Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Improper page moves of Gibraltar events

    Number 57 has unilaterally decided to rename Gibraltar events Gibraltarian despite having been requested by three Gibraltar editors not to do so on his user page, because that is not the correct name.

    Plus was asked to look at this renaming:

    john 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The name of the event is on:

    I consider he is misusing his position as an administrator. As there was already article with the wrong name, only an admin could have deleted it to be able to move the article. Efforts to discuss this only result in being told the editor is 'an English teacher'. [1]

    He willing not look at references or the opinion of others, so a complaint is appropriate. I have delayed in the hope of progress but none. If another process is more appropriate, please advise. --Gibnews (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just repeat what I wrote in Gibnews' talk page (not sure why he didn't understand as I explained it three times). I didn't use any administrator processes to move the page - as can be seen in the diff, I moved it over a redirect (which obviously wouldn't exist if I'd deleted it). Plus I only did this for consistency's sake after Gibnews' WP:RM on several articles (e.g. Talk:Gibraltarian constitutional referendum, 2006#Name Change request) had failed (as a result of which he appears to have resorted to forum shopping). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how that was done, and there was NO reason to do rename any of those pages because they were correct before. The other part of my complaint is that you refuse to listen to anyone OR look at the references and instead impose a missleading description of an important event. --Gibnews (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I used the move tab at the top of the page; (2) I believe there was a reason because in my eyes it was incorrect before; (3) I have looked at your references, and I've provided my own ones that refute them.
    Anyway, this is a content dispute, not an incident requiring administrator action, so I suggest you stop clogging up the incidents board with this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to see how you can legitimately refute the Government of Gibraltar which called the event with a reference in a user contributed online dictionary. What concerns me is nobody seems bothered, apart from the few Gibraltarians here. surely someone else is reading this and can see why its objectionable Its an abuse of power. --Gibnews (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is it an "abuse of power" when I haven't used any admin powers? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still fail to see how you renamed the article without being able to delete the redirect without being an admin. Anyway as nobody seems to care about what you do, there does not seem to be be much point continuing this complaint here. However It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. --Gibnews (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I Write Stuff disruption

    Apparently as revenge for presenting evidence of sockpuppetry in an Arbcom case, he is wandering out Wikipedia creating nonsense pages claiming that I am a sockpuppet of one of the accused socks (see recent contribs here). I request that an admin cleanup this mess and give him a stern talking-to. - Merzbow (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask for a check based on sound evidence only. Merzbow edits from the same geographic location as the suspected sockpuppet. They further have the same linguistic characteristics. They have also never edited in the same time period as the other user, even though they are suppose to only be 20 miles apart. I do not see the harm in letting a neutral 3rd party finish their check, if in fact Merzbow is so sure it will be negative, no harm in confirming he is not a sockpuppet. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some diffs for review? If not, I'm inclined to agree that your behavior borders on harassment. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs would be already provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow, where expected, right? — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Merzbow, related to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:I_Write_Stuff and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_Write_Stuff. I request a halt to the forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that your requests are quite patently nonsense, as the single piece of "evidence" is a post made by G33 using the SGR sock after the case started, containing obviously copy-pasted bits from my contribution history. Creating an RFCU and a SSP in addition to identical ArbCom evidence and Workshop additions is an obvious attempt at disruption. - Merzbow (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its convenient that you state it is his sock, you, being someone in closer proximity to the socks IP, also found all the evidence. You live in the region, you obviously know how Giovanni33 writes, since you are the only one to present evidence, which you then fed to other users on their talk page to pursue. You have the same access to the same ISP's and wireless networks, except it would be easier, geographically, for you to get to them then Giovanni33, by distance. Finally, you have never posted at the same time as the sockpuppet in question, which if it requires you to travel, or to switch to a wireless network, would make complete sense. Again, if the evidence is not suspect, a neutral 3rd party admin will state it so, without you making an uproar and complaining. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm sure you're aware, requests for CU (and presumably the SSP) related to an ArbCom case must be made at that case. You seem to be desperately and disruptively forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint by Merzbow is a double-standard because actually IWS is doing nothing different than what Merzbow is doing. The methods used for the evidence are virtually identical (no comment on the actual merits or quality of the evidence, though). So, if it's good enough for him to dish this out towards others, he should be able to take it in return. What was that phrase about the kitchen and it being hot? Also, it look bad that Merzbow feel IWS investigations are such a threat that he needs to be stopped, when all he is doing is pursing a line of investigation that may uncover some important connections that could turn the tables on Merzbow's arbitration case against me. If one is interested in uncovering the truth, there is nothing to fear.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This crap by I Write Stuff is an obvious violation-- it's disruptive vandalism. Giovanni, save it for the arbcom case. I'm sure everyone around here is quite tired of reading your long winded polemics that contain little actual content and skirt the edges of WP:CIVIL. The fact that you are resorting to such tactics in an effort to undermine the arbcom case against you elsewhere instead of doing much of note in the case itself is telling. Jtrainor (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read the accusation before, it is because I use "Times1" and "Times2" for reference names. I already explained to Merzbow the folly, in that the reference name is not Times1, Wikipedia adds the increment to the end of a reference name when generating links on the page, it is how it differentiates between the multiple users when a ref name is applied. Amazing how everyone who opposes Merzbow is a sockpuppet. And next time you post from the UK, you may as well just use your IP. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question. Why is it when you did the check before against this account and others, you point out the fact that they are from a close geographical area to each other, but not now? In fact, you point out geographical facts about users who are not even part of the user check request when you carried them out before against these accounts. Isn't it true that Merzbow and this account are from the same area? And about about the ISP information? Have they shared the same ISP before?Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are in the same geographic area but there is an additional technical aspect that makes it less likely, in my opinion. Thatcher 04:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for confirming. Perhaps we can move on to editing instead of accusations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly too stale for action, but if this user is a WP:SPA with no role on Wikipedia other than to disrupt articles on American politics and terrorism, then he would be covered by the proposals currently being fleshed out under the Giovanni33 arbitration. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have written more articles on Wikipedia then you, 26 or so to date. To insist I am here to do nothing but "disrupt" is clearly a foolish assumption. You have been here a significant period of time, yet I rarely see you actually writing articles. This most valuable editors are those who actually edit, instead of complain and insult on talk pages, as if they have nothing better to do. Instead of leveling accusations against me, perhaps you can go write something. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Me and several other editors familiar with SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmph/ZeroFaults are quite convinced IWS is in fact a resurrection. We were going to do nothing because he apparently had ceased being disruptive, but this has changed. A more detailed SSP report will very likely be forthcoming, once the G33 case settles down. I will say no more on the issue until then. - Merzbow (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we both use its incorrectly! I would think after being shown how wrong you have been regarding reference names that you would have apologized for your foolish allegations. However I would not be surprised if Giovanni33 receives a block, you next attempt to label all New Yorkers into a single category as sockpuppets of someone else. I however await any accusations, I am sure they will be filled with the humor of mass typos. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This [2] appears to state that IWS=7OD. But its by an anon William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Confirmed that's him. Thatcher 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone ahead and blocked IWS as a checkuser-confirmed sock of a banned user. MastCell Talk 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. It's a shame, because he can write articles. But he also can't avoid falling into the same patterns of disruption that got him into trouble before. I and a couple other people (including an admin) talked privately a while back and were OK with letting him be if he did avoid the disruptive activities. But as we've seen, it wasn't in the stars. - Merzbow (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violations

