the encyclopedia everyone can edit," and they assume that if they know something, they have friends to who know it, it's "human knowledge," and they can spend hours writing an article, and they are shocked to find that it's gone when they come back a few weeks later, even if it was sourced and could be verified. This happens, in fact, to experts, not just to random users, and there is a growing number of unhappy people out there as a result. Frankly, I don't understand the strong deletionist position, I can see no harm whatever to the project from having articles that aren't notable if they are verifiable. People not interested in those subjects never see the article, unless they press Random Article. What does harm the reputation of the encyclopedia is unverified -- and false or POV -- information in kept articles, and this is what we should be putting increased effort into, not attacking cruft and grammar schools and garage bands. We gain nothing but wasted effort by deleting the latter. I'm recommending that Mbstpo, if he wants to continue to address this issue, put his efforts into the relevant policy and guideline pages, I'm sure he'll have quite enough trouble there. On the other hand, what he did was allowed, in principle in my opinion, though he did it in a provocative way, which is unfortunate (and which isn't allowed, hence I asked him to stop, and he did). Unless something shifts, expect to see more argument about notability policy in AfDs, not less. This is the price of unclear guidelines, or, just as bad, guidelines that deviate from what is intuitive for common editors.--Abd (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I did not refer to the user in question this time as being involved in sockpuppetry and actually defended his right to edit... MBisanz ^talk 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. The alleged sock puppetry was mentioned with the original report here, and is commonly mentioned elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if an administrator would remove those notices, given that there was never a determination of "sock puppetry," only a confirmation of what already was both obvious and openly acknowledged, that the accounts were the same user, and there was no "abuse of sock puppets," only a single instance of possible unclarity, immediately rectified, with no signs of deceptive intent.--Abd (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets can be disruptive even if there was no deliberate intent to deceive about their identity. I grant that it's possible that Obuibo only demonstrated extremely poor judgement and that he didn't have a fully-formed plan in his head that 'Yes, I'm going to try to fool these people'. Nevertheless, the effect was the same—his use of alternate accounts represented a disruptive nuisance, and was a misuse of multiple accounts.

During the course of the discussions of his 'delegable proxy' proposal, he used at least six different accounts to edit Wikipedia.

• Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 21 November 2007 to 12 February 2008.
• Ron Duvall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 14 February to 22 February 2008.
• Absidy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 23 February to 24 February 2008.
• ReplyToSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a throwaway account used to edit Absidy's talk page while his Absidy account was blocked.
• Thespian Seagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 28 February to 29 February 2008.
• Take You There (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used between edits of Thespian Seagull on 29 February 2008, to continue a discussion on blocking policy that he had started as Sarsaparilla.
• Obuibo Mbstpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from 3 March to present.

While the community is generally quite open to editors renaming their accounts, we have a recommended process for that; we also discourage editors from changing names as frequently as they change their...socks. Changing one's username once – even twice – in a year is sometimes seen, and usually goes unremarked. Changing username on average twice a week, for three weeks, while embroiled in a controversial proposal, while engaged in disruptive and sometimes obnoxious conduct, is decidedly beyond accepted norms.

He regularly and repeatedly participated in discussions without explicitly identifying his own interests or previous participation. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy. He comments on the discussion as Obuibo Mbstpo (voting 'Keep', obviously) without noting that he is the creator of the template (as Sarsaparilla)—despite the fact that earlier in the discussion his habit of accumulating usernames had been mentioned. We expect editors to be responsible enough to identify their conflicts of interest.

On Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy, he began using Ron Duvall (to support his own proposal, created as Sarsaparilla) without noting his previous identity on his user page, talk page, or in any discussion. (On the 'poor judgement' tally, one of his first edits with the Ron Duvall account was to suggest resurrecting Esperanza: [64].)

For no apparent reason, he created a third account for the same discussion, Absidy, where he did at least identify his previous identity as Ron Duvall on User:Absidy. Readers at the delegable proxy talk page, however, were left in the dark for some time—again, a third party had to point out the conflict of interest.

Thespian Seagull was created after his earlier accounts had been blocked for trolling and deceptive use of multiple accounts. Again, he dives into the delegable proxy talk page ([65]), referring to himself in the third person.

Take You There was created to continue a discussion started by Sarsaparilla on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Take You There refers to himself (under the Sarsaparilla name) in the third person in that discussion, and was never identified by Obuibo/Sarsaparilla/et al. as an alternate account. Take You There made edits between edits made by the Thespian Seagull account. Both Thespian Seagull and Take You There were identified via Checkuser, as neither had named themselves replacement accounts.

I fear that Abd must not be entirely familiar with Obuibo's history if he sees "only a single instance of possible unclarity" or if he finds no sign of "deceptive intent". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Most of the information above about account sequence (I think maybe a fact or two is new) was placed by me on the Absidy talk page. I really wonder why so much effort is going into this. There was an old account, not named, abandoned and not used for a lapse of months. Then came Sarsaparilla, Ron Duvall, and Absidy. Absidy was blocked, and an extensive discussion was going on about him, he then used temporary, throwaway accounts to respond with apologies, and some other odd edits. The guy has been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and, as far back as I've seen the record (2005) had no problems, until very, very recently, when he started to have, shall we say, ideas about how to improve the place. In any case, I negotiated with Jehochman, who agreed to unblock. Now. If you want to call editing by a blocked user "disruptive," that's certainly something you can say with a straight face. However, what if the block wasn't legitimate? What he was actually blocked for would normally result in a warning, and a block only if continued, which it was not. And if there was a blcck, it would have been, first offense, 24 hours. He did not edit for well beyond 24 hours, and he had scrambled the password for the old account, so he could not even request unblock on the Talk page for that account. Sock puppetry originally meant a single user pretending to be multiple users. We now use it, technically, to refer to accounts set up to continue a blocked account, concealing their connection. Generally the Absidy socks created in the interim, while blocked, made hardly any effort to conceal. He made some sarcastic statements, and in any case those accounts were immediately identified. If TenOfAllTrades, who has been involved in content disputes with Mbstpo, thinks that the ongoing conduct of this user is worthy of some sanction, then I'd encourage him, as has Mbstpo, to follow process with an RfC. There were no overlaps of the accounts, i.e., he never started up a new account while keeping an old one. The appearance of multiple editors in a few articles was, I'm quite sure, inadvertent, and it was very easy to connect these accounts, they were blatantly the same user (and it was immediately acknowledged when questioned). Abisdy was created with an explicit connection from the beginning, as was Mbstpo. Obviously, the temporary block socks weren't so labeled. I know the history of this user very, very well, I often check his contributions, and I talk with him on the phone fairly often. If he had deceptive intent, he sure was lousy at keeping up the deception! One user, Sarsaparilla, was very, very active on WP:PRX. Suddenly no edits from that user. Suddenly many edits from Ron Duvall. Who is this? Look at contribs, same interests, same many-edits to my Talk page, same discussions. I'm quite confident that a careful review of this would conclude, no deceptive intent. Further, a proposal is not better if three editors are proposing it instead of two. Why was it even relevant that this was the same user? Look, we have socks crawling out of the woodwork here, user accounts created to do nothing but disrupt anything politically inconvenient, and nothing is done. And all the above effort goes into a user who thinks he has the right to change his user name? And doesn't conceal it? Sure, he did not always immediately announce it, which was an error, but certainly not a blockable offense, and not sock puppetry, which implies deception. (The exception is block avoidance. He did edit Wikipedia while blocked, though not extensively.) Now, question: should I pursue DR process with TenOfAllTrades for violating WP:AGF, a basic policy? I'd rather not. Instead, I'll visit his Talk page. This does not belong on WP:AN/I. None of it.--Abd (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon block request

User:192.206.119.3 has a talk page with several vandal warnings and they continue to revert information (1, 2) on a bio page that is unsourced and inflammatory. I believe this should constitute vandalism and result in an anon block. Padillah (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are concerned about vandalism from that IP, the first step is for you to warn the user. There are no recent warnings on that talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And that is exactly my point. They are doing the minimum to be allowed to continue to vandalize but not enough to get blocked. Then they start over in a week or two and do it again. They are using a technicality to get away with vandalism. Padillah (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• This IP address is owned by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and I have left a warning that not only will further vandalism result in a lengthy block, but that it may also cause an abuse report to be sent to that company's IT department. The page is also watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And that's nothing to sneeze at. :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have seen some of the gags I rejected as tasteless, considering their full product range! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

abuse report to be sent to that company's IT do little. Wiki holds little weight due to 'anyone can send the report'. We should handle all IP vandals the same. If they want to create an account let them, if not sorry.Thright (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

threat posted on It Impossible(song)

Resolved

 – WP:RBI. Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

this was posted by a sock of user:Mmbabies. Is there anything ; we as in general could do about it. Rio de oro (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone follow-up on it , I think the Wikipedia Foundation needs to know this. --Rio de oro (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:GO-PCHS-NJROTC can vouch for me because he filed an abuse report on Mmbabies twice, and contacted the FBI , Houston Police Department, Texas Rangers; yet still we this bs. Rio de oro (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert, block and ignore in this case. If the user is clearly trolling, and not in any real harm, then just block and revert. Obviously this was taken care of once for this user, so furthur disruption from him should be ignored. — Κaiba 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, WP:RBI. IP has been blocked a month anyways. Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A death threat was posted it targeted a person. I dont get it all of you guys here on ANI act all Dog the Bounty Hunter on trying to look for the guy that posted the bomb threat on the Plano HS page. What is the difference between this clown user:Mmbabies , or that the guy that caused the Plano HS incident. Because if I asked Jimbo right now, he would agree with if a death threat targeted someone should contact law enforcement. And, btw people here on ANI agreed that if a guy were to make a "threat" to the Betabot if its a death threat, so why dont we just alert the Houston Police allredy. Jesus, what if something were to happend , then what then. Rio de oro (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to contact the police if you think that is the appropriate action, no one is stopping you. Tiptoety ^talk 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

spam email from what looks like wikipedia?

Resolved

FYI: I was browsing through my spam bulk box and I noticed some email that appears to be from the wikipedia server... even when I checked into the full header it still said wikipedia. --CyclePat (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

note: I checked to see if the user name existed but there where no user names of the such on Wikipedia. anyways... --CyclePat (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some spammers claim to be from Wikipedia. Somehow, they think it lends an air of verisimilitude, but, of course, they are wrong. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just dont respond, ignore and delete. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But they say that they have a $1.4 million in unclaimed Wikimedia donations that they can wire to my account if I give them a nominal cut in advance. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case I am willing to hand over my social security number. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummm... this sounds like the plot behind the Futurama movie Bender's Big Score... Or maybe not... oh the decision to make... the deal is quite tempting and all I have to do is sign over 51% of my business. ;) Best regards, you guys a great. --CyclePat (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't trust Wikipedia to hand me over 1.4 mill in unclaimed donations regardless of whether I paid or not. Nigerians, on the other hand... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth could you do with 1.4million Nigerians? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible impersonation

DreamsthatWar (talk · contribs) states on their user page that they are Admin User:Warofdreams alternate account to test "non-admin things". But considering the non-admin things like this vandalism here, I doubt this is the same person. I left a note on Warofdreams's talk but they have yet to respond. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:UN at least. If it is User:Warofdreams, which I very much doubt, he'll explain. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Grawp, anyone, back for a vengeance? --Alisyn^talk 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, checkuser shows its not Warofdreams. Thatcher 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits deleting prior material

There have been a couple of incidents recently in which one user's edit seems to override changes by another, or editing one portion of an article accidentally reverts to an earlier version of another person. This happened yesterday on comments on an arbitration case, and almost caused quite a skirmish until it was figured out it was an accident, and I've just received another report of the same thing on a controversial article. Has anyone else seen this, or know if there is a bug report? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You can check out existing bugs here, and report new bugs here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is due to accidentally editing a specific version of a page instead of a section. Editing a specific version deletes all subsequent edits. It is prudent to look at a diff of one's edits to make sure only desired changes were made. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki's conflict handling is relatively straight-forward — it just lets the client keep track of when page contents were loaded using hidden input elements — so I doubt there's any server-side error involved. It sounds like someone just copied the contents of a page, reloaded the edit form, and pasted in the old contents. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

When I use certain PCs at work, I often get served old versions of the page. If I edit without paying attention, the same thing would happen to me. (I know Jimbo has done it at least twice on Arbitration cases.) The individual solution is to purge the page cache before editing to make sure you have the newest version. A more general solution would require maybe updating the caches more often? I don't know why this happens with some PCs at work but not others. Thatcher 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you know you're getting an old version of the page, one solution is to bring up the page history (which shouldn't be cached), and edit the last version in the history. If it isn't really the last version, it'll give you a link to any later revisions from the page view. Yes, this is a pain. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive administrator

On my Talk Page, I posted a "Help Me" request, indicating that I was having problems with an abusive administrator. I was told to come to this page. So, now what? How is the issue of an administrator abusing his position handled? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Well first it would be helpful to know which administrator you are referring to, then provide evidence of the "abuse". Tiptoety ^talk 05:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Here is a summary of the facts:

1. I participated in an AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk

2. Administrator Sean William closed the debate as a consensus to "delete", while offering no explanation or rationale

3. I sent a message to the administrator, asking for his reasoning, rationale, and explanation as to why and how he determined that any consensus was reached (much less a "delete" consensus)

4. His reply was essentially non-responsive

5. I asked two reasonable and relevant follow-up questions

6. His non-responsive reply was (a) to summarily dismiss my questions without answering them, and

7. (b) to present a closed mind by claiming that "my mind is made up and I am not changing my decision, period" prior to engaging in any discourse with me whatsoever

8. He subsequently replied only after I posted a Help Me notice complaining about an abusive administrator

9. His philosophy employed in closing the AfD debate was "which argument do I personally side with?" … as opposed to "was any consensus of the Wikipedia community indeed reached?"

