Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94

Organized campain to remove Thiruvananthapuram from India related sites

Please note the political maps of india related sites. Some group of users(Ravikiran r , SwiftRakesh etc) selectively remove Thiruvananthapuram and add Kochi in the region even after the repeated corrections.This is to create a false impression that Kochi is the capital or prominent city in the state.

Thiruvananthapuram is the capial(also largest) city of Kerala and is the Educational & RD center of the state. It houses VSSC,ISRO like space organisations and also head quarters of southern aircommand.It will be the headquarters of newly forming aerospace command.

All the official maps give prominance to Thiruvananthapuram look at some of the most popular official sites I take example of Railways & Airport sites.

see what railways say 'FACILITIES OF TOP CITIES' at http://www.southernrailway.org/city/facility.asp, they consider only Thiruvananthapuram from the state.CHENNAI ,MUMBAI ,PUNE ,NEW NELHI ,HYDERABAD ,KOLKATA ,BANGLORE ,TRIVANDRUM are included .

Also please http://www.airportsindia.org.in/aai/airports-frame.htm like many ones

Please do some thing to stop this venegance against thiruvananthapuram by a group(looks like they are promoted by a Kochi based lobby)

Also please look at India talk page--Sathyalal 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of changes? Link us diffs, please. --Golbez 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India Line 115: Line 116:

==Politics==  ==Politics== 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

- [[image:IndiaMapUpdated.GIF|thumb|270px|Map of India.

and [[image:IndiaMap2.PNG|thumb|270px --Sathyalal 06:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As an observer, I just want to comment that the image IndiaMap2.png was the existing image which Sathyalal (talk · contribs) replaced with his version IndiaMapUpdated.GIF against consensus, as seen in Talk:India. He then went on revert-warring with others and was blocked for 3RR. This is a content dispute, and a current discussion thread is there in Talk:India which relates to this. Thanks. --Ragib 07:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that being a new user I tried to change the ambiguous information in the map without knowing the 3rr rule. Sorry for the same. But that is not an excuse to keep a wrong data there. The specified map with ambiguous information was created by the same people who maligned information in Thiruvananthapuram and Kerala sites. Finally the admin has corrected the information in those sites. Talk:Kerala

So I would like to request the admin to give justice after verifying the facts. --Sathyalal 10:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? This has popped up here a few times now, and it's not really the appropriate place, it's a dispute over facts rather than something requiring admin intervention. You should sort out a request for comment on the subject, to get some outside views. If, once you've had some neutral parties look at the subject, certain individuals persist in changing things contrary to consensus, bring it back here. --ajn (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, That is where exact the problems is. If no consensus is reached the ambiguous information will be there for ever and that is what one set of people need. So if some body is in a compromise mood, then they should be willing to put both the cities in the map or remove both. That is why we need admin intervention --Sathyalal 11:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's why you need an RFC as a first step. Get some people who don't live in southern India to look at the situation, and see what they think (I'll have a look myself). Or try for formal mediation, but I'd go for an RFC first. If it's clear that partisans of one city are being unreasonable, outsiders with no axe to grind will be able to see that, and the situation can then be resolved, by admin action if necessary. --ajn (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew , Thanks for the help --Sathyalal 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A troublemaker from Serbian Broadband (SBB)

I noticed yesterday that an anon from IP 87.116.178.132 had removed a number of tags from List of legendary kings of Britain, Table of Chinese monarchs, History of Oman, List of Vietnamese dynasties, and Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia with no explanation. I cleaned up, & did a reverse lookup of the IP number: it appears to be a dialup in Belgrade served by Serbian Broadband (SBB). I thought about a 24-hour ban, but since the addressing was dynamic & there was reasonable doubt that said user was a vandal (could just be some young kid discovering that, yes, he could edit Wikipedia), I let this slide.

Took another look today, & another SBB dialup IP (87.116.171.209) reverted all of these changes. Moreover, Francis Schonken left a 3RR warning on this user's talk page. A bit of study of Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia shows similar edits from IP 87.116.165.178 (both also resolving to dialups in Belgrade). Obviously banning IP numbers won't work here, but we need to educate this person somehow. -- llywrch 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From my talk:

Hi -- I noticed that you blocked this anon editor for 8 hours. Would you consider reducing this block to half an hour or an hour? For reasons that I explain at WP:AN/I, I suspect that a ban of more than half an hour will be counterproductive: it won't stop this person, but will likely block good-faith editors in Belgrade, Serbia. Thanks, llywrch 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems better to answer here. Answer: I don't know. So I'm not going to do anything myself, other than release this block into the care of anyone who wants it, with freedom to reduce it if you think its appropriate William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... no-one took me up on that. And now he anon has a 24h block for the same behaviour. William M. Connolley 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't act on your offer because (1) I knew I would be away from my computer for several hours, & would be unable to monitor the situation if I reduced the period of this ban; & (2) you had stated here that you had no problem if another admin removed the block if it affected another contributor. So far, all this guy appears to be interested in is removing templates on 3 of these 5 articles -- & not communicating. I expect him to pop up at another SBB IP address soon, though. -- llywrch 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:RabinicLawyer and Something Awful related articles

This user, RabinicLawyer (talk · contribs) seems to have registered an account to AfD everything in Category:Something Awful. [1] --waffle iron ^talk 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

TrollHistorian (talk · contribs) seems to be working in concert or a sockpuppet. He is registered a couple days before Rabinic and has only made edits related to his AfDs. --waffle iron ^talk 23:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. I was about to point out that nominating articles for deletion requires an account, and therefore creating an account to nominate articles for deletion is perfectly logical. But the possible sock changes things. That said, the few nominations I looked at (it's late) look as if they could go either way even if there isn't WP:POINT or sockpuppetry going on. I think the AfDs should be left to run their course, bearing in mind that as new users TrollHistorian and RabinicLawyer could both be discounted by closing admins as new users. I've left a {{newvoter}} message on TrollHistorian's page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RabinicLawyer (April 23) has an even younger account than TrollHistorian (April 17). --waffle iron ^talk 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Curval (talk · contribs) seems to be another sockpuppet or friend. Registered less than an hour ago. --waffle iron ^talk 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I point out that waffle iron is a member of the SomethingAwful forums, as such is biased towards these articles. Historically SomethingAwful forums members are virtually militant in leaving their "mark" on the internet, such as Wikipedia articles, forum vandalism and others. All of the articles I nominated for deletion are articles that could be easily merged into the Something Awful or Something Awful Forums articles, thereby reducing the amount of unnecessary cruft. RabinicLawyer 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call us militant at leaving our mark on anything. I'd say you are strongly misguided. Are you a permabanned user, perhaps, who thinks SA has misled you in some way? --Liface 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you thing something should be merged, use the merge process described in WP:MERGE, and not AfD. AfD is for things you want deleted, not merged. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a member of a group doesn't invalidate all the work I've done on Wikipedia or reduce my objectivity. --waffle iron ^talk 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your objectivity. I'm questioning whether or not the articles are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the SAclopedia or whatever they call it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a valid source of information about topics that are encyclopedic. Would Encylopaedia Brittanica print an article on Richard Kyanka or Jeff K.? Also, might I note that you left a snipy message on my talk page about how my name is supposedly spelled wrong... doesn't that suggest you have malicious intent? RabinicLawyer 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not. Read WP:AGF please. --Golbez 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And my keep votes are resulting in IM harassment from socks, at least one admitting to be RabinicLawyer. All the messages are the same: "STOP BEING SO GOONY GOON GOON LOL HY," and came from at least two dozen screennames. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RabinicLawyer is my friend. I don't see why this is a problem. My opinions and votes are my own. Badlydrawnjeff and William Graham before you go tattling sockpuppets on people maybe you should confront them first. --TrollHistorian 00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is typical behaviour of members of Something Awful whenever they feel their "mark" on the internet is threatened. They go off and cry to an administrator because people aren't being fair. RabinicLawyer 00:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude is not helping things whatsoever. I direct you to read WP:AGF, and take note that meatpuppetry is almost as discouraged as sockpuppetry, and this may be considered when counting votes. --Golbez 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Golbez) Thank you for confirming that you are operating with a vendetta against Something Awful. Also, mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Even if the two of you are telling the truth, your identical voting patterns makes you meatpuppets, which about as bad. JoshuaZ 00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, let's talk about all the Goons who are voting for the same thing... doesn't that make them meatpuppets since they area all voting based on groupthink? RabinicLawyer 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Attacking people for legitimately voting their opinions here and on the AfD pages is abusive. Please be civil. Meatpuppets are friends or family members or coworkers you drag in to participating in a WP debate despite not having been active before. It's clear that your friends/family members/coworkers are getting involved; whether they were dragged in or not, and whether they were previously active in WP or not, are not obviously concludable. People who aren't connected in real life agreeing with something does not, by definition, become meatpuppetry.

It is generally contentious whenever anyone starts nominating many like articles for AfD. You should know that if y ou're already AfDing things. Georgewilliamherbert 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For others to note, it appears User:Incognito and User:TrollHistorian are voting on all the articles User:RabinicLawyer has nominated for AfD, and are not just interested in removing SA-cruft. This is evidenced by all parties voting in the Silpelit AfD, Incognito was idle for ten days before reappearing to vote in the RabinicLawyer suite of AfDs. Every edit of Curval save one has thus far to agree with all of RabinicLawyer's AfDs. In other words, these are friends of RL who he asked to come on here and support his votes. This is called meatpuppetry, and it is frowned upon. --Golbez 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean we can accuse all goons of meatpuppetry, including yourself? You voted before in articles related to WDMA as well as other SomethingAwful related articles. --TrollHistorian 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you might notice I even closed one, the first Kevin Bowen AfD. However, I also had an edit history outside of those AfDs - something you and your cohorts, except Incognito, cannot say. However, I will assume good faith, something you have thus far failed to do, and assume that it's just chums who decided to rally to your call. However, you should note that that is, in fact, the definition of a meatpuppet: "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in (or influence) one particular vote or area of discussion. ... When used to add force to the arguments of one side in a debate or article, such users and accounts are often described as 'meatpuppets'..."--Golbez 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, when SomethingAwful Goons decide to post on their forums to "hey, vote agains this AfD" or something equivalent, or a group of them mobilize to protect their poorly written, cruft-filled articles, that isn't meat puppetry? Because it certainly sounds like it to me RabinicLawyer 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We already had accounts. You and your friends didn't. Don't conveniently ignore the first sentence of the definition. We are Wikipedia citizens already, we have nothing to prove. --Golbez 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, me being idle for 10 days has nothing to do with anything. It simply proves I have a life outside of wikipedia, simply checking my edit history would prove I am not a meat puppet. I just agree that these articles are worthless. incog 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Golbez 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Many articles have had AfD headings removed, as well my talk page has been filled with rude and obscene commentaries. This suggests bad intent to me. RabinicLawyer 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I warned the person who did it. --Golbez 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have been informed that a thread on the Something Awful general forums was posted about the AfDs. This suggests more bad faith to me, since they attempted to use meatpuppetry to ensure these wikipedia articles were not deleted. I have PDFs of the thread, kindly provided to me by a friend, but I lack anywhere to upload them at present. But the thread was full of people encouraging eachother to vote against deletion of the articles. And again, one the user FlameHead has continued to remove AfD and the category CfD headers. RabinicLawyer 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All meatpuppets will be dealt with equally. --Golbez 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you list which articles

• you AfD'ed
• had the AfD notice removed?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (not an admin, but interested)

The wikipedia AFD process is fairly resistant to meatpupets.Geni 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Something_Awful <-- had the CFD header removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-P-P-Powerbook <-- had the AfD header removed

I had AFD'd P-P-P-Powerbook, Kevin Bowen, GBStv, Greenlighting hoax, The Laziest Men on Mars, Richard Kyanka, Jeff K. and Cliff Yablonski, most on the basis that they were covered in the Something Awful or Something Awful Forums articles, or referenced obscure fictional characters or referenced obscure personnel of Something Awful.

While my registration date is recent, I have been around wikipedia for quite some time and am aware of how such proceedings work. However, whenever someone "crosses" SomethingAwful users, they tend to get abused and often harassed. So while I am aware of the controversy of AfDing several articles in a shot, I had not expected such militant behaviour from followers of SA RabinicLawyer 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You said people who cross SA tend to get abused and harassed... then you say you did not expect such behavior? --Golbez 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Found another puppet. 204.191.190.187 (talk · contribs) has only made edits to Rabinic's VfDs. --waffle iron ^talk 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

3 month block of 64.9.27.98

I've just blocked 64.9.27.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 3 months for persistent vandalism. The IP doesn't reverse-resolve, but according to whois it belongs to the Perkiomen valley school district. I went through the IP's edit history for this year, and the only remotely useful contribution was a one-line addition to List of fictional airborne castles. I was almost tempted to block them until next year, but decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. A three-month block will last until the end of the school year, and maybe the vandals have grown up or moved on by then.

Of course, if any legitimate editors are affected by the block, it should be shortened. But no-one seems to have complained during the previous two-week block. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still feeling uneasy about a blanket block on an IP that may include hundreds of schools. Typically there were several days between the usual batches of school vandalism (Mar 1, 9, 24, 27, Apr 5, 20, 21, 24, 25), not what I'd call persistent. Are you sure this couldn't be handled with rigorous short-term blocks instead? Femto 11:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we could. For that matter, we could just revert the edits as they appear and not bother with a block at all. The point of blocking (in general) is that it saves us from having to do that.

According to pvsd.org, the Perkiomen valley school district includes seven schools (4 elementary, 2 middle, 1 high school). The blocked IP is one in a block of 32 addresses allocated to the district. My guess is that it probably serves as a proxy for the student workstations of one school. There's probably a small group of students at that school who have discovered a fun new game they can play between classes on this site called wikipedia dot org. Hopefully they'll grow bored of it over summer. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult. The school where i work shares proxies with many other schools. I regulaly find myself blocked at work, and have to unblock the IP before I can edit. Now these proxies work much like AOL in that I can never be sure which proxy I will be going through at any time. This means that blocking the IP can inconvenience legitimate logged in users (who you cannot know about) and still fail to curb the vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, judging by the histories of the vandalized articles, the IP seems to be static enough. Collateral damage is of course always a risk, but the fact that Hall Monitor's two-week block last months seems to have caused no complaints makes me consider it unlikely. I'll unblock if I'm proven wrong about this, of course. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Linux_User_1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked indef, would someone else take a look at the contribs? Claims to be a bot run by Gastrich, does not smell like Gastrich to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning blocked virtually at the same time I did. Still would appreciate a look at the contribs; does not smell like Gastrich to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• User:Skepticsannotatedbible (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) its going to be a long day. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He's not the first. Jolli3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Joey80

This user moved a large number succession boxes to below the links despite being asked not to by many users. The user then removed all the requests to stop on their talk page and carried on moving them. Arniep 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User mikka (t) is blocking innocent registered users from editing the Kven page

It appears that innocent registered users have been unfairly blocked of editing the Kven page, due to actions by mikka (t).

I ask myself to be immediately unblocked of editing Wikipedia articles and for the above mentioned administrator's rights to block or unblock users to be revoked, please, for the following reasons:

Despite of many pleas for them to do so (on theKven discussion page), the above mentioned user mikka (t) and user Fred-Chess have not provided sources for their claims, which are not - to my knowledge - supported by any known historians and/or other scientists.

Furthermore, users opposing the views of mikka (t) and

Fred-Chess have provided their distinguished sources on the Kven discussion page, and particularly in the Kven text version itself, which Fred chessplayer (now also mikka (t)) keeps reverting into their own text version, which includes their unfounded claims (the given sources do not agree with his views).

Below are just a couple examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version compailed in part by Fred chessplayer, which the user mikka (t) has recently kept reverting to, and which he has now blocked several other users of correcting. While mikka (t) has kept reverting the Kven page to this no-good version by Fred-Chess, he has now blocked other registered users with good records also of reverting to the better text version, where the offered information was correct and where the information kept being backed up my more and more respected and known sources. The following exact quotes given first are from the currently standing Fred chessplayer's Kven text version. Fred chessplayer's claims are followed by correct information which is backed by known historians (the sources offered in Fred chessplayer's text version agree with this correct information, but not with the claims of Fred chessplayer):

1. "Kvens (alternate spellings: Cwen, Kven, Kvæn, Kveeni, Quen) were a historical group of people that lived in the coastal areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, part of today's Finland."

There is a wide concensus among historians, that large areas of today's Northern Sweden, particularly the areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, were also part of the historical Kvenland.

Thus, the historic Kvenland areas are not only "part of today's Finland", but also part of today's Sweden (and - according to many historians - perhaps also part of today's Norway, even parts of today's extreme Northwestern Russia according to some evidence, including historic maps).

2. "Possibly, Kvens referred to all Finnish people. (Suomen historia (History of Finland), page 27, Jouko Vahtola, Professor of Finnish and Scandinavian history. )."

On the above mentioned page, Professor Vahtola does not claim such a thing. He only says that in 870 AD the "Kven" reference made by the Norwegian explorer was - perhaps - ment to refer to Finns in general. He is not discussing there any of the numerous other references to Kvens.

Professor Vahtola himself indeed has - in his various books - made it clear that Kvens are a separate group within the Finnish/Finnic people, and that the term "Kven" - used in various historic texsts - has not referred to the Finnish people in general, but to a historic group/tribe of people. There is a wide concensus about this matter among historians.

3."In literature, the first known occurance of the Kven in the Account of the Viking Othere, a chronicle in the time of King Alfred the Great in the 9th century AD."

According to the distinguished Kven expert, the Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku, the first reference to the Kven people in literature was made by the Roman historian Gornelius Julius Tacitus in 98 AD.

4."Before the 8th century there are scarsely any remains of the Kvens."

"On the contrary: The archaeological evidence of agricultural settlement on the Finnish side of the Bothnian Gulf is strong before the 9th century, and it gets weaker during the Viking period."

Despite of requests, neither one of the avove mentioned users have provided sources for their claims in this article in question, nor have they answered to the questions about the above mentioned and other shortcomings, misrepresentations and distortions of facts.

Some of the less important peaces of information in the current Kven text is correct, thanks to the contributions by users other than Fred chessplayer or Mikkalai. Much of the current text, however, is not reflecting the opinions of the utmost experts of the Scandinavian and Finnish history, nor does the current information match the views of the sources and references offered on the current Kven page.