    User:David Shankbone has decided "out" real life people for contributing to Wikipedia Review; see his talk page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. No matter what the editor has done, Wikipedia is not the place for this, and WP:BLP applies. My first inclination was to delete/request oversight of the edits, and warn David, but given Mr Shankbone is quite popular due to his numerous image contributions, I thought I would bring it here rather than risk a wheel war (the last time I used admin tools with regards to an established contributor for obvious and knowingly violating established policies, it was undone and I didn't hear the end of it for weeks). Thoughts, please. Neıl ☎ 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • My thought is that Neil has a personal issue with me--he took it upon himself to go around to all articles where other users put my name in the image captions and removed them, why just me, I'm unsure--so if I get blocked then it should be by somebody other than Neil. He has a personal animus. If anyone wants my reasoning for stating that Paul Wehage is the fieryangel at the Wikipedia Review, let me know. But as Lawrence Cohen stated, our policies don't exist to protect editors of other websites. --David Shankbone 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, applying the image use policy does not amount to a personal issue - I simply noticed this while reading the last ANI thread about you. I should point out I haven't even considered blocking you - this is why I have brought it to ANI for discussion. Please do not deflect the issue with rubbish about some personal animus. I have none with you. I also note you have repeated your BLP violation. Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last ANI thread was not about me, but about User:SqueakBox, and I had started it. He had taken a false COI argument that the fieryangel--my good friend Paulie--and applied it here. You have also misapplied it, by the way, but not with removing it from the image captions. When I saw that was happening, I raised the issue myself and nobody addressed it (I can hunt through the diffs - I raised it at the time Jus4helpin was putting names, not just mine, in captions. Regardless, you overapplied it. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there are any other contributors who have their name in the article's image caption (whether put there by themselves or by someone else), feel free to let me know the name and I will work on removing those, too. It is quite hard to find them unless the name is known. Neıl ☎ 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether an editor has been here for five years or five minutes is irrelevant. If a user is using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta and are in danger of bringing the project into disrepute, all steps have to be taken to stop them doing so, whether they be Shankbone or Willy on Wheels. Suggest indefinite block as the post above shows the outing will not stop George The Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think an indefinite block is warranted or appropriate. An agreement to stop would suffice, providing David's various BLP violations - which he is continuing - are deleted or oversighted. I would like a neutral admin to step in here. Note the link David provides doesn't even back up his assertion - all it states is that a user holds the copyright to a piece of work on a person Wikipedia has an article on, nothing more.Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Neil (with some surprise as I hardly ever do). There's no possible way David isn't in the wrong here. — iridescent 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I would like a neutral admin as well. Preferably a non-Wikipedia Review member. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to ask why (possibly re-)revealing who Musikfabrick is/who fieryangel is is so important? What does it matter, really? Wouldn't just not doing it lead to less drama/in-fighting? I agree he may have done you some harm, but really, how does (re-)outing/revealing his identity him help the encyclopedia? And obviously an indefinite block is over-the-top. Mahalo, David. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to stay out of this mess, if that make me neutral enough. And I've never contributed to WR, And I consider myself a friend and general supporter of David S. I agree that the talk pages text there does not prove the identity, especially since a/copyright was asserted for more than 1 article, but never proven, and b/J-T B says it was an account used by several people (in apparent ignorance of our prohibition against that). As for people at WR, I suggest the safest rule is that we should stay clear of any not explicitly admitted corresponding WP identities, and in fact it might even be well that the correspondence be explictly admitted here, not just in WR--do we want to accept their standards? David, please redact. I dont think this calls for oversight, but thats up to OTRS and the office if there's a complaint. I am undecided about the part of attributing real people to purely WR identities. DGG (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-I do not see any BLP vios, David Shankbone did "out" (in the Wikipedian sense of the word) another editor. My main point is that the title of this section in innacurate--It's not a BLP vio, it's this Wikipedian idea of "outing" that is the problem. daveh4h 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I suppose if the question is one of importance then it's not "Important" - except that over on Jimbo's page you had yet another person, this time an IP editor spreading Wehage's FALSE BLP INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID SHANKBONE there. Not one person has removed that, not one person has asked for oversight. My reputation both on and off Wiki has been damaged by Wehage, and I encourage anyone who also feels the same, including Newyorkbrad, to contact me. I have his I.P. address. I have evidence. But I do note that both Lawrence and Neil left up the BLP violation about me, nobody has removed it, but yet I have violated no policy. I haven't outed anyone. I found out who someone was off-sight, and then found out they outed themselves here. So, I have violated no policy. Yet I have been one of the most constructive and productive contributors to this site, and few people seem concerned with my reputation - only those of offsite trolls. --David Shankbone 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest we forget, David Shankbone does not actually exist outside of your own imagination George The Dragon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...BLP doesn't apply to editors. Shankbone isn't your given name. I redacted the outing only, I don't know about anything else, because I saw a good contributor--you--doing something that could get him banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, David Shankbone is the subject of several mainstream media articles. You all need to start acting like it's a BLP, because that name is tied to me whether any of us like it or not. Just because "George the Dragon" hasn't done anything noteworthy doesn't mean other people here haven't. --David Shankbone 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any other User:Something that we have applied BLP standards to? I think this would be a new thing... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We simply can't go allow slander and defamation of editors on this site. Many of us have editor names that, because our work here became noteworthy off-wiki, is tied to us. That makes it a stage name, a pen name, or whatever else you want to call it. It's beyond the realm of comprehension that some of us would not see that. And I'm not the only one - asked TonytheMarine, User:Durova, User:SlimVirgin, et al. --David Shankbone 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you outing anyone, anyway? If said slander and defamation is occurring on wikipedia, we have ways to deal with that (and outing people is not part of it, last I checked). If it is occurring off-wiki, deal with it off-wiki. Outing someone here because of something they did elsewhere seems quite juvenile. --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of BLP is that it applies to all living people. So unless we have zombies on Wikipedia, I'd say that the general principle applies to editors. That said, it applies to WR editors, as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David, please place here or send to me -any- comment on WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. Anyway, she has never even had account on wikipedia so what she writes on another site, is her own affair, and if you are equating her with a Wikipedia editor you can't have got that correct, nor could you prove it as there is no evidence for it. She's said she's never had an account on wikipedia, and we have no reason to doubt that. If you've outed her (I've not looked at the edits concerned, but you've just admitted it) you are outing (and by doing so, sort of harrassing someone who is not even on this site so is entirely entitled to voice her opinions on another site- it's no business of this site to have on it identifying material about an unrelated person who happens to disagree with some things on this site but has a complete right to voice her opinions without attempted, and probably wrong anyway, outing from an editor here. Lawrence- TFA is not even an editor here, and yes, even for editors who are outed by others here, we remove identifying info.Merkin's mum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. " Merkin - you appear entirely unfamiliar with the situation and the actors involved if you are writing that. Anyway, I think I have said enough...I will allow you all to discuss this. I'm on Wikibreak. Paul: Lulz! --David Shankbone 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    for t hat matter, false information posted here should in fact be removed--the rule against outing -- or untrue attempted outing --protects widely in both directions & applies to anything connected with an identity. David's right there. It applies to all. DGG (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone actually _read_ BLP? If it applies to editors _as editors_, we first ought to shut down WP:AIV, since those vandalism reports aren't backed by reliable secondary sources. This noticeboard would be second, then arbcom etc. --Random832 (contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I think personally, it may be time to abandon anon and pseudonymous editing, as I've opined elsewhere, but the policy here is to allow it, and to enforce allowance. As long as that's policy, I'm behind it, regardless of personal opinion. Therefore, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances as outlined in the m:Privacy policy, and/or in matters related to articles, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, no one should be revealing private information about others against their wishes, whether true or false. No one. We cannot control what is done at non WMF sites but it's not something to be encouraged here. Period. I don't think it matters whether one is a WR participant or not. I don't know all the particulars here, but if people are outing the particulars of David's pseudonymous identity, that's wrong, the information should be deleted or oversighted and the people cautioned or sanctioned. But that goes both ways. If David is outing the particulars of other people's pseudonmymous identity, that is also not to be tolerated and should be dealt with the same way. Regardless of how much of a Meatball:VestedContributor David may or may not be. No free passes. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David, will you redact the outings? If David will not, then can someone else? I had best not do it, as I have a personal animus against David, now. Apparently. I'm not sure how. Neıl ☎ 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify at least one bit of the sound-and-fury - there is no doubt at all that User:Musikfabrik is connected to Paul Wehage, as MF has admitted it themself, so that doesn't constitute "outing". — iridescent 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but DS might provide what he thinks is proof that thefieryangel who posts on Wikipedia Review is the same person as this Paul W, but it will not be sufficient proof, as he is probably incorrect. As to indef blocking- no but the info should be removed as it may be wrong anyway, and Mark W is presumably a real person, that DS is accusing of something he might prove to his own satisfaction, but not beyond reasonable doubt. The info should be removed, and whatever sanction which usually applies to people attempting to 'out' others, applied; at least a warning and if he re-posts the info, the same as what usually happens to people who do that. With allowances made for him being a frequent contributor, perhaps. But given that, people might expect better than the sort of behaviour that usually would be from an IP or a new user. Merkin's mum 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may well be true that there's a connection between User:Musikfabrik and Paul Wehage but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that there "is no doubt at all" about that purely on the basis of the account having claimed such a connection. (posted for and on behalf of Vladimir Putin) 87.254.71.190 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, as one of the major participants in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau, I'd be genuinely surprised if thefieryangel is Paul Wehage. Wehage was part of the Musikfabrik role account, yes, but there are several pieces of information that mitigate against him being the account on Wikipedia Review. Further, I will not disclose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Based on all the above, is it fair to say the consensus is that David Shankbone needs to stop posting this sort of thing as it's inappropriate on Wikipedia? If it stops him doing it in future (one way or another), this thread has achieved its purpose. Neıl ☎ 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreschi- through my own info, I'm pretty sure TFA is female.:) Neil, has anyone warned DS on his talk page, I think this deserves at least a warning. Merkin's mum 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Moreschi. It's been a while since I read Wounded Vanity Review but I seriously doubt FA is Paul Wehage (or Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Possibly an androgynous role account - but let's not go there...--Folantin (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I provided evidence at the Wikipedia Review that Paul Wehage is "the fieryangel" over there and has been making defamatory statements about me, Erik Moeller, Wikipedia, Jim Wales, et al. I don't really care whether you all agree with this or not. I don't plan to be around here much anymore. The thread for the evidence is here. If anyone, like User:Merkinsmum, who has lambasted me and others on Wikipedia over at the Wikipedia Review as "Wikiwhistle" and supported the trolling of Paul Wehage/TheFiery Angel, questions why I would do this, they only need Google my name at the WR and read the things TheFieryAngel (and Merkinsmum/Wikiwhistle) wrote about me there. Enjoy the photos. --David Shankbone 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New pieces of info have come together over the last few days: thefieryangel is not Paul Wehage nor JT Boisseau, though I'm 99 percent sure, now, as to who are the persons involved, and completely certain as to one.

    Regardless, I would suggest that this petty tit-for-tat between Wikipedia people and Wikipedia Review people is not very productive. "You out us so we out you" is simply not coherent. The trolls all fall silent eventually...so ignore. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DS- I will stand up for people if I think they're being wrongly accused of something, I'm just like that. Several people now have told you TFA is not this Paul bloke. And I'm entitled to my opinions. It doesn't stop me contributing to wikipedia productively and I have spoken out against any forms of outing repeatedly on WR, just as I am now. To be honest, I never expect to have to do so on Wikipedia. I half-hoped we were better than that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigns to protect people's anonymity online and Mike Godwin previously worked for them. I think that contributors' rights to anonymity is part of wikipedia ideology (within reason, of course) and you do no one any good by linking contributors' accounts in this way- do you want everyone to be outed? You know nothing of my life circumstances, nor of TFA's, (who I don't know particularly well, I'm just speaking out because I think she and this Paul bloke are being picked on, and also we don't know that what is being said about her or Paul is even true.) there are reasons why I used another name on WR aside from why people usually do so. (Which aren't to do with WR or WP, but unrelated, real-world people.) Not that I will ever trust you with those reasons. Are you wanting to be the Mr.Brandt of Wikipedia? Merkin's mum 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the ethos you need to consider, lover of Wikidrama (per your User box) is that when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. MM, you started threads ridiculing me on the WR--"Bloke's treating Wikipedia like a job!"--and ridiculing others on here, and you seriously expect some kind of courtesy extended to you? Where do you get off? And by the way, I have had it confirmed that Paul Wehage is TheFieryAngel, now from another source. I removed that source's identifying characteristics from their e-mail and forwarded it on to admins and the Foundation (ask Georgewilliamherbert, Slimvirgin, jpgordon, Jimbo, et al.) You have tied your self in with the wrong crowd, MM, and if being called the Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia is what you want to call me, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia sucks. Why does it suck? Because of people like you, Merkinsmum. Now, go on over to the WR and chortle some more at the expense of others who have given far more to this project than you have the ability to do. Hey! maybe you can take that comment and have a tea party with User:George_The_Dragon and whinge about how arrogant I am because I point out the obvious. I believe it's part of the wisdom of the crowd that mediocrity shall reign. Invite Paul Wehage (Somey knows he is TheFieryAngel - TFA has only used 3 IP addresses the entire time he's posted at the WR, right Somey? Right Somey?! Lulz!). Think about it Merkisnmum/Wikiwhistle: You are defending someone who has had expressly wanted to "tear this place apart." Oh, and Paulie/Jean-Thierry/Musik Fabrik: I'll be seeing you all, bay-bees! Shankbone's gone rouge... --David Shankbone 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not followed this thread, don't know what it's about, see that it's long enough that I'm not going to try to catch up at this stage, but another "Fuck off" edit summary just popped up on my watchlist. After the "Jesus fucking Christ" edit summary I saw last week, I'm beginning to wonder how much we expect editors here to put up with, and just what our civility standards are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There are certainly some strange double standards with regards to civility. Any amount of off-wiki abuse is supposed to be ignored, even when the culprit interacts with the victim on-wiki. It's very odd we sanction this Jekyll and Hyde behaviour. Nevertheless, if we want to keep Wikipedia "pure" and not engage in outing and such like here, there are plenty of off-wiki venues for those who want to pursue these fights, especially blogs. It takes about 5 minutes to set up one at Blogger [3] and you can write what you like there. I imagine you can even link to your blog from your user page (what was the WP:BADSITES ruling once again?). --Folantin (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not even heard of User:George the Dragon although I'm sure I would love to have tea with him as I like tea.:) I've not tied myself in with any crowd and will answer back on WR if I think people there are being particularly dodgy. I don't winge particularly about anything, I do have a sense of humour but don't think that's illegal or blockworthy, within reason.:) Since I value being on wiki I try not to be too evil about those here, this is something I'm trying to do more intensely as time goes on. But sometimes you have to let off steam, or have a laugh, or whatever, it's preferable to going on a rampage like some people do on wiki.:) As you can see by my userpage, contribs etc I do try to focus very seriously on civility. Merkin's mum 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This person has now taken it upon himself to edit my userpage [4] which I was unaware of and another user kindly reverted. He is clearly not going to stop and he has gone on wikibreak to seek to avoid any consequences of his actions. I will now apologise to him if I have upset him, but he should stop this picking on women. He knows nothing about my life and doesn't realise what he is doing. Meaning no undue disrespect to WR, a lot of people choose to use another name there, because of what are seen as risks from some contributors there. Merkin's mum 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block?