10. The above demonstrates a clear abuse of administrative duties as well as a cavalier abusive attitude.

The discourse (if it can be called such) is here: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Lauren Burk. And please note that I am only referring to my conversation with the administrator … and not the administrator’s side conversation with another editor (Baseball Bugs), which is interspersed therein. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

It's User:Sean William and the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk which he is not willing to overturn. You can see the discussion here. There's no abuse of admin power here; the correct place to request an overturn is WP:DRV, to which Joseph A. Spadaro has already been directed. Nothing to see here. --Haemo (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, I am quite capable of speaking for myself. But thanks for your concern and assistance in this matter. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Furthermore, the request to overturn the deletion is wholly separate and apart from the issue I am presenting here --- abuse of administrative duties. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

""(outdent) Umm..making a contentious decision is almost impossible to avoid in these situations. I don't think posting to the closing admin was going to be productive. Even if the admin did have a change of heart, then it would still need a DRV. I didn't view his replies as dismissive, just usual when two people interact who have a fixed position on this. My feelings are more for keeping the article than not, and DRV is a place to gain a wider audience. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What abuse? Just because you don't like his perfectly civil answers does not mean he's guilty of abusing his admin duties. WP:DRV exists for cases like this. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NeilN ... when there are no answers ... how is it that you are classifying them as "perfectly civil answers" exactly? Thanks. Please let me know. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

OK. I will assume that you are asking me to spell it all out for you. (1) Refusing to answer reasonable and relevant questions. (2) Refusing to engage in meaningful open-minded discourse. (3) Presenting a closed mind immediately upon entry into the conversation. (4) Changing the standards of deletion. (6) Refusal to provide accountability for rationale of deletion decision. (6) Uncivil and dismissive treatment of a fellow editor. To me, these six factors, taken accumulatively, add up to abuse or, at the very least, an appearance of abuse. Once again, I will reiterate that I am referring to my dialogue with the administrator and not the administrator’s dialogue with Baseball Bugs. And once again, I shall also repeat that the issue on this page is not the claim of inappropriate removal, as I am well aware of the DRV route. I shall repeat that this issue (cavalier and dismissive mistreatment of fellow editors) is wholly separate and apart from the deletion review. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't see any compelling evidence of incivility or refusal to answer questions. He may not have answered them to your satisfaction, but that's an issue for WP:DRV. If you have a more serious personal problem, try WP:RFC. There's no room for admin action here. --Haemo (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

#1. OK. That's your opinion -- with which I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. #2. Then why was I referred to this page? The above caption at the top of the page says that this is indeed the page to discuss administrative abuses. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

And # 3 ... by the way ... aren't you the very person who dismissed this issue as "resolved" before I even was able to get one word in edge-wise? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, I just double checked. At the very top of the page, it says, quote: "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here." How exactly does your dismissing the issue as resolved --- before I even get to state what the issue is --- conducive to and aligned with that prefatory comment? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Because ANI is a good place to start IF an admin is abusing their powers. In this case, it's been judged that no abuse took place. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Please tell me by whom and using what standards? I am a little confused. So, please explain how my above allegations do not rise to an abuse of admin duties? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Because I looked at it, and noticed that there was no substantial issue here. At no point were administrative powers misused here, and you have already been referred. to the correct place to discuss the other issues further. A protracted discussion will not change this, and there's nothing for admins to do here. WP:ANI is not dispute resolution. --Haemo (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Once again, I asked, using what standards? Just because "you say so"? Are you saying that ... in closing an Afd ... the closing admin should not be answering questions about such from other editors, can refuse to answer questions, can start the conversation with a closed mind, can summarily dismiss the discussion before it even begins as his mind is made up, and can change the standards of deletion as he sees fit? Just so I am clear. An admin is "allowed" to do all that? And that is not an abuse? Please advise. ( If so, cool. How do I get to be an admin? LOL. ) Just kidding about that last part --- the parenthetical. Ha ha. But, please advise on the rest! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

And quite frankly, I'd like to know how you can state with a straight face that -- if an admin unilaterally decides to change deletion standards as he sees fit -- that is not an abuse of admin duties. Please explain. Then why have policy at all? I'm real confused here. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

The admin did not change deletion standards. He used David Epstein's point of WP:BIO1E. Perfectly valid. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He did answer your questions — you didn't like those answers. He did not "change the standards of deletion", he applied them as he interpreted them. You have been given the page to discuss this on if you disagree. This page is for misuse of administrative powers — there were no powers abused here. The forums for dispute resolution have been referred to you. I suggest you use them. --Haemo (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Joseph, let me try to explain the response people are giving. The way I understand it, there are two issues at stake here for you:

• You disagree with how the AFD was closed--not just in terms of opinion, but in terms of whether or not it reflected Wikipedia policy correctly.
• You believe the closing administrator should have been more open to discussing this descrepency with you.

Now, I'll start with the latter because it's easier. Civility issues between editors are not an admin-specific concern; that is, you don't actually have to be cheerful and gregarious to become an administrator. It's not a requirement at all, because there's not supposed to be much of a difference between admins and normal editors. So any trouble of this kind, from mild impoliteness to vicious personal attack, is handled on the same level. And generally speaking, only overt rudeness is really forbidden by policy; dismissiveness, while annoying, is allowed, purely because it would be so hard to police.

The first issue, of the AFD, is a little trickier. My suspicion is that User:Sean William was just doing his best to interpret Wikipedia policy in a way that applied to that article. It's actually perfectly acceptable to go against the AFD !vote if the majority of responses are in conflict with official policy. Remember, those policies are in place by consensus too--and a much larger consensus than any AFD we've ever had. So closing any AFD is very much a big-picture issue, because it involves a subjective judgment on whether or not the arguments match up with policy.

That's why AFD-closing is usually not considered an abuse-of-power issue (except when it's blatantly disruptive). You're certainly entitled to think he was wrong, and more than entitled--there's an entire process set up for exactly this kind of situation. Like others have said, if you head on over to deletion review you can work on getting this sorted out--either by having the deletion overturned or by coming to understand the reasoning behind it.

Hm. That was really long. ^^; Oh well, I hope it was helpful. --Masamage ♫ 07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned here that closing AfDs improperly cannot be an abuse of admin powers; it's actually an ordinary editorial decision, though non-admin closings are rare. The only difference between an admin closing and one by a non-admin is that the latter can't directly delete the article, and, if the closure is delete, would have to find an administrator to do it. Most non-admin closings, therefore, are not with a Delete result. A non-admin closed an MfD discussion ( forWP:PRX) as Keep, when there were piles of votes to Delete, based -- correctly -- on general guidelines, causing a huge flap. But nobody reverted it until it was clear that the closer would accept that. Instead it (incorrectly) went to WP:DRV, which is for "review" of "deletions" (the appropriate remedy would have been a renomination for deletion).

The closer correctly informed this user that the remedy for an improper closure is WP:DRV. As with many deletion issues, there are some substantial differences of opinion and philosophy, over notability and how to define it, and, this often comes out in actual deletion discussions; the proper place to resolve those issues is on the various guideline pages. And it may take more than that. There is, in my view, no consensus on this, there is only majority opinion, and even that is not clear.--Abd (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 block log

Due to recent events, user:Mackan79 has been left with some pretty grim stuff in his block log. Whilst not fatal (quite a few users have incorrect blocks logged that were quickly reverted), it is 1/ ugly, 2/ a pretty bad memory, and 3/ the naming of a specific name (later proven incorrect) is a bit of a bad taste.

A user who is blocked for alleged puppetry then unblocked, would normally have their block log left as-is. That's the norm, for almost every case. But as an exception, I'd like to sound out communal views on IAR + a request to the dev's to modify the narratives for those three entries. I can't really say why, we've communally left other material that's comparable in, I'm sure. But this was an ugly case, and there's something about that log that is ugly too in some way.

This is not a free for all, on other deletions. The proposed changes would be:

Current wording		Proposed wording
blocked with an expiry time of 1 second: (Absolute proof this user isnt a sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=197924363&oldid=197924312)		(no change)
unblocked: (Not a cockpuppet [sic] per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=197907489#User: Mackan79_apparently_WordBomb_sockpuppet)		unblocked: (No evidence of puppetry, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=197907489)
blocked with an expiry time of indefinite: (Abusing multiple accounts: Self identified as Judd Bagley / User:Wordbomb)		blocked with an expiry time of indefinite: (Believed abusing multiple accounts: self-outed sock)

I've tried various kinds of "cleanups" and the above is the best I have got so far, to try and balance:

1. We don't (or shouldn't) remove log entries lightly. For example, someone may legitimately want to refer to this case in future, in the context of some other discussion. Pure deletion would prevent that.
2. Leaving a sense that the user did anything wrong, or slightly doubtful, would be unfair. Mackan79 has gone out of his way to help fix this. Simply minimally cleaning the original wording would still leave the strong impression from the wording that he must have done something wrong (ie the impression he did abuse, and did self-identify).
3. Making the log entries bland, would remove evidence the blocker acted rashly, which would not be fair to users assessing his blocks if ever needed.

Whilst they change the text slightly, they leave the sense of it, but make clear to any reader the reality of the matter... but in a way that doesn't unfairly prejudice any party.