On the other hand, the text version of "16:20, 18 April 2006 Ppt" provides valid information with maching distinguished sources and references, including a couple of exact quotes of the wordings by known Kven experts, etc.

Administrators, I the under-signer need to be unblocked immediately, please. I am not an anonomous user, but a proper registered user, and I must not be mixed up with any other users, regardless of what computers they might have used. I ask user mikka (t) to please now proceed and provide ecidence of any wrong doing by me, or otherwise for him to unblock me immediately.

I also ask on the behalf of other Wikipedia users, where in the Wikipedia rules is it prohibited from the users of using two user accounts in Wikipedia. That appears to be the reasoning behind Mikka's blocking strategy in this particular case - - Art Dominique, April 26, 2006 15:38 - -

Note that the post above was made by Digi Wiki (talk · contribs). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Next chapter in the Robsteadman saga

RobSteadman (talk · contribs) --Clearly an impersonator account. I think it should be indefinately blocked as an impersonator/sockpuppet of Robsteadman (talk · contribs)and the "Very very very strong Support" vote on my RfA should be removed. As far as I'm concerned it's a violation of WP:POINT. The account is also commenting on places that Robsteadman used to: Talk:Jesus, Talk:Jesus-Myth etc. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll jump off a cliff if this turns into the next Willy on wheels. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He's indefblocked by me, and sockpuppet notice has been placed on the userpage. --Syrthiss 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone more versed in wikisyntax than I would strike that vote I'd appreciate it. I burned through like 10 preview screeens trying to get the syntax right. I have full confidence that the closing bcrat would discount the vote, but it throws the valid vote count off. Thanks! Syrthiss 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

#::<s>You can strike it out like this</s>  

I'd do it myself but I think it's inappropriate. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm very grateful. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Donnog

(Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I think it requires an Administator's attention. Apologies if this is not the right place.)

User:Donnog has earlier today made a large number of edits to pages about the British Royal Family and Concentration Camps, as apparent from his User Contribution list. From the few I have looked at (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, plus various category additions and changes) these all involve adding references about their distant German family links.

His changes to Concentration camp have been questioned in that talk page as regards their NPOV.

I have questioned the veracity and relevancy of some of the changes to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom at its talk page. I have also raised a query at Talk:Saxe-Coburg and Gotha#United Kingdom

He appears to have added the new Category:German-British people.

I do not wish to appear racist, but it appears that this user may be making (relatively minor, and perhaps seemingly innocent) changes to a large number of pages to promote a specific Polish and/or German POV. I regret I do not have time to investigate all the recent changes, but I feel that this may require further investigation. TrevorD 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Artifex99 (talk · contribs) possibly evading 3RR block

Artifex99 seems to have created two sockpuppets, Cesaer (talk · contribs) and Lafayette05 (talk · contribs) in order to evade a 3RR on Regular Grand Lodge of England. MSJapan 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion?

TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs) was blocked for 3RR yesterday, for continuing to insert this at the Adana page. Today, it appears that he is evading his block as 81.213.163.204 (talk · contribs) - see this edit. What do others think? —Khoikhoi 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Password request from: "24.161.174.38"

Someone at 24.161.174.38 Keeps requesting a new password for my account. How do I pursue this? Dominick ^(TALK) 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That ip resolves to Roadrunner.net (at least in the US). You could probably forward the email and complain about spam to :Abuse OrgAbusePhone: +1-703-345-3416 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@rr.com. Thats what I've done in the past when an IP was spamming me with password requests and they stopped soon after, though I don't know if my action had any impact on how fast they stopped. --Syrthiss 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You could also remove your email address from your account for a little while, and replace it after a few days once whomever it is gets bored with their stupidity. Guettarda 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Block request

I wish to have a block initiated for the IP address 88.111.97.240. The person using this address has been instigating an edit war on the Nikola Tesla page, and it is becoming very frustrating. This problem has been going back and forth for several weeks now. Erzahler 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, mostly carried on via edit warring with increasingly hostile edit summaries. Have you tried posting on article talk? I see no-one has tried posting on the anon's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article's talk page, yes I have. Most of the editors are in agreement with me. The problem boils down to a few editors who constantly change nationality sentences in the article without any supporting evidence to back it up. A few of the comments have become heated. I will try posting to the anon's talk page as you suggested. Erzahler 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood banned from several articles

Belated notice: Tony Sidaway and myself have banned User:Instantnood from a number articles related to Macao and Hong Kong, per terms of his probation, because he's continuously revert warring on them. Please leave comments here.

• List of bridges two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Macao, China two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Hong Kong national football team two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• District Council of Hong Kong two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Guangzhou two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Community of Portuguese Language Countries two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• East Asian Tigers two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• I'm lovin' it two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Las Vegas Sands two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Share taxi two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Estádio Campo Desportivo two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Douhua two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006

For the... nobody in particular, Ashibaka tock 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on 218.102.221.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Ashibaka tock 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion

I would like to report Vegaswikian for his/her overzealous use of deletion privileges. This has continued dispite many requests from other users to take more care in his/her actions. I copy below the various comments from myself and other users on Vegaswikian's talk page:

You deleted an article titled "Sam Ross." You felt that I was writing about myself. This however, is not true. I have read about Sam Ross in newspaper and magazine articles. From these sources, I was able to compile enough information to write a breif bio of him. Please do not delete valid articles. It is qualified because of "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following"

I see you deleted the Julius Lester article while I was creating it. I've put it back now -- with content! -- but just so you know, WikiProject Biography's instructions for creating a new biography are explicitly to Add {{subst:Biography}} into your article page and save, and edit from there. So if you see a new template and don't give it an hour or two, that's probably what's happening. Now, admittedly that initial work could happen in a user space sandbox, but I was following the instructions of the Wikiproject in charge of the name space. If you find the method confusing, perhaps you should take it up with them and persuade them to change their doc? Thanks. Deborah-jl _Talk 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

why did you delete my Pee Tanks Entry?

So it was a stub about a ghost story... That isn't necessarily a reason to speedy it, is it? You categorised it as "nonsense" but I'm not sure I agree with that categorisation being friendly or accurate. If the story is sourced enough (and I do find some other hits for it via Google: [2]) it's (possibly) notable as a story (just like this user's other contribution might be), regardless of the existance of ghosts. There is a Category:Weird NJ as you may or may not know. (note I do NOT believe in ghosts and have little interest in them myself but can see why notorious enough legends are notable enough for inclusion here...) So I think maybe this one should go through WP:PROD or even WP:AfD ++Lar: t/c 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't write enough about Bob Olson to make it into a good article. I saw that the page had been requested for over a year, and I attempted to begin fulfilling that request by writing what I could find. Please note that, according to the deletion log page and request page, my stub was the closest to the request's notes. I would also like to make it known that I am not a newcomer to Wikipedia. I have been around Wikipedia longer than my account has been, and I have much more experience than the average user. I am also fully aware of user pages and their function, and if the information under "Bob Olson" was about me, I would have put it on my user page. Sorry again for writing about this apparently non-notable subject. Paradoxsociety 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove articles being written until checking with the author --Larsie 17:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I beleive you were too hasty in your deletion of the article, it was too "speedy". I was able to get the picture right and before i was finished adding text it was gone. I wouldn't even have had time to add hangon. You just as easily could have made the article a stub for the maentime and then come back. I mean look at my user page I'm certainly not in the habit of creating an article as just a picture. --Larsie 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• please explain which criteria the article clearly fell under. --Larsie 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• that is completely false - there was a picture there, not to mention if you did the proper research (or just clicked what links here) you would see that hea is very notable and the article for a disease named after him is actually a featured article. don't be rediculous. and yes i made similar pages and was in the middle of doing a redirect. speedy deletion is meant to be an efficient way of monitering new article production and not hindering of the production of new articles.

• I am sure you are familiar with this phrase "Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deletion." as it is plastered to the speedy deletion announcement. The article is finished so if you would be so kind as to remove the template... thank you. --Larsie 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask, what made you decide to delete the article for Nicolas Metoyer? I know it was just a stub, but I don't think it merited deletion. I'm only a little curious as to why you didn't feel it was necessary to at least tag the article or initiate a discussion about it. Metoyer may be non-notable to you, but he was a prominent figure in the developement of a self-sufficient colored community in Louisiana. I will admit that Louisiana history is a bit of a specific interest, but simply because you are not familiar with it does not give you the right to remove it from an encyclopedia. You may want to look at Marie Thérèse Metoyer, his mother, as well, but would you be kind enough not to delete that article (if you, as i suspect, believe it to be lacking in merit) until you have given those of us who care an opportunity to argue our case?Dlayiga 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok but did you take time to actually read what I said in the discussion before arbitrarily deleting the article? Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that the notability standards are not official wikipedai policy. If you also took a quick glance at my user page you might have realized that I have edited/started many viable articles and I am contrary to your belief not a bumbling newcomer.--Ian 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And finally my note:

I have noticed that you deleted the page J. H. Brennan, as soon as I created it, even though I noted in my edit summery that there was more to come. I find this kind of over zealous deletion hinders Wikipedia and simply wastes time. If you had taken a moment to view my user page you would have found that I am a long time member of the community here and would not add something without consideration. Beyond this a simple search for JH Brennan on Google reveals that he has written more than fifty books including both fiction and non-fiction, which have been translated into as many languages and have been very influential. This is clearly notable. I am simply in a position now where I will have to start the page again, but I now have a deletion against my history. Please try to discuss before acting in this way in future. Thank you. Solar 08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This should show that this user is being overzealous and in my opinion is abusing his/her admin privileges, deleting pages before a user has finished working on them with no consensus just seems disruptive and unhelpful all around. - Solar 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am cited above, here's the whole thread. (and I'd suggest that citing entire threads may be better than just interspersing comments) I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that there's an issue here although I certainly would wish Vegaswikian had been more responsive to my queries. The article referred to (The White Lady) was one of two that a brand new user created. I beefed the other one (Annie's Road...) up with some research. I think it's marginally acceptable now, but unfortunately, that new user is gone now, near as I can tell last time I checked. I asked a different admin to undelete and userify the article Vegaswikian deleted and I have it in my userspace, I will rearticleify it when I finish sprucing it up. I do think there's merit in ALL admins working WP:RCP giving article stubs the benefit of the doubt and not biting the newcomers. But ANI may not be the right place to discuss this. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Squeakbox's disruption of IFD

I have nominated some of the images on User:Squeakbox's userpage for Ifd (pictures of himself and his dog, not encyclopedic). He responded by doing the following:

• Removing the IFD notices from all of the images
• Reverting the IFD image
• Accusing me of being a troll and a vandal, and threatning to take me to Arbcom

Could an admin do something about this? Cynical 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. These images are legitimate. His first target was Image:Nap006b.jpg on the main space so he is lying and he has vandalised my user page and has offered no explanation of his trolling behaviour. Talk about one user trying to harrass aonther user off the site, SqueakBox 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The unencylopedia criteria doesn't apply to images on userpages, why would you nominate these for deletion? You might also want to take a gander at the user page policy; its generally considered rather impolite to go mucking about on someone's user page. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jareth, your right and wrong, most of the criteria don't except for criteria on copyright and fairuse, though I think those are the fairly obvious ones that are assumed to apply everywhere. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that these images are entirely appropriate for use on a userpage, but Squeakbox, wouldn't it have been better to simply add a "keep" vote to the IFD debate? When you take it upon yourself to remove IFD tags from your own images, it gives the appearance of the immatures who keep removing AFD tags from their own articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't 'mucking about on someone's userpage'. I was adding notice of the IFD to the image's caption as I am required to do by WP:IFD when nominating an image: '(If the image is in use, also add {{ifdc|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}}} or {{ifdc|Image name.ext}} to the caption))'. However I wasn't aware that 'unencyclopedic' doesn't apply to userpages (I also missed the mainspace article in that image's list), my mistake. Cynical 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear that, Sjakkalle. I felt attacked especially as this pic is on the main space and was his first target, then he started vandalsing my user page so I honestly felt he was just trolling and had no legitimaste purpose in either touching my user page removing legally licenced and undeleted images and also in his targetting of one of the main pics in Diog, a main article but I accept his explanation now that he wasn't trolling but mistaken. I had come here to work this morning, this user put paid to that, SqueakBox 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I did not remove any images from SqueakBox's userpage'. I simply added the 'this image is under discussion at IFD' template to the caption, which as I will restate WP:IFD requires the nominator to do. Cynical 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You edited the page in a way you knew I didn't want and without any pol;icy foundations in that. please be careful editing people's user space, and simply dont edit anything in my user space, Cynical. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This was clearly a misunderstanding. Forgive and forget. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block

Indefinitely blocked Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his block as 70.19.56.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (evidence: [3]). Can an admin block this IP please? Demiurge 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• And as 70.19.64.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well [4]. Demiurge 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• And yet again as 63.164.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [5]. Demiurge 21:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Userpage vandalism

User:Benlegrand has vandalized my user page and some pictures. I heavily suspect he was the vandal who did so anonymously as well before my page was protected. Please take care of him. Edward Grefenstette 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Zoe. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For a week. If they reform, then we can welcome them back. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lulu's conduct in an RFC

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been making all sorts of questionable edits to the RfC he filed against me. Evilphoenix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) originally wrote the text of the RfC but he felt that we were making sufficient progress that it shouldn't be filed at this time, and he left a note and blanked the RfC accordingly. Then Lulu unilaterally moved the RfC from Evilphoenix's userspace to the live RfC page and reverted Evilphoenix, using the old text that Evilphoenix had written but no longer wished to go live with at this time.

Evilphoenix briefly returned from his Wikibreak to cross out his statement of the dispute because he had not been intending to file this RFC yet, and Lulu went ahead with it anyway without his permission:

I'd like to comment(without having yet read what anyone else has had to say) that this RfC was moved from my User space, where I was not yet intending to file it, to the RfC space, without my permission and against my wishes, while I have been (and still am on) Wikibreak.

And then Lulu comes along and reverts Evilphoenix's edit, even though it was Evilphoenix who originally wrote that initial statement of the dispute and he has every right to cross it out as well as be very offended that it was used against his wishes and without his permission.

Then I revert Lulu's reversion saying he doesn't have a right to take total ownership of the RFC like that against the wishes of the one who initially wrote it.

Then Lulu reverts me and posts some irrelevant Wikilawyering on my talk page saying, This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Guess what Lulu, I was only editing it because you improperly reverted an edit by a user who initially wrote this RfC and who has every right to edit it!

Is anyone else disturbed by Lulu's behavior in this matter? This is an RfC, a request for comment from the community (not just Lulu). It was originally written by Evilphoenix, yet Lulu is taking advantage of the fact that Evilphoenix is away on vacation and attempting to take total ownership of the RfC by reverting any edits Evilphoenix makes to properly reflect the fact that he, the original author of the RfC, did not want to go through with it at this time.

Lulu has also been making some other questionable edits to the RfC, like blanking another user's comment (rather than simply moving it to the appropriate section).

I am obviously not going to be taking admin actions against Lulu at this time because I am (obviously) involved in a dispute with him, so I am following the traditional route and bringing it up here on ANI for comment. You may also want to read my statement on the earlier actions by Lulu that initially led to this RfC. --Cyde Weys 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actual events: subject of RfC modifies statement of dispute

User:Cyde is subject of a user conduct RfC. I am one of several certifiers of this RfC (and admittedly, its most vocal proponent). Evilphoenix was one of several authors of a draft of the "Statement of Dispute" for the RfC before it was filed. Other co-authors of the RfC statement of dispute include myself, other certifiers, and outside participants on the RfC. Evilphoenix has not, at this time, joined as certifier of the RfC, nor has anyone claimed or implied he has (he may or may not choose to do so when his wikibreak is over). Indeed, Cyde is correct in stating that Evilphoenix believed (and may still believe, I do not know), that an RfC is not the best means to resolve the underlying problem (at least at the time Evilphoenix went on Wikibreak).

As subject of the RfC, it is inappropriate for Cyde to modify the statement of dispute to better fit his wishes about what the subject of the RfC should be: when he did so, I reverted it. Cyde, of course, is more than welcome (as he has done), to state a response or make an additional statement within the RfC.

Btw. The claim that I "blanked" a user statement is wholly fabricated. I did, however, move Evilphoenix's non-certifying statement below the "statement of dispute" section (I may have done so as a cut-then-paste, in two edits, but within a minute or two of each other). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This use of a user conduct RfC for a dispute over citation tools is completely wrongheaded, and pretty close to disruptive. It should not be done. Jonathunder 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As stated within the RfC, such is not the subject of the RfC; unfortunately, a number of signatories to outside statements are misreading the RfC as a "referendum on m:Cite.php", which has nothing to do with the stated purpose. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Other opinions

I think Lulu's actions constitute disruption and serious WP:POINT violations especially since he's doing this due to a grudge he has against AWB users. He has also commited what could reasonably considered vandalism by modifying someone else's content that they placed on their userspace even if he moved it first it was without their consent and it was their (presumably) signed comments and even if they weren't expliclity signed RFC's are assumed the creation of whoever wrote up the original summary. I'm not trying to wikilawyer this either, I'm just stating all this as common sense though unfortunately the line in this case is fairly blurry but I still think Lulu crossed it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it disturbing (and I'm not even an admin (so why am I posting on the admin noticeboard?).) From the initial history of the RfA, it looks like you and Evilphoenix were discussing the issue harmoniously before he went on vacation. Then, Lulu decided to take a draft and make it go live, without Evilphoenix's desires (and indeed, against his wishes). I don't think it's fair at all to get Evilphoenix involved while he's on vacation -- if it were me, I'd be pretty upset if someone got me involved in Wikidrama while I was on vacation away from a computer. Lulu's user page states, "This editor suffers fools poorly, and just is not able to assume good faith when it is self-evidently absent." Well, under that definition, anyone could be a "fool" if he/she disagrees with Lulu's assessment. That's not a good attitude for this project. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

HEY, you don't have to be an admin to post here, I'm not an admin... despite trying (twice) and I still post here on occasion, though hopefully if nothing else an admin will take notice and close the RFC early. Having his userpage usurped while he's on vacation no less makes us obligated to at least do that for Evilphoenix if nobody else. It's a simple matter of respect towards him and what he wrote. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing whatsoever in regard to Evilphoenix' user page. I may politely disagree with Evilphoenix about the best timing of the RfC, but simply because Evilphoenix is one co-editor of the draft does not mean that any decision to file an RfC is his alone. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just informed Lulu that this conversation is happening. Snoutwood (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He's already well aware, having responded multiple times to the post on the talk page of the RfC where I said I was taking this to ANI. --Cyde Weys 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I didn't know that. Snoutwood (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, better safe (about letting people involved know) than sorry. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde and I had a strong disagreement over his alteration of the Harvard style referencing in the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850, an article that was featured and on the main page at the time that Cyde determined it was important to change the Harvard referencing (that had been discussed exhaustively on the article discussion page by the major contributors to the article). I reverted his changes and then he reverted me...the links are on the Rfc. I was not happy about this at all, especially with his admonishments that I was acting as if I owned the article and his belief that that all other reference styles had been deprecated (which was false). Evilphoenix contacted me and asked to post diffs about the incident on the rfc, and then Evilphoenix decided not to participate, and even later claimed that he was not happy about Lulu moving the Rfc from is userspace to a live version, without consent. Regardless, the information originally posted by Evilphoenix and myself were incorporated into the live Rfc version, which I and three others were in general agreement with, though only a total of 3 persons signed on officially. I see nothing wrong with what Lulu did and I am surprised that Cyde is trying to play this off and reframe it as some gross misconduct issue on Lulu's part. No one has been grossly in misconduct..all myself and Lulu want is a small fraction of patience when altering citation styles, and a recognition that even Wikipedia accepts various different styles for Featured level articles. This has been well detailed on the Rfc.--MONGO 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Executor-usa blocked for legal threats

I have blocked Executor-usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for legal threats relating to the article OITC fraud. Please review, etc, although I think this is as block-worthy as they come.