    Given David Shankbone's latest spree (all after "going on Wikibreak") such as:

    I believe an indefinite block needs to be considered at this time before David does any more damage. However, if I do it myself, I will no doubt be accused of being involved, so would someone neutral do it, please? Neıl ☎ 09:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef? I'm going to go on record as being a softie and say that I don't think that's justified yet. But a week at least would seem sane (call it forcing the wikibreak, if you will). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we don't call it a cool-down block, a week with a final warning would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Teeheehee, calling anything a cool-down block is guaranteed to start moar drama (maybe that's why they ask about it at RfA?). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just tell the guy to get a blog then he can post whatever abuse he likes about editors off-site - and they will still have to be polite to him here. This is the standard, hypocritical Wikipedia way of "civility". David's main mistake was choosing the wrong venue for his rants. He certainly has some justification for his behaviour (not that I condone it), far more than The Undertow, whose friends are currently trying to save him from any sanction for his incivility. --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt bringing the_undertow into this will do any good. Please don't try and fan the flames further still. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fanning the flames". How about assuming good faith about my motives? I merely noted the differing attitude of admins towards two cases of uncivil behaviour. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Update: Oh, I see [5]. I wasn't even aware of that comment before I posted here. Makes an interesting comparison). --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to read the whole thread above as it is upsetting to me (though I respect other's opinions.) Just to say that I didn't mind the swearing, it was the threats of further action towards me that particularly concerned me. Obviously I am not impartial :) but I think a short block would be in order, of a short duration bearing in mind DS's contributions here, but also bearing in mind that most people who threaten outing or other stuff aginst an editor are treated severely. It would depend on how he acts after the warning I think he's been given. Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block. But not indef at this point. I also still disagree that TFA has exactly advocated outing- she just said that she cannot fault Brandt if he does so, in the light of the BLP problems on wiki (not an opinion I share as I'm firmly against outing.) DS didn't do this after I made a thread about him, months ago- he has just done this now because I stood up for someone, and because he can. Merkin's mum 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block". Yep, off-site outing of Wikipedians is not on. Just to clarify, I was referring to fighting off-site abuse with off-site abuse. Obviously, if David leaves Wikipedia then nobody will have any control over him in these matters, so it's probably in everyone's interests to persuade him to stay. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Having briefly dipped in to look over the issue, contributions, and incivility of this individual, and having reverted trolling to a userpage on my watchlist, I would have to agree that a block is justified. WP:CIV specifically says a couple of things (emphasis mine):

    1. "A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks."
    2. "...one single act of incivility can also cross the line if bad enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack...or severe profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough that they may result in a block without any need to consider the pattern."

    I think giving a 'pass' to someone based on their previous valuable contributions sets a precedence. Nobody should be above WP:CIV, and the policy says as much in the opening sentence. ColdmachineTalk 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference Desk trolling from Tor

    Resolved
     – Tor nodes blocked by East718.

    The various Reference Desks have been overrun with nonsensical questions about Avril Lavigne since the weekend. It's been going on all day, but the latest regards her hat size -- 1 2 3. These last two edits came from Tor exit nodes. Can those be blocked? --LarryMac | Talk 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this edit. --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's threatened to continue with accounts - may want to get a CU on the case to find more tor nodes. --Random832 (contribs) 00:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible contribution from one of the sleepers. --LarryMac | Talk 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so this is marked resolved, so maybe nobody will even read this, although the greater issue of the threat of disruption/vandalism remains. There are already a few suspect edits (look at the section in my "See also" post above), but nothing blatant. I would like to know what, if anything to do at this point? Keep a list of the suspect edits, give the information to somebody else, post on another part of WP:AN? --LarryMac | Talk 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CE Vandal

    Resolved
     – east718 dinged him for 3RR. Not much else to add here

    Okay, I posted this in the AIV page but they directed me elsewhere, so basically, I'll copy and paste what I had there onto here...

    • Panel_2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm going to try to keep this short, but it's been going on for two months so there's much to tell. Summary - the Central Europe page has been experiencing edit warring for months. Panel_2008 insists on his POV (despite further discontent with the other authors, violations of Wikipedia policies - such as NPOV, violation of the 3RR rule, etc.) as having Romania being added to the "usually" category of the Central Europe Page. After weeks of edit warring, Proposal II was accepted, and consensus was reached. He refused to accept it, and continued to engage in edit wars to push his POV. This went to mediation after, seen here, where the mediator ruled in the favor of the majority (Panel 2008 really had no backing, brought no research, only POV, so the decision was all too easy - see for yourself), and warned Panel 2008 of his actions a number of times (Please read the whole mediation report), only to have that fail as well (please note that at the moment he is being subtle with his edits, trying to avoid any notice of the 3RR rule - if you look in the history page, you'll see how much edit warring he's been engaged in). If you also look at his talk page, he was warned there as well. Keep in mind that this is a slimmed down version of what's been happening, if you wish to see the whole story (the whole ~2 months of it), please read the discussion pages, view the history log, and somewhat familiarize yourself with the page content. This has gone on for too long - please act. It has even spread to other pages such as Eastern Europe and the Balkans where he continues to pursue his nationalistic POV-based goals. --Buffer v2 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He just violated the 3RR rule - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Europe&action=history .--Buffer v2 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came across this; I was the mediator at MEDCAB, I wanted to stress that I didn't "rule" with anybody, as that's not what MEDCAB is about. Short version, I pointed out to Panel 2008 that a consensus had been reached following a previous dispute, which was solved by basically wording the article as "sources differ". I asked Panel 2008 to tell us, in terms of policy (e.g. problems with sources, NPOV) why he thought the consensus was invalid. Nothing ever got past "because it doesn't match my view"; I closed the MEDCAB after a couple of weeks as unable to resolve, and recommended an involved editor take it to WP:AN3, since one of them had already reported Panel 2008 there before I took the MEDCAB case. He's since been blocked by someone at AN3 BTW. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, "rule" may have been a poor choice of words - but you did agree that if Panel 2008 didn't stop the edit warring (whether or not we he went over the 3 edits per day), that he would be blocked because of his behavior. He didn't stop, and I doubt the 48 hour ban on the 3RR violation will do much, because he'll be back right after, ready to continue to pursue his nationalistic goals. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. To step out of my neutral role; an administrator would have probably blocked them on the spot, but I was hoping to reason with them and get them to understand consensus. It didn't happen. If the 3RR block doesn't chill them out, I suspect they'll wind up indef-blocked some day. I was hoping to avoid that, but it's out of anyone's control. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr Spam (MD) and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee

    It seems we get one of these each time a VG hits the Main Page. Appends a message to each of his five reverts, so I'm bringing it here instead of 3RR. Nifboy (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and in case the above is too cryptic, User:Dr Spam (MD) looks to be baiting people on the talk page by calling its writers shills for Nintendo. One reply later, the thread has been deleted five times by five people, and put back by the original user five times each with additional trolling. Nifboy (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given him a nice stern talking to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Nifboy (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the user continued to troll, including this diff, which was quickly reverted as unhelpful trolling. As a result, given that the user had been warned to cease and desist, I have blocked the user for 31 hours. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an added concern about this user and their username? Setting the "spam" part aside for the moment, the "Dr." and "(MD)" could indicate that the user is (or claims to be) a medical professional, which might be problematic if their edits move into those areas. Obviously, the edits would be problematic without the name, but I thought I'd throw the question out there. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Dr/MD parts should be ignored. It doesn't matter if he is an MD or not, just what he does in an article (and talk pages, etc.). Aleta Sing 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that impersonating a doctor is not a concern of Wikipedia, just that we should look ONLY at the quality of what they write? I am not attacking you for thinking this, but I do want to clarify if that is what you are saying. (If this is, indeed, what your thinking is, I will re-evaluating my thinking of Wikipedia and might even change my username). Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Impersonating could be a problem, but not likely just from having it in a username. Asserting authority because of it in article editing would be a problem. Also, yes, we should really only look at the quality of what an editor writes, (quality meaning adding sourced facts, mostly). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the name Dr.Spam a username violation? Not the Doctor part but the spam part. Also I have been under the impression we do not care if you are a doctor or just pretending as long as you edit properly and correctly it can slide. Rgoodermote  22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No useful contributions?

    I've come across Ericthebrainiac (talk · contribs · count) recently. His contributions to Wikipedia generally involve creating hoax articles about soap miniseries that he made up, adding TV schedules to articles, completely mixing fact and fiction, adding protection templates to articles at random, adding irrelevant replies at the reference desk, and posting confused nonsense talk messages to himself and other users. Wikipedia is not counselling; I am seriously considering blocking him indefinitely as cleaning up after him is taking a non-negligible amount of time. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's gotta be a troll.-Wafulz (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Eric is a troll, I do think he is rather confused and has a powerful imagination. He can also be very sweet at times. DuncanHill (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block, unless you are bored and want to babysit for free. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah what I think Stifle is saying is that the user isn't really a troll, but rather whatever he is doing is causing a lot of work for people to fix up. If he isn't responding to warnings or suggestions, then a block would be in order. I randomly clicked on 10 diffs of his, a few were talk page, a few were edits to articles, they were all confusing and not helpful. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All this user has done is cause headaches and shit for people to have to cleanup. Constantly. He has little to no useful contributions, and my only reference came from the Reference Desk where he was involved in a discussion regarding Lexington, Kentucky -- my home base. Since his comment was rather... unhelpful, I checked up on his contributions and noted that he has virtually no edits worth saving. If you guys think that babysitting an editor and cleaning up every time he has an episode of diarrhea, then you guys can have at it.
    In addition, I am not required to discuss the block here if I wasn't informed of the thread at ANI in the first place. Note that a notice was made after the block was issued, and I really don't check up on ANI/AN all that much (mostly because I am out of town at the moment). Good day, seicer | talk | contribs 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to have been indefinitely blocked by someone who has not taken part in this thread (which Eric was not informed about)., and having made no edits since Stifle raised concerns on his talk page this morning. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I can't see much trolling. I did only pick twenty contributions at random, but I didn't see any that could be considered trolling. There are definitely sdome good faith edits there, and to block as a "trolling-only" account is not correct (I found good faith edits easily - [6], [7], [8]). Why was a shorter block not considered first? Why go straight from a warning to an indefinite block of a user that has been around since May 2007? This was not a good block by Seicer, who I note didn't even bother to participate in this conversation or warn Eric before blocking. Neıl ☎ 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric lodged an unblock request, which I have accepted, and unblocked the account. If he continues to cause a lot of work, perhaps a warning and then a short block (rather than an indefinite one out of the blue), in future. Neıl ☎ 13:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock request says "I just write what is on my mind for the day, week or year. Plus, I do not 'abuse' editing privileges. When I see something that isn't right by my standards, I usually correct that article." And the statement that he's been on for a year begs the issue that he should know better. He's been talked to numerous times on his talk page. That wording on the unblock request has an ominous tone to it, suggesting more trouble (i.e. more work for the admins) is in store. Just another reason I wouldn't want to be an admin. :) I do think a short block would have been better than an indefinite block, when he's never been blocked previously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Bugs. No indef block, but certainly a short block is already in order. That was barely a serious unblock request. I'll AGF, but next problem edit by this user and I would recommend a short block. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having watched Eric's contributions for quite a while, I'll weigh in with the analysis I provided another user recently. Eric's contribs fall, broadly speaking, into three pools:
    1. Useless but harmless edits, such as his user page, or inane Ref Desk questions about what his soap opera should be like
    2. Useful edits, mostly in the realm of actual soap operas and telenovelas. As many relate to Spanish-language programming, I can't verify that they're good edits, but they appear to be so.
    3. Mainspace edits about the soap opera he hopes to write some day.
    Group 3 is what he was blocked for. While this was his first block (I think), it's far from the first time he's been advised/instructed/warned that the behavior is unacceptable, full-stop. There can be no valid claim from Eric that he doesn't understand the unsuitability unless he is incapable of such understanding. Whether that should constitute a block I leave for more experienced people, but it's clear that, should he continue editing, oversight from experienced users will be required indefinitely. — Lomn 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Lomn. Also, check his edits from his ip ranges dating back to 2005. That says to me that his behavior will likely continue. Sure he has some useful edits, but that does not excuse his bad-faith edits (and they are in bad faith). He also disrespects other people's user and talk pages (see [9], [10], [11]) --Ouzo (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading this guy's contributions makes my heard hurt ... apart from marking everything as minor and using */pagename/* edit summaries which I assume he picked up somewhere from editing a section, his practice of wikilinking every other word he writes gives me a headache. At one point, he was trying to adopt other users ... Celarnor Talk to me 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see little here but bad faith stuff like adding protection templates to unprotected articles, wholly misleading/fake autogen-like/useless edit summaries, snarky talk page comments, what amount to personal messages which have nothing to do with an encyclopedia at all and sundry other meaningless and unhelpful edits, never mind marking all of them as minor. If this doesn't stop and stay stopped, I'd support an indef reblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason I've held off on this is because his contribution history makes me think that he actually doesn't really understand what he's doing rather than is deliberately causing trouble. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true, but it isn't very relevant. If having someone around damages the project more than it helps then we shouldn't have them around. There are people who act in good faith but simply don't play well with others. This may be an example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Yes, could be, but when taken altogether, I've never seen such overwhelmingly clean use of the browser tools, consistency in edit summaries, lack of typos and deliberate snarkiness from a clueless editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Block them for good faith disruption, per WP:AGF. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, blocking someone for bad faith is more than dodgy. Only edits (which is to say, behaviour) can be described and dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-admin observer, I'd like to throw in my $.02 worth here. While trying my best to assumegood faith, what I see from the edits is someone who appears to be gaming the system in an effort to look like he "doesn't understand". Is it worth our time and effort to clean up the messes he makes in the idea that one day he'll just "get it"? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the contrib history does hint at WP:GAME. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why he was unblocked- having this kind of editor around certainly does more harm than good. But, since he's unblocked.. I'd suggest keeping him on a short lease and reblocking indefinitely at the first sign of trouble. Honestly, I think we risk bringing the project into disrepute by tolerating such nonsense, but I suppose giving him one last chance doesn't particularly hurt anything. Friday (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see gaming here... but even applying good faith and assuming any other number of scenarios a block is certainly in order to stop it. If their is consensus that the editor does not understand, apply a short block and see what happens when it is lifted. If everything continues as before, there should be no problem with an indef block. Personally, I have no problem with an indef block at this stage, esspecially in light of the IP history going back years. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My 2 bits: Haven't gone into it deeply, but I'm with Duncan Hill on this and noticed Ericthebrainiac seems to have asked for adoption early on his talk page and didn't receive it. He stays positive and his user page maybe shows some competency and involvement. Is there a tutorial for people who aren't getting it with the way to ask questions or is there a bias towards people who ask questions in a rhetorical, poetic way? There's more than ETB who have such quirks but have good faith as well. Maybe it's pointless to go down that track. I don't know what to make of it, unless as you say, it is gaming (I'm not hip to manuevers/ers). Julia Rossi (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be half-informed – had a closer read and found someone else cleaned up his user page and he kept leaving messages on people's user pages. Wiser now, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rotary International again and again