Thoughts?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mackan was blocked incorrectly, but I see no reason to make a special case for him here, unless we're going to do the same thing for everyone from now on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to remove this kind of block from any user, particularly an experienced user who has been here for close to two years. As we know, WordBomb is extremely controversial, with some people alleging everything up to and including criminal actions on his part. To have a blocklog saying I've identified as him in that situation, even though it's well recognized that the block was entirely a mistake, wouldn't seem to me a fair amount of collateral damage when it could fairly easily be resolved. However, I'd also respectfully ask that perhaps less involved editors speak to the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the main change is that the particular individual with whom Mackan was falsely identified is no longer specified in the revised log; the change doesn't appear to help him in any other sense. In general it is better to not "rewrite history", and I would hope that no one is going to look down on Mackan for what was clearly a wrongful block; in fact, I suspect leaving the identification with WordBomb would only make the spurious nature of the block more obvious to anyone looking at the log. However, if this is something that concerns Mackan enough that he has requested the change, we should do it. Everyking (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mind a joke to clear it up, but my concern is basically as stated above, as well as that I'd somewhat rather pretend it didn't happen. I can't judge what people will think, of course. Since it has apparently been offered before, I think it could fall into whatever category of extraordinary cases exists. Mackan79 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for raising this, FT2. Can I ask, however, whether the only option is changing the wording? It should be evident, I think, that very little thought went into the block, as among other things I've been editing since before WordBomb arrived. I also have nearly three thousand edits, without having done any significant amount of vandalism patrol. I wouldn't blame GW for inquiring, as I've said, but to have been blocked in that situation is what I found particularly bizarre. That said, it's a bit insulting to me that future people are going to look in my block log and see I've been blocked as a sockpuppet in 2008, even if not the way it is currently written. So that it's recognized, the blocking admin has also supported expunging the log. If that leaves the third point, I think there's still plenty to show what happened that probably can be recalled if an issue is raised again (the record now exists here, if nowhere else). As you said, I did go through some effort to straighten this out, and I have foregone making a bigger deal out of it than I possibly could have. In sum, I'd appreciate having as much of it expunged as people think is consistent with the foregoing. Mackan79 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Mackan79 wants, I guess. Can I suggest that the ANI link go to a version after the thread was archived? Though that might look odd in terms of the timeline. R. Baley (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support either of the first two of FT2's suggestions. The very idea that Mackham79 was a Wordbomb sock must have been reprehensible to both parties. Amerique^dialectics 08:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck in convincing a developer in making a request to alter a log for no reason. And yes, because you don't like what was written, is no reason. — Κaiba 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's more than 'idonltlikeit', it's 'I'm being tarred and feathered wrongly'. Stick the 'he's wordbomb/no he's not' on an account, and there will always be one or two hawks watching forever, looking to prove he was, in fact, Wordbomb. The admins fucked up big here, and typical of admin behavior when admins do wrong, you're circling the wagons to protect each other. erase the entire entry set, and restore his good name. The ONLY reason to keep it there is to humiliate the editor, and permanently leave him stained as suspicious. If he went for adminship, I guarantee at least one oppose comment based on "What if he really is Wordbomb and got clever enough to fool us, do we want that?" Admins made the mistake, admins should fix the mistake. If ever tehre WAS a time for developer intervention, it's this sort of crap, where admins do something incredibly stupid, half-ass the fix, and say, 'well, he can still edit, so what's the big deal?' What a load. Stop protecting each other from having to admit to a colossal cockup, and fix it fully. Even if it means hat in hand to the dev team, for the fixes. ThuranX (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite your personal attacks via edit summary and incivil comment, I think I'll reply. Do you think removing the log will remove the fact he was blocked from Wikipedia as a potential sock? Do you think that editors will magically not see old discussions and come to the same conclusions? It doesn't matter if the log exists or not. Those who are going to watch him to see if he really is or not are going to do so, with or without the log. There are multiple talk page discussions and AN and AN/I threads detailing the log which are permenent and a request to a developer to remove the log will, probably, be permanent as well. The block was tremendously bad, but the block has come and passed. There are a lot of bad blocks that were undone and kept in the logs and this is just another one. Don't you think User:!! wants his name cleared? More than likely, he does. I guess the choice is the developers, and if they do, fine. But removing logs doesn't erase minds, as you seem to think it does. — Κaiba 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not looking to change minds, but more concerned with editors who aren't aware of the discussions seeing it and not knowing what happened. We don't generally allow changes, I think, for a concern that everyone would ask them, and we don't want to encourage the idea that bad blocks would be deleted. Specific commentary in a blocklog saying someone admitted to being a banned user who has often been alleged to have committed outrageous and even criminal behavior, in a way that several admins have said shouldn't even be discussed on Wikipedia, is a bit different. This isn't to say I support those accusations or to say anything else about them, but that an exception in that situation is fully supportable, and I think reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it not enough your log saying "blocked with an expiry time of 1 second: (Absolute proof this user isnt a sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=197924363&oldid=197924312)" not enough to prove anyone who comes and looks at your log to know that you =/= WordBomb? The only time I see that block coming into play is when, as ThuranX said, during some kind of !vote situation like WP:RFA, but bureaucrats are smart enough to discount those claims and others participating would surely make mention of the link in your block log that states otherwise. — Κaiba 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying we shouldn't ever change a block log, fair enough. I'm simply saying that if ever there is an exception, this seems like a reasonable request. Mackan79 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there could be a case, like a violation of the privacy policy or otherwise revealed something personal, but other than that, I really see no reason if everything can be talked through. — Κaiba 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If we can trust Alison's statement regarding Mackan's actual identity (and I think we can), the only people who would significantly benefit from this revisionism are Mr. Bagley (accused of socking as a user who obviously isn't his sock) and Mr. Herbert (having made another poorly-reasoned block). Could somebody remind me why this is being proposed? — CharlotteWebb 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the one time this was done before, the block was completely expunged. I suspect that the option is only to remove the record of block or to leave it in place, and that wording changes are not possible. Newyorkbrad has also indicated he would support expunging the log[66]. Risker (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to admit I didn't think this would be an issue, so I'll withdraw the request. Newyorkbrad suggested it, and it seemed reasonable. As I said elsewhere in response to this, the truth is that I expected controversy when I started commenting on this whole dispute, so I haven't been caught off guard. I think the result pretty well shows why the discussion hasn't been effective for some time, but to the same extent there probably isn't any use in hiding it. Thanks in any case to those commenting. Mackan79 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Resolved

 – clear

at WP:AIV. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsmen?

It may be foolhardy asking this question to a bunch of administrators, but does Wikipedia have anything like an Ombudsmen? Or the equivalent of a Civilian Review Board used to oversee police activity in many jurisdictions? I'm thinking about a person, or panel of persons, who are not administrators and who review administrators' actions on a routine and ongoing basis, either on their own initiative or by public complaint? I ask not because Wikipedia administrators are necessarily a venal and corrupt lot (I hasten to say), but because they are human, and as human beings there is a bit of a tendency to circle the wagons when a charge is made against one of your own. (The "he's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch" syndrome.)

Anything similar to that in Wikipedia's crazy quilt of policy enforcement? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is what you're talking about meta:Ombudsman commission. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but, no, that's not exactly on point. That Ombudsmen is specifically about privacy policy. No, I'm thinking more of a place where non-admins can go to voice complaints about admins if they are abusing their powers. As it stands now (if I understand the system correctly) it's other admins who decide if one of their colleagues has abused their privileges. I'm sure that in many case they look at them as objectively as possible, but I have noticed a tendency for these complaints to be dismissed more or less out of hand. It would be nice to have a place to go where a complaint against an admin (and let me say that I have no axe to grand here, I have no outstanding complaints against any admin) would be given the benefit of the doubt. It's the same theory which leads to civilian oversight of the police, the admins having the policing function in this community. I know the cops don't like that, and I'm sympathetic to their arguments that civilians don't have the experience to judge the actions of the police, but it's the same reason that democracies (at least in the West) generally have civilian control of the military. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I didn't entirely read what you were asking for. My bad.--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought this: wp:Ombudsmen --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little closer, but still not general enough. (Plus, it looks like a proposal generated out of a specific animus. I don't wonder it was turned down.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's an interesting idea, though I feel it may add another layer of WP:CREEP that is generally unwanted. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that CREEP is really applicable in this instance - that seems more about having too many policies, so that instead of there being a clear-cut idea of what is and isn't allowed, people get to pick and choose which policies they want to invoke based on the outcome they wish to encourage. Yes, I think an Ombudsmen is potentially another layer of bureaucracy, but since its remit should be fairly tightly focused, and its size should be limited (perhaps "civilians" [non-admins] and admins would rotate through it on some sort of semi-random basis so that you're not creating a coterie of anti-administrators), I don't see it as too much of a threat. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But isn't this what the ArbCom is for, to me it sounds like it but with a narrower scope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeArrow (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think so. Here are some differences as I understand this suggestion: Ombudsmen would be unable to hand out any punishments, so they would have to maintain strong trust relations with admins. On the other hand they wouldn't be doing the daily work of admins, so they would preserve at least part of the pre-admin perspective on WP.

Sometimes things go wrong. Unfortunately not all editors are able to give constructive feedback to admins, and not all admins are able to react in a constructive way when criticised. Ombudsmen could help to solve this communication problem. I would expect them to rephrase any non-frivolous complaint about an admin into a constructive one and to pass it on in the most effective way. I think this is somewhat similar to what we have at WP:WQA. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, yummy. More bureaucracy. If you have a problem with an admin, bring it up here and anywhere else MIGHT apply. It'll get noticed, reviewed, and after a few hours of admins reviewing your edit history, block history, and underwear for stains, will promptly redirect it all into being your fault and ignore the offenses of the Admin till the NY Times runs a story on it. Having an ombudsman will simply create a new focus for their ire. Go ahead and create it, and see how many hours it takes for them to indef block it. ThuranX (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a good thing to do, odds are that you can do it. Wikipedia does many things informally where established procedures aren't adequate, or simply as alternative ways of proceeding. Essentially, if you can find any experienced user who will help you, you have your ombudsman. Non-admins don't have the tools, but some are just as experienced -- and just as widely respected -- as some who do have the tools. Further, administrators are in theory no "better" or "more powerful" than other editors, and if they use the tools contrary to the benefit of the community, they can lose them. There used to be WP:AMA which might have helped. There is, unfortunately, some substantial sentiment here, highly-motivated, that even voluntary, non-coercive organizational structures among Wikipedia editors are to be ... salted. Unless something like this arises from the ashes, what I'd recommend is to watch related policy pages and discussions, and look for a user who seems to have his or her head screwed on straight, and ask that person for help. It could take some time, to be sure, but what's the hurry? Is there some kind of emergency? If so, then this page is, in fact, the place to go. However, as has been noted, if a complaint is about an administrator, there is some tendency to circle the wagons. From some points of view, this is a good thing, but it can tend to become a tad ... inflexible. --Abd (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, Wikipedia:RFC/U#Use of administrator privileges and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration already cover the sort of remedy being asked for in this thread. Vassyana (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think both are far more draconian solutions than I was hoping to find. Not ever bad action by an editor ends in a ban, and not every abuse by an admin should end in de-sysoping. I heartily endorse User:Hans Adler's comments above, his thoughts are very much in line with what I was thinking, and while User:ThuranX's comment is overly cynical, it does represent a common strain of thought on Wikipedia, one that might be moderated if there was a place for people to go to vent their complaints and have them endorsed if they're justified. As non-admins, an Ombudsmen would have nothing but its moral authority to support it, which would encourage it to be fair and maintain good relations with both administators and ordinary editors. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blondi image

Resolved

 – Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I know administrators noticeboard is not the right place for this, but it is urgent and I found no way to get help other than coming here. This is about an image of Blondi. I want to use the Blondi image in the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany, but the image is copyrighted. The image was uploaded only for using in the article Blondi. I cannot understand if this image can be used in any other article outside the Blondi article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a limited use of copyrighted image comes under fair use rationale. As long as it is used in articles only for the related theme, there will not be any problem. I therefore am thinking you may go ahead with it. --Harjk talk 09:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to be able to write a specific reason justifying why the image is fair use in each article where you want to use it. For example, if Blondi is already discussed in the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany, then it should be easy. If you are using it as a generic picture of German dogs, and Blondi has nothing to do with the issue of animal rights, you probably can't. Add the fair use rationale to the image description page. Thatcher 13:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Resolved

 – Cleared Rudget. 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to address the backlog here, thanks, Igniateff (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been told that this isn't exactly a crucial incident to report. WP:AIV yes, but UAA doesn't pose an immediate threat methink. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For admins anyway, five users are present/remain. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Prowikipedians (talk · contribs)

Prowikipedians (talk · contribs) is removing messages/warnings from their talk page. This user has been a problematic editor in the past, violating WP:3RR and not complying with consensus. I informed them that they would be blocked if they did not refer to guidelines as posted by Kafziel (talk · contribs), but instead of accepting this they became very defensive. Eventually they removed the messages from their talk page, for which I warned them. However, they are not paying me any attention and have since blanked their talk page. Praia da Lulz (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Users may remove anything from their Talk page, as they choose, at least normally. (There is an exception for certain notices, typically placed by an administrator, for the purpose of notifying other users that, say, the user is a blocked sock puppet.) For a user to remove a warning is evidence that they saw it. Users have no obligation to keep anything on their Talk pages, and attempts to keep something there against their wishes can be considered harassment. So you incorrectly warned this user for removing the messages. If the user is violating 3RR, when you file a 3RR report, you will cite, not the Talk page, but diffs to the warning edits to the Talk page, which the user can't delete, they remain in History.--Abd (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Praia da Lulz. Praia da Lulz is a blatant sock puppet/troll created to harass User:Prowikipedians, and should be immediately blocked. Checkuser should also be run to identify puppet master if possible, likelihood is high that master has edited recently. I have no opinion or experience with Prowikipedians beyond having been thanked for my response above, thus calling my further attention to the situation. This new user was under the understandable impression that PdL was an administrator, given the edits made to the user's Talk.--Abd (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Blocked. Account is very experienced, has CU been run? Rudget. 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked after investigating Prowikipedians' comments on Kafziel's talk page. Praia da Lulz has done nothing productive here, just harassing Prowikipedians. If anyone wants to file checkuser, go ahead; it would probably be fishing though without evidence to support who this could be a sock of or anything like that. Metros (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Prowikipedians seems to have received some harsh initial treatment for some improper edits which were not "vandalism"; I'd like to let this user know that normally you get to make a few mistakes around here, and have plenty of warning before being blocked. Do pay attention to warnings (even warnings from sock puppets!) and, when in doubt, ask any experienced editor. If Prowikipedians were to consider those who might have a motive for harassing him or her, and let me know on my Talk page, I'll investigate further and see if it is worth filing a checkuser request. Meanwhile, my apologies on behalf of Wikipedia for the harassment. Do read articles on how to edit, as suggested by User:Groupthink on your Talk page. (you'll find it in History.) And you can always ask me. If it gets to be too much I'll tell you! --Abd (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Adam4eve310