The article in question is far from a perfect encyclopaedia article in its current state, though its claims appear mainly sourced. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the article, the threat is clearly bannable. 130.132.231.50 23:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem block review

• Rgulerdem (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Old ani link • Request for pseudo-arbitration

I'd normally discuss a request for unblock on the blocking admin's page, but since thas falls under the auspice of "community patience exhausted" I'm posting it here. I've corresponded with this user regarding their request for me to look at the application of an idefinate block. I gave the conditions in which I'd support having this block lifted. I have permission from Rgulerdem to reprint this portion of an e-mail where he agrees to them all:

As you suggested, I will limit myself to:
1. Zero reverts - no wikilawyering either!
2. No spam - internal or external
3. No comments on the past outside appropriate venues - to be determined by you what's appropriate/when it ends.

Johntex has further indicated he is willing to mentor him. I've notified Cyde and NSLE of this thread, and I've also notified NSLE that I've unprotected the talk page. (I had asked him if he would do so but received no reply.) While this user has had a troubled history, he's communicative and has indicated that he's willing to moderate his behavior.
brenneman^{L} 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree to letting him back in if he abides by those terms, but only on the condition that the first violation he commits he's back on his indef block without a warning. He should have been warned enough to know what not to do. I will not reprotect his user talk unless he, again, starts trolling or being incivil - at which point my opinion on this chance for him will go down the drain and I will reject this. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-04-26)

• I support unblocking Rgulerdem under the conditions quoted by brenneman above. However, I think he shuold first serve out a 30 day block, counting from when he was blocked indefinitely. When he comes back, I think a "zero warning" policy is just a little too strict. I would support something that gives a little room for human error and/or reasonable differences in interpretation as to what constitutes a violation. I think this is very important. While I agree he has done blockable things in the past, I don't believe some of his more recent comments which were said to be a violation of WP:CIVIL were truly policy violations. They may have been arugmentative and unwise perhaps, but most users would not have been blocked for them IMO. Johntex\^talk 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just to note that 30 days from start of indef block would be May 10. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:36 UTC (2006-04-26)

• This seems like a responsible proposal. I don't agree that he should serve out a block; if he's willing to abide by the conditions then there is no reason to keep him blocked. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What's the normal process with regards to appearing impartial? That is to say, we'd like to avoid any Admin A: "That was out of line, blocked", Admin B: "Not really, unblocked" back and forth. So I'd propose that anyone involved ask here for consensus before making any admin actions, perhaps with the exception that Johntex (if he does continue a squasi-mentor) be allowed to smack down as he sees fit. - brenneman^{L} 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tony - if he abides by his words, there's no need for a longer block. I think in this particular case a back and forth is unlikely, but if you're more comfortable designating a reliable admin as being "authoritative" (by agreement, not fiat), that's fine too. Nandesuka 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Statement by Outside Party - Netpari I'm glad that everyone has decided to unblock Rgulerdem. If he agrees to all the demands placed by the admins, there is no reason for him to stay blocked for 30 days. His articles, especially on the subject of interfaith dialogue, are much needed. In order for Wikipedia to continue growing, it's contributors should be given a chance to redeem themselves when they err. Netpari 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I do still agree to mentor Rgulerdem. If the community supports it, I do like the idea of my being "allowed to smack down as [I] see fit" (within policy limits of course). If I am agressive at working with him on any small mistakes that he may make, then hopefully others in the community will not experience any problem. I still like the idea of serving out a 30 day block to demonstrate that we are really serious about the need for good behaviour - but I'm not stuck on that idea. If the consensus is to unblock sooner, that is fine with me. Johntex\^talk 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Statement by Outside Party - Johntex, please have mercy. I'd like to welcome Rgulerdem back rather sooner than later. Raphael1 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

Taking the pulse here I've unlbocked. Having brokered this deal, I'd prefer to let it leave my patch and have someone else worry about it. That being said, since the "don't comment on the past" term may be hard to abide by, I've offered (and volunteered JT as well) to serve as a filter for anything that he simply feels must be said. This must be done via e-mail to keep it off-wiki. - brenneman^{L} 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of rgulerdem evading the block(s)

I don't know how much we want to make of this, but there is some evidence that rgulerdem has been evading one or more blocks. It appears that rgulerdem has been editing as User:128.255.45.117. That IP address made two edits on April 25th, before the block was lifted.[6][7] That IP address has also, before this last block, made numerous edits to the Wikiethics and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy articles[8], providing further evidence that this was, indeed, rgulerdem. I have not checked, but since rgulerdem has been blocked on many previous occasions, it is not inconceivable that some of the other edits by this IP were also block evasions by rgulerdem. -- noosphere 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Palladium Books

Over the last few days, various IPs and new users, whom I strongly suspect are the same person, have made highly questionable edits including repeated section blanking in the article Palladium Books. All of these edits concern that particular company's current financial difficulties (which the company itself has openly admitted exist). There has been no discussion on the talk page despite a request for such (sorry that isn't a proper diff, but it is the only edit to that talk page at this time), and in no case was an edit summary used.

In addition, one of the new users in question, User:NMI, blanked my user page, a clear-cut act of vandalism that I assume was in retaliation for my restoring the section twice and/or leaving the above message. I will note that at this writing, the vandalism of my user page and one of the section blankings are this user's ONLY edits to Wikipedia under that name.

I request the following:

• A check to determine whether any two or more of the following are the same person:
  • User:NMI
  • User:24.192.10.247 (who the above-linked talk page belongs to, and who has no edits that do not consist of removing information about Palladium's financial troubles)
  • User:69.213.95.246 (has only two edits, both to Palladium Books, one of them another blanking of the relevant section)
  • User:Godcheese (Another user with only two edits, both to this article. These are also related to the same financial difficulties; in one case this user put the heading "Palladium needs its fans more than ever" at the very top of the page, in violation of more Wikipedia policies and guidelines than I care to name at the moment; the only other edit was to move this to a more reasonable spot in the article.)
• For someone to keep an eye on this person or these individuals (and anything that might emerge from their sock drawers) and block them if this sort of behaviour continues.
• If the problems continue over a long period or get worse, semi-protection may be warranted. However, I doubt the page sees enough traffic for that to prove necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. PurplePlatypus 06:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been about a day since I posted the above and this situation is continuing unabated, and I can't help but notice this item has recieved no response, though all the ones above it and several below it have. The person in question has now made one talk page comment, but it was essentially a threat to continue violating multiple Wikipedia policies, not an attempt to open any real dialogue. PurplePlatypus 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fringe conspiracy theories presented as fact

The Alex Jones (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is basically just an explanation of a group of conspiracy theories all presented as fact. I haven't had the stomach to really NPOV the entire article, especially since I don't particulary know much about this Alex Jones, or these types of theories and beliefs in general. However I do know that almost the entire article depends upon highly dubious sources and original research. When I tried to delete the following paragraph,[9], (because its only source was a strange mp3 of what I guess is a radio station dedicated to conspiracy theories, [10]) I was quickly reverted and soon found a strange message on my talk page written by User:Wikipediareader.

Anyways I know we supposed to be neutral with regards to these kinds of beliefs but I think the article as it currently stands needs some serious work. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Moshe. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe...that is one of many poor sourced articles, all spin offs of the articles that relate to the September 11, 2001 attacks article...the only thing notable about Alex Jones is he is one of the biggest loudmouths of misinformation regarding conspiracy theories of the events on 9/11/2001. A lot of linked articles from Alex Jones were POV forks as a concensus of editors in the main articles of the events of 9/11 refused to allow much detail to be there, so POV fork articles were created...many, many of which went through Afd, some were kept and some were deleted...no doubt the article is probably watched over by adherents to his "cause".--MONGO 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea I guessed they bought into this stuff by the nature of the message that the guy sent me. Look at the history of my talk page for some of the stuff I had to delete, It gets pretty odd.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the worst of it, and have asked for citations for the rest. If no third-party citations are forthcoming, we should think about an AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Slim, and your right, we do already have way too many of these articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, the article in question is, in reality, Alex Jones (radio). User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was recently changed and quite reasonably I might add.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC logs deletion and wheel waring

User:Avillia posted IRC logs without permision from those involved. These were then delted:

• 05:51, 25 April 2006 Tawker deleted "User:Avillia/CVU Politics" (copyvio, IRC logs are not licensed for use on Wikipedia)

They were then inexplicably restored, technically a wheel war (reversal without explanation.

• 21:01, 26 April 2006 Luigi30 restored "User:Avillia/CVU Politics"

I have now redeleted the page.

• 23:42, 26 April 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "User:Avillia/CVU Politics" (we do NOT do IRC logs without permission - privacy violation)

I post here, because I would not normally reverse an admin's action without discussion. But given the privacy violation, I wished to act fast. I will reverse my action if consensus here is that I have acted wrongly. --Doc ^ask? 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC log posting is banned, as far as the IRC channels care (that is, I am very likely to permanently ban any users doing such things from all Wikimedia-related channels, forever). As for Wikimedia wikis, ignoring the legal consequences w.r.t. invasion of privacy (which, AIUI, aren't as stringent in the US as almost everywhere else), I have considered their posting banned by consensus for a very long time. Certainly, I don't think that the page in question should ever be undeleted (and invite someone who isn't Doc to make sure that it stays deleted; given that I'm first responder, however, I think I should leave that to someone else).

James F. (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gah, I've screwed up now. I did it on the advice of another user, reactionarily, before looking at all the facts. Now that I see there was lengthy discussion on it (he did not tell me this) I feel like a total douche. :( Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, we live and learn. --Doc ^ask? 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, it's just a good thing to remember in general that there are many unscrupulous people who want to use admins for their abilities (and will thus feed them a warped description of events). You should always fully research the situation before taking any admin actions. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I know that now. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the fun bit comes when you try to balance that knowage against WP:AGF.Geni 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as I don't have to balance it against WP:RFAr! Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So the two-part take-home lesson for all of us admins is, in a nutshell:

• Don't undo another admin's actions until you've made a good-faith effort to contact the admin in question. We have Special:Log for a reason—it lets you identify the admin involved, and it may shed light on his reasoning.
• If discussion with the admin fails to clear things up, or the admin is unavailable and the matter is urgent – note that very few situations clear the latter bar – Seek comment on AN/I on your proposed course of action.

This ends the educational portion of the noticeboard; we now return to your regularly scheduled programming. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the encyclopedia isn't educational? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the user later recreated the page, which was soon deleted again under criteria for speedy deletion G4 ("Recreation of deleted material") by Tawker. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The page has been re-created with the logs removed, I have no problems with that and specifically request that it not be re-deleted -- Tawker 07:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to Word of Wisdom

If an admin gets a chance, please check out the revisions being made by User:Enormousdude at Word of Wisdom, an article on a health code in Mormonism. He's made several edits that are either strongly POV or easily proved as wrong (such as misspellings). I've reverted three times, but since I'm not sure if it'd exactly qualify as "vandalism" so much as a user not paying attention to reason, I don't want to fall into 3RR. Please note that Enormousdude has a history of odd or incorrect edits. I'm not sure if an sprotect is necessary; perhaps some additional comments to his talk page would help (although he doesn't heed them very often). Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

GO WHARTON (talk · contribs) and MBAguy (talk · contribs)

The above two users have been revert warring here and elsewhere, with what appears to be a central discussion at Talk:Ivy League business schools. The exchange has been quite heated, with many accusations and vandalism and no assumptions of good faith. Though this is a content dispute, I am wondering if the filing of an RfC is in order, as no progress appears to have been made. Isopropyl 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated: RfC has now been filed: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GO WHARTON. MBAguy 08:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I be subjected to insults from admins on WP:AN3?

After their favourite propaganda weapon, User:Molobo, was blocked for a month on account of incessant revert-warring and multiple violations of 3RR, his chief defenders and mentors - User:Piotrus and User:Balcer - took to revert warring themselves and broke 3RR on several occasions. User:Piotrus was reported by User:Number 6 and got blocked for three hours, as it was his first violation. After User:Balcer made five reverts in three hours on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus, I reported him on WP:AN3 too. Anon's comments which he reverted were rather harmless and should have stayed on the talk page. It is not vandalism to be exempt from 3RR.

While there was no denial that 3RR was broken, I was subjected to a stream of insults. Piotrus (an admin, by the way) called my notice a "libel" and a "personal attack", motivated by the desire to "smear" Balcer's name and calling other admins to issue a stern "warning" to myself. In fact, Molobo's mentors turned WP:AN3 into an offensive discussion of my presumed motivations, which they always do when their aim is to downplay the importance of 3RR and to encourage revert-warring on Poland-related subjects. I would like to know why Balcer's behaviour was ignored by admins and nobody even cared to discuss the issue at hand.

Back in December, when I reverted a disruptive anonymous sock of User:Bonaparte, now permabanned, I was blocked for 24 h - although I had never broken 3RR before and voicefully pointed out that my opponent was a sock - and nobody ever apologised for that. Why should User:Balcer be exempt from responsibility for a much graver offense? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The full text of the discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Balcer. Note that none of the editors besides Ghirlandajo saw anything wrong with my actions. Also note the personal attack against me with which Ghirlandajo justifies his posting ("The guy is so much given to revert warring ... "etc). Anyway, the comments I reverted were obviously trollish. Another administrator, User:Kusma, agreed with me and reverted the anon twice (example). Even the anon himself, who attempted to reinsert the comment 6 times, eventually agreed with me that the comments were inappropriate and stopped posting them (diff).

As for the rest of Ghirlandajo's allegations, I will not even bother to answer them in detail. My differences with Molobo were plentiful, and I always deplored the style of his edits and frequently asked him to compromise, instead of fighting revert wars to insert his POV. Since when is it Ghirlandajo's job to determine which user is which user's tool on Wikipedia?

Anyway, in my opinion Ghirlandajo's latest campaign against me is a reaction by him to the recent discussions on Talk:Russophobia and his rather embarassing behaviour there. I think it is essential for users interested in the matter to check out that page. Balcer 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams and User:GODDESSY

The user, who has identified themselves as the PR person for Adams' personal company, keeps on removing information that I have added to the article about the company's website offering e-mailed tarot card and "love" readings for credit card payments. I have worded this a couple different ways,[11],[12] and the user has attempted to attack my claims as somehow "false," apparently not liking the word "solicit" despite its clear meaning in a commercial context.[13] I think selling e-mailed tarot readings is a clearly relevant feature of the website, and I can only interpret the user's removals as a POV attempt to keep the site's commercial activities from being so nakedly described. I'd appreciate another set of eyes to review this issue (and take a look at the edit history of the user's talk page, as they keep on deleting old messages I have left), as I'd rather not create the appearance that I have used my admin powers to enforce my side in an edit dispute. Cheers, Postdlf 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SockPuppet Alert

User 68.161.222.151 User Goddessy

Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY

All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User 68.161.222.151 signs her comments with GODDESSY

I don't know if this is just user 68.161.222.151 accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.

Both 68.161.222.151 and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )

Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.

She left a message on Jim Wale's Talk Page

Seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY

This person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry that she left on his Talk Page, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history on Jim Wale's Talk Page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her Inquiry

JuliannaRoseMauriello 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks and More from GODDESSY Please read this, you told me once to ASK for help and so I am, don't let me down please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

Also see her sockpuppet's talk page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GODDESSY

I left a comment under the Let's Clarify Something here title

She then came in and edited it and used all caps to show what she was editing.

This person really, I mean, SHE might be notable, but her company is NOT.

She's already been blocked several times and banned once and the ban was lifted I would believe only because of personal feelings towards her.

Keep reading all the comments down the page.

Wikkipedia is about what is verifiable and not what the person the articles is about WANTS it to say.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Daz Sampson Page

The page of Daz Sampson, the UK entry for the Eurovision Song Contest this year, is constantly being vandalised by anonymous users to draw connections from him to convicted child killer Ian Huntley and to make storng allegations that Daz is a paedophile. These vandalisms are constantly being reverted by legitimate users but the anonymous editors keep coming back and putting it back in. This has been going on for quite a while now. Is it possible to get semi-protection for the article in question? Thanks. --Stenun 20:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I sprotected it for now. JDoorjam Talk 20:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Stenun 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* And now registered users are getting in on the "fun" by making allusions to Ian Huntley. Can anything else be done or should we just ignore them until they go away? *g* --Stenun 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I will watch the page for vandalism. Are you familiar with reverting to a previous version of a page? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't but I am now. Thanks. --Stenun 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ham and jelly butter

This user nominated the George W. Bush article for deletion. I removed the AfD tag from the article but the user is now advertising the AfD on usertalk pages. I have told the user his/her alternatives and asked them to stop but they haven't. I could do with some help, please. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I think the AfD should be closed with a speedy keep. Lambiam^Talk 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... a non-admin closed the AfD. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And...? I've closed AfDs before - ones on stupid articles like that that would NEVER be deleted. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely (as I wasn't sure what time length to choose), saying in the block log that I'd unblock if s/he agreed to stop. Before I got round to leaving a message on his/her talk page (I was rolling back the spamming of talk pages) s/he posted "I'll stop." I have now unblocked, and will keep an eye on the account. AnnH ♫ 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty clear case for a speedy keep. Kotepho 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty clear case of stupidity :-/ Cyde Weys 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comedy right here: [14] (read the previous edit summary) Ashibaka tock 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, our policy does allow for non-admins to close AFDs when they are unambiguous in their outcome and no admin powers are required to carry out the result (keep, merge, redirect, etc). (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:MSTCrow and User:J.sweeton@wnri.com got rather annoyed about having the spam removed. [15] and [16]. Jkelly 01:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone always will. Assuming good faith of User:Ham and jelly butter, it's still misguided and not a very sensible action to propose George W. Bush for deletion. Nor is advertising it. I think removing the notices was the right thing to do. Plus I think sometimes editors will jump at the chance to get to {{test2a}} an admin! :-P --Darth Deskana (talk page) 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

obscured links to banned sites?