    This article has a long history of issues with User:PierreLarcin and its socks. You only need to look at Talk:Rotary International to understand the problem that goes back to more than 2 years ago! Attempts to discuss with that contributor always failed miserably, and he ended up doing an RfA against ennemies of the truth (all right wing activists and/or rotarians of course). The RfA was rejected for lack of previous discussion and PierreLarcin stopped editing under that name (maybe because a similar RfA he tried on WP:fr failed and he was indef blocked).

    But he continued editing under IP's who are rather easy to spot because the texts of PL are so typical they cannot be confused with anything else. He was the subject of a recent thread here. Even if the answer of PL to calls for discussion were personal attacks, I was ready to discuss again with him.

    Any interested person may have a look at the results in this section of the talk page of the article where I took the greatest precautions to not adress his personal attacks and sometimes really sick insults and to try to bring the discussion back to the article. But PL never adresses the arguments raised in the discussion. It is quite remarkable as a matter of fact. I have already been confronted to discussion where there was bad faith, illogical arguements, non sequitur and similar issues, but I had never met such a deliberate non-discussion with only permanent personal attacks.

    Honestly, I had never come across somebody capable to:

    Is that guy serious or what kind of issue does he have, I do not know, but it is quite clear he is not here to write an encyclopedia. Just read his recent sick insults and personal attacks if you have no time to read the whole history of the case, but I think something needs to be done that has some kind of long term effect. The problem is that when I come here, he ends up blocked for a couple of days, or the article is briefly semi-protected, then it starts again and I am back here. Any clever suggestion is welcome. LessHeard vanU asked, in the previous AN/I: "is there anything other than long term protection and whack a mole blocking that can be done?". I do not know what a mole blocking is, but is there any way to stop -or control- these disruptions in an effective way? Bradipus (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (cough) That would be "whack-a-mole blocking" (blocking disruptive ip's/editors as they appear), that it would. I apologise for losing track of that section, but I didn't want to start acting unilaterally so asked the community for some input - and it appears that there wasn't much response. Hopefully, this time there may be some more responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh... is this still going on? Man, I was watching that two years ago, and it's been blatantly obvious right from the start that there's some kind of personal agenda in place with Pierre Larcin and various IPs that certainly seem to reflect his opinions rather closely. There seems to be an effort to make Rotary look like a hotbed of male dominance and dictators, basically to make the organization look bad - and it's been a two-year-plus battle with an attempted RFAr, a couple of RFCs, and plenty of accusations of "wiki fiddling," whatever that is. I'll watchlist the page and take a deeper look at it later, myself, but it would definitely benefit from other editors taking a deeper look too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no other solution but blocking the range of IP he uses, which will prevent very few people from contributing apart from himself as it's only French IPs. --Bombastus (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What Bradipus forgets to mention, is that, in French, "a wooden log in your hole" is a slang expression who means something like "I will rectify the manipulation you began". He complains about insults, but if you look to the french conflicts he had with 6-7 wikipedia users in France, he insults very sophistically, in the edits comments, for example. As far as I may count on Google, he went to arbitrations 5 times, and always with same bias. In France Bradipus is a life-term administrator. 84.100.98.90 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting pathetic. I do not want to argue with that guy here, this is no place to discuss, but for your information, he is totally making up this stuff about "a wooden log in your hole" being a slang expression in french. The translation I gave herabove is as close as possible to what he wrote on my talk page, and it is just as sick as it looks. Ask any french speaking person. By the way, he is still around on the article. Somebody? Bradipus (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been watching this senseless argument on the Rotary International page for a long time. It seems to defy reason. I don't think the statements are properly sourced and there seems to be no interest in cooperating to improve the article. I will not get involved as I am not an experienced editor -- but I feel a ban is needed. Ariconte (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected the article to try to stem the tide of sock/meat puppets continuing the edit war. I've also noted on the article talk page that I may have a short fuse about continued ad hominems. Articles are horrible places to fight out personal feuds from other sites. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

    Take it to the talk page. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What the hell is this awful attack site doing back on Wikipedia? Who did they threaten to get it back? 86.131.248.60 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, it seems to have adequate references, a NPOV, and proper formatting. Instead of biasing yourself against people you don't like, try to consider the article objectively. Ziggy Sawdust 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a better place to discuss this article. As it stands the new article is well sourced and from a NPOV, and also passed through deletion review. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP who made this suggestion appears to be making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. There are lots of stupid stuff on the Internet and even stupider government leaders, but their articles are notable, NPOV, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter what kind of site it is. What matters is coverage in multiple independent sources, which it has. The knee-jerk "zOMFG NOT ED" reactionism seems to be starting to subside and we're approaching a more NPOV on the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    the undertow

    Resolved
     – Further input should go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. No admin action required here.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I'd like opinions on what to do about the undertow. I find this completely unacceptable response to a good faith concern. This isn't the only thing today either - he's already taken it upon himself to unban Moulton, then delete his userpage when there was an active MfD on it. Thoughts would be appreciated, especially about the comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At the very least, a desysopping is clearly in order. Raul654 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I agree. We should not block admins unless we really want to, but in this case I think a couple of months senza admin tools would help. The undertow has been acting rather strangely as of late, and I do not think we need unstable admins. His most recent comments have been "you still suck" (to FM), and an invitation to us here to do our worst. If admins cannot display grace under pressure they should be demopped. Grace without pressure displays nothing: but if this is undertow's typical response when the going gets tough... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree as well. --Kbdank71 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sucks, but I'm forced to agree. I'd love it if a "Dude, you need to chill, seriously" would work, as that was my first response... but a really bad unban and a bad deletion add up to teh problems. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments are clearly out of line, but the unblock does say "unblock to change duration" and he hasn't commented on what he intended the new duration to be yet, has he? I'm not sure that immediate desysopping is merited - honestly I wouldn't have brought this here so quickly, either, because clearly he is upset and an AN/I thread based primarily on his one comment is unlikely to contribute to resolving the issue. Whatever his recent erratic behavior, the_undertow has been a solid contributor and admin for quite some time and deserves some attempts to resolve this without desysopping him. Avruch T 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this seems far too early to be proposing a block or worst of all, something as harsh as a desysopping. This drama has only unfolded over the last 12(?) hours, tempers are high, he (and others...) will cool down in time, and we can take a look at everyone's role in this dispute. krimpet✽ 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... that is completely unacceptable. I'm not sure I would support desysoping based upon this one incident, but if a pattern can be established (which it sounds like it can be) then I'd have no problem. I'd also have no problem with a STERN level 4 warning about civility. I mean would we ban/block a non-sysop for a single incident of such language?Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are users who are still here after dozens of such explosions, and there are admins who still have tools after similar blowups. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) I'd need context... but, if it appears to be a pattern of shenanigans, then an edit like that would be enough for me to indefblock as a Vandalism-only account - sort of a tipping point edit, if you will. Undertow is a good editor and a good admin, but three bad decisions (albiet related) indicate problems that continued use of the tools can only make worse. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I really need to see more of a pattern, such as what pedro showed below, before supporting desysopping. Show me that this was in fact the tipping point, rather than an isolated/unusual occurence. I, like pedro, have never felt completely comfortable with the Undertow, but I do want to see more before I endorse a call for a desysop/block.Balloonman (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Such language is not befitting of an administrator (or any user in this community). I suggest that a block for Personal Attacks is in order immediately, following due procedures to remove the sysop from this user. The Administrators have been always considered to be held to a far higher standard than the contributors, but such behavior has no place for any user. I so fully endorse the comments of Raul & Ryan. Multiple edit conflicted :( Snowolf How can I help? 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find this block message to be unacceptable and the indef blocking of an IP totally wrong, account hacking or otherwise. I acknowledge my severe past issues with this editor, and assure the community I have no axe to grind, but enough is enough. He has, I'm sorry to say, become a liability and not an asset. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that new block to be the unacceptable part of that link, not his indef block, NOR his edit summary. ThuranX (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... ok... that starts to change my stance... but I still want moreBalloonman (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He definitely needs to take a breather. It's not healthy to take things so seriously. naerii - talk 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks - his comment wasn't directed at a specific person, he didn't name any particular user, and we don't ban cursing or block/desysop people for cursing. His comments were uncharitable, but I'm not sure how they can be described as a "personal attack" unless that applies to attacking editors/sysops as a class instead of individually. Can we back away from pile-on desysopping calls and at least consider this more carefully? Is there a danger to Wikipedia posed by this administrator that merits an emergency desysopping by ArbCom? Is he open to recall? Can he be reasoned with, asked to apologize, etc.? Desysopping is not the only option. Avruch T 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ECx4, x2)Agreed. Frankly, this sort of mob mentality with pitchforks and torches every time a call is made which others disagree with is getting tiresome. Policy wonkery and bureaucracy for its' own sake are both ridiculous excuses for all the recent 'the admin's gone mad' stuff. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly didn't bring this here for a desysopping, but there is some weight in the calls. That said, we should explore other options. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Avruch on this one. Let him explain his actions. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about a formal desysopping, but having a steward remove the buttons just until we get a sense of what is hurting the guy (I don't know him or anything, but he sounds like he has a world of hurt happening) might a way to go. Playing about with policies and stuff is perhaps not the best way to approach this - Jimbo's mantra's about being loving in our actions may for once be appropriate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stewards do not typically desysop on an emergency basis unless there is clear evidence of account subversion, or imminent danger to the wiki, or if requested to do so by a current arbcom member who asserts they are speaking for the committee. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This user is clearly a danger -- just today, he's taken two highly controversial admin actions (both of which were reverted - not without some disconfort about wheel warming), while bragging on WR about it, and then when asked about it by Jamesf, he made that reply which caused this thread. Clearly a good case for emergency desysoping. Raul654 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. Is that your personal opinion, or are you speaking officially on behalf of ArbCom? I suspect the former because I'm on IRC in the stewards channel and I see no such official request just yet, and if I understood the outcome of the last election you're no longer on ArbCom yourself, right? Not to put too fine a point on it but the emergency basis is a steward judgment call and I also see no stewards making such a judgment call as of yet. Situations can change of course, and I'll stay in channel should an ArbCom member turn up to make the request but there are plenty of other stewards to handle it too. Including several whose home wiki(s) do not include en:wp. (those are the best sort for doing things) ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do hope this was just a "Chilean Cabernet" incident. Or maybe a "12-pack plus a bowl" incident. - Merzbow (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the_undertow, but I think he's becoming a little bit of a loose cannon. For his own sake, he should take a wikibreak because Wikipedia only exacerbates personal problems, not help them. If he is desysopped, it should be preventative and uncontroversial and he can request them back when he sees fit. Sceptre (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think maybe giving some cool off time for everyone before jumping at a desyssoping is the right thing to do. A lynch mob is not the way to do this. Give him, and us, some time to cool off and think about things. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Snowolf and Balloonman. Such behaviour is unacceptable, no matter who it comes from; however there's no need to act like a headless chicken and desysop immediately without discussing. If there is still no progress, or more of such incidents, then desysopping or a cool-down block may be the correct course of action. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:14, May 14, 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see User:LaraLove comment on this as I think she knows him rather well. She could give some useful feedback without disclosing anything too personal, perhaps broadly confirming that there are issues in his life that are causing him stress. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not calling for a desysop at all. But I believe there are enough concerns about recent editing by the_undertow that action of some kind must be taken. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think perhaps the disapproval expressed in this thread might be enough. We should at least wait and see. naerii - talk 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then again, after viewing the link I posted below, maybe not. naerii - talk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (countless ec)Avruch, the administrators, however you put it, are the public face of the project. They can't behave this way. Full stop. No apology can excuse it. No point an emergency desysopping, but a block for NPA or CIV is in full order, pending the submission of an ARBCOM case, would the user not voluntary give up his sysop bit. Snowolf How can I help? 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I see your point or agree. Administrators are the janitors of the project, not its public face. They clean up problems and protect the ability of others to edit free from excessive disruption. They don't have to be paragons of virtue, and in this case the_undertow was speaking with and to a group of experienced administrators and an arbitrator about something for which he obviously has strong feelings. Given that, I at least am willing to excuse the language - and if you remove the language, the comment is no more critical than what a number of others have said from time to time. Avruch T 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Key phrase: IF you remove the language.Balloonman (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would recommend WP:TEA. Desysopping, blocking, etc. would only exacerbate things. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The possibility the account was hacked should also be considered, I think. I'd like to see a CU speak to this. - Merzbow (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merzbow: I believe it has been looked into by a CU, who may choose to speak out on their own. Since no block was issued, I think you could take that as an indication it is unlikely the account was compromised that way. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, see this WR thread [12] (if you care enough). naerii - talk 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, and it certainly is in the realm of possibility he used the same password on both sites. - Merzbow (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there was a discussion a few months ago (perhaps a year ago) that if you are an admin, you need to have a secure password. If your account gets hacked into, you get desysoped.Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're desysopped until you can verify you're in control of the account again, yes. naerii - talk 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think LaraLove would probably be aware if he got hacked, and she appeared on his talk page supporting him. I think it extremely unlikely that his account has been compromised. naerii - talk 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhm so shall I be the first to point out that now you're just trolling? Time for you to take a break, I think, for your own good at least. naerii - talk 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Love is the law. Love under Will" - yes, indeed. I don't think de-sysopping is the answer here at all, but undertow - you do need to kinda chill a bit - Alison ❤ 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Raul654 said it. If that's too much too soon, ok, but no way is a post like that one helpful, not ever and it mustn't happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about an RfC? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an RfA at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. Corvus cornixtalk 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit worries me too, [13] (the deleted edit summary) where the edit summary says: (diff) 12:24, 4 May 2008 . . The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) (9 bytes) (fuck you for trying to hack my account. fuck you listers for complain about this summary. as long as i have tools here, i will use them.) I guess the part that worries me the most is as "long as i have tools here, i will use them." Tiptoety talk 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    US House of Representatives IP editor