This user is repeatedly creating an article for "Sereen Curtis (porn srar)." I didn't spell that incorrectly. That's how the last version was spelled. He already created one version (Sereen Curtis (porn star)) that is now marked for deletion. There is also a talk page (Talk:Sereen Curtis) created for the peformer, but not article page? I'm confused by that one. Anyway, this user is a spammer and has not heeded the messages on his talk page. Also, he keeps adding the article to List of male performers in gay porn films and I can't remove it anymore because of WP:3RR. Someone please block him for spamming or somehow explain to him that he needs to stop creating the same article over and over, because right now it doesn't seem to be getting through to him. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There he goes again. Someone please block him, pretty please. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And again. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spammer, part 2. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. If anyone wants to decrease/increase the block, thats fine. Also, I've indefinitely blocked the sock account. Addhoc (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spy89‎ (talk · contribs)

Spy89‎ (talk · contribs) had many sock-puppets that were banned.[67]the user is now active again. He is constantly reverting warnings from his talk[68]. This user is also actively using one of many anonymous IP address such 99.238.149.188[69]. He has now again started reverting my edits, for which he was banned originally,[70] and does not bother to go through what he reverts.[71].I think he deserves a permanent solution.Ajjay (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage Vandal

Resolved

Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been vandalism done to my userpage by Nick. Signed, Nothing444 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been pointless diversions done to my Wikipedia by Nothing444. Daniel (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved, we should do something productive instead of wasting time on this. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't you make the word "resolved" display in rainbow colours in a pretty font? Guy (Help!) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of assist requested

Could someone come over to Talk:Jerry Springer: The Opera and explain to User:TR Wolf why there cannot be a lengthy synopsis of the show, taken (he says) with the permission of the copyright owner from [72], that may not be edited in any way? I've posted an article RFC but gotten no response; this really should be a no-brainer, but I don't seem to be getting through to him. Perhaps it's just a garden variety of copyvio that should be deleted, but for whatever reason I need a hand. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you not in violation of the 3RR on this page? Rudget. 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues are generally exempt from 3RR. Mr.Z-man 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the comment above. Rudget. 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a benign comment on the talk page regarding how it's general practice not to have a quasi "fair use" synopsis, but a user edited one. I know this is an image rule, but it can be extrapolated elsewhere. There is no core policy on this, but the WP:OWN that I see being pushed isn't exactly in wikipedia's best interest. Also, make sure you do not revert war. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)}

Well, yeah, that's why I'm here. Either it's a copyvio or it's GFDL; either it has to go completely or it has to be editable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk messages left by User:Community service

Community service (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a sequence of messages to the editors who participated in an AfD that deleted an article he created (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMPACT-Charlottesville). The messages bordered on personal attacks, crossing the line in a message left to me.[73] I've got a COI in the matter, so I don't want to take further action. Can another admin take a look at the situation? Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Left WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA warning on this user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

These are threats "I will immediately lodge a complaint with whatever authorities hold you responsible, and if that does not work, your fellow peers. "^[74][75][76]--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Got one too. He's apparently having a delayed reaction bit of fuss over the deletion, despite appearing to be OK until his last comment in the AfD where he requested deletion. I understand frustratin but this is a little much TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And he's continuing. I know reporting to AIV won't do anything since it happened more than a minute or two ago and he's whitewashing his page to look innocent, but if somoene feels like doing something....

Has now been blocked for 48 hours which, coincidentally, is exactly what I was going to do myself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd actually just come back here to say I was going to take it to AIV after I saw this to JJL, this to Seicer and this to C.Fred. No great loss on our end I don't think. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo (again)

This editor is currently being mentioned up and down this page, so it might be useful to bring this all together. Yesterday we had problems here, here, here, here and here . today we have this,this, this, this, this, this, this, this. Whatever his motivations, his actions are WP:POINT and disruptive. --Fredrick day 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This case is nothing like any of the examples at WP:POINT, and for good reason. Once you start prohibiting users from voting a straight ticket, you open it up to all kinds of witch hunts in which people can say, "Hey, you're voting to keep on everything." For similar reasons, Kurt Weber's negative votes against admin self-noms were allowed at the RfC. I'll vote the way I want, and you can vote the way you want. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with OM; he does seem to be trying to make a point, but I don't honestly see how he's disrupting Wikipedia in order to do so. If I was an admin closing one of those MfDs (this is hypothetical; I don't close MfDs), I'd give his arguments very close to zero weight, but I don't really see a problem with letting him make them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This editor is doing good work on parliamentary procedure (helping to create an article set that we need very badly) in mainspace, and is being a significant pain in the neck everywhere else. I wish he would take my suggestion on his talkpage that he could usefully do the former but not the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the impression that the community's attitude is, "We'll let you contribute your expertise and labor, but don't try to influence the politics of this system." In most organizations, when you pay your dues, you get the privileges that come with membership, such as the right to vote and speak in debate. As long as you don't abuse those rights (e.g. by voting more than once), you are allowed an equal right to exercise them. I pay my dues in productive edits, and I am sticking to one account, so I think I should be able to voice my opinion.

It think it's only partially correct to claim that xfD's (especially MfDs) are not a vote. The criteria are often so subjective that it's really just a matter of people's general opinions on notability policy. I happen to have very extremist views on the subject, being a radical inclusionist, and thus I vote a straight ticket. Is that a bad thing? I am also a proponent of WP:PWD. I really do think that all the articles should be kept (although some can be blanked, if need be).

I have also pointed out in essays such as WP:PQ, User:Obuibo Mbstpo/What kind of system is this?, WP:PARL, etc. that although in some cases there is a sufficient body of policy such that xfDs and so on can be made simply by applying policy, in other cases it has been left up to the xfDs to settle these policy issues and set the boundaries of what we should and shouldn't keep here. If it's going to be subjective, then I believe I should be able to vote on my own subjective beliefs of what is best for the encyclopedia.

Theoretically, we can affect policy through discussion and proposals, but as WP:POLICY notes, that route very seldom succeeds. It takes a supermajority to enact anything of that nature. So we end up with a pseudoconsensus not to have policy on certain issues at all. In my opinion, my activity, as well as the departure of those who simply give up rather than trying to influence the system in ways that certain members of the community will frown upon, could be viewed as a rational response to a flawed governance system. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the above, as well; I think the only reason that this is considered disruptive is that the policy viewpoints that he advocates are, when compared to those of the community mainstream, outlandish. I think the question is whether we allow editors who are making good mainspace contributions to try to push weird policy proposals; is anybody prepared to argue that the answer is no? I should note, incidentally, that I'm no fan of most of OM's policy ideas, this one included. I would certainly prefer that he stop suggesting policy changes that are unlikely to gain consensus. But if we start sanctioning editors for trying to change policy through proper channels just because we think the changes they're trying to effect are dumb, that, unlike most of what gets the label around here, actually is a form of censorship. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you include in the "community maintstream" all those long-time editors who have gone away, his positions start to seem not quite so outlandish. I've been suggesting the same thing to him: the status quo is, precisely, the status quo, and if we want to change it, major confrontation is not the way. Rather, Wikipedia does contain the seeds of its future, and we can nurture them. There are strong censoring forces at work here, but by no means do they always succeed; they only manage to crush relatively naive editors, when the processes used don't attract the attention of more mature Wikipedians. Consider Mbstpo's proposal WP:PRX. This actually wasn't properly a proposal at all. It suggested no policy changes, and, contrary to what was said about it, it did not involve proxy voting. In the end, it was simply intended as an experiment to see what happened if Wikipedians, those who cared to participate, were to name another Wikipedian as one whose judgment they would trust to be reasonably correct if they could not themselves participate in some process. It was not suggested -- and it would have been impossible -- that one user could actually vote for another. All that was done was to set up some file formats that did the job, allowing recovery of proxy assignment data. It was promptly Rejected, actually before it was even completed. I removed that tag as premature, and there was discussion for a few days, then it was tagged Rejected again and nobody challenged that. That wasn't enough, though. An MfD was filed to delete it, which would be quite unusual for a project page like that. It attracted many editors who voted Delete, and then a long time, very respected editor, formerly an administrator who gave up the bit (and could have it back at any time), closed it as Keep as Rejected, based on precedent. Even though the proper remedy would have been renomination, the same ser also closed that, which was improper (because of the conflict of interest, having closed the MfD itself, though the whole process was out of whack). The MfD was reopened and closed again a few days later. Same result. Keep as Rejected. This was a *huge* fuss over nothing, and then there is an MfD over the associated files with WP:PRX, more and more time wasted, and none of this improves the encyclopedia one bit. Is Mbstpo disruptive? Well, he's a catalyst. He shows his face, some people get angry. The energy released, he did not create, and that energy is continually doing damage to this project, with or without him. Sooner or later, we must confront it. I just want to do it in an orderly fashion, soberly, following all our policies and guidelines, which are excellent, and which are breaking down for lack of coherent structure. (*not* bureaucracy!).

Comment. I have seen Obuibo Mbstpo around. When it comes to his ideas about the system and potential alternatives, I very often disagree (and in fact, even think that many of them are Very Bad Ideas). However, I've not seen Obuibo Mbstpo being disruptive, engaging in personal attacks or otherwise doing things that should result in warnings and/or blocks. "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Vassyana (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, I don't get to AfD much, but at MfD these will get zero consideration. They are kind of pointy in that they are intentionally annoying, but they are essentially null comments. They won't actually affect anything, so they aren't really be disruptive.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have advised Mbstpo to stay away from provocative actions, whether or not they can be justified in the abstract (generally they can). I must note, however, that simply ignoring his !votes in MfDs, etc., takes far, far less effort than to compile all the diffs given above. I see many, many !votes in these deletion discussions which cannot be distinguished from a quick, knee-jerk response. And, in fact, I pinned an administrator in his RfA for having voted "per nom" in an AfD without verifying what the nominator had claimed (which was false). (He apologized, so I voted for him. Oops! I mean I commented "Support." Oops! they actually do count those and so it's a vote not a !vote. Confused? No wonder.) AN/I was intended, originally, for emergency use, to get the attention of an administrator where it is needed quickly to avoid damage to the project. What, exactly, is the damage here? Yes, these discussions are damage, but who is causing the damage? A user exercising his right to express an opinion, civilly, in a deletion discussion? Or someone flipping out because it doesn't match their expectations of what a not-vote is supposed to be? I wish Mbstpo would stop, but, damn! not only does he have a right, he is often right as well. If he is actually doing something wrong, there is RfC. He's on a bit of a short leash because of prior problems, but ... he was actually treated quite unfairly in that prior situation, and I helped negotiate a return to avoid having to confront all that with DR, which wastes even more time. It was done simply by talking about it. I'd really hate to have to open that whole can of worms.--Abd (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There must be a joke here that I am missing. User:Obuibo Mbstpo, according to his user page, is also the following Users: User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, User:Absidy and User:Thespian Seagull. All of these Users have been indef banned -and still are banned, as far as I can tell- for various roles of disruptive sock puppetry. I have gathered that no one seems to take sock-puppet banning very seriously anymore, but why is this user being allowed such blatant defiance, especially by way of participating in deletion reviews? Is there some new policy I can be linked to on this? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at all the diffs above for today. I voted in each (I make a practice, generally, of voting when I take the time to look at a deletion debate). Mbstpo was right, that is, in my opinion, in every case the proper outcome was not Delete, it was some kind of Keep. He has indeed made a point here, not a disruptive one. There are many MfDs that are pure time-wasters; the ones I've seen shouldn't have been MfD'd. PROD is not being used, for starters. Then in some cases userfying a proposal or whatever makes more sense than delete.--Abd (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD can't be used on anything that can go to MFD; it's only for articles and, in certain narrow circumstances, userspace. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind! TSeriously, there is a reason why PROD isn't for project space, etc. I think it is because deletion is rarely appropriate there, userfying, for example, is better. And PROD can be used in user space (as noted, narrow circumstances). I just find it odd that every MfD I looked at seemed to be a waste of time, a waste of the time of the nominator, a waste of the time of those commenting, with no returned value, not even saved disk space, since it remains in the database anyway (generally). Yes, we should have the process, but it is being way overused.--Abd (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's believed to be necessary to whack people over the head with an MfD in order to deter their creation of pages that seem to violate WP:NOT. MfD is also sometimes used as a punishment for unrelated misbehavior. Once you're branded a troll/abusive/whatever, anything you've done is fair game, but especially stuff in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. It's not enough to redirect or something; it has to be completely deleted or they might not take the hint. Hence the notice I used to have on my userpage, "Please do not disrupt this user to illustrate a point." I believe the following quote from WP:POINT applies equally well to such MfDs: "In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your specific charge of improper MfD'ing at the particular entry I nominated. In summary, your assertion that PROD was the proper method and MfD was not, is not only incorrect, but actually runs counter to the goal you wish to achieve (presumably that of keeping the content in a different form or namespace). While I see no need to spill the individual MfD discussion over to AN/I, and hope you will refrain from doing so, blanket statements of impropriety should not go unanswered. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like all species of the genus deletion, prod is problematic. Now Template:Prob, that's another story! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling OM's actions "disruptive" is, quite frankly, patently ludicrous. More and more, "disruptive" has become merely an equivocation for "IDONTLIKEIT". Even if one buys into the (absolutely false) idea that "policy" has any normative weight at all, too many people misunderstand WP:POINT as a prohibition on simply making a point. This has got to stop. EVERYTHING we do in our discussions involves making a point--that's the whole, well, point.