Is it legal for a user to link from their user page to a site on Wikipedia's Spam Blacklist using a ... well, the user himself calls it "A roundabout link to a website that has been blacklisted by Wikipedia". I'm presuming this is not kosher, but I'm sure what administrators think should be done about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What user? --InShaneee 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is, uh, kinda vague . . . --Heah? 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is a WP:BEANS issue, email one of us and we'll look into it. JDoorjam Talk 02:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm taking the user's word for it that it's a site blacklisted by Wikipedia. Not that I actually think he'd lie about it, but I wouldn't know how to check myself and see if it's a blacklisted site; I also don't know exactly what's done when a user tries to sneak past the spam blacklist like this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikitruth is blacklisted, and that is where the link goes. The edit summary for the blacklist addition says "+wikitruth.info #per recommendation of B. Patrick, the Foundation's attorney." so that may complicate this. Prodego ^talk 02:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just remove it and warn the guy that the blacklist exists for a reason. Seems like a clear cut case of linkspam to me. --InShaneee 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I left a note explaining the situation, too. JDoorjam Talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not linkspam, but the spam blacklist is being used to prevent links to Wikitruth for the time being. See Talk:Wikitruth. Pcb21 Pete 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Surprised that someone at least figured that inserting a grand total of two pertinent links is not spam. Other than that, I'm glad to find that Wikicabalia is working so well (kudos to Feldspar to monitor all my edits so efficiently), but, fact is, that WP has links to Wikitruth in the name space as well and apparently there, there is no "legal concern" about that. If you want to be consistent with the censorship policies, you will have to delete my link here, too. Fossa 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

kudos to Feldspar to monitor all my edits so efficiently I don't really see there's any need for sarcasm. I had never heard of Wikitruth, at least by that name, so it was only because you openly volunteered the information that you were using the resources of Wikipedia to do an end-run around the acting policies of Wikipedia that I knew something was up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since someone diligently removed my link to Wikitruth on M. Sabina's talk page too, note that by clicking through to my German user page you can still reach Wikitruth from Wikipedia by n number of clicks. (Or you just type in "wikitruth" on the English Wikipedia and you will get several direct links in the name space), and you will find even more roundabouts to W-Truth. Looking forward to more deletions, which I won't revert. Fossa 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet theatre from queensu.ca

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 and other harassment of Werdna. There's been some nasty sockpuppetry in the 'oppose' section already. The following are all the same user (one queensu.ca dorm IP): Fdhfkhkfh, I Hate Colleges, PoopinaBucket, QueensuStudent08, Werdan44747, Werdan548, Mcphysical and Zipperfly. Note the impersonation usernames as well for clear evidence of actual malice. Presumably one is the 'real' user, but I really don't care at this stage and have left a note for a queensu.ca sysadmin to contact me before I unblock the IP, hence the indef on the IP. (Though presumably the indef could be turned into "until the students go home this year", whenever that is.) - David Gerard 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SockPuppets, 3RR Rule, Personal attacks and more

User 68.161.222.151 User Goddessy

Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY

All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User 68.161.222.151 signs her comments with GODDESSY

I don't know if this is just user 68.161.222.151 accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.

Both 68.161.222.151 and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )

Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.

She left a message on Jim Wale's Talk Page

Seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY

This person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry that she left on his Talk Page, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history on Jim Wale's Talk Page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her Inquiry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

Also see her sockpuppet's talk page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GODDESSY

I left a comment under the Let's Clarify Something here title

She then came in and edited it and used all caps to show what she was editing.

This person really, I mean, SHE might be notable, but her company is NOT.

She's already been blocked several times and banned once and the ban was lifted I would believe only because of personal feelings towards her.

Keep reading all the comments down the page.

Wikkipedia is about what is verifiable and not what the person the articles is about WANTS it to say.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already posted above, near the top of the page. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71

I didn't want to post here but now I feel there is no other option as I have been threatened with a block for adding verifiable information to two articles. I have been trying to update the articles Sammy Davis, Jr. and Elvera Sanchez with information from a 2003 biography that showed that Sanchez who was in fact a New Yorker of Cuban descent, not a Puerto Rican as Davis had claimed in his lifetime. I was blocked for 3 hours by User:Marine 69-71 aka Tony the Marine after I reverted the edits of another Puerto Rican editor User:XLR8TION on Elvera Sanchez who had posted a message on Tony's page:

"Tony some nutcase is saying that Elvera Sanchez (Sammy Davis Jr's mother ) is Cuban. He cant show any proof from the family. He claims a new book on Sammy says she was Cuban. This is hearsay as the book is not authorized by Sammy's estate. Can you put this loco out of commission and revert the article back to it's original state?"

I then tried to be more neutral by removing the Cuban stub from Elvera Sanchez (which is appropriate as she wasn't actually Cuban) but was then threatened with a block for "continuous vandalism" by Tony the Marine and my edits were reverted by User:XLR8TION. Arniep 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this really something that cannot be worked out on the Talk page? Jkelly 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with them but all my changes and attempts at neutrality are removed. I feel Tony and the other user have acted in an inappropriate manner in threatening me for adding verifiable information to articles. Arniep 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have tried to reason with User:Arniep in regard to his continous reverts in the Sammy Davis Jr. and Elvera Sanchez articles, see:[17]. Arniep insists on posting his version and his version only. Arniep cites as proof the following transcript from an unathoritized bio, a book written without the permission of the Davis Estate by Wil Haygood. The transcript can be found here:[18]. For some unknown reason Arniep refuses to accept the overwhelming fact that every reference to Sammy Davis Jr., and his mother point to the fact that Elvera Sanchez was of Puerto Rican descent and "not" Cuban. Nor Arniep or the author of the book cite official documnets to back up these claims.

These are only three sites of the many which state that Davis' mother was Puerto Rican: Bio of Elvira Sanchez in IMDB, Sammy Davis Jr. and Tribute to Sammy Davis Jr.. In every other biography of Sammy Davis Jr., it is stated that his ancesters were Afro-American and Puerto Rican. In his own autobiography "Sammy : The Autobiography of Sammy Davis, Jr. by Sammy Davis, Burt Boyar, Jane Boyar", Sammy Davis claims that his mother was Puerto Rican. How could we doubt his own words?

Another thing, tghe author claims that Davis denied his "Cuban" ancestry because of the "Anti-Castro" sentiment. This does not make any sense since it would be almost impossible to keep his whole family and his friends quiet for so many years. If that was the case then way didn't Desi Arnaz of "I Love Lucy" fame, Cesar Romero and Celia Cruz do the same?

I have tried to reach a "middle ground" with User Arniep by offering these new versions: Elvera Sanchez and Sammy Davis Jr. as a solution but, Arniep refuses to cooperate and instead of having an open dialogue about the issue, continues to revert.

I have no personal interest in either article. My main concern is that commonly accepted facts and not "hearsay" be posted in Wikipedia articles. To quote Sammy Davis himself: "I'm colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!" Tony the Marine 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. A note to Arniep, Your temp block was due to the violation of the 3 revert rule. Nothing personal.)

Legal Threat?

What should be done, if anything, about this edit, it looks to me like a legal threat, but I am not sure what to do about it. WP:NLT only specifies threats against other users, is this not applicable? Suggestions?

Prodego ^talk 00:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Don't block me or I'll sue Wikipedia" is that different from "Don't edit the article or I'll sue you". It may not derail consensus-forming, but it's a threat to derail our project protection efforts. Their counsel would surely insist that they cease communicating with us until the issue is resolved, so indef-blocking them until the legal matter is worked out wouldn't even be an inconvenience. Jkelly 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly is correct. This is within the realm of legal threats by any reasonable defintion. And in any case, canvassing for help in a lawsuit against Wikipedia constitutes disruption which is blockable itself. JoshuaZ 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That user has now been blocked indefinitely for posting such threats. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The text in question was in fact one threat (singular, as opposed to plural) by Avillia (talk · contribs), and was intended as a joke as evidenced by the deliberately poor grammar and overexaggerated tone - as this user has explained via IRC. I've thus amended Jtdirl's block to 24hrs versus indefinite as it is clearly unwise to be posting text of this nature, but nonetheless an indefinite block is far too heavy-handed. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Demonte Morton

I got a "fuck u" message from the user above. I'd like to tell him he can go fuck himself too, but he's quite obviously a child. I'd appreciate it if someone could block him. Thanks. Brian G. Crawford 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him and will keep an eye on it. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Users: Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael

I suspect Nancetlv (talk · contribs) and Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) of Israelbeach (talk · contribs), against whom I have recently filed an RfC - but an IP check proved inconclusive. Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael are now edit warring on a new article[19], attacking me on my talk page[20], harassing another admin who blocked Israelbeach for making threats[[21]], and in short, engaging in the same kind of behavior that lead me to file an RfC against Israelbeach. The new edit war is on Joel Leyden, who is user:Israelbeach. Do I have to file a new RfCs against each sockpuppet, or can I somehow fold my complaints into the current Israelbeach RfC? If the latter, how do I do this, without having IP proof that they are sockpuppets? Also, I believe Joel Leyden should be unprotected and reverted to reflect better Wikipedia style, but in light of the current RfC I won't do it myself, see my comment here[22]. Thanks. --Woggly 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I have been actively dealing with the case, though I've yet to actually investigate the underlying editorial dispute comprehensively. I invite and welcome any further opinion and help. Especially from those who are familiar with this particular dispute. El_C 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center dispute

MONGO has expressed a desire for this to be brought up on this page, so I will oblige. The issue is this: there is a notable point of view that 7 World Trade center was demolished by the use of explosives. WP:EL states that, on pages with multiple points of view, external links should exist that represent each point of view. In accordance with that policy, I linked the page to wtc7.net and included a Popular Mechanics article that gave the opposing POV.

MONGO reverted the article numerous times, simply calling wtc7.net "junk" and "nonsense". Finally, a user pointed out that wtc7.net offers a DVD for sale and that websites whose primary purpose is to sell merchandise are not generally acceptable as external links.

MONGO is now continuing to revert any mention of wtc7.net, calling it "advertising" (and even implying that I am somehow involved with the site, saying things like "sorry if this cuts into your pockets") It is crystal clear to me that wtc7.net is a political site that happens to sell a DVD, and not a site that exists to sell merchandise. There is nothing in WP:EL that prohibits it, and everything that encourages it.

Obviously, we're having trouble resolving this edit war. MONGO has taken a tone indicating that he and he alone will determine the content of the article, and I will honestly say that I am concerned he intends to use his administrator powers to block those who disagree with him, as I have seen him make similar blocks in the past, pouncing on those who do not share his POV at their first arguable infraction (for example, Striver. --Hyperbole 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be stretching the facts a bit to call this a "notable point of view". There is a link to the wtc7.net site from 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is in turn linked from 7 World Trade Center. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Small minority view" would cover it, I think. If a link is necessary (a judgment call), how about this one? [23] it is not advertising, and the author is an actual faculty member at an accredited institution of higher learning.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How many hundreds of thousands of people have to hold a point of view for it to be considered "notable"? I concede that the idea that 7 WTC was demolished by explosives is a minority view, but it is certainly far, far more notable than the subjects of thousands of Wikipedia articles. Searching for "7 world trade center" + explosives returns 23,300 Ghits, and that's a fairly restrictive search that certainly doesn't catch them all. I still don't feel I've received a satisfactory answer to why the site shouldn't be linked to both 7 World Trade Center and 9/11 conspiracy theories - it is a POV relevant to both of them, and WP:EL seems to suggest that that means it should be there. --Hyperbole 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You could also consider using a source as a reference, rather than an external link. That provides the opportunity for critical discussion in the body of the article, which can often be better than a link without context. --bainer (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, but don't you think wtc7.net is more specific to 7 World Trade Center than the byu article (which prominently discusses the collapse of the Twin Towers)? Also, we've found in talk that using wtc7.net as a source is probably even more problematic than presenting it as an external link. One question I'd like to settle here is this: does the presence of a single DVD on a website qualify it as "spam"? Or does a site's primary purpose have to be to sell merchandise in order to disqualify it as an external link? --Hyperbole 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A question I would ask is how many people have added wtc7.net to how many different pages on wikipedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you ask that? --Hyperbole 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Case in point...I haven't blocked Hyperbole, nor have I threatened to do so. The link Hyperbole wishes to have is this one which clearly has the banner that links to a DVD that is for sale. This violates WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Hyperbole is also incorrect in assuming that I am the only editor that is opposed to this link being in the article.--MONGO 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's fairly hard to find serious conspiracy theorists who aren't also vanity press authors or videographers or some such. The example here isn't unusual, nor is the DVD the sole focus of the site. Many conspiracy theorist websites would have to get blocked from being referenced if we make "having something for sale" an exclusion from being a reference link in articles.

We could link to http://www.wtc7.net/contents.html instead, which states their position without including the DVD ads, if that's the problem point. Georgewilliamherbert 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion page clearly shows, regardless of the obvious violation of WP:SPAM, the site is based on original research that is not collaborated by any major recognized impartial news media, university, trade journal or scientific journal. Regardless, the same effect exists...the site is self promoting and certainly does exist to profit, not only from sales to their DVD but also at the expense of all those that died that day. Pretty sick. Furthermore, the inclusion of the site violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV [24] and I quote from there "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced." Complete non scientists as the website has provide nothing but their opinions, nothing more. There are other reasons why we don't violate policies to present nonsense.--MONGO 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I would say it is a notable point of view. I watched a 2 hour academic lecture on the issue via google and the conclusion was that the only scientifically possible explaination was that building # 7 was demolished via explosives, and that even the official report on the building collapse admitted their best explanation of the collapse was flawed. I never considered myself a consipracy theorist prior to watching the lecture, now I certainly have questions. This lecture made the front page of Fark and the resulting discussion had nearly 1000 comments from what I recall. VegaDark 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories should be added to Fark, with links to prisonplanet.com and wtc7.net. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I find you use of sarcasm unfounded. I was simply trying to contribute to the discussion civily. VegaDark 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I spoke out of annoyance with these systematic attempts to spam wikipedia under cover of citation about conspiracy theories. I was wrong to vent that annoyance at you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another chapter in the saga of Robsteadman

Robsteadman has sent me several e-mails regarding the fact that I said "Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman" with regards to User:RobSteadman. He is threatening legal action, as he claims it is libel. He also said he intends to put a notice up on this page and tell everyone who supported me on my "rather silly" RfA. He also said he'd forward my email messages to admins to show that I am "not telling the truth". Does anyone have any nuggets of wisdom regarding what should/can be done by me? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. The legal threats are already indefinite block for legal threats material. He's been making such threats to various other people as well - David Gerard 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He's already been indefinatly blocked and is making these threats via e-mail. This is why I asked here. In my last email I advised him to drop the matter as it is a waste of everyone's time. I am confident that no legal action will be taken against me, but I was just wondering if anyone had any advice on the matter? I'm new to being threatened legally, other than the odd childish customer at work who claim's they'll sue me for false advertising. I'm not even the manager of that store, but yes, they say they'll sue me! Hehehe... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore him and stop responding to his emails. He will get board sooner or latter.Geni 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Emailed me too. I sent him back a polite email explaining that template and thats it. --Syrthiss 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I planned to send him an email telling him I'd ignore him, but decided that would somewhat defeat the purpose of sending the email somewhat! Thanks for the advice... any more that people have would be appreciated. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If your email system supports it, I'd block him. It's not like he doesn't have enough people he could complain about THAT to (*raises hand*). --InShaneee 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you get a complaint via email too? Gosh, he likes complaining. I was tempted to block him but to be honest I don't like blocking people- I feel that people sometimes change and apologise for what they did, and I'd hate to miss a genuine apology off someone. I realise this is highly unlikely in the circumstances but I'd still like to give him a chance. I don't intend to respond to anymore legal rubbish he sends me though. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I got one too! I'm not a legal expert, but common sense tells me that "Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman" couldn't possibly be libel, any more than "Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murder." It's a simple statement of a judgment carried out by others. No sane lawyer is going to accept such a case. And Wikipedia has enough evidence of some of the things Rob said to other users to more than balance anything that was said about him. AnnH ♫ 20:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, how f***ing stupid do you have to be to create a sockpuppet account with your own name, and the same as the indef-blocked account but with one letter capitalised? Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal account Boycottrealbasic needs blocking

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

is clearly a sockpuppet of the perma-banned long-term vandal

BoycottRealBasic2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also here for more information about this user.