    Resolved
     – The time to hesitate is through

    Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Resoved 143.231.249.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an IP from the US House of Representatives who was blocked for the second time earlier today after serially vandalizing a congressperson's entry, a personal attack and others. Since blocking, this edit to the IP's own talk page is a declaration, perhaps less than constructive. I've updated Communications committee/Notifications. I didn't think it was necessary to protect the IP's talk page. Is there anything else we should do? Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, it's a quote from "Come on baby light my fire" by the Doors. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case, there’s no time to wallow in the mire. Consider this resolved. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism only account

    XEveryTear4Ux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Non current. Final warning ignored. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV if the user continues. Nakon 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism only accounts are blocked - refer to admin guidelines. Why do you assume that someone will notice the vandalism whilst it is current, and hence meet the criteria for using the AIV reporting mechanism - this attitude provokes a sense of endless frustration in me because I do not have the time or inclination to watch articles for vandalism. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat?

    Resolved
     – Tiptoety talk 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this edit look like a death threat? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to me. Looks like a very unreasonable high school twerp cursing because he's been dissed, or dumped, or whatever they call it when someone doesn't do whatever the twerp says to do. In other words, he's a jerk but I don't think a serious threat. I could be very wrong, however. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC, Chihuahua beat me to it!) Looks more like someone ranting about someone/trolling. No specific names were mentioned [there are millions of people with that name], nor were any specific threats made. Doesn't seem serious enough to count as what we normally call a 'death threat'. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 22:37, May 14, 2008 (UTC)
    Looks like someone threw a bit of a tantrum there. WP:RBI would be the way to go here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be a very inflamed post and highly specific...highly specific trolling that is. It would be closer to a death threat if the vandal listed a specific motive, weapons, date, time, etc. I'm going to delete the edit from the article history.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    R Tabor is vandalising

    R Tabor is vandalising on Suzanne Olsson and Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Nakon 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like the block of R.Tabor (talk · contribs) to be reviewed. I have pointed out to Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I believe that R. Tabor's edits were to remove poorly sourced highly controversial material from Suzanne Olsson and hence were not subject to the three revert rule and asked Nakon to review the block. See User_talk:Nakon#Block_of_User:R.Tabor. We have been unable to agree whether the block is correct and so I would like further opinions. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the block. This user has repeatedly edit warred recently including blanking a page twice thrice and four times without much discussion except for this which is hardly friendly. Needs some time to cool down and review some policies for sure. Sasquatch t|c 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure cool down blocks are no-no's. Tiptoety talk 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he needs a gentle voice to help him understand, apparently he's rather upset by the apparent BLP violations and doesn't understand how things work here. (who does, really? can anyone say they know every policy, every idiom, every unwritten custom?) I would show this user mercy, and share information. I'd be in favour of lifting it, if someone were available to give some better guidance. I would not characterise his editing as "vandalizing" either. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wfgh66 now seems to want people to think that he's been banned by Jimbo... --Onorem♠Dil 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he wants to blank his own talk page, for Christ's sake let him. He's already pissed off from previous events, just let him have the last word and get on with it. Ziggy Sawdust 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Bot out of control

    Evidence

    I don't know how this bot is supposed to function, but I got this on my watchlist:

    mb 01:43 Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=})

    mb 01:43 Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=})

    mb 01:36 Talk:Pagan Resurrection (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    mb 01:29 Talk:Nazi occultism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    mb 01:25 Talk:Maria Orsitsch (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    mb 01:16 Talk:Irminenschaft (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    mb 00:55 Talk:Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    mb 00:55 Talk:Germanic Neopaganism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    mb 00:50 Talk:Esoteric Nazism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

    None of this articles has anything to do with Genetics. Some have to do something with racism, but that's different. Zara1709 (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporarily blocked. Will leave message on talk page to sort this out. Sasquatch t|c
    Not 100% my fault. I was told can you get a bot to tag the talk pages of all the articles in Category:Genetics and all of its sub categories on Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Category:Genetics_tagging. Not trying to blame others, just saying that I seemed that all of the cats were reviewed before-hand. Sorry, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a risk. Although if the bot is stopped, we can unblock it now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you guys can argue about which category belongs in the tagging run and which one doesn't. Unblocking. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yea, I figured it was more to do with the criteria rather than the bot. I'll unblock now. Perhaps inform WikiProject Genetics that they need to review their cats? Sasquatch t|c 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to code something to clean this up. Stand by. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I found another one on Historiography and Nationalism. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the problem apparently has to do with subcategories, here are the categories of Historiography and Nationalism: Categories: Historiography | Nationalism | National mysticism | Historical revisionism (political) | Propaganda | Pseudoarchaeology | Pseudohistory. Perhaps this may help; at least it shows the extent of the problem.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Betacommand is doing a mass revert on the bot. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot Nice... J.delanoygabsadds 02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 03:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why running processes on "all subcategories" without at least manual review of the total list of categories chosen is a BAD IDEA - betacommandbot itself has drawn criticism for the same exact thing in the past. --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    seconded. I will block any bot spamming talk templates based on category hierarchy on sight. This is a horrible idea if you know anything about the state of our categorization system. --dab (𒁳) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agian, apologies for this. CWii 2(Talk|Contribs) 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Post AfD weirdness

    Resolved
     – Merge completed

    Equazcion •✗/C • 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Mkay, I don't really get why this is a hassle, but, the Nudity and children article was AfD'd with the result beinga merge to Nudity. Now it seems no one actually wants to do the work of merging this, but they are happy to 1) object to a redirect 2) object to OR being deleted as a pre-merge trimming 3) object to the content being copied to the talkpage of the Nudity article where the editors there could participate in deciding what should be incorporated. All this seems like stonewalling the merge to me, so maybe more eyes would help sort out the merge? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Create a section entitled "Children" in Nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and slap on {{inuse-section}}
    2. Redirect Nudity and children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    3. Start merging a brief summary in, then discuss what more should be merged in.
    Easy, really. Sceptre (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To Petra: It also seems people are happy to blank the page and replace with a redirect without actually doing any merging. Don't redirect til the content is merged. If you don't want to merge the content, don't just do the redirect and complain that others aren't merging the content. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Number one, don't talk to me like that. Ever. (your edit summary was already worthy of a Wikiquette alert); 2) merge it yourself--my attempts to clean it up even partly in order to merge--by deleting OR--were met with immediate reversion 3) we're already discussing this on your talkpage, aren't we? 4) hopefully some admin will step in and merge/redirect it, since this is the weirdest AfD merge ever (and I'm certainly not touching it again.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ignore your "number one". Number two, I hesitate to bring this up as it's something of a bad-faith approach, but you're somewhat anti- this type of article, so this behavior really doesn't surprise me in the least. If this were any other kind of article I seriously doubt you'd be in such a rush to blank it. If you want to help the merge, then actually place content into the host article. Blanking or redirecting, or moving content to a talk page, is not the way to do this. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whaaaat-ever. The only problem I had with that article was that it was a complete trainwreck of disorganized OR, which is why I nominated it for AfD, and what I stated in my nomination. Meanwhile it's been sitting there for quite a while, and no one has done anything to merge it. As I said, my attempt to clean it up by deleting uncited OR was met with immediate reversion. So if you don't want to merge it, an admin should do it for you. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with someone merging it -- that is to say, actually merging the content. As for the reverting, the only things I reverted were your blanking of the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Petra has begun her "merge" by deleting content from the article that she disagrees with. Corvus cornixtalk 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Here's the edit: [14]--which deleted two things that had a fact tag since 2007, and the opinion of a web columnist I didn't think was notable/worthy of a merge into nudity. controversial! (Sorry, what part of any of that edit am I on the record "disagreeing with"?) Y'all crazy, and like I said, someone else can merge this (but it has to be merged. Doing nothing to merge it and objecting/nitpicking to any attempt to merge it is just stonewalling...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is stonewalling a merge. They're reverting what you consider the "first step" of such a merge. If you were actually merging content rather than blanking the page, no one would have a problem with it, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with that diff that Petra gave... that whole section should be deleted, regardless of the merge. She should not have moved the article to the talk page. Most of the article is in fact original research, whatever of it gets moved to Nudity will be small. Not sure about stonewalling, and Petra's requests might be better listened do if she worded herself better, but she has legit concerns here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Encyclopedia Dramatica