That said, I am quite heartened by the fact that the community has learned from past experience, and I'm glad to see that OM has not been absolutely railroaded like I was. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

←This user isn't a problem because of his views, but because of the manner in which he goes about them. He makes proposals on top of each other and in multiple places. That's pretty much the very definition of trolling. The next time that happens, by the way, I'm deleting all but the earliest iteration. He creates templates, in the template space, for processes he proposes, and when one was deleted, he actually removed that CSD criteria that allowed for the deletion. The notion that changes happen slowly is quite lost on this person. And with all those banned sockpuppets I don't quite understand why this particular account is allowed to remain. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:45, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

There may be a lot that Equazcion doesn't understand. No problem, that's where we all start out. The user in question has never been banned. He was blocked. Once. From the record, it is obvious why he was blocked: an offense that might be laughed off by one administrator (I'd have laughed, I'm sure, there was no risk to the project), and result in a block from another. A 24 hour block. Unless you really tick off the administrator by not showing proper respect for his badge and weapon, in which case we would see a nuclear block, call in checkuser twice a day, and don't you dare unblock unless you talk to me first. He moves too quickly? Too quickly for what? To quickly for immediate change, yes. However, I haven't noticed anything that he has broken. Remember what we tell newcomers? You can't break Wikipedia. Last time I saw an admin think that he had to block quickly or the encyclopedia would be broken, he lost his bit. Of course, it was an administrator he blocked. Had it been some ordinary user, we'd have never heard about it. Now, as to deleting things, be our guest. Just don't violate policy, okay? Remember, Mbstpo is just one person. OMG, I just had a thought. He's really smart, and really active. What if he is actually several people? That would explain a lot. The sudden shifts in personality, from patient, plodding article creation to bursts of reform activity, wild things like nominating me for Admin when I clearly didn't have enough edits, canvassing. Not just ordinary canvassing, he canvassed for participation in a procedure that did not exist, and he canvassed the entire Arbitration Committee plus a couple of administrators besides. I think I'm onto something. Now, how can we checkuser this? How many peple is he?--Abd (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you think I don't understand. What you might not understand is that "change happens slowly" doesn't mean the user "moves too quickly", but that he acts expecting everyone else to move quickly. He advocated a move to allow canvassing and it appears he already is doing it, or at least some form of it -- and canvassing, while not "quick" unto itself, is the best way to affect a quick change. As I said, he makes loads of proposals on top of each other and posts them in multiple places. All the proposals also follow the same ideal -- abandon or reverse those policies that are not common with, or rather "more restrictive than" real-world practices. This seems to be the goal. I won't argue with your admin-bashing as I've engaged in lots of that myself -- although I will say that the body of admins is almost as diverse as the body of editors, so sweeping generalizations based on the most problematic ones are probably misleading. I admittedly don't know anything about this user's sock case and I have no idea what the sarcasm in the latter half of your response was actually meant to be saying. But I'm sure it was nice, whatever it was. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:49, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Was it actually speedy deleted? I thought it was just nominated for TFD and the CSD criterion was mentioned during the debate? Mr.Z-man 04:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Either way the same point still applies. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:03, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And yes, anyway, it was speedied under T2 -- see the summary at template:canvassing. At which point, OM removed T2 [77]. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:07, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Good for him! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good for him. Whenever anyone's page gets speedied they should just remove the criteria that made it possible. Novel idea. Someone pat that man on the back. What a trailblazer. Hoorah. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:34, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because all speedying, for anything except spam, copyvio, slander, or blatant nonsense (and by that I mean not merely making nonsensical claims, but actual unintelligible gibberish along the lines of "kldajfskl;djfakl;jrklejaklejtrewk") is wrong and illegitimate.Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but policy and consensus would disagree with you. Jonneroo (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Then policy and consensus are wrong, aren't they? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:35, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking of {{prob}}. Mr.Z-man 04:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Newbie question here. Why would someone opt to blank an article as opposed to deleting it? Jonneroo (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's called Pure Wiki Deletion. Any editor can blank an article, only admins can delete. Deletion does not actually remove the article from the database, and administrators can still see it. It only removes it from the view of ordinary users. If the article has some possible redeeming value, but ordinary users can't see it, they can't improve it. Even though in theory a deleted article can be brought back, in practice when articles come back, they have been rewritten, a waste of time. Having this elite deletion process isn't the wiki way, it made sense when all users had admin tools, thus all users could read deleted content, they merely had to read it a different way, but ... I don't know the local history. In any case, blanking with redirect can have the same effect, from the point of view of unsophisticated users (i.e., the general readership) as deletion, but it can be done without any special process, debate, at all, other than ordinary editorial debate, which proceeds at a very different pace than AfD. Pure Wiki Deletion is really simply a different way of looking at what I've been proposing, which is categorization of content, not deletion (aside from legal requirements to delete, which don't require AfD anyway.) Essentially, what is being said is that we don't need AfD at all. On the other hand -- I always have several other hands around -- what would we do without all the wikidrama? Work on verifying articles? Naaahhh.... too boring.--Abd (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Deletion is elitist... That's one I never heard before. And I thought I was the top complainer about elitism. This one I'll keep short because I think it's especially ridiculous and has virtually no support. Page blanking is temporary, as all history revisions are kept, and encourages recreation of the removed article with little or no change. Deletion itself, once it's performed, might be considered "elitist", I suppose, since only admins can see deleted articles, but the deletion process isn't elitist. You say rewriting articles is a waste of time... but of course we're talking about articles that the community decided must be deleted, so I'm not sure why you'd think anything less would be necessary. If there's a discussion and consensus that an article needs to be removed, either because its content is just that bad, or because the topic is just that undeserving of an article, I see no reason to keep it around in some form for anyone to copy and restore. Just because there are mechanisms in place to prevent people from doing certain things, does not "elitism" make. Any such open system, especially one that's meant to produce something semi-serious and semi-of-quality, will need such safeguards. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:35, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User calling Gypsyland a country

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=198027808 Please see his edit war on Economy of Turkey--Marc KJH (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He did no such thing. Please astop templating his talk pages with vandalism warnings. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did. See talk page of Turkey. Marc KJH (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've respondeed on the that talk pagre. Please go back to your regular account rather than creating a sock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should he? Is this some violation of WP:SOCK? Relata refero (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday on Turkey that the majority of edits to the article this month have been a battle between two editors (one of whom appears to have used at least one sock on the article, and one in the Talk page). The nature of this dispute is a fine example of the Plague. The two primary editors here are User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti and User:Olahus, both of whom exhibit behavior which leads me to believe they are socks. Res wants it pointed out that Turkey is in fact bridging two continents. Olahus would like to diminish the fact. Neither editor is behaving in a manner that will foster compromise. Pretty standard fare for this article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors should be shown an atlas and a map covering the respective area, and also pointed toward Istanbul and its singular claim over any capital city (or any other city, AFAIAA). Seriously, isn't this a case of applying encyclopedic standard on the article and warning of sanction for anyone who attempts to amend it (a case of truth over WP:V in this instance)? I think that the political world map is with Res when it comes to which continents Turkey is in, and it is relevant to the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin blocked because of questionable use of admin tools; needs review.

I have blocked Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) because, upon review, it seems evident that there was objectionable use of admin tools used in a dispute against another editor. This needs to be scrutinized before proceeding, and protecting the encyclopedia is paramount; in addition, I cannot help but notice that this admin has been blocked three times in the past three months for edit warring. — Coren ^(talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (e/c) Further note for the record, the block is set indefinite but the intent is "until such time as things have been reviewed". There is neither significance nor desire in that unbounded duration. — Coren ^(talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock now. Dispute is over, admin tools were used once, block by Coren clearly punitive and inappropriate. No reason to block at this time. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way "this needs to be scrutinized before proceeding" is a message you should take to heart before indefinitely blocking other admins who are not an immediate threat to anything. Hasty, unhelpful actions like this fan the flames. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that we got an allocation of tool abuse before something need to be made about it. — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You must be new around here. ➪HiDrNick! 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no allocation; but if the tool abuse was a one-time issue and has obviously stopped, indefinite blocking can no longer be described as preventative. You were welcome to bring up the action here; it's punitive blocking that is inappropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could one of you two post some evidence please. We are not mindreaders. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• First question is... If you want review and issued the block, why did you handle the unblock request yourself? Avruch ^T 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Coren, declining unblock requests of people blocked by you[78] is highly inappropriate, unless they trolled. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) x 8 To both point above; my mistake. I mostly meant to answer the direct question, and I realize I should have done so outside the context of the unblock template. Will fix immediately. — Coren ^(talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is the single deletion of the opt-out page, then I think this block is both hasty and unnecessary, two things which blocks should not be. I think Arthur Rubin should be unblocked immediately to participate in this discussion, since there doesn't appear to be danger of harm from his actions. Avruch ^T 19:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Just checking the edit history of the MfD. User:Carcharoth explained a policy violation there (diff). If I'd thought of that, I would have said it, but I could just see that it's an unconscionable and possibly illegal "contract". Copying, as well as producing the diff.

Quoting from this page version (the text has since been removed): "Keep in mind that when you sign this list, you fully are aware that you lose the right to [...] You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." - here the generalised (not the specific) right to complain is not something that can be signed away. We can have a semantic argument over whether we mean complain or criticise, but Wikipedia is a co-operative and collaborative editing environment. Wording such as this, however "voluntary" it is, does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment, because it restricts the possibilities for discussing the bots and what they do. It promotes an environment where bot operators WP:OWN the bots, and contravenes the third of the m:foundation issues: "the wiki process" (we write articles and change community processes by discussion, not by fiat). To sum up: even in principle, people shouldn't be allowed to sign away their rights to make valid comments and criticisms, of a bot or anything (even if that gets labelled as "complaining"). They certainly shouldn't have such rights held to ransom over an opt-out process. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, although I have separate disputes with beta and the bots ("beta and the bots" would be a good name for a rock band), the number of editors who do not have a dispute with beta is small enough that when I see a clear policy violation by beta, I don't see any reason not to note it.

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who removed the content from Beta's user page. Apparently someone signed it, then read the page and also found it unconscionable. I think it would be wise to notify User:Obuibo Mbstpo as well as User:Carcharoth of the AN/I thread. I don't want to violate WP:CANVASS. It appears that inciting violations of the pillars is not actually a policy violation, but perhaps it should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) abuse of sysop tools

I'm in a hurry, work quickly approaching, but here's the basic rundown of issues, hopefully others can expand for me and help explain. I'll clarify anything I may need to when I return from work tonight.

• AR deletes Betacommand's Opt-Out subpage under criteria T2 despite the fact that it's not a template.
• He then states "I deleted it under WP:IAR and WP:CSD#T2. It's not a template, but it does violate policy." He does, however, cite no policy.
• After it was restored, he nominated it for MFD yet still cited no policy.
• I don't have time right now to gather all the relevant diffs, but there are several on various pages where he asserts it's a violation of policy without citing a policy.
• He then nominated zscout370's subpage also as a violation of, I assume, the same policy, but without naming it.
• Then he comments on another user's talk page that "once the image deadline passes, there will be no reason to unblock betacommandbot when it's blocked for screwing up", which to me shows his bias which should have prevented him from using his tools in this matter.
• Here he begins a revert war with Betacommand on Beta's subpage. (Note he's been blocked three times this year for edit-warring.)
• Reverts again here.
• Then he warns Betacommand to stop edit warring or risk being blocked. If he, as an admin, understood the policy for which he's gaining a habit of being blocked for, he'd know it doesn't apply to user space.
• He finally states the policy, but I fail to see what WP:NOT#CENSORED has to do with anything.
• Then he starts with this. I don't even know what he's thinking. You judge.
• Then he states that "I deleted a proposal which would be a clear violation of policy and law". What law? This is ridiculous.
• I issued a final warning.
• And then he drops a template warning on my talk page telling me to assume good faith.