–Tifego^(t) _{22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)}

Blocked indefinitely. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:JuliannaRoseMauriello

User is in edit war at Stephanie Adams. User brought page for speedy deletion, but User: Petros471 sent it to AfD. AfD was closed by User:Kimchi.sg and reopened by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello out of process [25]. I'm not sure if Kimchi.sg is an admin, but User:JuliannaRoseMauriello reopening a closed afd and readding the afd tag to the main article space is blatent vandalism. I'd previously advised User:JuliannaRoseMauriello to be WP:COOL and leave the article alone. User took the argument to my userpage, claiming the person she is edit warring with will be banned [26]. Suggest a cool off block of User:JuliannaRoseMauriello.--Isotope23 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Without regards to the issue at hand, do they not need a username block for impersonating Julianna Rose Mauriello? VegaDark 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good eye... I completely missed that.--Isotope23 01:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW Kimchi.sg is not an admin, so I guess it's arguable which action was out of process, the early closure or the rejection of that --pgk^(talk) 07:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, He should have never closed it in the first place. I'm fine with no action being taken. I've already warned JRM against reopening closed AfD's and advised her to seek admin assistance in the future.--Isotope23 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the AfD should have been left open for longer than it was before first closure (and closure should have been by an admin in this case). As it has now been left open for longer and consensus is clear, I'm happy for another admin to close it now, or just let it run its course (no harm either way). Several users on IRC did say it should go to AfD rather than simply removing the speedy tag, which is why I did that after asking for advice. Petros471 08:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My whole contention of speedy was that it was a content dispute and would obviously be kept in an AfD. That said AfD was the right place for it an even if the 5 days are allowed to elapse the result is the same and there is no harm in an AfD tag on the article for 4 more days.--Isotope23 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dillinger (talk · contribs)

Two violations of WP:NPA: [27] and this one in the edit summary. Ardenn 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For the edit summary one, per WP:NPA:

A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

— WP:NPA

And it was realy just a stylistic change. The other one I would count as a personal atack, and he has been repeatly warned, I am going to abstain from blocking the user as I was the warning party, and am friends with User:Ardenn, so don't feel I would be very NPOV... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:DelphicOracle

DelphicOracle (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) recently vandalised at AN. Their contributions look a bit fishy to me (a new user who seems to have a grasp of policy, and then vandalises the admin area) so I suspect sockpuppetry/banned user. --kingboyk 07:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Icemanofbarcelona

This user has two accounts at Icemanofbarcelona (talk • contribs) and Icemanofbarcelona101 (talk • contribs). He persists in removing interwiki links to articles in other languages, in partcular removing links to Spanish articles on autonomous regions of Spain (which indicates political motivation); and removing links to articles in Asian languages such as Korean.

He has also made other controversial edits, and regularly moves pages about without any discussion – often a whole sequence of moves and edits so that it is difficult and time-consuming to sort out the resulting mess.

He does seem to make some useful minor edits to articles. The trouble is, this user never responds to comments or warnings on his user pages, and never participates in any discussion before making changes to articles or moving pages. I and several other users have warned him (including {{test4}}s) but to no avail. Can something be done to stop this user's persistent low-level vandalism? JRawle (Talk) 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Pat8722

I have blocked Pat8722 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for consistent and pervasive gaming of WP:3RR on Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Further info is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Note that the user never performed more than three reverts in 24 hours, but did 6 in 24 and a half. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user evading block

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading his ArbCom-imposed indefinite block as 63.164.145.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); can an admin block this IP please? Thanks. Demiurge 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• and again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

204.186.253.89 - repeated vandalism

See User talk:204.186.253.89. Repeated vandalism. Latest is to CrapWhpq 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim Duffy (author) article protected

Also see Talk:Jim Duffy (author). Comments, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.22.85 (talk • contribs)

I believe that's what the article talk page is for. This seems like a legitimate protection to get you to discuss points instead of simply trying to make a point. --InShaneee 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a pattern of banned user Skyring, banned user Ted Wilkes, and many, many, many anonymous IPs posting messages telling everyone which Wikipedia editor they think is Jim Duffy in real life. (In case you're not aware, Mr or Ms 72.234.22.85, editors can be banned from Wikipedia for revealing personal information about Wikipedians.) I couldn't care less if another editor is really Jim Duffy or the Duchess of Cornwall; nor have I any particular interest in the article. In fact, the only reason it's on my watchlist is because of the trolling and harassment that has been going on. I'm actually getting a bit bored at this stage, constantly being told WHO HE IS. I even received an e-mail about it. AnnH ♫ 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, JTDirl himself said he is Jim Duffy, so I don't see that in itself as a blockable offense. However, it appears pretty likely this anon is a user currently under a long block. Jonathunder 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Em . . . actually he doesn't. Trolls he bans post statements all over Wikipedia making the claim. lol Thom, aka FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So you go by Thom now? OK. Cheers. Jonathunder 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding "rejected" arbitration case "merecat"

I'd like to know what exactly I'm supposed to do then, to deal with this kind of abusiveness. It sort of puts me in the position of "Great, theres no consequences for abusive people, and nothing to be done about it, and no real authority to contact." It reduces the situation to anarchy, and it offers no solutions or consequences for blatant abusiveness.

Under such conditions, I fail to see how wikipedia can operate, and it makes me think i am probably wasting my time here in the first place. User talk:Prometheuspan/ArbcomCase

Prometheuspan 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

<spewn out elsewhere> In any case, I am slowly coming to the realization that Wikipedia is a mostly headless beneficient dictatorship combined with a loose level of consensus process resulting actually in pack psychology driven anarchy, and, I will probably quit participating, because i don't see that theres any sane way to deal with abusiveness, and the policies in place that do deal with the issues require exorbitant amounts of time and energy, which means that only the very worst problems are ever resolved, and editors who are clearly gaming the system and manipulating and lying can continue to do so as long as they are clever enough not to become a really big pain to some administrator. Prometheuspan 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, and my own amusement, please note that the arbitration case has not been rejected as of yet. --InShaneee 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ????????? Says "rejected." What am i missing? is there a vote? Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, m:Power structure is a good read about how Wikipedia really works. This is a weird place, but there are all kinds of ways to get things done in it. From your comments here and at the arbitration page (you use the word "illegal" to refer to editorial behavior - I find that very unnatural), it appears that you think of Wikipedia according to a legalistic model, and are disappointed with the "legal system" you find. I think that those who are happiest and most productive here don't use that kind of model at all, but something different. Just... food for thought. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks bacchus, that was interesting and informative. I don't really care what the legal model is, I am certain that merecats behavior is abusive, manipulative, and will require some sort of authoritative intervention to stop. You are right, thanks for pointing it out. Part of my stress here is that the system isn't conforming to my expectations, and thats an important thing for me to keep in mind. Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) You're right, Prometheuspan - I went through much the same epiphany (a lot of people do) and came out the other side, figuring, ok, if that's how it is, then I'll deal with it on that basis also. No point fighting it, and it would be a shame for a good editor to walk away. The more editors, the less of a headless dictatorship also. I find this perspective helps me - hope it helps you too. (no, I'm not an admin and never will be) ElectricRay 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) It seems the "headless dictator" concept was confusing here to you. The more people particpate, the more distant the final authority becomes and the less accessible the final authority becomes. Jimbo isn't headless, but as a dictator, he can't possibly be in the loop or in the know of whats really going on. This sets up a pyramid structure, or chain of command where authority of the sort that does anything useful is swallowed into the black hole of the sheer number of people that are involved. I am not an admin, and never want to be, probably best i recuse myself from actually writing articles even, I'm a biased Formal logic argument machine, I can identify neutrality, but getting it to come off of my lips or from my fingertips is nearly impossible. The important question here is really simple down to a single point. Can a single person, cleverly gaming the system, be allowed to lie, delete entire pages of comments without justification, make veiled ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments, all just to keep an article from being written? Is that right? Is it just? Or, are there realistic means to deal with this sort of abusive behavior? The ONLY reason why merecat quit deleting pages without cause is because i went ballistic, and even then one of his fellow cronies had to tell him to wise up. There are at least three pages of ad hominem and straw man abuse heaped against poor Nescio over there, Nescio should never have had to endure that. This shouldn't be combat. A realistic and factual complaint regarding abusive behavior should be dealt with in a realistic and timely fashion. If that isn't possible here, then I do need to find someplace else to give my energy to. Prometheuspan 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note here to confirm that the "merecat" arbitration is still very much live. When I checked earlier today, only one arbitrator had expressed an opinion on it. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to point out the the correct way to to deal with ad-hominim attacks is not to make more of them, RfA or not. --InShaneee 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of "clerk" actions

Clerk notes This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion [21] [22]. If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Wikipedia policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• 23:17, 25 April Brenneman changes section header
• 23:52, 25 April Tony reverts "pending discussion"
  • brenneman's talk - 23:54, 25 April 2006 Tony Sidaway (?Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration)
  • brenneman's talk - 00:04, 26 April 2006 Aaron Brenneman (?Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - reply + provide link)
• 03:49, 26 April Brenneman creates discusion thread
  • brenneman's talk - 03:52, 26 April 2006 Aaron Brenneman (?Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - I'd ask you not to revert without discussion again.)
• 03:53, 26 April Brenneman re-reverts and points to discussion thread in edit summary
• 04:13, 26 April Tony Sidaway blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Mucking about with clerk notes)
• 04:13, 26 April Phil Sandifer blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Altering other people's sections on RFAr)
• 06:09, 26 April Tony re-reverts section header to his version
• 06:53, 26 April Tony's first edit to RfArb talk

The above seems to me to be wrong in a number of ways. Clerk's powers are to be strictly limited, and the section in question is clear editorialising, not summarising. Reversions without discussion are to be avoided, and I'll cop my licks for the second revert of mine. However, use of blocking to gain advantage in content disputes are off the map, right? I'll note to that I received no warnings and that both of these users have some slight history with me. I don't accept that "clerks" have been given the level of authority that they appear to think that they have, and even if they have than it was not applied properly here. - brenneman^{L} 07:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez...why not ask Tony before you made the change...if you thought he was biased in the case, can you show a link in which you stated so before you altered the headings and then reverted back over him? Why not see if you can become a clerk too. It's hard to see changing a subheading title as a content dispute but not so hard to see it as edit warring somewhat. The block by Tony was a bit reactionary...kind of looks like something I might do. Phil blocked you for a longer stint and I am surprised others unblocked you. Well, you're unblocked now, so it's over...I hope.--MONGO 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reproduced the section in question. It's not a question of "bias" it's that this isn't even remotely within the auspice of the clerk's position. This is an opinon that's being given extra weight by having the heading "Clerk Notes." If the clerk's are now going to be able to officially recomend rejection of cases, I'm sure that the community would like to have a say in that.
brenneman^{L} 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also interleaved (without links, sorry) the interaction on my talk page. Tony reverted "pending discussion" but didn't seem to keen to actually have one. Please compare the speed with which I was reverted and blocked, and ask yourself how long you would wait to hear back from the other person before undoing the revert. - brenneman^{L} 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait 37 seconds...I think there is an interpretation disagreement. Perhaps Tony hsould have not clerked that case, but I didn't notice a lot of POV as far as his work there...I can check it again. I'm not beating you up...I think the block was reactionary, but seems everyone was a bit off on this one. Tony was just doing his job(?) and perhaps saw your alterations as disruptive...he shouldn't have blocked you...--MONGO 07:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will discuss this matter. The blocking has already been briefly discussed. We do have Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on our watch lists and have some awareness of the personal interactions involved. Personally, I am not happy with the "Clerk's comments" section, but would rather Aaron had waited and let us deal with it. But perhaps it would not have come into focus so sharply had this incident not occurred. The request of Rgulerdem has been difficult to decide on for me, so perhaps Tony's note was helpful. Bottom line, it is not action which is required, but consideration of the questions raised, by Rgulerdem, by Tony, and by Aaron. Fred Bauder 08:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Examine my comments above, as a clerk. I strictly examine the question of the provenance of the block (it was community-imposed, not an arbitration remedy) and the question of whether there was any substantive dispute that would be suitable for arbitration (I found no evidence of any).

Now examine this, which I wrote on my own behalf, as an editor, in response to a mentorship and unblocking proposal made on behalf of rgulerdem:

This seems like a responsible proposal. I don't agree that he should serve out a block; if he's willing to abide by the conditions then there is no reason to keep him blocked.

I did not block until Aaron Brenneman began edit warring over the WP:RFAR page. The duration of the block was three hours and I believe it was a sensible thing to do in view of Aaron's impetuous actions and clear unwillingness to wait for a response; the RFAR page is bad enough without people going around changing one another's edits, much less those of clerks.

By coincidence, Phil Sandifer, another clerk with whom I was not in contact, also blocked Aaron Brenneman at exactly the same time and with the same purpose, but for twenty-four hours. --Tony Sidaway 09:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that's a coincidence at all. Tony and Phil have been linked together in several discussions of the inappropriate expansion of clerking powers, and it would not be surprising at all to see them take the same stance toward someone who questions a specific instance of inappropriate action. Further, I have been on record, several places, and remain unswayed in the opinion that clerks should have no summary actions, must not be imposed, and must, in all cases, be people who have no history of involvement in a case. I also objected to clerks being volunteers accepted simply on the basis of ArbCom not being able to think of anything against them, in the dark. Finally, on what would be an unrelated matter but for what has just occurred, I've been warning for a while, Cassandra-like, that countenancing "community blocks" and unilateral blocks with a simple "I did it" on WP:AN is begging for a wheel war. The pedophilia wheel war could not have existed if we had not silently allowed non-ArbCom blocks to go and go and go. Not only should not this particular person have blocked Aaron, ever and under any circumstances, but neither should clerks or "community spokesmen" other than the community-approved board have been involved in blocking. Frankly, blocking of a personal nemesis is right at an RfAR offense by itself. Geogre 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your conspiracy mongering is as wrong as it is offensive. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Geogre is simply stating that you and Tony have similar opinions on the role of clerks and that it's hardly unexpected that the two of you would take the same view in the same circumstances. You seem to be the first one to mention a conspiracy. Zocky | picture popups 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Many editors (not just the trolls, either) were unhappy about the creation of clerks, and saw it as a case of rejected arbitrators thumbing their noses at other editors. All I can say is, cases like this do not help reduce that perception. If we must have clerks, can we at least get a handle on what they do or don't do? Friday (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony's actions here were straight wrong. Clerks have the power to summarize submitted evidence, not to act as an official investigatory agents during a request. If Tony wants to investigate claims during that stage -- anybody can, of course -- let him do so under his own name. One supposes the arbitrators will have some vague familiarity with who "Tony Sidaway" is anyway. The blocks were just abusive. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me first state that Tony Sidaway and I have had several disagreements about his aggressive style. Having given full disclosure on that, let me add my total disapproval of his handling of this affair. He has no standing to do anything of this nature in arbcom cases, and his repeated edit warring in order to insert his personal opinion is entirely inappropriate, as was the block, since blocking someone you are in disagreement with is strongly frowned on by the community, whom Tony always claims to have full backing from. It's time to reconsider Tony's admin authority. But then, it's far past time to have done so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that criticism wasn't applied to Matt Crypto's repeated blocking of Deeceevoice, which apparently should be judged separately and unequally. Monicasdude 19:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Matt Crypto had repeatedly blocked Deeceevoice, but, even though it would be an appropriate block due to her repeated incivility, Matt Crypto should not have been the one to do so. And note that I haven't blocked her either, despite our disagreements and her (and your) repeated insinuations that I'm a racist. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Deeceevoice that seven other admins have seen fit to block her over time due to her lack of civility. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the page you cite shows nothing of the sort. It shows six other admins imposing blocks, for a variety of reasons -- with two of those admins' blocks removed as policy violations, and a third user ending up de-adminned for misbehavior. Adding Crypto in, and the real numbers say that the majority of admins who imposed blocks on her do so in violation of policy. Some of us draw obvious inferences. And you knew perfectly well about the Crypto situation, you were actively involved in the discussion at deletion review where he acknowledged it. Just another inconvenient fact swept under the rug? Monicasdude 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are red herrings, folks. Let's stay focused: clerks with expanding powers, Tony Sidaway blocking a user with whom he has had longstanding disagreements, Tony explicitly saying that the blocks were from "the community" when they were personal. Other issues should be addressed under a separate cover, and let's not argue by analogy. The clerking issue is bigger than one inappropriate action, but this inappropriate action is a good indication of the problems with clerking. Geogre 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

um... the red boxed text Tony wrote strikes me as an accurate description of the state of affairs. I've seen talk about community blocks before; someone put on an indefinite block, it was reported on ANI, and no other admin chose to challenge/defend/modify it. That's shunning, in my view, and the community (those admins there at the time and those that became aware of it later) chose to let it stand. It still stands to my knowledge, no admin has reversed it.

The beef here in my view is whether what was accurately reported was an official statement or not. And that's a mighty fine grain of sand to tussle over. Aaron should have known better than to thrash around on it, and Tony and Phil should have known better than to block Aaron over changing section headers!!! I've pleaded with Aaron and Tony on their talk pages before to stay away from each other, and I did it again earlier in this incident. They knew better before and they know better this time. My advice is to drop the whole thing and never ever interact with each other again. If ArbComm wants to clarify what parameters official statements have, that would be some good come of this, instruction creep or not, but I can't see anything else good coming of it. I'd love to see this go no further. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that the lack of anyone else overturning a block is an indication of assent nor "the community." First, that salmon colored banner is dissuasive. Second, folks who aren't scared by pink border probably know the personalities involved and don't want to enter into a grand royale battle. Third, those who aren't afraid of a war of attrition with the personalities involved might still not wish to fight over this ground. In other words, the fact that no one was willing to join in the kind of battle necessary to have any hope of headway against "I am a clerk, and I speak for All" is not really a sign that the community agreed with the clerk. This is even assuming that the issue was actually read, the diffs clicked, and people aware of the situation. I agree, of course, that Tony and Aaron and Phil are in frequent conflict, but I generally see Aaron working on defining policy and then getting jumped by unilateralism from the other two. Perhaps I'm biased and jaundiced at this point, though. Whatever flaws I might have, I'm pretty consistent in being against unilateralism. Geogre 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to advise someone never to interact with a member of WP administration if they're active at these levels. In particular Tony and other clerks, who seem to be everywhere.

I think both sides should take a breather (mutual assured frustration and incivility), but the question of what and where Clerk's powers are needs to get answered. It may not be wrong to allow them to expand, but if they're going to expand then they need to be expanded, and any arguments about it hashed out, and whether there's unanimous agreement or not it needs to become a stated policy. Otherwise, like it or not, it is two admins without evident special powers having an edit conflict over something and one just blocking the other to end it.

The only thing that would incline me to object to giving those powers to Tony is that he blocked first and asked whether his power covered it later in the situation, and Aaron isn't exactly an unknown vandal whose good faith is in question.