    This article should not be under full protection while an AFD nomination of it is in progress. This prevents people from improving the article to demonstrate why it should not be deleted. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits can always be proposed on the talk page with the {{editprotected}} template quite easily. It was originally protected because of edit warring according to the protection log.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit requested. As there is a half hour old requested edit there too I won't hold my breath though. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having to use that template is slow, cumbersome and discriminatory against new/inexperienced/non-tech-savvy users. It's also open to abuse by partisan admins selectively denying/allowing edits to skew the article towards deletion or keeping as they see fit. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've declined the request for unprotection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leon harrison and 69.132.26.177

    These two users have been arguing back and forth, recently, tossing accusations and trading insults; the IP suggests the user is a sockpuppet of Hdayejr (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr). After looking into this a bit, the sockmaster has been active in recent days, Leon has several articles and positions in common with other accounts already blocked as socks, and Leon seems keenly familiar with Wikipedia. I've blocked Leon as a sockpuppet. Not sure what (if anything) should be done about the IP. Invite further eyes or opinions. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leon was just shy of getting blocked for personal attacks when you blocked him; I certainly don't think he's anywhere near as innocent as he portrays. I'm not sure what to make of the IP. It sounds like there's a history between the two off-wiki, but that's not our problem. As I told the IP, if he's got an issue with the user's on-wiki conduct, report it to the appropriate venue; otherwise, leave it alone. I endorse the indef block to Leon and think no further action is currently needed with the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not entirely an off-wiki dispute. Repeatedly banned User:hdayejr has created probably hundreds of sockpuppets with which to vandalize Wikipedia and, in particular, to pursue a personal vendetta against another user (not myself - let's call him Steve). It started on several other Web sites, but has been raging here for months if not a couple of years at the very least. His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the modus operandi is always identical: he hovers around The Price is Right (U.S. game show) or another page on which Steve actively participates. As soon as there's activity on that page, despite his claims to be a new Wikipedian, he finds his way to the AN/I board within minutes, where he reports perfectly legitimate edits as vandalism, and claims that anyone reverting his vandalism is engaging in harassment or stalking (even sometimes tagging the other person as one of his own sockpuppets). His writing style never changes; anyone who's ever read him more than once can see his work a mile away. Within a few minutes, he descends into personal abuse against the other users and the admins who (inevitably) take their side. His user name and/or IP get banned. He unplugs his Internet connection, plugs back in, gets a new IP, and returns to the site within minutes to days to resume his activity.
    Who am I? I am a user who foolishly thought I could stop this. I've seen him do this on other sites (one of which currently has a restraining order against him in real life). I am (about to be "was") a constructive and prolific Wikipedia contributor of two years' standing under a registered username. I simply got tired of watching this happen and decided to do something about it. I chose to pursue this anonymously so as not to attract the vandal's attacks to my established Wikipresence. Within minutes of my first anonymous RV of his vandalism, my user page was vandalized. If you read the logs from last night's activity, my only contributions are: reverting one act of his vandalism on The Price is Right page; tagging him as a sock on his user page, and then reverting his repeated RVs of the tag; responding on his page to his personal attacks; responding to C.Fred's tagging of me as a sock; and trying to give C.Fred some details on the ongoing larger conflict. I really don't think any of this violated any Wikipedia policy, though I should probably have just held my temper.
    My posting a bit of the Ohio criminal code on my user page has to do with the fact that the banned user recently created a sockpuppet using Steve's real full name. This is not only against Wikipedia policy, impersonating another actual person on the Internet is against the law. Ohio (where he lives) classifies it as a felony for persons in certain categories, which includes him. I was trying to warn him to stop by letting him know that I knew that. It didn't work.
    What did I learn from this? I learned that it's impossible to prevent an obsessive-enough vandal from destroying Wikipedia if he wants to, and I'm tired of having my contributions trashed with no real recourse available to me except to keep re-reverting every time it happens. For that and other reasons which I won't go into here, I have decided to leave the community under both my anon name and my registered user name. I've already asked another admin to delete the history of my registered user page. I would ask that, following the resolution of this incident, the user page associated with this IP address be deleted as well. I will not return to Wikipedia. While this statement has no bearing on the resolution of the dispute, I wanted my side of the story to be heard. Thank you. 69.132.26.177 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism in Good Faith?

    Resolved

    Oldag07 (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

    User:Oldag07 recently blanked the Texas article here which I reverted here. The user has notified on my talk page that it was a mistake here. I can't decide weather his/her edit was in good faith as he/she blanked an article and I don't understand fully how you can make a mistake of balnking an article. Is this edit in good faith or vandalism? Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • A brief perusal of their edits seems to show they are contributing in a positive way, and in the absence of any warnings on their talk page for previous vandalism I'd be inclined to assume good faith and put it down to clumsy keyboard skills or something. Exxolon (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto. It's odd, yeah, but absent continued problems, mistakes do happen. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good faith all the way. They've made dozenshundreds of changes to the article. There's no way they'd want to blank it after that. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Without a deep look, it certainly is possible to blank a page by mistake. If there are no other concerning edits, and since he acknowledged the error, I wouldn't worry about it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like we're all in agreement, but I'll chime in with a "me too". - Philippe 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • At first, I thought it was a good faith edit. I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry. I will mark this as resolved and notify the user. Thank you. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Could have meant to blank a section, could have hit the wrong key trying to cancel an edit. If it happens again, though, the excuses get harder to come by, but once is certainly possible. FWIW, we blocked a user the other day for deleting swear words from articles, then unblocked when it turned out to be filtering software on his computer gone awry, and he didn't realize the changes were happening. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have personally accidentally blanked an entire article (IIRC) with a keystroke. --Haemo (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot war?

    Resolved

    What is this going on? One bot is reverting another bot. [15] Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Check a few sections up. [16] Nakon 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blimey, I did not notice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User :C S removing template without authorization

    I put a {{copyvio}} template on Schadenfreude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). When googling each line of the text, I found a number of sentences lifted from other sources. The most egregious was one from the New york Times. User :C S keeps removing template without authorization, has started an edit war, and one of us may be in violation of 3RR - I'm not sure how these would be counted. In any case, that users violation of policy is driving an edit war. I hope someone will please step in. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just removed it. You are edit warring, claiming that the article is a copyright violation, when a number of editors have looked at it and said that it is not a copyright violation. I have removed the template, and urge you to continue the discussion on the talk page. At most, you should have removed or rewritten the offending sentences, not blanked the whole article. --Haemo (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec with Haemo) I have to admit that if User:C S is in violation of policy, so am I, since I also removed this user's copyvio tag. There is no copyvio in this article, as has been noted by other users on the article's talk page. I've initiated a suspected sockpuppet thread about Sur de Filadelfia at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (2nd)‎; so if I've violated any rules, you're welcome to block me. Deor (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is getting blocked for being bold. Maybe some socks; but that's all. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

    Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[17][18]

    Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

    User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[19] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

    Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

    As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[20][21]

    AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [22] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

    Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

    I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:
    From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)
    Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM
    Subject: Wikipedia Cabal Alert
    Dear Folks,
    You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Wikipedia related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Wikipedia as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.
    If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.
    There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.
    The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Wikipedia.
    Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.
    Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).
    Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Wikipedia, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.
    Ad Astra, Jeff
    This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

    First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

    Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

    Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: “Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.” It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said “Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions.” This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

    My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

    Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

    Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the “Ekajati sockdrawer” (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [23] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

    As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [24]

    I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it’s an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

    In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration[25]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive.Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break after really long posts

    It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here... oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail.Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [26]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep... lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat

    Resolved

    Requesting block and semiprotection.[27] DurovaCharge! 07:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block, it's obviously an account created to harass an admin, see [28]. Also see the serious threath here --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked indefinately due to harassment of other users / abusive sockpuppet. Let me know if you still want your page protecting, but the abuser will not be able to create another account from the IP he was editing from. Lradrama 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dust1235

    The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    This isn't the place to start up lynch mobs.-Wafulz (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's official. Dust1235 is a SPA. A SPA created to nominate for deletion. Is that correct? Did Dust1235 assume good faith? Or not. Please check when was the last login. Evidence:

    User Creation 06:58, 26 April 2008 Dust1235 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎


    Two minutes later... 07:00, 26 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 26‎ (→April 26)


    Note: I found a certain Dust1234


    19:34, 20 January 2008 Dust1234 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎


    Contributions NONE

    122.54.93.104 (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...And which admin action would you like to see? Being a SPA is allowed, although it is not encouraged. Fram (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser, and if proven a SPA, an indef block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.93.104 (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser is not for phishing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block, for abuse of editing privelages. 122.54.93.104 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    Jazzmand's unblock requests

    Resolved
     – blocked for 48 hours, rather than indefinitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, can I get a bit more scope on this. This guy thinks he is right (which he could well be) but seemingly ignored my request for him to discuss his edits. Thanks in advance. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I have to say I may well not have blocked here -- and I certainly would not have blocked indefinitely. This user's edits really aren't vandalism, even though they are edit-warring and even if they are plainly wrong. Edit warring and POV-pushing are not vandalism. I would reduce this block probably to 48 hours, a week at the absolute outside. An indefinite block is unnecessary and not particularly helpful. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, sounds reasonable. I will definitely be checking up on him, and if he doesn't discuss his edits before making them, I'll indef. Thanks, Sam. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cannot create a subpage in my userspace

    Resolved

    Hi. I cannot create subpages in my userspace User:Петър Петров/Anything. I believe it has something to do with recent MediaWiki:Titleblacklist edits. Please take care, thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Woody (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now please fix the blacklist regexp so I can create any subpage I want. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyrillic and Greek mixed script titles have been disallowed. I'm checking over at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as to why this is. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But there are no greek letters in the matching title, only [A-Za-zА-Яа-я:/. ] and all these should work together. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into this... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wild guess would be a Grawp (talk · contribs) thing - Grawp trying different combinations of letter types for his stupid move vandalism. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry, I'd added an overzealous regexp that matched some mixed-script titles, unfortunately including any userpage containing the Cyrillic letters М, Н, З or Я. :-( I made a quick fix that seems to have solved this particular case, and will run further tests on the regexps in question. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is solved. Please delete the page User:Петър Петров/Anything and consider this issue complete. Thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonstop vandalism by Anoshirawan

    Anoshirawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked seven (7) times, the last time for a month with a final warning from administrator Number 57 "Note that this will be your last timed block. The next one will be indefinite.", which was removed by Anoshirawan as soon as his month block expired. [29] This user is engaged in obvious vandalism. [30], [31], [32], [33], and his talk page is full of warnings to stop bad activities. The account is used only for edit-wars and vandalism as I don't see any good contributions.--119.30.78.184 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following at Ahmad Shah Durrani are a little suspicious:
    The above IPs are in Canada, used by Anoshirawan's friend (banned editor User:Beh-nam). According to administrator Thatcher, Anoshirawan is residing in USA. [37] I believe Anoshirawan is this person, editor of this anti-Afghanistan blog and is trying to turn all Afghan related Wikipedia articles into his own personal anti-Afghanistan blog pages. Both Anoshirawan and Beh-nam are pro-Iranian Shiite Tajiks, who are determined to vandalise Afghanistan related articles because Afghanistan is overwelmingly a Sunni state, with majority Pashtun population. These 2 Tajiks are doing all they can to make Pashtuns look bad on Wikipedia. Anoshirawan should be indef blocked because he will never stop his vandalism to pages.--119.30.78.184 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I have been checked a couple of times now and I am not a sockpuppet. The person who reported this is the banned user Nisarkand. --Anoshirawan 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Poke

    It's slipping further and further up the board so it may be getting overlooked, but I would appreciate an uninvolved admin deciding, fairly quickly, whether or not action regarding this is appropriate. My recommendation (revised from my initial one of an indef block) is a week block and a final warning, but I have been alleged to have a personal "animus" with David Shankbone, so would prefer someone else to decide whether or not take action over his latest tirades and turning Wikipedia into his personal battleground. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David can be very outspoken. However, anyone with "Merkin" in his username is inviting the name he was called. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Her", not "his" - using the epithet "cunt" towards a female user is particularly unsavoury. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am extremely annoyed with David Shankbone's antics right now, but I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate at this point. A week sounds appropriately, but obviously I'm not the one to make it either. --B (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have issued a week long block for the use of that epithet. I am uninterested as regards history or whatever between Merkinsmum and DS, but only in upholding a standard of interaction on Wikipedia. I am also aware that as a regular reader and sometime contributor to Wikipedia Review that my actions may be considered as not being without a conflict of interest - but I believe that would reflect more upon those commenting. I have, however, no objection to either the block being reviewed and overturned/reduced upon considered discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cabal of one?