I believe it's time the community reevaluated his access to administrative tools. Lara❤Love 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A.R. seems to have a habit of edit warring, but RFC/arbitration would be better places for this discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see only one bad use of the tools. Maybe this needs an RfC, but there's nothing here meriting desysopping yet. A lot of pointy MfDs, that's all.--Doc^g 19:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with this summary, and it demands an explanation from Arthur if not more serious proceedings. A block seems totally unnecessary and inflammatory, though. Avruch ^T 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to build an ArbCase right now, but this is the justification for his well-deserved block. Lara❤Love 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Except Arthur's right, Wikipedia should never allow these kinds of agreements to take place (trading one thing for another). Especially trading away ones right to participate in discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That he is right or not is immaterial; WP:POINT is bad enough without misuse of the tools. — Coren ^(talk) 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT? How was this misuse, these kinds of pages simply should not exist per my previous comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages under criteria explicitly disallowed in userspace, citing IAR (you don't cite IAR, you just use it and if you're good enough, it slips under the radar), and threatening to block under a policy that gives exception to userspaces? Will ^(talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that page good for the encyclopedia? How does it help the encyclopedia? There's probably a policy somewhere that covers these kinds of "contracts" or "agreements", and I doubt it looks highly on them. Even if there's not, do you really need a policy to tell you what common sense should: We should never tolerate agreements to restrict editing unless they're part of dispute resolution (which this clearly isn't). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unblocking in 3 min, unless someone can tall me what this block is preventing? We can re-block if there's further problems.--Doc^g 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x 11!) I agree with an unblock iff Arthur agrees to lay off the tools until this is resolved. — Coren ^(talk) 19:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is support for requiring that condition. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, unblock. Take the case to arbcom if necessary. Addhoc (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Highly inappropriate block. El_C 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x8) Looking at the diffs, I agree this should go to LYNCHMOB, if only for a stepping stone to arbitration, as we have no community desysop process. But still, AR's block threat does sound hypocritical, especially as he's had three 3RR this year. Will ^(talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You lost me at "agree." El_C 19:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a reply to you, it was a reply to Avruch and Glasgow - after the fifth edit conflict I got tired of placing the comment midway in. Will ^(talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that AR's block threat was wr9ong and had he actually blocked anyone then I would be the first in line in asking the AC to desysop him. But he didn't. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked to participate in discussion. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Aye, unblock and use our processes. Deleting that article as T2 was a poor decision (I restored the history after Betacommand re-created it) but probably not worth a block at this time. Black Kite 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, he's unblocked now. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the issues of the Betacommandbot/Optout page may be Civility and AGF, I must admit I find the bolded entry somewhat confrontational and not particularly conducive to collaborative editing. Furthermore, AR placing a note warning of blocking for 3RR didn't necessarily mean he was goingto do the blocking, just that 4 reverts places anyone at risk. Those would be my AGF takes on it. I do agree that 3 blocks recently is somewhat of a concern.

PS: I have not been too involved with the betacommand issues. Do others think the stern approach on the optout page is necessary?Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the first bolded sentence is fair enough but so obvious that it's unecessary. The second is clearly wrong and totally ignorable. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to specify that it's clearly policy that it's ignorable. I think it's clear, but Lara apparently doesn't believe it's ignorable, and beta clearly doesn't believe it's ignorable, or he would have agreed to the strikeout. I apologize for being baited by beta. I should know better, by now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I didn't threaten to block anyone. I stated that anyone who agreed to the condition should be blocked. As an involved admin, I wouldn't do the blocking, although I would probably withdraw from Wikipedia if the condition agreed to as a policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletion and the block relate to issues that may be accepted at an ongoing arbitration request so that can be left aside for now, though I will be suggesting that the main parties involved here that are not already parties to that request, ie. User:Arthur Rubin and User:Coren, be added to the request. Arthur is right, though, that there does need to be a clear statement somewhere in policy that informal gag rules and trade-offs and divisive interpersonal contracts (however voluntary they are) are extremely destructive to a spirit of collaboration. I did struggle to find a policy where this sort of behaviour is disallowed, and my arguments about about WP:OWN and the third foundation principle were rather weak, but we can't expect policy to explicitly cover everything. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:BEANS in action to me. We don't have a policy on it because it's a pretty obscure thing to do. Perhaps we need more of a catch-all policy against behavior that goes against the spirit or goals of Wikipedia to cite in cases like this. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Long day at work. Good times. So, here's my take. Considering he deleted a page under an invalid criteria and cited Ignore All Rules, then made two pointy MFDs, then threatened to block Beta (or, rather, have him blocked) for an offense that not only has he been blocked three times in two or so months, but for an offense that doesn't even apply to the page Arthur was edit-warring with Beta on... Beta's own subpage. Then, as if that weren't enough, he dropped a template warning on my talk page. Seriously? Telling me to look at the Welcome page so that I, an admin with over 18,000 edits, can learn how to contribute to the encyclopedia. The rest was tldr, but the point is that admins don't drop template warnings on other admin's talk pages. Clearly, in my opinion, he was losing his grasp on wikireality and needed a few hours to chill out and realize what he was doing. He's been with the 'pedia for quite some time, but 2008 seems to be going downhill for him. Lara❤Love 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The template on your page seemed like an attempt to be funny and informative. That said, the block was inappropriate as there was no immediate issue, and any long-term problems with Arthur belong at RFC or arbitration. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand isn't an admin. And Betacommand hadn't just gotten a final warning telling him to stop using his admin tools in this situation, including warning users, considering his abuse of the tools. Lara❤Love 05:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, beta had gotten multiple final warnings about various things, including misuse of rollback, which used to be an admin tool. But that's not entirely relevant. Then again, I haven't had a valid final warning for misuse of admin tools, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lara, do you see several people saying that the block of Arthur Rubin was inappropriate? Maybe you could consider listening to them? I'm not going to defend what Arthur Rubin did, as that is not how I would have handled things, but Arthur is discussing things and talking to you. Calling for him to be blocked or desysopped is an over-reaction. I will say again that if you and Coren disagree over that, then you, Coren and Arthur Rubin need to take this to arbitration as a "dispute between admins". Unless you want to try and resolve this before it reaches that stage? Pre-emptive blocks of admins because someone thinks they've abused their tools is not how things are done here. In any case, the last time I checked, blocking an admin doesn't stop them using their tools (of course, in practice it does stop them using their tools as using their tools through a block is considered a reason for desysopping). Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated on my talk page in a different context, what I saw was (a) an admin tool (delete) being used in furtherance of a content dispute (b) continuing dispute, and (c) threat that an admin tool (block) will be used. What clearer definition of preventative block would you prefer? — Coren ^(talk) 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy just won't quit

After numerous warnings for NPA, cult-free-world was blocked for one week.

He is back now, and here is his 2nd edit since the block- labeling numerous people (including myself) "a cult member." [[79]]. Sethie (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not in that diff he doesn't. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My inivitation to you is to look at what he was blocked for, then re-read the diff, then comment. Sethie (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My invitation is to wait. Users like that normally weave their own rope, tie the noose, hang it over the tree and jump gleefully. It's rarely necessary to rely on a single ambiguous diff, just wait a few days. And if he doesn't do anything stupid, well, then he's learned his lesson and there's no problem. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're the admin.... not me. I figured the same behavior that got him blocked, started up as soon as the block expired was significant... maybe it isn't. I will wait... :) and I concur he'll hang himself. This is most likely a sock and if so, not a smart one. Sethie (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My observation is that this particular one is not smart, so like Guy says, he'll hang himself if he's here for no good purpose. Orderinchaos 07:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the dif that shows the same vein of personal attacks that got him banned. Is there a way to stop users from posting lies about other users? Seems libelous to me. BTW, here is the record of the recent ban. Unfortunately, much of the evidence has been deleted because the pages he and his sock tried to re-post were speedily deleted multiple times.

I hope there is some mechanism in the Wiki community for SPA users whose user names alone represent a bias. The labeling of bona fide eastern spiritual practices as "cults" is offensive and meant to provocate. This user has no real interest in adding to the Wiki community. Renee (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv

User:70.83.226.185 is a very obvious sock of Pgsylv, who at the moment is topic-banned from Quebec and Talk:Quebec. Could someone please block for block evasion and trying to circumvent the topic ban? Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one month. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo threatened

An IP threatened Jimbo in this edit. I reverted it. Aleta ^Sing 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That was followed by a suicide threat from another IP here. Aleta ^Sing 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Someone poke me in a day or two to unprotect it, or find another administrator to reduce it (I left it as infinite so that move protection doesn't expire). Metros (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert block ignore. Why bother even discussing it here. That is what they want. Theresa Knott | The otter sank

Both blocked 24 hours, but I have seen that wording before somewhere. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is probably going to file a police report on the idoit that threatned him or ban him indef--Rio de oro (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Racism in edit summaries

Resolved

There are racist sentences in a couple of edit summaries [80] of the article High-definition television, the three most recent ones. Is it possible to wipe them? --Cantalamessa (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally oversight edit summaries unless they reveal personal information; in this case, the IP editor has been blocked 24 hours so there's little more can be done except roll back to a previous version without recent edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. And there was me being bold...erm, well, anyway, I'm quite happy to restore the deleted edits (I'm getting quite good at it now...!). _GB^T/C 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know a better place where to ask for this problem. Anyway, thank you! --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting edits is not the same as oversight. GB, I assume you mean you deleted the page and restored some revisions and did not restore the ones with the problematic edit summaries, so that the page history no longer has those comments. That is not oversight. What you did still allows administrators to see the edits. So, maybe what you did is fine even if oversight is not usually used in such situations. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate that there's a difference, as yes, the deleted edits still remain in the log but only visible to administrators. Since, however, the edit summaries didn't merit the full weight of oversight, I think deleting them is a reasonable half-way house. _GB^T/C 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

American Civil Liberties Union

63.3.10.2 aka 63.3.10.1 is removing material from this article with these kind of edit summaries: 1 and 2. The second IP address is currently blocked. Can someone block the first one? The sock case can be found here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cowboycaleb1 (3rd) Apologies if this is not the right forum to mention this, but since a sock case was already filed in relation to these IP addresses, I figured this was the place to go. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, 172.132.21.169 is now blanking the page & 172.166.112.63 left a soapbox message on the talk page. More socks? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Have blocked 63.3.10.2 to roughly match the duration on 63.3.10.1. The 172.x addresses are probably related to each other (that's a highly dynamic AOL range), but the article's been getting a number of problematic edits from what appears to be a wide variety of sources in the past few days; bearing that in mind, I've semi-protected American Civil Liberties Union for one week. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cut & paste move: The Nutty Squirrels

Resolved

Nutty Squirrels (the original) is copied to The Nutty Squirrels, then the source article is redirected to the new one, thus divorcing the edit history from the article. Can someone fix this? / edg ☺ ☭ 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.222.206.97

72.222.206.97 keeps saying he is going to kill himself on User talk:Nick.

Also, this appeared to be normal vandalism about blow jobs and Silver but upon closer inspection it included threats of racial violence.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. WP:RBI. _GB^T/C 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's about the latter IP, in case it's not clear. _GB^T/C 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Beh-nam

Resolved

The Indefinitely blocked user:Beh-nam is editing using the account User:Jalalabadi. Checkuser has confirmed it Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam though the account has not been indefinitely blocked can someone finish it off. - dwc lr (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Westvoja vs. others on Bird and dinosaur

Resolved

Westvoja is repeatedly inserting some text into bird - [81], [82], [83], [84] (plus a look through the history will show some older ones)

On his talk page here, and also that of bird here, editors have tried explaining or discussing, but his reply to Jimfbleak here suggests he is getting angry and will continue against consensus. I was tempted on getting involved but I think a non-involved admin maybe needed here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

....and there goes the 4th revert for today (sigh) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation for a user who is going against consensus and relies on multiple reverts is WP:AN3. Seems like the user has had ample warning/talking to adjust the temperament Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree...I'll post there..it wasn't at 3RR when I first posted, although I think it will persist past a 24h block... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears user was blocked following AN3 report; let's see where this goes when that block expires. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

Resolved

I've put semi-protection in place on this page for one week - doubtless that's overkill, but there's been enough IP vandalism here tonight to merit protection of some degree, I feel. _GB^T/C 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to, but you beat me to the punch. Good call. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To his credit, it would appear that Sean William got there before I did. Thankfully there appears to be no such thing as "protection conflict".... _GB^T/C 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) Oh shoot, was my protection superseded? I'm surprised there wasn't some sort of edit conflict :). Sean William @ 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just upped it to indef because if the edit protection lapses, so does the move protection, and in a week could be forgotten. Much better to unprotect when things get a little quieter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to also after an edit conflict in the last revert. It's best.— Ѕandahl 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

PoV pushing on Meijer

Ta5172 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding the following statement to Meijer:

Meijer is a family oriented company. Meijer offers workplace protection for all employees. There is no specific protection for homosexuals as they do not even acknowledge the homosexual lifestyle. Keep in mind, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness until the late 1970's by the authority for mental illness; the DSM-V. Coincidentally homosexuals formed a lobby in Washington, DC during the same time period it was removed from the DSM-V.