On principle, it sounds like a reasonable thing, but it should be discussed first. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that I'm a known vandal. ^_^
brenneman^{L} 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you might be a known vandal, but if it's any consolation, your good faith (or lack thereof) is not in doubt. ^_^ ... OK, more seriously, what I was trying to get at here is that at the time that Tony wrote what he wrote, it struck me as being a true statement of facts... the user had been blocked for quite a while, no one had unblocked, it was a community shunning. Since then, things have changed. Heck, YOU unblocked him after leading a discussion about it. But at the time, it was factual, at least in my view. I'm in the camp that doesn't think it ought to have been an official statement and would have liked to see it with an ordinary heading and not in pink. And I'm in the camp that thinks Tony and Phil overreacted a bit. But geez, Brenny, why didn't you ask someone else to change it for you? I would have, happily. They know better. You know better. That's my point. I'll repeat myself (because that's what I do!) I would love to see this go no further. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To focus on the immediate situation, edit warring on important process pages like this really isn't on, and Aaron's impetuous actions were disruptive and he was fully aware of what he was doing. That he was blocked simultaneously by not one but two clerks acting independently should tell him something about the inappropriateness of his behavior. That he has in the past engaged in sock puppetry and vandalism against me, which he avoided admitting for several days in the course of which he sought to evade responsibility by accusing David Gerard of serious misconduct, in no way limits my own scope of action with respect to his own misconduct, and he should be aware of that.

There is certainly a need for discussion of the role of clerks. There is no question of their having, or needing, special powers--they're just editors like anyone else and their role requires no powers other than the ability to edit. But what clerks should write, and where, is a matter for the arbitration committee to decide in consultation with the wider community. --Tony Sidaway 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought that Tony's comment was wholly appropriate, demonstrating exactly how having extra pairs of eyes in the form of the Clerks benefits the Committee, and that Aaron's alter-someone-else's-comment-first-talk-later approach is wholly reprehensible; OTOH, although I can see the utility and sense in keeping sysops from straying into edit-warring, I think that Tony should not have blocked Aaron himself, as he was, indeed, involved, both in this individual case, but also in a more general wiki-encompassing disagreement with Aaron, as I'm sure we're all aware.

James F. (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is too long for my browser

Just to be utterly pellucid, all I'd like to see is this not to happen again.

• The whole initial statement probably could have been re-phrases as a "summary" by saying something like "two adminstrators have stated blah blah blah" but then would have had to have been followed by "however other adminstrators felt blah blah." Barring that, if the clerk's are to be allowed broad interprative powers I'd like to hear it from ArbCom. This was tantamount to a declaration of "Reject! So sayeth the clerks, so sayeth the flock."
• Tony's implied that he's allowed to block in this manner as a clerk, which would require at lest an amendment to blocking policy, and the block as applied would require a massive overhaul to existing policy. (No waring, involved parties, etc.) Again, I'd want to hear from the ArbCom that this is what they've got in mind.

Getting blocked did piss me off something shocking, no word of a lie there. But for a couple of hours I could only edit my talk page? Big deal, I'll live. So while I'd dearly like the underlying issue to be addressed as openly and widely as possible, for me personally it's history already. (Although I'm still curious about my "tawdry" actions.) The entire clerk's "office" was meant to have some sort of review in early march, did that ever happen? brenneman^{L} 06:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you think that we can only have an implied policy if we explicitly spell it out? I'm confused.

James F. (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Only an implied policy? What the heck are you talking about? Where is it implied? Who implied it? Who failed to infer it? That's an obviously absurd statement, James. It is precisely this kind of thing that is destructive, useless, and the heart of "cabal" fears. No, James, you don't get to assume that everyone knows that power gets to expand at the will and whim of a few on ArbCom. This is absolutely out. There is no Star Chamber. There is no super admin. Members of ArbCom have no inherent power, and they would do well to remember that power rests in the ArbCom, not in its members. They don't get to "assume" that they can give up their powers (which they don't have personally anyway). They don't get to empower their friends without consent from the community. If they continue to act in this manner, they encourage every admin with disagreements to simply wheel war (as Tony has done and as Phil has done), as each admin has as much inherent power and dignity as the members of ArbCom. If ArbCom doesn't meet, doesn't spell it out, doesn't agree, and doesn't announce, then there is no ruling. It is only when the corporate body assents and speaks that there is any power adherent, for the power was not in the person, but in the body. I'm shocked at the misunderstanding betrayed by your question. Geogre 12:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite.

I think you need to re-read "Wikipedia is not a democracy" et al.. We wield Jimbo's supreme power at his (and, formally, the Board's) pleasure, limited only by his guidance and our opinions, and act through the prism of common sense, not some formalised system as you strongly suggest. We are not official a body corporate. I'm utterly amazed that someone of your standing and for whom such respect is due would move to wikilawyer so. I'm assuming that you didn't mean it in quite this way, though. :-) Obviously we don't expect people to kow-tow and consider our every phrase pearls of wisdom imbued with divine judgement and exquisite perfection, but they should consider our individual opinions and carefully-considered statements to be (as they almost always are) strongly indicative of the general opinion and mood of the Committee.

As for encouraging normal sysops to wheel war, well, they're welcome to. We will desysop them all, as necessary - doing so to every single one, and starting from sratch, would be bad, but it is not an utterly impossible or unimaginable activity. We're here to build an encyclopædia, not "have fun" or build an "equitable society" for everyone to play with in a "fair" manner. This is the real world, and the real world isn't fair, isn't equitable, and doesn't defer to idealism over the pressures of reality. It's far more important to have the right result than the "right" process.

If you want to try to build a utopian society, I hear that mySpace has some room available (people who understand the sarcastic sub-text in suggesting an attempt to build the unobtainable get bonus points :-)).

James F. (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What a beautifully disingenuous use of "apparently" woven into the "Jimbo trusts us" argument. The "wikilawyer" charge is linguistically and logically null, as it is invoked whenever a person gets caught acting outside of policy and practice. You cannot argue, on the one hand, that this is common practice that ArbCom gets added powers to their persons and at the same time that it is never stated and must not be stated. You wave the "wikilawyer" complaint and combine that with the "not a democracy" to try to excuse not only abuse but the claim that you need not tell people what the rules are for them to be rules, that you need not have the community agree in order to demand that the community comply. That you would further gleefully claim that you will "desysop" people, basically saying with George Bush "Bring it on," is a simply staggering instance of bad behavior, bad attitude, and breach of trust. Since you argue that Jimbo's trust of you (unstated, and we must not ask to see it written) imbues you personally with powers above the powers of administrators, you therefore must question whether I am a person to whom there is trust and respect due. I ask for none. I ask for logic, for reason, for good will, and for good practices, and I use words rather than the mystical touch of a king or the mysterious essence. If I speak truly and can defend my positions, then respect will follow. You seem to reverse this and say that, because you are on ArbCom, your words must be respected. That is a very sad sight to see. Geogre 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just still not seeing anywhere Tony implies he was allowed to make this block because he's a clerk. Call me naive, but I'm going with the statements above that it was simply over edit warring on RFAr. Yes, he shouldn't have made the block because it was edit warring over his own statement. And yes, unless 1RR got approved somewhere I didn't see, there isn't a clearly defined process for what happened. But everyone is squabbling about motives, and it's just fanning the flames. So now Aaron feels Tony is trying to assume more power than he's actually got, and Tony's feels Aaron's deliberatly trying to provoke him...look back at some of the RFAr cases you both have worked on before, guys, you've been here before.

I'm gonna echo Lar here and say, please, let's all drop it. If Clerk's powers really concern you, let's hash it out on the Clerks page. As for Aaron and Tony, I think it's just best if y'all try to stay as far away from each other's edits as possible. --InkSplotch^(talk) 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly clear about one thing: nobody likes the clerk summaries, except for possibily a few arbitrators somewhere. But they should'nt count. Let's suspend it immediately under some pretext or another and let consensus prevail. My experience with the clerking, aside from opposing it having summary functions during its questionable creation, has been wholly negative, but let's not talk about that. Down with clerk summaries! El_C 23:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not taking any crap from people who want to make clerking harder" [28]

• I'd say this, combined with zero evidence of Tony thinking that there was any problem with this block, speaks to "Tony imp[ying] he was allowed to make this block because he's a clerk." There is nothing in blocking policy that suggests this wa a valid block and several things that explicitly say it wasn't — unless clerks get exemption. I also find it simultaneously amusing and horrifiying to hear that "edit warring" warring is now expanded to include a single revert after four hours "pending discussion."
• I also find User:Jdforrester's responses here to be breathtaking. "Tony should not have blocked Aaron himself" makes it clear he supports the block. I know I'm repeating myself, but I'd love to see him suggest that blocking policy be expanded in this manner. I'll cop his "reprehensible" on my changing of a section heading (not a comment) as simple intellectual laziness, and let it go.
• In that vein, however, I'd suggest that if James needed Tony's summary in this case, he should probably hand in his ArbCom badge. Given that not only the facts were clearly and succinctly spelled out and but that at the time the section header was changed Dmcdevit had already suggested this go back to ANI, what exactly was it that we needed a clerk for again? I'm sure that ArbCom are overworked, and that the word smog on most cases is horrific. But if they are so busy that they can't be bothered to read the under one thousand words that were there in this request and instead look over the précis and say "good enough" than we have bigger problems than a measly three hour block of a known agitator.

brenneman^{L} 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Long live the editors' proletariat revolution! Georgewilliamherbert 00:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that anyone can prepare a summary of an ArbCom case. The clerks are not privileged in that regard. Whether the clerks should log their summaries under a "clerk" header or under their own name is debatable. But everyone is invited to particiapte in arbitraiton workshops. -Will Beback 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I always assumed that doing so would be rude to the Arbitrators and process, and that normal editors or admins should stay mostly out in the comments areas and /workshop and /evidence (and talk pages). Is that view universally agreed among the arbitrators and clerks? Could it lead to abuse and disruption of the process (not just what happened here, but actual serious disruption...)? Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can submit evidence in the evidence page and comment in the workshop. While in practise the involved parties tend to make most of the running, submissions from uninvolved parties are always useful and are to be encouraged. Comments on the talk pages are also useful in raising wider community concerns about the arbitration process. Arbitrators do read these comments and respond. My experience of observing and working with arbitrators over a period of some fifteen months is that they care passionately about Wikipedia and want to reach the best possible decision. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right; the question is, are normal editors/admins supposed to do summaries, as Will suggests... and you didn't actually answer. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Um, no, El_C!!! I know you like to play the revolutionary and all but no. I think clerking is TERRIFICALLY useful. I think clerks summaries are useful. I don't want to see clerking come crashing down like a house of cards. I just don't think Tony should have been the person to block Aaron in this case. Too personally involved. If Aaron had been futzing with someone else's summary, then MAYBE. But probably not even then. Ditto Phil. Get someone else to do it. We have 800+ admins after all. If Tony could not convince an uninvolved admin (and sorry.. Phil is not "uninvolved" at this point) to do it, it wasn't the right thing to do. CERTAINTLY not worth wrecking clerking over. ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• You again, the clerk lackey! :D If ever I start sounding like a wikirevolutionary, please just shoot me and put me out of my misery. El_C 19:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to take issue with this idea that anyone who belongs to the ever-expanding circle of people who have ever had problems with Aaron's behavior must be forever counted as being "involved" with him in some way. We don't in general apply such criteria to matters like this. So while it is arguable that I was in some way "involved" with Aaron Brenneman in the immediate case (because he was aggressively editing my clerk summary) and therefore should not have blocked him for three hours, I think the idea that Phil Sandifer was in any way involved is completely mistaken. There was no discussion between myself and Phil, we blocked simultaneously. The person we blocked was edit warring on WP:RFAR. If Phil's block was wrong, it wasn't because he was involved. He wasn't involved by any reasonable measure. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk I act partly on my own account and partly on instructions, both direct and indirect, from the arbitrators, who should of course show sensitivity to the wider community. I do (as can anyone) send a reasonable amount of material directly to the arbitration committee, and some of this has to be confidential, but my opinion is that it's better if case summaries and whatnot be placed on the applications alongside public statements by other editors. This way other editors may spot a factual error or omission in clerks' notes (as was the case with the timeline for the userbox war case) and submit corrections to the clerks or the committee as statements on their own account.

My opinion of the status of the clerk is that he's really no more empowered than any other editor. Any other editor may open and close cases, submit opinions and evidence to the arbitrators. The difference in the case of the clerk is that he is constrained to only perform clerical work on cases in which he is not involved. This can be a severe disadvantage; in one case in which I was involved, someone botched the opening of the case and only created a workshop page; it took a couple of days for me to get sometone (who happened to be a clerk) to open the case properly. by contrast, it is acceptable for an involved party who is not a clerk to perform clerical work in lieu of a clerk--you don't have to have a clerk in a case if you don't want one.

The reason why clerks are appointed? They volunteer and they undertake to stick with the job, taking on some of the boring work that would otherwise eat into the spare time that arbitrators are able to devote to their own difficult and grueling task of making good decisions. Being a clerk doesn't give you any special powers, it only gives you responsibilities, which in my experience my fellow clerks take very seriously. Nothing we write has any more meaning than what the parties of the case write, but we are more constrained. We do not make statements on our own account, because we don't clerk cases in which we are involved. It is to be hoped that this gives us a detachment that permits us to see the issues raised in the case, and thus bring things to the arbitrators' attention that may otherwise be missed. We are also available to help involved parties by giving them non-judgemental advice on how best to prepare their cases. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of "clerk" actions (continued)

• Let us stray not into untruth, please, Tony: "aggressively editing my clerk summary" and "edit warring" are hyperbolism at best. I once changed the section header of your summary from "Clerk notes" to "Statement by Tony Sidaway." You reverted "pending discussion." I waited four hours, no discussion was forthcoming, I re-reverted and created a section on the talk page to discuss it. Please spare us the rhetoric and stick to the facts. - brenneman^{L} 01:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you really, seriously, accusing me of falsehoods? Because I find that rather surprising. From your own timeline:

1. 03:49, 26 April Brenneman creates discussion thread
2. 03:53, 26 April Brenneman re-reverts and points to discussion thread in edit summary

It appears to me that you waited four minutes.

Moreover, you seem to be restructuring your memory of what happened to suit your purpose, here. Recall that, two minutes after my revert of your alteration, I said on your user talk page:

* 23:54, 25 April 2006: "Hi, could you explain the purpose of your recent alteration of my clerk summary? "[29]

I could be wrong here, but I think most people would take that as an invitation, not to wait for four hours for further discussion, but to respond explaining the purpose of the disputed edit. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony has shuffled around the timeline to support his version of events, whereas the chronological order is clear. Please stop with the obfuscation:

• My change, 35 minutes and Tony reverts, two minutes and he comes to talk, eight minutes later I respond... silence from Tony.
• Tony edits in this period, but fail to engage in the "discussion" that was "pending."
• Three hours and forty-eight minutes later, I create discussion thread. Three minutes after that I place a note on the existing "discussion" saying I've done so, and one minute after that I change the section header again.
• Twenty minutes later Tony blocks me.
• Three hours later (after he has restored his prefered version) Tony finally make a note on the article talk.

I didn't edit the text of his comments, I was transparent about every change I made. I'm open to hearing that this was a provocative edit, but am I expected to obey a zero-revert-rule with regard to Tony Sidaway? Heck, I'm even past the self-imposed zero-admin-revert deadline with regards to him.

I'm trying very very hard to remain civil, to focus on the issues. I've said in every venue I've touched that I want to avoid this being personal and that I'm happy to laugh off the block itself. On the other hand, Tony has made unfounded personal attacks both here and on his talk page, failed to respond to concerns raised, and generally acted un-adminlike. If he can just stop acting like a prat and sinking the boot into me we can have a civil discussion about the clerk's issue. If Tony going to continue to weasel around and use the best-defence-is-good-offence approach than this will probably get escalated. I'm wouldn't dream of asking for an "I was wrong" from Sidaway, but enough already with the "I was right."

brenneman^{L} 04:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to defend myself against the above false charges of obfuscation, weaseling and whatnot, which appear to be the usual manifestations of a rather tiresome and very unwelcome personal grudge. The facts are that an editor engaged in edit warring on WP:RFAR and was blocked simultaneously by two clerks acting independently. Creating a discussion thread and then waiting four minutes before reverting, as in this case, doesn't constitute a genuine attempt at engaging in discussion. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, blocking anybody one is involved in a conflict with stinks. Blocking a trusted and respected editor with whom one is in conflict is a serious incident which requires at least an apology. But that's ephemeral.

The serious and lasting questions here are those of authority and responsibility, starting from the definition of the position of clerk, but also other issues Geogre is raising. Wikipedia may not be technically a democracy, but it has been traditionally ruled democratically and very many editors (especially those who write articles) are volunteering their time and brains on the assumption that that's how it will stay, because they have no desire to work in a community ruled by secret rules, unknown authority invested in persons rather than positions, and "common sense" that's common only to the people who agree, and everybody else is a troll. Apart from wikipolitics, wikilawyering, and the moral of the community, the tendency to avoid accountability is seriously harmful to the encyclopedia. The corner-cutting and authority-grabbing behaviour of people who consider themselves to be the in-crowd (which is laughable - what percentage of all articles have individual clerks, arbcom members, or admins edited?) is an inspiration to many a copycat in the main namespace. If this is how old hands get things done at Wikipedia, how do we expect new editors to behave in articles?

As an aside: When ArbCom was established, it was supposed to be the last resource, after mediation, if anybody still remembers that. But, as was painfully shown over and over again, mediation can't work if "common sense" is the supreme law of the community. You can't mediate common sense, because if the people involved had any sense in common, they would have worked it out themselves. Zocky | picture popups 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the word "commonsense" doesn't work for you, try another word with a slightly less pure-sounding meaning: pragmatism. Democratic structures and fixed rules are slow and they're open to subversion. A more pragmatic technique is more suitable to online content development. Development proceeds in a bottom-up fashion with disputes being resolved by direct communication between individuals. Disputes that aren't quickly resolved in this way attract attention and, eventually, usually a resolution emerges from wider discussion. No voting is involved, although polls are sometimes used to gauge whether there is consensus on a course of action.