    Resolved
     – indef block

    I hope I'm not rocking the boat here, but does anyone know who this user is? They just went through and closed a number of open MEDCAB cases and closed them without any explanation. There's no user or talk page for the user, so I'm wondering if maybe it's an admin or something that did that. If it's just someone vandalizing or some such, should I (or someone else) go through and fix all of their closures? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a disruptive SPA and a likely sock of someone. I've blocked it indef. See if someone gets caught in the autoblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for page protection.

    There is a little backlog at RFPP/unprotection, including multiple requests for the same article. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Range Block

    I've come across a range of IPs with anti-Palestinian vandalism. IP 75.168.2xxxx seems to pop on Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine as fast as I can put down a block. I have blocked for 24 hrs as each IP came up, and have semi-protected the page; but I don't have other articles that could become targets watchlisted. Is a range block called for? If so, it is beyond me, and leave it to you all who are more adept vandal-whackers. Pastordavid (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect this is the same person that was vandalizing marriage and same-sex marriage earlier today. IPs from that same range 75.168.2..... kept at it until those two pages were protected. He must have then moved on to other pages that offend his sensibilities. Perhaps a short (although kind of broad) range block would be in order. Deli nk (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are right. I noticed in the contributions of the first one I blocked an addition to Talk:Marriage that I just disregarded. I just don't know what he/she has moved on to now. I agree on the range block - but I just don't know much about implementing one, and don't wat to mis-step. Pastordavid (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:RIHANNA RELOADED a possible sock of user:Brexx

    Brexx is a well known banned user who has been evading his ban by creating many, many block evading puppets as can be evidenced by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it and who is not shy to admit to his sockpuppetry as evidenced here. According to all the evidence that's been provided in the above mentioned SSP and RFCU cases, I believe that it's obvious that RIHANNA RELOADED is another sockpuppet of the banned editor. Obvious, disruptive sock puppet, which I believe to be the case here, is listed as an unacceptable Chechuser request so I wanted to get an opinion on whether or not this seems as obvious to others as it does to me or if the community believes that RFCU is, in fact, an appropriate venue.

    Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at Special:Contributions/Brexx, it appears that Brexx's main problem was adding copyright violations to articles. RIHANNA RELOADED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing a lot of Mariah Carey articles, but the contributions are now referenced. On the surface, they don't look like copyright violations. I don't think RIHANNA RELOADED is a problem just yet, and if it's truly Brexx again, he/she appears to have learned the lesson about copyrights. Of course, if the problematic behavior returns, then it might be time to have Rihanna unloaded. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The last 2 known sockpuppets of Brexx were Girl Get it (talk · contribs) and Agent999 (talk · contribs), the latter one blocked by Yamla (talk · contribs), an administrator familiar with this case. Those 2 socks' areas of interest are the same as RIHANNA RELOADED and, also, Mariah Carey has been the focal point for all the accounts created so far. A peek at their talk respective pages will reveal that Brexx still has not learned his lesson about copyright violation nor BLP violations. In either case, even if RIHANNA RELOADED does not break any more rules, I believe, if it truly is Brexx, that he/she is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy for circumventing their block by the way of sockpuppetry. Several administrators were involved in a discussion with Brexx oh his talk page in April where they offered him a second chance but he was shown to have absolutely no understanding of policy at that time. I don't believe that RIHANNA RELOADED should be allowed to continue editing if he/she breaks no more rules due to the ongoing blatant policy violations. That is, if it truly is Brexx, which is what I wanted an opinion on in the first place.
    By the way, I did notify Yamla about this as well a few days ago but he/she seems to have been absent from Wikipedia since May 12. Just wanted to let everyone know that so I don't look as though I'm canvassing.
    Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing of RL details

    The new anon 76.117.160.36 (talk · contribs) has apparently done substantial Internet research on me (I use my real last name as my username), and presented about 10 details that s/he had found online, in this edit. I don't believe s/he knew that this is not permitted at WP. I have made a comment to this effect, but could an an admin kindly reiterate this policy for him/her? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon has just done so a second time, in this edit. I kindly request attention to this, as I strongly wish to prevent the anon doing this a third time, as per our policies. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JPG-GR

    JPG-GR (talk · contribs) again tries to "decide" the request to move an article back to its old title by "closing" the discussion and removing the "move"-template from the article's talk in an administrative style by edit-war. The same kind of behaviour of this user has happened before and had been issued before here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:JPG-GR. I ask an administrator to either decide this move request and help to move the article back to its correct title, or to stop JPG-GR from the disturbing and tiresome actions. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, as I'm the one who made the request this time (in an attempt to both assist you and create a centralized area of discussion that could be easily followed), I have every right to close the request. Secondly, as this is I believe the third time that this request has been filed it it quite clear by now there is no consensus for the move, so by default there is no more. Thirdly, as I have now told you I believe three times - move requests do not stay open until your side wins. When there is clearly no consensus and the allotted time has passed (which it has each time now), the request can safely be closed. Please use your energy to help improve the encyclopedia rather than to continue hounding me for doing routine WP:RM-related cleanup. JPG-GR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "your" request. It is a request of mine, which you had re-opened after it had been proven to you explicitly that it is not your, but an administrators' task to decide and close any request to move. You can read this in the IncidentArchive414 which I've linked above.
    I had issued this request one time, then someone else had changed my message on WP:RM into a request in the opposite direction, but with my signature. So I had to change my request back to the first version. Then you tried to remove it from the backlog of WP:RM. Only after my protest here at ANI, you had re-opened the request again.
    Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not twist my actions to suit your view of the situation. I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor). I issued this new request in an attempt to garner additional viewpoints and discussion, and the results were the same as each previous request - no consensus.
    Please do not view any of this as an attack on you or your belief as to where this article should be located. There is clearly no consensus as to whether the article should be located at one place or the other - this is shown by each previous proposed move discussion. I am sorry that you appear unable to see that. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why then did you open a "new" (as you try to put it) request to move an article to another title, if you don't make the impression to have, or even know good reasons for such a move, and did not participate actively in the discussion on the article's talk-page?
    Garnering new viewpoints is a good idea, and I believe that in this case, enough compelling evidence has been garnered to move the article to the other title. But you don't seem able, or interested to read and understand the discussion.
    That is why the rules say that an administrator should read through the discussion, and then decide who to proceed further if there are still different opinions. As far as I see, an administrators' help would be needed anyway in order to clear the old title in the database before the article can be moved there.
    Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote myself, just above - "I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor)." I did not participate in the discussion as I had no opinion on the move. I read through the opinions on both sides (as I did before, despite the chaotic nature), and both sides presented reasonable arguments. Hence, no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page spamming

    Please check recent contribs of Magicbullet5 (talk · contribs). Kelly hi! 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I left them a note asking them to stop and it seems to have worked. Hut 8.5 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    S/He's being chatty again and asking for personal information (year of birth). I've reverted the personal questions.-Wafulz (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism, impersonation

    See AgnosticPreachersSon (talk · contribs). Kelly hi! 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I sent a request to WP:UAA regarding the username. This looks like your standard trolling account. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given the user an "only warning". ... discospinster talk 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aleta's done one better here blocking the account for impersonation. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More from the Avril troll

    As indicated in this section above, there was a threat of further trolling/vandalism/disruption from sleeper accounts. Perhaps the "resolved" tag on that section means it's not getting any attention, so I guess I'll start a new section. There have been more Avril questions, and our friend seems to be obsessed also with Summer Glau. Since individual accounts are being used, some editors believe that each questions should be treated in isolation. I myself have to think that if it walks like a duck . . . . Here are the contribs from Emac1, Pikecatcher, Lop Lop 7, Seven seven and eleven, Jellojolts, and table top dancer. There is also another Tor exit node being used. --LarryMac | Talk 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend blocking [quack, quack], esp. the Tor node, based on the history of such things these accounts obviously are not here to build an encyclopedia. As an aside, what the hell started all this Avril Lavigne tomfoolery in the first place? Anyone want to enlighten me [if it's in the ANI archives, just tell me and I'll go search]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
    Whoopee! They've moved on to the Entertainment ref desk and started asking questions about Shakira? 80.222.66.180 looks like another duck. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:37, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
    Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If (he? she? it? they?) is going to be a nuisance, just use common sense on the Reference Desk when answering questions. A lot more energy is expended trying to track them down and ban them than is expended just ignoring their imbecilery. Ziggy Sawdust 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My declaration that I would remove all of the trolling on sight got met with some rather harsh disagreement: [38]. Corvus cornixtalk 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreement from an enabler is not something I'd worry about. And Ziggy, if you could magically make everybody ignore trolls, I'd give you a million dollars (or the currency of your choice). But people don't ignore trolls, they feed them. I'm giving up, nobody seems to really care all that much. --LarryMac | Talk 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed ban of User:Kmweber

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

    Kmweber (talk · contribs)

    I'd like to ask the community for thoughts on the above editor. Kurt has been a member of Wikipedia since 2005, and has made a lot of valued contributions, particularly to road related articles. However, since around June last year, I do believe he has slowly become a real problem. He is one of those editors that aren't quite an obvious troll, but the vast majority of his edits to the project space are incredibly pointy, disruptive and damaging in the long run. For example, there are his infamous oppose votes on RfAs. Originally, he opposed every self-nom RfA, claiming the user is power hungry. Not only is this a borderline personal attack, it's also not true. Wishing to assist with Wikipedia further is does not mean you're power hungry - it means you're helpful. Obviously, because of these opposes, discussion occurred and it was decided Kurt is entitled to his opinion. However, he has recently begun to oppose people who have been through admin coaching. He also has attacked an editor calling them a vandal. I haven't looked that far back in his contributions, but from my own experience of him, I can't imagine it was the only instance.

    Additionally, he is known for his "keep" XfD votes. Basically, if it exists, it gets a keep. This is blatantly ignoring basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines for some sort of... how can I put it... point? I don't know what he's trying to prove. I have this feeling if I created an article on my cat, he'd vote to keep it. It is bordering on ridiculous, and needs to stop.

    He has also started to refuse to listen to Arbcom, claiming they are illegitimate, and he calls them "the arbitrary committee". This is an attack on the people who work hard on the committee, and this kind of behaviour shouldn't be put up with.