That is obviously not adherent to WP:NPOV, and I have reverted it at least three times (it's also been reverted a few times by other users). Despite being warned twice, the user accused me of being slanted, when frankly I have no slant either way, and am actually trying to un-slant the article. Persistent re-addition of this information has continued despite multiple warnings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and have a word with the editor. Definitely looks to be outside of NPOV, and it's also not really sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the editor's response to people bringing it up on his talkpage was this diff on Tony's talkpage. Unless I'm misreading it, isn't that a valid reason to banninate per WP:LEGAL? Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...and blocked indefinite until the legal threat is revoked. I see no useful contributions, and I'm not really sure that Meijer would have a comment to say about their surmised anti-gay policies (like they would come here to back the statements up). seicer | talk | contribs 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people's kids. *shakes head* Thanks, Seicer. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad archiving going on at Jimmy Wales

I am not sure what is going on- someone archived the whole page- someone reverted that, someone then cut and pasted some of that into the archive- though the archive appears to have some of the current discussions still left.

Anyway- someone with my experience, please check out the situation. Hohohahaha (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with reverts.

I was directed here by the folks at the Help Desk. I have been trying to edit energy drink to make it less biased against energy drinks. If I understand correctly Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, right? User:Mighty Antar reverts my edits every time I do one to this page. It is very frustrating when you're trying to edit a page and someone keeps reverting it. Please help. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduce referenced material to support your contention that the current article is unbiased and it will not be deleted.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're both close to WP:3RR and this is a content dispute; I suggest you thrash it out on the article talk page, because there is nothing admins can do here. If that doesn't work, look at dispute resolution or get a third opinion. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion discussion

Resolved

I don't think Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Threats of violence has a snowballs change in a hot place of passing. I would not object if it were closed as such. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Need sysop help to roll back large number of good-faith/badly-executed pagemoves

SGT141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved a large number articles on US police departments to new titles in a helpful attempt to specify the state in which each department is located. Unfortunately, the new titles are formatted like this:

San Francisco, California Sheriff's Department

In addition to being more cumbersome than the originals and being grammatically incorrect, that formatting also breaks the official names of the organizations in half, which -- per my understanding -- might have an effect on searches at third-party mirrors. In any case, it doesn't seem to be in line with the standard naming conventions. Most of the pagemoves do not seem to have been done for purposes of disambiguation, but simply for their own sake. I left a message with the editor asking him to stop, but if I remember correctly, doing a pagemove in reverse without borking things up requires administrator rights. Can someone give me a hand to reverse the recent pagemoves in SGT141's log? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 05:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In case there is a need to disambiguate, parentheses at the end could be used, for example: Nassau County Sheriff's Department (New York). bibliomaniac15 05:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In theory your either moving to a new page per Biblio or moving back to where he created a redirect. So if it san entirely new page, the only issue is double redirects, which non-admins can fix or move over redirects Help:Page_move#Moving_over_a_redirect, which AFAIK, non-admins can do. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking revert (if you have rollback) on this page [85]. For any it won't let you revert, then an admin would be needed. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never gotten around to requesting rollback. Is anyone willing to grant it if I go apply for it right now? (Where did I see that page...?) [edit: Hey, I guess I do have it. I wonder when that happened.] --Dynaflow babble 05:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback ---CWY2190^TC 05:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Granted rollback after reviewing history. Just remember not to use it in content disputes. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start, but my NyQuil has finally started kicking in, so I'm going postpone undoing the rest of the moves until tomorrow. No deadlines, no worries. There's a nasty flu-type bug loose out here, but at least being homebound and away from work gets me in front of Wikipedia again. Thanks for the help everybody, and make sure to drink plenty of orange juice, lest the flu get you. --Dynaflow babble 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As a new WP'r, a suggestion for conflict avoidance

OK for anonymous WP'r to add content, as is the current policy. OK for anonymous WP'r to remove content of another anonymous WP'r, as is the current policy. But, not OK for an anonymous WP'r to take down the entry of a real name WP'r, a big change in policy. The term real name means that the WP'r is identifiable by their actual name, plus a cv or resume and a conflict avoidance statement. Doug Youvan, doug@youvan.com , aka100TWdoug (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're actually at the wrong venue - try the Village Pump where ideas and proposals can be raised and discussed. Would also help to talk in Standard English rather than code, so others can understand what you are saying. As an aside, generally any proposal that creates more bureaucracy or suggests some users have a status that others do not is generally unlikely to find consensus. Orderinchaos 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann

The following was left on my talk page by a user in need of some help. As he says, I don't really want to get involved. I stepped in regarding a naming convention (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Syriac)‎) but I'm really trying to keep my distance from the overall issue. I'm just posting this here because I don't think Chaldean is aware of this page.

I know you don't want to get involved, but you have to, since the only admin involved is abusing his powers. He is deleting masive amount of source information [[86]] when it is clearly not off-topic. When I ask sources for his big changes, he states he owns the page [[87]] and is not obligated to bring sources to the table. I try to negotiate with, try to work with him, but he continues to put me down [[88]]. It would be one thing if this was a regular user talking this way, but this is an admin. He is moving pages without discussion [[89]] and the madness goes on. The thing I'm must troubled with is that he doesn't want to negotiate. I have been verbially abused so many times by this guy in the past week, for simply asking sources for his edits. And now he is ready to put his master-plan together by moving Assyrian people page, despite the huge opposition to it in the talk page. He doesn't care, his gameplan is to wait until the opposition has died down and then suggest to move it again. You don't go to Greek people page and suggest to move it to Greek/Hellenics people. This guy has a complete monopoly on Assyrian related pages. Chaldean (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I know the editor who wrote this has some POV issues of his own, but I also think Dbachmann is a little over-involved in this topic and is getting kind of aggressive, as some of his edits show. A few more eyes on the matter might be useful. Thanks, everyone. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. I don't have time myself, but this does look like it needs attention. Fast. For the record, Dbachmann is not using his tools (unless he is moving over redirects), so no abuse I can see. Just a content dispute that may be escalating. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ri-ight. Lets examine some of the diffs, shall we? "Deleting masive amount of source information" is usually the first thing one has to do on discovering a little walled garden where enthusiasts or fringe nationalists or mysticists of some stripe or another have set up a shrine to something. In this case, Dbachmann removed a long disgression about the stone age from an article about modern names. "Ownership" - I read Dbachmann's edit summary as indicating that he knows where the page has to go, but he's being swarmed with what he assumes are extreme nationalists; I personally can't disagree. (User:Chaldean's username is a bit of a giveaway.) In the same summary Dbachmann pleads for some admin attention. So I suppose this section is useful in a way after all.

"Moving pages" - as Carcaroth has pointed, out, its over redirects. More to the point, he had a perfectly valid reason: he moved the page "X in the USA" to X's official group name in the US census.

All-in-all, business as usual. Dbachmann's trying to apply our core policies to another little-visited corner of the project, that's all. His talkpage shows him being relatively restrained with the ensuing commotion. If anyone's interested, I'm sure he'd be happy with some help. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned with what I perceive as a growing attitude to consider editors actively trying to implement Wikipedia core policies as "over-involved". Indeed this needs more eyes. I have been advertising for more eyes. I will be grateful if it isn't left entirely to me to look after WP's coverage of "various ethnic groups and nationalisms". It is a deeply flawed attitude to think that the "admin caste" is here for admonishing people, while matters of content should be left to pov pushers of various convictions. I can't believe I am "old school" for actually trying to understand the issues under dispute and trying to fix them within policy, instead of an idiotic approach of "hur, hur, can you believe, some people are arguing over content (as opposed to procedure and red tape). Let's slap them all on the wrist a little bit and go back to Wikipedia-administring on IRC". dab (𒁳) 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can spend the rest of your life on IRC and you'll never see me there. I resent the implication that I'm a red tape admin; anyone here who knows me - love me or hate me - knows that isn't true. I know I stepped on your toes a bit with your guideline proposal, but that was because you were abusing it. I backed up my reasons with policy (just as you're doing here) but that doesn't mean I'm any more a slave to procedure than you are.

I'm curious, though, as to which "core policies" were implemented by this comment or this edit summary. That's the sort of thing that tells me you may be "over-involved". Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing that tells me only that someone has been over-taxing even Dbachmann's abundant patience. It happens, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings for removing comments in my talk page

Well I was racially abused by an anonymous IP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&diff=198577983&oldid=198366172

and the I removed the comment which was on my talk page. but the person (along with another individual) has responded with warnings for what I did on my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&diff=198579217&oldid=198578036 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&diff=198580078&oldid=198580063 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravichandar84&diff=198580742&oldid=198580363

The talk page guidelines clearly state that I can do whatever I want with my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments

I dont know what the hell i happening. Is this a kinda joke..-Ravichandar 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

129.74.116.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) needs a block for the racial nonsense. I'll warn the other guy. Lawrence § t/e 06:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The registered user was definitely out of line. Users can delete content from their user talk pages at will. --clpo13_(talk) 07:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think this warrants a block for the anon. While not exactly something one would say in a formal situation, "dot or feather" is a common slang way of asking whether one is an Indian of India or an American Indian. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, it totally isn't. And even if it is common where you come from, it is as completely inappropriate here as any other racial epithet. Relata refero (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The blockable part is rubbing it in Rav's face and dropping false and trollish warnings after Rav made it clear he wasn't going to answer. But blocks are preventive, not punitive, so there's no point doing anything if it's actually stopped. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgp688 has now been rapid-fire warned by three seperate users, so he should be aware now. Lawrence § t/e 07:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rapid-fire indeed. --clpo13_(talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that the IP and the registered user are the same person. Bellwether ^B_C 07:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, though, since Pgp688 is a fairly established account. Why stoop to racial vandalism now, after 10 months as a user? The issue seems to be resolved for now, at least. --clpo13_(talk) 07:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Note that the IP resolves to the University of Notre Dame, and User:Pgp688 has a Notre Dame userbox on his/her User page. Either the same user, or a compromised account. Corvus cornix_talk 07:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not surprising at all. It could well be compromised, though, especially if Pgp has no history of racism, trolling, etc. Didn't RyanGerbil have something like that happen? Bellwether ^B_C 07:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I really think this is an over-reaction to common street-slang. Assuming good faith, I'd imagine pgp neglected to log in before making a well-meaning, social-networky edit to someone's talk page, then proceeded to respond to what he saw as over-reaction with (accidental) over-reaction of his own, possibly aided by a faulty notion of policy. Unless I'm missing out on some prior history. As I said above, "dot or feather" is a slang-ish way of asking whether someone is an Indian or an Indian. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the comment is not "racially provocative". But then it was a highly personal comment asking me about my ethnicity which is, of course, none of his business. -Ravichandar 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I reply above, that's bollocks. Relata refero (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That still seems a tad bit racially insensitive, but I think the invalid warnings about content removal are the bigger issue. --clpo13_(talk) 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:Relata refero above, 'total bollocks', since the, um, 'question' was directed at a user named User:Ravichandar84. When combined with the warnings, this is clearly (racial) harassment. Why this sort of thing is treated so casually on Wikipedia is still beyond me.

Add: Look at this—User:Pgp688's 'final' warning[90] came only 7 minutes after the IP gave his warning.[91] I think an admin or checkuser should look into this. ~ priyanath talk 17:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, 129.74.116.14's only edits are those two messages at Ravi's talk page and, just prior to that, a bit of vandalism at University of Michigan, adding a fake "You have new messages at your talk page" banner to the top, with the link piped (where else) to Anus.

Technical problem

I am facing technical problem in adding the checkuser request Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar in the main page Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. The particular case in the main checkuser page is not undisplayed in my browser. Can anyone fix it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon

User:Dicklyon, doesn't stop erasing entire sections of List of works designed with golden ratio. We both want the article to be perfectly sourced, actually I went to his user talk page and asked for his help first for that reason. Not only he doens't help providing some sourcing, which would be ok if he doesn't feel like, but he eliminates entire sections mindlessly, even when I'm sure he knows there is a great deal of sources he could be bringing instead. The stuff he is ereasing would be like erasing "Newton enunciated the gravity law[citation needed], just because, although already pointed, the line doesn't cite a source yet.

He was the most insistive in the section that made less sense to erase, which was actually well sourced before he started his erasings, once I proved that (to my surprise) not only other internet pages use the very same source, but also other wikipedia related articles, he moved on to other irrational erasings. And the story repeated, he claimed once again that my source book doesnt talk about the realion between golden ratio and Giza and Stone henge, when actually: page 96 clearly supports my statements.As you can see in his talk page, I'm not the only one that disagrees with his procedures. He might already broken 3RR, but I'm not sure.