Only when such techniques (including mediation) fail, does the final step come in. Here a group of people appointed because of their wide acceptance within the community meet en banc to produce binding resolutions to otherwise intractable cases. The closest thing to democracy here is that they make decisions by majority vote. Wikipedia really isn't democratic and if someone has told you that it is then you were misled. --Tony Sidaway 10:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Maybe you should read what he said again. He didn't say "Wikipedia should be a democracy," he said, and I paraphrase, "You should stop acting in a manner that is damaging to the encyclopedia." I think you should stop hurting the encyclopedia, too. (And I agree that Aaron should not be edit warring with you, either). Nandesuka 11:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatism would be backing down when faced by overwhelming opposing opinion. Pragmatism would be not seeking a position of trust right after the community overwhelmingly decided against giving you one. We're not talking about pragmatism here, we're talking about getting your way. Zocky | picture popups 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all a storm in a teacup. The only thing I'll say is that admins should not, never, ever, block anyone in a case where they're involved. That means Tony Sidaway should not have blocked Aaron Brenneman, but should have posted here or somewhere requesting another admin to check on it. That is all. Now go have WP:TEA. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above sentiment, that it's a storm in a teacup, but I still find your interpretation somewhat problematic. I'm not involved with Aaron Brenneman, I'm a clerk trying to stop WP:RFAR getting any messier than it already is. As it happens, one other clerk blocked Aaron at precisely the same moment. This may well be the wrong way to deal with edit warring on important process pages, but the simultaneity of the two blocks makes that question somewhat moot. This was a decision reached by two clerks acting independently.

Predictably I have seen suggestions that somehow the other clerk must also be involved with in a dispute with this editor. Further I've seen attempts to drag in quite independent parties, one of them a former arbitrator whose only involvement with Aaron, as far as I can see, is that Aaron once falsely accused him of serious malfeasance.

I am not in favor granting provocative and, frankly, trollish editors more leeway than they already have. Making false accusations against someone does not give you an out. Disrupting WP:RFAR and at the same time being opposed in principle to clerks does not stop clerks blocking you--in this case, severally, simultaneously and independently. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm becoming slightly confused here. First we're given an official-looking "clerk note", informing us that there is apparently a community-imposed block. A bit later, we establish that clerks are "really no more empowered than any other editor". Meanwhile, the community overwhelmingly opines that Aaron should not have been blocked for what he did, and unanimously tells you that in any case, you shouldn't have made the block yourself. Now we're back to the authority of not one but two clerks thinking that it's alright, so it must be alright. So, let's try to get one thing straight: what is it, in your opinion, that gives you the authority to:

• circumvent the established admin code of conduct by blocking an editor that you were in conflict with,
• assume bad faith and engage in personal attacks by calling editors which disagree with you provocative and trolls,
• and ignore the community's opinion on the whole matter?

Zocky | picture popups 04:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony: No. You were involved in a conflict with Aaron Brenneman, you blocked him due to a matter arising, this is something that admins must not do. At all. There are over 700 other admins who could have dealt with this. Whether or not they would have blocked, I won't go into. All I'll say is that I personally would not.

I think that the activities of some Arbitration Clerks in some situations may give other administrators and users the impression that they consider themselves to be somehow "above" them, and would urge you to avoid taking actions that may lead to this impression being formed. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet

Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) seems to want to revert every edit I make, even to the point of reinserting redundant and even incorrect information back into the article. Labelling a simple content dispute as vandalism. Has rejected every attempt at discussion, replying instead with personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentation. Looking over recent contribs, it seems this isn't an isolated incident 81.104.165.184 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Offending diffs: accusation of bias, disregards comment as "PA", misrepresentation, more attempts to disrupt threading, vandalises talk page, rv removal of redundant material, PA summary, another PA, rv good edit as "vandalism", yet another PA, a veritable tirade. Worth noting that in all of this, only one of the user's edits at the time had any value at all, namely a fact check. 81.104.165.184 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have participated in dialogue explaining the reason of your misdoing without any structured reply. You have been following each and every of my recent and consistently reverted changes made by other editors 1~& 2. You have edited out content 1, 2 & 3. I kindly ask you to reconsider your action and refrain from vandalising both article pages and talk pages, you are making Wikipedia a very nasty experience for users, such as myself, who work hard to make this encyclopedia as complete as possible. I participate in many projects here, and only encounter problems when meeting users such as yourself who do not wish to collaborate and cut off discussions. Regards, Captain scarlet 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This arguments seems to be nothing more than pety rivalry over editing rather than content. It is a silly situation that has escalated unnecessarily and I have summaries each and every of my edits and vandalism reverts accoridngly. The above accusations by the unregistered editor are nothing more than a game of ping pong. You should ASF and a bit of greeting would help at letting some air off especially in an argument like this. Cheers, Captain scarlet 06:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone who has deliberately misrepresented my comments and done nothing but attack me instead of my position has no business telling others to AGF, and suggesting that others be civil is nothing short of hypocrisy. 81.104.165.184 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with User:81.104.165.184. I have also experienced Captain scarlet's agressive and uncompromising attitude in the recent weeks. In particular, I was seriously attacked by Captain Scarlet for using American English spelling, which he seems to dislike a lot, and for telling him that Wikipedia frowns people who change American spelling into British spelling when nothing justifies it. You can also have a glimpse into Captain Scarlet's behavior by having a look here: Template talk:Infobox Paris Network main content. Not content to be told by two users that he was wrong in his edits of the infobox, Captain Scarlet decided to turn around the problem by creating a dummy template (Template:Infobox Paris Network main content real), without leting anyone know, in order to bypass the template where his uninspired edits had been opposed. That's the sneakiest behavior I have seen on Wikipedia so far. Any administrator that wants to treat this case, please also ask User:Metropolitan for his opinion on Captain Scarlet. Hardouin 12:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Would an admin like to weigh in on this? I feel that given User:Captain scarlet's apparent attitude, the usual methods will be entirely ineffective. 81.104.165.184 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude

Monicasdude (talk · contribs) is on a PROD removal rampage, in most cases for articles which are clearly deserving of the tag, and then, when the article is taken to AfD, Monicasdude goes to the AfD page to make personal attacks on the nominator. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to present this at the ongoing arbitration case. JoshuaZ 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this sounds like just what Injunctions were made for. --InShaneee 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe has been making false charges against me for several days, beginning with an entirely spurious claim that I breached the legal threats policy, because I criticized her treatment of another editor. As for "in most cases" and "clearly deserving," let's give examples. I object to the deletion of articles on notable subjects, particularly academics and writers, simply because their authors, mostly new editors, don't assert notability as clearly as experienced editors might. As for "personal attacks," I think an editor who nominates articles for deletion wholesale, based on his personal animosity towards another editor, is acting in bad faith, as well as violating WP:STALK and WP:POINT. There seems to be no dispute on this point, just a refusal to comply with policy. And pointing policy violations out is not a personal attack, as is made quite explicit in WP:NPA. Monicasdude 02:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Monica, I agree with you on the majority of your keep votes and think there is a systematic bias against academics and related professions, but comments like this [30] massively violate WP:AGF, border on violating WP:NPA, are unproductive, and make people less likely, not more likely, to listen to what you have to say. I recommend you stop. JoshuaZ 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

what false charge did I make? You are making massive PROD tag removals. You are making personal attacks. What's false about that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Eusebeus (talk · contribs) has been systematically reviewing the edit histories of Kappa and Monicasdude to find articles that they have "de-prodded" so that he can nominate them for AfD. I am 95% convinced that Eusebeus thinks he is acting in good faith, and that looking at the contribution history of known "de-prodders" is just a good way of finding deletion candidates. However, I believe that regardless of his intentions, the result of his action is wikistalking, and I have advised him to find other ways of locating articles for deletion. I believe Eusebeus is also somewhat hasty and non-selective, for example asserting that the article Horsemen of the Esophagus (a new book about competitive eating) did not assert notability and could not be found in google, despite the fact that the article itself shows that the book is excerpted in Atlantic Monthly (really, how many books get that treatment) and has 4 book reviews on google news after only 3 days in release. I do not approve of Monicadude's forays into uncivil language or his voting speedy keep on every one of Eusebeus's AfD noms, but on the other hand, Eusebeus, probably unintentionally, has found Monicasdude's sore spot and seems determined to keep poking it. I would appreciate a wider view of the conduct of both of them. Thatcher131 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If one doesn't add info when removing a prod, one should either have a good reason to remove it and say so in the edit summary (which Monica rarely does) or should list it at AfD noting that one prefers to keep it. Simply removing prods en mass is unproductive, and Eusebus' response is an understandable attempt to get at least something out of the mess Monica is making removing other peoples tags. JoshuaZ 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically what you have here are 2 editors who have thrown all pretense of rational behavior out the window and are hellbent of playing a wikipedia game of chicken. Rather than chill out a bit in light of the RFArb, RfCs, numerous warnings, and advisements from other editors they've both escalated their questionable behaviors. In my opinion, trying to reason with either of them is pretty much a waste time at this point... they are going to continue down their respective paths regardless of what anyone else says. Let ArbCom sort it out.

I respect the concept of bringing articles that have been deproded (without the deproder making any attempt to improve the article) to AfD for a "peer review" of sorts, but at this point Eusebeus knows how contentious things are and he should be backing off for a bit to let things cool down. It's not like there are no other editors out there checking deprods.--Isotope23 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

...the result of his action is wikistalking Bullcrap. It's called "quality control". If Monicasdude asserts the right to dispute the proposed deletions, then Eusebeus has an equal -- probably superior -- right to put the question up for a larger discussion. Unless you are somehow asserting that Monicasdude's judgments are not allowed to be questioned, for fear of bringing his anger-management issues to the surface. Hmmm, chosing between more discussion or placating a single civility-challenged editor? Not a hard choice.

There are a number of ways an editor can locate articles in need of "quality control." If he found a bunch of bad articles and some of them happened to be Monicasdude de-prods that would one thing. By specifically examining Monicasdude's edit history to find articles he has deprodded, Eusebeus certainly gives the apearance of wikistalking. If he was systematically reverting or contesting MDudes' edits in main article space there would be no question about it. Thatcher131 14:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically what you have here are 2 editors who have thrown all pretense of rational behavior out the window I'd say you're half right. --Calton | Talk 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be wikistalking if Eusebeus was actually thinking about the nominations, but he's managed to make some really really bad nominations. Now a bad nom can lead to a better article, but it might still be "wikistalking" in the sence that Eusebeus doesnt' really seem to be thinking about his nominations. Monicasdude very probably is thinking about his de-prods. Whatever JeffBurdges 13:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable concluding from someone's edits whether or not they're "thinking" when they make them. It's very easy for me to believe that Monicasdude and Eusebeus are both acting in good faith (though maybe not recognizing good faith in each other). Besides, what if an article goes to AfD when it probably shouldn't have? Well, somebody says something, and it gets kept. No harm, no foul. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that, as one of the PRODders reverted by Monicasdude, (I believe that article was later speedy deleted), I appreciate the work Eusebeus is doing. As {{PROD}} doesn't leave good records behind, "wikistalking" is the only way to detect questionable {{PROD}} removals, unless the individual PRODder remembers to check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just off base. All the PRODder needs to do is put the article on his/her watchlist. And you should note that Eusebeus has said quite clearly on several occasions that he doesn't take the deprodder's comments into account, but looks only at whether the original prod nomination makes a "prima facie case," without even checking out whether the prod claims have any real basis. That's indiscriminate work, not good work. Monicasdude 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude - no harm, no foul. I sincerely believe that Eusebeus believes that he's doing a service by fixing what he sees as your indiscriminate de-prodding. I'm not agreeing with him, just saying that I really believe he's doing what seems right to him. What's more, it's prefectly ok for these articles to go to AfD, where they can be calmly and civilly discussed, and then kept or deleted on their merits. You're a check on the Prod system, Eusebeus is a check on you, and AfD is a check on Eusebeus. The sun's shining, birds are singing, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on one thing here. The "User contributions" link exists for a reason. Using it does not equal wikistalking! Editors are supposed to check up on each other. Intent to harass is the essential ingredient in stalking. If someone's going around prodding or de-prodding lots of things, they should expect other people will review them. This editor review is what makes the project work. Friday (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thatcher here. The definition of Wikistalking goes beyond simply editing the same articles, it's the intention of it. I sometimes have followed editors from one debate to another, and I've found that Monicasdude is a particularly good one to follow because he seems to catch on to articles about academics. What I do is definitely not wikistalking, because I'm just finding areas of the encyclopedia to contribute to. If I was doing this beacuse I was going to unilaterally disagree with Monicasdude on everything, that would be a kind of harassment. And that's what Eus has been doing; it seems pretty unilateral. Unfortunately, Monicasdude has responded by wikistalking back. Mangojuice^talk 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a back-and-forth talk with Eusebeus about his actions and dispute with Monicasdude, and I am convinced that Eusebeus has acted in good faith. As he brought up on my talk page, 60% of his nominations have tended toward deletion, 15% to keep, and the others redirected, merged, and so forth. In the evidence of such numbers I find it hard to fault Eusebeus for trying to clean up articles, many of which likely would have quietly expired if not for Monicasdude. However, to counterpoint that, I would like to agree with something Thatcher131 has brought up before, that both involved parties in the dispute with just a smidgin more time could have cleaned up the articles in question to a more acceptable standard, and that is an issue that seems to be a major concern in the environment surrounding PRODs and AFDs today. Kuzaar 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kind of an odd take on things, but its interesting to note that if Monicasdude would take a second when he de-prods to edit the article and fix the reason the article was prod'd, most of these problems would be avoided. It would be especially helpful since sometimes its difficult to find the sources Monicasdude was looking at to decide to de-prod. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would that I had read what you posted before I spoke out above, Jareth; it would have saved me some type in typing. I just felt the need, I think, to speak out about a climate that could allow such a worrying conflict between two editors whose actions can both be explained by operation in good faith. Kuzaar 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• The deletion policy places the burden of fixing articles on...nobody. It's nice to give new editors time to work on their first article, but not required. It's nice to notify the primary author of an article on their talk page if the article seems to have a problem, but its not required. It's nice to try and improve an article rather than tagging it for deletion, but its not required. It's nice to improve an article when removing a deletion tag, but its not required. It's nice if people on AfD read the articles instead of just the nomination, but its not required. I'm keeping a rough list in my user space of articles that were tagged for deletion within minutes of their creation by new editors (without notifying the editor or trying to work with them) where the article was kept but the editor was apparently driven away. Isn't that nice? Thatcher131 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Eusebeus Speaks! I apologise for the length of this comment but I won't post aything else, I swear. I didn't really wish to comment here, because I feel that any cursory review of my actions will exonerate me from even the suspicion of wrongdoing. Monicadude's behaviour has been a colourful blend of the bizarre and the obnoxious. Indeed, I'm sure that once I have posted this, he will rejoinder with a point-by-point refutation of everything I say, that (if it is in keeping with the screeds so far) will contain heavy doses of self-righteousness, finger-pointing and adamantine declarations of my bad faith. Ick.

However, to make it easier on the unlucky admins or anyone else who may have the misfortune to be wading through this, I will briefly list what I feel are the salient points here, most of which I have expressed elsewhere . Personally, I feel MD should be sanctioned or censured. His behaviour has been rude, irredeemable and destructive.

1. Prodding and deprodding are part of the process for establishing inclusion here. AfD is a further part of that process. Sending up disputed prods to AfD for futher review should not be considered any kind of problem.
2. I have admitted I used user contribs as an expedient to identifying deprods for review. I completely deny that makes me a stalker. I don't how many deprodders I have brought up for review, but the leader of the pack is not MD. And yet he is the only one who's reacted in this way.
3. I have brought many deprods to AfD for review. Not all my nominations have been perfect, far from it. But AfD is about building consensus and articles that have been kept are probably stronger for it. At the very least, future contributors are more assured that their efforts are being directed toward something that has community sanction of notability and value. This point has been simply missed entirely by a certain editor, but then he is so obsessed with stalking and point-making, I doubt he has taken the time to think the matter through. So: I absolutely reject that I have brought any, even one, deprod to AfD to make a point or in bad faith. Of the many prods I went through, I have brought only a very few to AfD for further discussion. Another point missed entirely by a certain editor who at one point insinuated I was bringing his entire recent batch of deprods, which is long indeed, to AfD.
4. I have had no contact with monicadude prior to this ridiculous outburst, nor shall I want to do so again. He has given no rationale why I would ever want to target him in the first place. Although his subequent actions could well have been prophecy fulfillment.
5. Finally, much has been from certain angry quarters that I was only looking at whether the original prod nomination makes a "prima facie case," without even checking out whether the prod claims have any real basis. Oh yes indeed that is so exactly what I was doing as all my contetsed prod nominations so abundantly make clear. It is true that I argued my criterion was whether the original prod made a prima facie case. I assumed that it would be obvious that that meant where the initial argument had not been satisfied by the reasons for the deprod.

A case in point may be found with respect to the deprodding of Gypsy Sun Experience on grounds that so obviously meets notability standards there should be no argument; indeed none was provided. MD has subsequently used this nomination as an example of my spectacularly bad faith and wikistalking. When I tried to get into specifics about its notability, he simply insulted me, eventually resorted to deleting my comments, shouted a bit and then I think he slapped up a vandals notice, lol (all the salacious details on his talk page somewhere). However, a search on the band turns up a mere handful of google hits, and practically nothing actually verifying their existence beyond two gigs they played in Tennessee in (if I recall) 1999 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gypsy Sun Experience has the dirt. When pressed to provide tangible evidence, the deprodder (after much angry dismissal of my efforts) eventually produced from Google Groups a posting from some guy named Manny who was thirty minutes late to one of the two shows I had already adduced in the AfD nomination - that still makes me laugh. Given who the members are of the band two gigs in TN in '99 may be enough for inclusion (shockingly, so far it is), but it is a stretch to call that so obviously meets notability standards there should be no argument. And this is the poster child of my bad faith. Yea, right.

Do I really need to say more? (I'd rather not.) As it stands, my deprod review is souring on me. NO WAY that something like Gypsy Sun Experience should pass AfD after the obvious verifiability problem I have identified (add to that the 0 Lexis Nexis results talked about on the page). Yet extreme, groundless and angry ranting have been sufficient to taint my actions and turn something that is perfectly proper, procedurally sound, and frankly good for what we are doing here into a real question mark. That is unfortunate. Eusebeus 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I wouldn't consieder any edits where they person is reallly thinking about it as wikistalking. Eusebeus IMHO is clearly wikistalking Monicasdude because Eusebeus AfDed a Harvard dean, among other botched AfDs. Monicasdude is *also* wikistalking Eusebeus as M accused Eusebeus of bad faith on several articles which are really questionable (see Eusebeus's comment). Anyway, my point is: It ain't wikistalking if your at least half right, but making any series of bad calls based mostly upon the identity of the editor is wikistalking. Nothing wrong with using another person edit history, thats why its there, but you need to actually think about what your doing. Otherwise you piss people off. JeffBurdges 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina

Could someone please intervene in the revert war that is going on at those two articles. Users OneEuropeanHeart, VsA, and Darklegions continuously revert to an old edition (which is incomplete and full of deliberate omissions) from the newer one translated from the comprehensive, sourced and overall better Spanish Wikipedia's [Argentina] article. As far as I have understood, the consensus as it stands in Talk:Argentina#Demographics and Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself, is that all the information in the edition that has been imported from the Spanish Wikipedia will be kept, and the discussion that currently is continuing is to decide what parts should be condensed into fewer words.