    In all, while I think Kurt's work in the main namespace is good, I believe he lacks the necessary communication skills to productively edit in the project space. He has also been banned from most Wikimedia IRC channels for disruptive behaviour, similar to above (attacking other users, absurd comments, ops have no legimate power etc etc). While I wouldn't want to ban him from the whole site, something seriously needs doing about his disruptive editing. No more "he's allowed his opinion" - when an opinion is basically an attack on the editor every time it is expressed, it should no longer be tolerated. I've personally had enough of his disruption, and I'd like something to be done about it. Al Tally (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My 2 cents: we're all allowed our opinion on things, but when the manner in which we express those opinions becomes substantially disruptive to the project, we lose the right to use Wikipedia as a forum to express them. Kurt is disruptive, no bones about it. The question is whether you feel it's a tolerable level of disruption. I personally think there is no good reason to put with this user's behavior anymore. It's just counterproductive to building the encyclopedia. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with everything writted by Majorly above. Kurt isn't damaging in any way. If there are people, including a former arbitrator, who aren't able to take it without getting upset, it's their problem. It seems that the biggest problem are his copy-paste opposes, yet nobody complained when mailer diablo or myself copy-pasted supports. It's the opposite side of Walton's initial stance. He basically supported everybody (dunno if he still does), Kurt instead opposes those who self-nominate. Far less pointy. XfD? Isn't he allowed to proposes his own criteria for inclusion? Is now inclusionism a bannable offense? He's not trying to prove anything Majorly. He is expressing his opinion, and for god's sake it's his right to do so. Nothing is wrong in Kurt's behavior, other than he tends to piss off people who doesn't seems able to read comments without looking in it an attack against them. Kurt hasn't attacked anybody. Now come on, find some serious drama to work on. Snowolf How can I help? 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt has been notified of this thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, as an editor that has been severely hurt by something Kmweber typed, enough to get me to violate every civility rule out there and end up with an ANI post with my own name in the header, resorting myself to calling him names and cursing his very existence, I find him ultimately rather harmless. I would explicitly not endorse a ban, be it a topic ban, mainspace ban, or Wikipedia:ban. I understand your frustratiion completely Majorly, and I've been equally, if not more, frustrated by Kurt. But I don't see anything in his contribs that constitute anything beyond an "ignore Kurt". Which is a shame, because he is a recognized and valuable content editor. He, without knowing it necessarily, has completely nullified any of his wiki/meta/talk posts though as "kooky", because of his extremely "out there" stances on things. All that to say, I would not support a ban, or even a block for that matter. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowolf: Kurt is not allowed to go round upsetting multiple editors. When you/Mailer diablo copy-pasted opposes, you didn't do it in a disrputive manner with an insulting edit summary. Additionally, Mailer didn't oppose everyone for not having 1FA, he sometimes went neutral.
    He shouldn't be proposing his own criteria on the XfD page. He should do that on the relevant policy talk page. Wikipedia is not intended for everything that ever existed.
    He frequently attacks other editors. "Deletionist vandal", "power hungry", "power trip" are just some minor things. I'm not working on drama. I'm trying to do something about a disruptive editor. Al Tally (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is attacking whom? I am not seeing any substantiation given for alleged attacks or behavior counter to policy. The single diff link given goes to an opinion about a candidates behavior. Jeepday (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (multiple ecs) Setting aside the question of Kurt's behavior for a moment, AN/I is not at all a place to conduct an RfC on a user. AN/I is for emergencies, essentially, situations requiring immediate administrative attention. It would be extraordinary to "ban" a user who hasn't even been blocked. And blocks and bans are *never* intended to be punitive, they are protective, and normal procedure if the legitimate behavior of a user is disruptive, aside from emergencies, is to address the situation cooperatively. If Kmweber is doing something wrong, ask him to stop. If that doesn't work, ask some user, preferably one who trusts him, to ask him to stop. If that isn't enough, start an RfC. If that does not work, there is Mediation and Arbitration. I highly doubt that ArbComm, based on what I've seen, would consider that Kmweber is blockable, much less ban-worthy, based on what generally accused of. Usually, "disruption" takes more than one person, if the one person's behavior is within behavioral guidelines. There is no guideline that says that you can't decide to vote Oppose in an RfA simply on the basis of self-nomination. It's actually a reasonable position with a lot of history behind it (in Islamic thought, for example, someone who sought to be a judge was considered ipso facto disqualified). I disagree with Kurt on this, because I think there are enough exceptions that it should not be so blatantly automatic, but disruptive, it is not. The only disruption comes from comments to AN/I like this. If I were truly exercised, I'd warn the initiator of this thread for disrupting AN/I, which should be used for emergencies. And there is utterly no emergency here. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Perhaps try a user conduct RFC? A topic ban is one possible outcome of rfc. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Al tally edit warring on ANI

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

    See above thread and the history of this page. User:Al tally has been edit warring to remove a thread he started. This is inappropriate and needs to stop (ironic, really, given that he said that about Kurt). I'll provide diffs in a minute, but this is not the first time that Al tally has engaged in behaviour like this in recent weeks. Is there some obscure WP:POINT being made here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not need to be a thread. I strongly recommend closing it. Archive it. (But don't delete it:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He was removing the thread he started - I don't personally see anything wrong with that. Sceptre was hardly an angel in all this either. I've closed the discussion so that should be the end of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing "wrong" with that is that other editors had contributed already. Archive it. Resolve it. fine. But deleting it is unnecessary and unproductive. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd surely like to know what other "behaviour" I've been engaging in. Apparently it's now a crime to propose a troll be banned. Al Tally (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Al_tally (contemporary thread)

    Al tally (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is insistent on removing a section from this page where users other than him have commented. Now, to me this is clear cut vandalism per VANDAL - "Discussion page vandalism", but seeing as Al tally is an admin and I've come under fire for reporting to AIV, I'm bringing it here. Sceptre (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not need to be a thread. I strongly recommend closing it. Archive it. (But don't delete it:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He said he will stop. No 3RR vios, although close between Majorly and Sceptre. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism? Are you joking Sceptre? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Clear as crystal: "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." Exactly what he was doing, and being an admin on three projects, he should know better. Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guys, everyone got overheated here a moment. Here, look, an encyclopedia to edit...

    Well Sceptre, my good man, it's a good job you no longer have the sysop bit if you would have classed that as vandalism and blocked him. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what? Majorly/Al_tally doesn't get special dispensation because he's an admin. Removing threads from discussion pages, even threads you've started, where people have commented, have been held up to be vandalism on many occasions. Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrator keeping wrong information in WP

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

    I reported some wrong information. An admin just removed my report. That admin started a MFD so by removing the report, it makes the page in question look more bare bones than it really is.

    People who support accuracy in WP should support inclusion of this reverted report. As of now, the article has information that is clearly wrong (not POV, just wrong information).

    I am not listing the admin's name because I don't want to fight with that person. But why should I correct wrong information in WP if it is so much of a fight? BVande (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As the administrator that removed the content, the relevant section is at [39]. This user is warning editors for edits made in 2005. Nakon 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This is better discussed at ANI or MfD. Please don't forum shop. --Bfigura (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not forum shopping but another issue.

    The MFD is about that page.

    This report is about a wrong information report removed by an administrator (maybe to help the MFD) so that the wrong information persists in WP. I am too tired to fight. Let it be (the wrong information in an article)....even though it shouldn't.BVande (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Le Sock

    All right--I'm reasonably sure I have a Jamesinc14 sock on my hands. He created List of PBS KIDS Channel Identifications This is recreated content, which has been removed more times than I care to count from the PBS Kids article, and it's always been a hallmark of Jamesinc14. I've put the article up for AfD, and reverted a bunch of goofball edits to various PBS articles (bolding/italicizing half the show names but not the other half in PBS KIDS Sprout, for example--more typical J14 foolishness.) I've listed the case at SSP, put up the article at AfD, and reverted everything that needs reverting, I think; is there anything else I need to do? Is there a better way to report what seems like a pretty-near-damn-obvious sock? Or am I being entirely too bloodthirsty here? (This particular vandal truly chaps my hide, I'll admit.)Gladys J Cortez 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of ANI threads

    Sorry, but who closed that? Sceptre is absolutely right on this. You can't wipe things from ANI or anywhere else, just because you don't like them. Especially not repeatedly. That is without doubt within what is defined as vandalism. End of story. I'm not suggesting action or sanction; it's just that you can't go around wiping threads, and then condoning it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if vandalism is right in that case... but Sceptre may have sight to the future... considering Al Tally's last three RfA votes in the last few minutes. Not sure what is happening with him. Not looking good. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not vandalism in the slightest. Majorly removed the thread he started - it's not vandalism in any way and I suggest you read up on what vandalism actually is. If anything, is a content dispute in project space. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to totally disagree with Ryan... but that is not a content dispute, in any definition of one. Might not be vandalism... but certainly not content dispute. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe content dispute was the wrong word, but you get my drift. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, he did start the thread, but as soon as a non-trivial post is made to it, removing it is blanking other people's comments and is textbook vandalism under the current policy (and if it's not vandalism for the sole fact he started it, it's clear disruption) - does the fact I nominated Celebrity sex tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion allow me to {{db-g7}} its AFD? Sceptre (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, even if it isn't vandalism, how would anyone propose we deal with such a prolific editor as Al (Majorly)? There is definitely a level of disruption going on now, and quickly bringing it to other admins attention seems like the best course of actions. Pointless warnings or arguments on his talk page probably will only escalate. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling that vandalism makes you sound like an pedantic dolt (zomg not a personal attack, it's just what other people will think and we don't want people to think poorly of you). For real vandalism and a chance to contribute to an encyclopedia, please visit Special:Recentchanges. John Reaves 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming any shred of good faith, it's not vandalism at all. Blanking the thread once was a mistake, not a worry, someone restored it. However, reverting other editors' comments again was at least tendentious and hence, disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, I'd just like to draw your attention to "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism".
    From WP:VAN. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VAN says Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. I do think it's unhelpful disruption though. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think whether or not it is actually vandalism hinges on Majorly's experience. If Majorly was new to the game, I'd think it was a mistake, point him to where it says that, and ask him not to do it again. But Majorly is still an admin (here, and on two sister projects), so I would expect him to know that such an action is inappropriate at the very least. Sceptre (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you people go cause drama someplace else? And yes, I closed the thread above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No drama intended, but a serious point under discussion. Gwen, please, the policy specifically says you can't delete other people's posts. Give me a break. Surely. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We both agree the edits were unhelpful so I don't see any meaningful disagreement here. My take on WP:vandalism is very straightforward: If there seems to be good faith, it's not vandalism (but could easily be revertable/warnable/blockable for something else). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan, people do not WP:OWN the ANI threads they start, though they can request them closed or close them if it is not controversial, but removing them completely would lead to chaos. More generally, Majorly has a habit of requesting that stuff be deleted even after others have contributed to it. Examples are: (1) the ANI thread above that he tried to remove; (2) Wikipedia:Community noticeboard (this was a redirect that Al tally turned into an attempt at a new noticeboard - a fair amount of discussion took place on the talk page and the main page, then Al tally changed his mind and requested deletion - I undeleted it and returned it to being a redirect and copied the deleted discussion to the talk page); (3) Wikipedia:Requests for checkusership/Majorly - that last one didn't have much content, but in my opinion enough that people might want to look at later. Deleting it means that non-admins can't see what was there, and so they have less of an idea of what happened. It is terribly easy for admins to forget that others can't see deleted content. Deletion outside userspace and various stuff (eg. non-certified RfCs) shouldn't be done at the whim of the person who started a page or process, especially not if others have started to contribute. That leads to too much of people starting things on a whim (for example, all three of the examples above) and then (when things don't go their way) requesting deletion or trying to remove a thread. Do you get the point I'm making here, Ryan? Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And now User:Al tally and User talk:Al tally have been deleted by user request. I wish I'd mentioned this earlier. It was clear to me for a few weeks that Al tally/Majorly was, there is no polite way to put this, editing whimsically and erratically. Could those who know him e-mail him and check everything is OK? For what it is worth, I apologise for any part I played in this, and I hope Majorly does start work on that list of planets (we were talking about this on his user talk page, which is, of course, now deleted). Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's exam season in the UK. Sceptre (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would explain it. Glad I don't have to do those any more... Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And if it helps, it explains about half my erratic-ness (the other half is other RL problems since the beginning of April). Sceptre (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, thank you but this isn't, frankly, relevant to this discussion. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please leave your thoughts about school at the door. Thank you, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "I have to agree, I think the thread was closed in appropriately and disagree with Ryan here. Al Tally is being very pointy to the point of being disruptive.Balloonman (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk moved into the article space

    Resolved
     – deleted and warned Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SeawaveRecords (talk · contribs) moved their talk page to Oiled On Dany. Further edits were made to the talk page so I can not move the page back, could an admin move the page back. This user previously moved their corresponding talk page into the article space with the account LeCri (talk · contribs) and also used the account LandTraders (talk · contribs). BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of automated tool to generate articles from a website. Zillions of {{db-copyvio}}'s?

    Just discovered that there is a tool to generate WP-articles automatically called Mixed Martial Arts wikipedia generator. It is being used by at least one user - Aducci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The tool takes the information from Sherdog (Content subject to copyright © 2004-2008 CRAVEONLINE MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED) and no further content/references are added. I haven't seen any wikipedia-o-matic guidelines or similar precedents, and do not know if {{db-copyvio}} applies here Iunaw 00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comparing Joe Charles that he made to http://mmawiki.awardspace.com/fighter.php?id=46 this output... thats just formatting public data. Is that a copyvio? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=212731677"