Even though I explained myself, I was the first to notice I didn't find the correct template for the copyright license of some scans of part of a book page (2 are big parts of the pages, and one is less than half) I uploaded as sources, he was too quick to complain. That's ok, but a little weird, even though I think in the end he means well, he *could seem* to be acting against me. (The source of the images is in Spanish, but acording to WP:SOURCE I know it is ok, because it's mostly for graphic self expalining material)

I'm also aware of the possiblility that maybe it is me who can be actually wrong. If so, let me know why, I'm open for change. Thanks for your time. --20-dude (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the username link, I hope you don't mind. That said, this appears to be a content dispute (with possible 3RR violation overtones) rather than a matter for admin intervention. I would suggest continuing to attempt to communicate with him, and perhaps formally requesting the start of dispute resolution. When the editor realises that there may be a problem in the communal aspect of editing he may be more willing to discuss than "edit war". LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes actually he just modified his editing style and made some changes that satisfy both of us. I was directed here from my talk page after using a --help-- template, and did as told.--20-dude (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WalterGR reporting user for continued Wikipedia disturbance, including repeated sock puppetry

I, WalterGR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) am reporting Kilz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for repeated sock puppetry use during edit wars and continued disruption of the editing process. (Please forgive the length of this entry - I just wanted to make sure I thoroughly documented the sock puppetry.)

Previous incidents:

• 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC) - Kilz is blocked for suspected sock puppetry.
• 12:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC) - Kilz's static IP is blocked as it's "used to avoid 3RR detection." 67.175.233.209 is clearly Kilz. Kilz obliquely admits this. (diff)
• 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Kilz is blocked for violating the 3 Revert Rule. Full disclosure: I reported him.

Incidents not yet reported:

• Of Kilz's approximately 1,200 edits, about 1,100 - over 90% - are related to controversy he has stirred up in the following 3 articles:

• Swiftfox. Page history, at the end of the edit war: [92]
• Office Open XML. Edit war is slowly ongoing, but here's a good snapshot of it: [93]
• Standardization of Office Open XML. Current page history, edit war is ongoing: [94]

• I have identified 4 sock puppets which Kilz uses to make edits during these edit wars, and to agree with his arguments in discussion pages:

• IDontBelieveYou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Idbyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ("IDBYou" = "I D B You" = "IDontBelieveYou")
• StVectra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Loki144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• (Another user noticed his use of "IDontBelieveYou" and "Loki144", here.)

• Use of Loki144:

• Kilz argues for the removal of a reference for benchmark data which shows Swiftfox is faster than Firefox:

• "The site is also a private site listing the findings of only one person with no editorial oversight and is therefore not a creditable source [WP:RS]..." (diff: [95])

• Loki44 backs Kilz up:

• "The browser speed test site is also a private site and not a reliable source." (diff: [96])

• Use of IDontBelieveYou:

• When Kilz argued for the removal of the reference for benchmark data, he also said:

• "If we cant find information on the 2.0 version from a reliable source the section needs to be removed IMHO." (same diff as above: [97])

• IDontBelieveYou backs Kilz up:

• "I agree with you Kilz... This article should be about 2.0. If we can't find references for the speed section for 2.0, the section should be removed." (diff: [98])

• Kilz doesn't believe Swiftfox is faster than Firefox.

• Kilz removes the text "The name Swiftfox implies a faster browser than Firefox" (diff [99]). It gets added back in. Kilz then adds a {{fact}} tag (diff [100]). It gets removed. Kilz adds an {{unreliable}} tag to the section instead (diff [101]). It gets removed. He adds it again (diff [102]). It gets removed again.

• IDontBelieveYou comes to Kilz's aid:

• He makes the following edit: "The name Swiftfox comes from the animal Swift Fox which coincidently implies speed". (diff [103])
• That edit gets removed, then Kilz "restore[s] edit of idontbelieveyou" (diff [104])

• Use of IDBYou and StVectra:

• Kilz doesn't believe statements from Microsoft's web sites can be used in Standardization of Office Open XML:

• "It dose not pass WP:SOURCES it is a self published source." (diff [105])

• StVectra agrees with Kilz:

• "Microsoft in this instance is not a reliable source. It is writing about itself WP:SELFPUB clearly says it cant be used as a reference when it includes claims about third parties." (diff [106])

• Kilz later responds:

• "You cant use the source. It is self published , and has claims about a third party." (diff [107])

• Sock pupped IDBYou backs Kilz and StVectra up:

• "WP:VER is very clear, you can not use self published sources. I think the section needs to be removed as it also has claims against a 3rd party" (diff [108])

• Kilz later argues that blogs cannot be used as sources:

• "This is from a Blog, blogs are not usable as sources WP:SPS." (diff [109])

• StVectra agrees:

• "I agree that blogs should not be used as sources or references. They all to often have bias that is impossible to remove." (diff [110])

• Kilz agrees with the bias point:

• "Every blog has bias." (diff [111])

• Kilz later disagrees with blogs I have removed:

• "Ars Technica is a news site. That they use Groklaw as a source in no way makes them unusable. FanaticAttack is not a blog in my opinion but an news site that covers a wide range of topics. The article is neutral. That it has a place for comments is besides the point. GrokDoc is a wiki, but it is not an 'open wiki'." (diff [112])

• StVectra agrees with Kilz:

• "Use of information on Groklaw is not a reason to remove another site. Fanaticattack is not a blog IMHO, and the neutral style they use is that of most news sites. I am not so sure about Grokdoc more because of a neutral point of view problem. Open wiki's are those that allow anon posting, it is not open." (diff [113])

• Kilz removes information (diff [114]) that later gets restored. IDBYou removes the same information (diff [115]).
• IDBYou removes some quotations from the same section (diff [116]) that are later restored. Kilz removes some of them again (diff [117]).

Kilz's periods of editing activity - whether via sock puppets or his logged in account - are directly correlated to edit wars and controversy within those articles.

• Swiftfox: This dispute was summed up here. Kilz believes Swiftfox is non-Free Software and is opposed to non-Free Software: "There are a few of us on the Ubuntu forums who oppose non free software... Jason has tried to stop me from telling people Swiftfox is non-free... I think I know how unethical he is, and know he will lie to win." (diff: diff).
• Office Open XML and Standardization of Office Open XML: On Kilz's talk page, "Groklaw - I find the site facinating. When I found it 2 1/2 years ago I was still using Windows. The site has changed how I feel about freedom and the court system. Ubuntu - I have completely removed Microsoft from my life. I do not miss it in any way." (diff: [118]) Groklaw is critical of Office Open XML standardization.

While every editor has a point of view, Kilz is extremely and continuously disruptive.

If necessary, I can provide more info on request.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 10:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sending to hell

On 15 March SPA account Mike Babic has been blocked on 24 hours period because of 3RR rule [119]. It is important to notice that blocking has been done on my demand similar to semi-protection of article Serbs of Croatia (which has been edited by this account). During this 24 hours blocking I have recieved this nice message:

"YOUR DESERVES THE HOTTEST PLACE IN HELL ....." [120]

It is important to notice that this user has today reverted semi-protection tag put in article Serbs of Croatia by administrator Jossi. To tell the truth I want this nationalistic SPA account banned because in last few months nationalistic edit warring between Balkan editors has stoped and we do not need SPA accounts for starting new edit wars !--Rjecina (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Help? spam filter issue.

Resolved

 – link removed from AfD

I'm attempting to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunwitch. I've had no problem transcluding it to the new day. When I tried to remove it from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 9, I got the following message:

“ The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to spam links in other sections.

Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page.

The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://www.associatedcontent.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

”

I don't think there's a spyware situation on my machine, given that I've edited plenty of other pages with no trouble. (Unless it's specifically targeted for this one page. :)) If this link appears on that page, though, I can't find it. I need assistance removing the relisted article and figuring out what's the deal with the page. Can anybody else edit it? (I considered taking this to "help" or VP, but decided to bring it here, since removing transcluded AfDs is usually done by admins. If I should take it elsewhere, let me know, and I will.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirox (Bionicle Character) was relisted about 12 hours ago, but it is also still transcluded to March 9. I can't remove that one, either. Clearly the problem is somewhere on that page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm experimenting at WP:Sandbox. I copied all of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 9, pasted it into the sandbox, then tried to save - same problem. I should be able to narrow it down in a few minutes. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. The link was in a closed AfD for I wanna be the guy, which I have now removed, and all is well.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yay. Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User circumventing block

This anon user has acknowledged that he was blocked and is circumventing that block. [[121]]

It sounds to me like he was maybe unfairly blocked (or maybe not some people think he is a sock). Regardless I think this IP needs to be blocked. Hohohahaha (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user:Janice Rowe despite article probation (Prem Rawat again)

• Article Probation conditions: see template on top of Talk:Prem Rawat
• Individual notification to Janice Rowe: [122]
• Incident 1:
  • 22:58, 15 March 2008 Jossi provides a rewrite proposal on talk.
  • 14:15, 16 March 2008 Andries comments on the talk page there is an error in Jossi's proposal (see Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Schnabel 1982 that indeed Andries is right)
  • 14:47, 16 March 2008 Janice Rowe copies Jossi's erroneous version verbatim in the article: Janice must have read Andries' comment when copying, while on the talk page where Andries' comment was, was the only place she could have gotten it).
• Incident 2:
  • On the Prem Rawat talk page it has been discussed ad nauseam that some sources comment on Rawat's movements or his followers, and that it is not such a good idea to use such sources as comments on Rawat (the person), see for instance Talk:Prem Rawat#Section break ("lack of intellectual content") (that is the section where Janice Rowe got the text produced by Jossi, as mentioned in Incident 1 above);
  • On 07:52, 16 March 2008 I remove "whose emphasis is on an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma," from the article, replacing it by "This Knowledge consists of the techniques to obtain stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual: the happiness of the true self-understanding.", in a more appropriate place of the Lead section, also moving the long text of a re-used footnote to the highest position in the article, explaining in the edit summary: "inappropriately sourced: Magalwadi has only "Balyogeshwar [has] consistently rejected theoretical knowledge as useless" when speaking about Rawat; Hunt attributes this to Elan Vital; added other idea" (Magalwadi and Hunt are the sources 1 and 2 of the removed sentence)
  • 14:42, 16 March 2008 Janice re-adds "whose emphasis is on an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma," commenting in the edit summary: "This is a better, more accurate revision", completely ignoring the talk page discussion and the edit summary why this piece of text was no longer there. (On the technical side, in that edit Janice also re-adds the full enclosed text of the longest footnote of the article, which is unnecessary while it is a re-used footnote). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request For Assistance With Relentless Self-promotion and COI

Since I seem to be involved in a dispute with Weareallone (talk · contribs), I'm reluctant to challenge recent edits that appear to be self-promotion and COI. I have already opened a sockpuppetry case as the result of edits in this Afd discussion, so I don't think it's wrong to state here that I believe Weareallone to be Mark Bellinghaus. Weareallone has inserted and embellished material about Bellinghaus into Peaches Geldof [123] [124], William Travilla [125] [126] and Debunker [127] [128].

Weareallone has a long history of adding Belling haus references to articles [129] [130] [131] [132], which how I came to be involved with him. I'm asking for help dealing with this, since anything I do (including this) is likely to be seen as an attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR article probation violation by User:Francis Schonken

This is the second time in a short period of time. Previous report here.

• 23:18, March 15, 2008 ((Undid revision 198499325 by Momento (talk) this is not what Hunt says)
• 23:04, March 15, 2008 (Undid revision 198509229 by Momento (talk) not covered by the sources here; is covered in the section with other sources)

• Diff of 1RR probation notice

It should be noted that User:Francis Schonken objected to the probation proposal, but now it has been implemented and he needs to learn to respect it. After all, the 1RR probation is there for a reason.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, quit your belligerent filibustering.

The two edits presented above are two reverts of entirely different parts of the Prem Rawat page.

Is this how you're going to use 1RR? Between 21:48 and 23:20, 15 March 2008 Momento performed 9 edits; the next day, between 06:55 and 07:52 I reverted 4 of them, using "undo" function where this was possible (which was for only 2, the two listed above). I agreed to his/her other 5 edits, and even repaired a technical glitch that had slipped in one of those (unoperational link inserted by Momento, my repair of the same).

So, no, this is not how 1RR is going to be used: allowing POV-pushers to perform an indefinite number of edits, and allowing other editors to revert only "one". This is a POV-pusher's scheme of unseen breadth.

Hereby, then, I ask formally that Jossi would disallowed any further involvement in any Prem Rawat-related topic, via whatever media under the WMF's remit, for unrelentlessly protecting POV-pushers like Momento and Janice Rowe.

My next edit will be a notification of this request at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Jossi Fresco still 'A Great Wikipedian'? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)