The users, especially OneEuropeanHeart and VsA, continue deleting all the newly introduced content from the Spanish Wikipedia which is itself sourced from the Argentine Census, INDEC, Argentine government institutions and agencies, and the genetic findings of the Genetics Department of Argentina's most reputable institution, the University of Buenos Aires. They continue deleting absolutely all information on the indigenous community of Argentina, so that there is no longer any mention of the indigenous population at all. Also, many users have now put protest to the use of the CIA when concerning ethic groups, and this is not only on the Argentina article (this concern can be found in both talk pages, as well as in Talk:Demographics of Chile).

While they revert, all three users have deceptively written "discussion it's still on progress" in the edit summary, but none of the three have actually contributed to either discussion, whether Talk:Argentina#Demographics or Talk:Demographics of Argentina#The article contradicts itself (except for OneEuropeanHeart when he made one single comment prior to the revert war to merely disagree against consensus, without actually adding anything to the debate), and the consensus of the Talk: pages that they cite during their reverts actually go against the reverts that they are making (reverts that delete all the above mentioned Argentine government department and agencies, private Argentine and Argentine institutional sources and all mention of Argentina’s indigenous community.) Al-Andalus 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see this and User talk:Al-Andalus. --OneEuropeanHeart 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ati3414 returns from block to harass

Ati3414 has returned from his ban with apparrently no intent other than to harass. As you can see here, since returning he has done nothing but post on my talk page with insults, strong accusations, and ad hominem attacks. User_talk:Gregory9#Gregory9.27s_refusal_to_understand_basic_physics is one example of such activity.

At least he is not disrupting the Wiki pages this time, but I am losing all patience with this individual. I think his repeated bans and response has shown that he is not interested in contributing to or improving wikipedia. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Gregory9 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean he's returned from his month's block, right? Those posts of his aren't very polite, but I wouldn't say most of them, if you take them separately, are on the face of it done with "no intent other than to harass"; many seem like attempts to discuss. On the other hand, I do agree that this isn't normal talkpage interaction. The sheer number of posts, their smallness and annoyingness (such as inserting sarcastic headers, and interminably editing his own previous posts), does constitute trolling and harassment IMO. You shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. Do you want him to not post on your page at all? Or to keep his posts to a certain, specified, number a day, so that discussion remains possible? Please tell him exactly what kind of posting on your page you will accept, if any. That is, if you haven't already. (I can't find anything about it on your page, but then he's turned it into a mess, and his own page is worse, with all the deletions and reversions it's suffered.) If you make a direct request and he doesn't respect it, I'll warn him, and if he flouts that, I'll re-block him. His activity on your page sure isn't building the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I meant block. I've changed the header to reflect the correct terminology.

You are correct in that while the posts may "constitute trolling and harassment", that "many seem like attempts to discuss". This may appear so at first glance, because some posts do contain scientific phrases or statements (regardless of their correctness). But it is clear (IMO) that he is not interested in discussion, as he refuses to answer any direct questions - he posts deriding remarks as if they are answers. You suggested: "Please tell him exactly what kind of posting on your page you will accept, if any." The problem is that I HAVE. On Mar 17, I wrote: "Since you have brought this to a standstill, I will be gracious and [answer your questions] first. After this you must answer my questions, or this discussion is over. As it is not even a discussion if one party refuses to [answer questions]." (the underlining was included in the actual post for emphasis as well) I then posted one very specific question (which I had asked before as well), and even to this day he refuses to answer it, or other questions.

I feel it is very reasonable to expect answers to simple direct questions in a discussion. He has shown to me that he does not want discussion, he just wants to continue harassing and publicly trying to claiming that I am incompetent, as well as push his incorrect scientific views. (Which I have even shown him to be incorrect through reliable sources.) Gregory9 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be reasonable, but I would rather not have to try to evaluate whether or not he can be said to answer particular questions (they're not that simple to me ;-)). Your request to him is too old, too, and it frankly doesn't sound as if you've got much hope of getting a straightforward discussion going; I'm assuming he didn't get a month's block for nothing. Would you consider posting something really unambiguous like "This is leading nowhere, please don't post on my page again", or "I'm finding messaging on this scale unmanageable, please post no more than four times a day to my page from now on"? That I could deal with. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I guess you're right: "it frankly doesn't sound as if you've got much hope of getting a straightforward discussion going". So I will post your suggestion. Hopefully this will end it quietly. Thanks for your help.

Oh, and after this is done, can I delete all that to clean up my talk page and remove the accusations? Or what is the appropriate procedure here? Thanks Gregory9 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally it's best to clean up your page by archiving it, but this is a case where I for one wouldn't hesitate to delete the whole conversation. It's important to have an informative edit summary if you do, though, something that shows that this is still accessible through the History tab. Good luck, I'll keep an eye on your page. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

User:deeceevoice again

Incivility at Blackface talk page -- [31], including "Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one", racial remarks, etc. Justforasecond 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You really seem to be grasping here. I think you should give it a rest. Friday (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The quoted remark is definitely not incivil; "assholes" isn't used as a vituperative but as part of a colloquial simile. Even as the usage is inelegant (if clear), it's certainly not proscribed by general Wikipedia policies/guidelines or specific injunctions vis-à-vis Deeceevoice. (I take no position apropos of the "racial remarks" charge, into which I haven't had occasion to look.) Joe 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

JFAS, you're violating the terms set out for you RE:DCV, thereby setting yourself for a block. There will be no further warnings. El_C 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the message deeceevoice was responding to, I thought, while perhaps not Sesame Street-appropriate, the message was actually not all that incivil. Maybe I'm a sucker for ASCII smiley faces. Try to have thicker skin, JFAS (especially as you're not even involved in the conversation in question). JDoorjam Talk 20:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any racism in a cursory glance, and am inclined to agree with JDoorj on this. If there are any examples of racism by Deecee I'd be interested in seeing them pointed out. JoshuaZ 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Where are you guys??! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoke too soon - you're onto it as I typed ;) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that katefan0 posted about this a few weeks ago. We need every admin to add the AIAV page to their watchlist. We had a situation this AM where there were *7* items listed there, some as old as 2 hours. No excuse. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually used the exact post I made here just a few days earlier when I got a little concerned too [32] - but you guys do a great job and worse case there's some crazy dude in New Zealand watching it for ya :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin User:Tony_Sidaway et al

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence This page is surreal, particularly the accusations that I've vandalized the Julien Dubuque Bridge article: someone is having hallucinations.

You've got a bunch of Republicans editing articles to suit their POV -- a rather common practice with Republican contributers to Wikipedia, but not one the majority of Wikipedia admins adhere to. In the instance of Jim Nussle, the nastiness developed because of the routine removal of the sordid details of his lurid, adultery-drenched divorce. Following the right-wing Wikipedia gospel that any article showing a Republican to be something other than God's gift shall be edited otherwise, and similarly, that any article not demonstrating a Democrat to be a monster shall be edited otherwise, I am coming to the conclusion that Tony Sidaway is a stalking horse for Karl Rove's ideology and tactics. --FourthAve 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been posted here strictly to launch personal attacks of the type that your Abritration case has been opened to investigate. I urge everyone to ignore this.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 23:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's making Tony's point for Tony, so it's not all bad...

FourthAve: you can present evidence in the RFA. That's what your section there at the bottom is for. Arbitration is the step above ANI and RFCs; complaining here that you're being Arbitrated is somewhat pointless. If people are presenting evidence which you object to you can rebut it; if they're presenting evidence or conclusions which are factually wrong, you can ask for things like IP address checks to try and clear your name from those claims. But you have to do it over there. Launching personal attacks on Tony here is... what they've filed an Arbitration case about. And makes you look guilty on all the other claims / counts as well. Georgewilliamherbert 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that Sean Black is an admin. Yet he seems to have blocked users. Is this possible for non-admins? See [[33]]

As for responding, I did ages ago and this thing keeps getting updated by the Karl Rove trolls.--FourthAve 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Sean Black is indeed an admin. Jonathunder 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black is an admin. It says so right at the top of his user page.

You responded once to the Request for Arbitration case, but that's like making an opening statement in a court case and then never bringing any witnesses to testify or documentary evidence to court, or cross-examining any other witnesses who testify. Arbitration is a dynamic and ongoing process, you are able to and strongly encouraged to keep responding to claims and evidence and opinions made. You can continue providing evidence and comments until the Arbitration Committee vote to end the case.

There are no equivalents of attorneys in Wikipedia arbitration, but you do need to understand and participate in the process. If you do not understand the process, and the available information on the Arbitration WP pages does not explain it well enough to you, please contact the Arbitration committee and ask for help or a mentor or something. Georgewilliamherbert 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's difficult to prove a negative, but if you haven't edited the Julien Dubuque Bridge article please say so on the evidence page, and your denial will be taken into account and investigated.

It wasn't my choice to bring the arbitration case; if it had been up to me I would have recommended that we continue to use normal administrator tools to deal with your problematic edits. Sadly it seems that you are close to a formal one year ban from Wikipedia, which I think could have been avoided has we continued to deal with you, as we were, sensitively and with due concern for your incorrect belief that those you are dealing with are all right wing conservatives. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for information's sake, in re User:Sean Black, I don't see his name on the Wikipedia:List of administrators. See the last entry on User talk:Seoul Jjang, dated 27 April. The block actually was done by User:David Gerard, who really is an admin, today Friday 28 April.

Sean Black is listed as an admin in the up-to-date userlist. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the arbitration thing, I responded some time ago. I came across this thing recently only by snooping into other people's mail and edit-lists, your own included. I gather this is technically 'wikistalking', but I see others on my case have pretty much done the same thing. As for you being a Karl Rove rightwinger abusing you office to zealously promote the Republican cause, I withdraw the charge, but remain suspicious of your editorial and administrative POV. There have been public press reports about Republicans vandalizing articles, in order to help Republicans or hinder Democrats -- and this THIS IS THE ISSUE: you either think this is a good thing or you don't; my accusers seem think this is a good thing, and you as an admin are in the line of fire and may be tarred with the same brush.

I thought I had requested a mentor, in the person of admin User:Dbachmann, and that the issue was now closed. Since this seems to not be the case, it will take me several hours to address the issue, and this may take me several days to execute; I will probably ask institution of arb procedings against them in return. I find this all very opaque. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to do. --FourthAve 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to be looking very hard. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sean_Black, the bureaucrat log, and Special:Listusers seem to disagree with your conclusion that I'm not an admin. Additionally, I did block User:Seoul Jjang [34]. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It must be a miracle! You can perform admin tasks and not be an admin...now that's power.--MONGO 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See what a little faith will get you these days? Hallelujah. Amen. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought everybody knew that Sean has magic powers. Snoutwood (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Look here. That's the list of admins from 4/22. Sean is there. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was only joking. Snoutwood (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu returning once again while blocked under anon

Blocked User:Leyasu returning under anon 86.132.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to revert articles again[35].. for atleast the second time during their current week ban.

This includes reverts on the "Gothic Metal" article, which the user was put on ArbCon parole for causing trouble on before (a parole which has been violated 5 times in the past), [36] and the "Children of Bodom" article... which the user is infamous for vandalising.... was found guilty of using sock puppets while blocked, with IP's similar to this. [37], perhaps its time to pull the plug? - Deathrocker 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the check user having been questioned, the only connection the anons where shown to have to me, where that they used the same ISP.

Also, the user Deathrocker has been banned for one month for vandalising the Gothic Metal article, and was also banned from editing it. Within one week of being unbanned, the user went back to the Gothic Metal article to violate their ban from it, and to revert back to the vandalised version of the page on three occasions [38], [39], [40], on the basis that he was above policy.

Deathrocker was also warned for impersonating myself, which he openly has bragged about and has been banned for before. The user has also vandalised my user page on several occasions [41], [42], [43], [44].

Deathrocker hasnt just vandalised my user page either, he also has vandalised Admin Sceptres user page for blocking him for one month [45], [46], [47].

Deathrocker is also currently pending a decision on a permenant ban from Wikipedia regarding their Arbirrition case due to their lack of 'good faith' edits to the community.

As such, i ask for a check user on this IP to confirm wether its me, and not an impersonator again. Ley Shade 14:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm nice try Leyasu... but as usual you are incorrect and lieing (something many, many users have accused you of... rather sad that you still haven't changed), I have never "bragged about impersonating you"... or been warned for anything of the sort, simply because I have never impersonated you in the first place.

On the Gothic Metal article.. I was banned for revert warring with who??.... you, you were also banned in that incident, only difference is I debated by ban and recived a dubious longer ban for the same incicdent, whereas you didn't... I don't have a "ban from editing Gothic Metal article".... I'd like to see where you got that idea from?.. so, I'm not violating anything.

The Arbitration case against me was REJECTED over a month ago, there was also never mention of "permanent ban" so more typical BS from you, although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times, that is tre... what any of your garbage lies has to do with this incident, is beyond me... care to explain? - Deathrocker 16:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, stop arguing. This is not the place for it. Leyasu, the arbitration case was rejected. Deathrocker, stop being incivil. You were close to a permanent block last month. After consultation on IRC with a few users, I've been advised to open another RfAr. Will (^E_@) T 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

User:58.79.38.16 warned and blocked before for spamming (User talk:58.79.38.16) is at it again. --DV8 2XL 11:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As it's second block and looks like static IP I've blocked again for 3 days. Petros471 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:82.45.216.46

This anonymous IP has repeatedly vandalised Economy of Paris in the recent days. Can this anonymous IP be warned and/or blocked? Thank you. Hardouin 13:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The place for these reports is WP:AIV. With that said, I'll take a look. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a slow-burning revert war. If it is a matter of vandalism (that is, if there are sources to back up the version he is reverting away from) then issue a warning on the IP's talk page, and take it to AIV if it continues. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin deleting a page due to (perceived) copyright violation

Admin Petaholmes deleted newly created page Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease claiming it is a copy of http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/caf/pbfd.htm page. It is not, as I have spent quite some time to write it. It does contain the same information as the page I have allegedly copied, but that is because they both deal with the exact same matter.

Mikie 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the proper place to ask for undeletion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please do not try and re-create the article as re-creations can just be speedied. However, I might be being blind or something, but to me I can't see any direct copy and pasting, so you might well be right- this will need to be reviewed by other admins as well. Petros471 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do so immediately. Although, I have recreated the page already, as it isn't very practical to say "my page has been deleted cause it looks like this one", if I haven't got my page to show, isn't it?

I have also responded quite rudely to the Petaholmes, and I meant every word of it. I know that is not recommended or tolerated here, but I was mad for all the effort I wasted only for someone to make a judgment in a split second. The admin in question is also from Australia, as I am, and it is half past midnight here. I don't think a decision made at this time of night can be well-considered by anyone.

Mikie 14:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to exist in order to show that it looks like another page. Admins can see deleted articles and edits, so they (we) can judge whether the article was a copyright violation. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, and what is your judgement? Mikie 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the article to psittacine beak and feather disease (we do not use title case in page names, unless the actual name is in title case). I will reserve my comments on the article's right to exist for deletion review. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

hey, everybody remember when ed poor was de-sysoped?

not to re-open old wounds or anything, but I think somebody forgot to do something, both this, and this, seem to indicate that there is no record of him ever actually having his sysop rights stripped?15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&group=&username=Ed+Poor not in group sysop.

and here is the record Geni 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed was a 'crat also huh? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And a developer I think. Prodego ^talk 15:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that must've been some messy situation. Unreal. Say no more I'm sure its been discussed plenty. Thanks for the rely - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Did he de-sysop people as a bcrat? Is that even possible, if not what do the "="s mean? Prodego ^talk 15:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall from reading the reports also wheel warring too and I think WP:PAs?? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you really really have to know start reading here.Geni 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism On Black Metal Article

User:Spearhead has unfortunatly decided to violate an AFD ruling on information on the Black Metal article. The article Troll Metal was placed for AFD sometime ago and its contents merged into the Black Metal article. Recently Spearhead has decided that he wants to delete the section on the basis 'he doesnt like it' even though this violates AFD, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE.

I am also on revert parole so i have no intention of running a revert race, but this is vandalism and as such shouldnt be allowed. I tried warning Sceptre [[48]], [[49]].

Spearheads response was report it and see what happens, implying that he is untouchable by admins due to his normally high work and good faith [50], [51]. However Spearheads normal good faith doesnt give him a right to vandalise any page, and as such this should be dealt with appropriatly. Ley Shade 15:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A general concensus was reached on the BM talk page to remove this and another section as well as it can be considered an act of vandalism to put it back in. As such it has been removed several times by various users. Only Leyasu seems to want to keep this on the BM page as per AFD. I have advised Leyasu to find a proper place to store it or if no such can be found to put it on his user space. Spearhead 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've made an attempt to mediate on this here. As above, the basic problem is that the original Troll metal article was "kept" in an AfD, then later merged into Black metal. Debate has since raged on that talk page and other places about whether it belongs there (or anywhere) as a subsection. I've suggested a couple of things, hopefully something will catch hold. Deizio 16:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a content RFC needs to be initiated so that such community voice as may be found can be determined. Geogre 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Twilight Jonez

A new user, Twilight Jonez (talk · contribs), has been changing many {{indefblockeduser}} tags into {{NCV}}, and making no other edits whatsoever. This makes me wonder whether Twilight Jonez him/herself is a sockpuppet of NCV. Anybody with further knowledge about this? --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that he is very likely to be NCV. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR by 69.119.83.198

The user 69.119.83.198 has again reverted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he has been warned about Three-revert rule. Siddiqui 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use WP:AN3 for 3RR problems, thanks. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Tarkan1st linkspamming

22 linkspams to commercial directories thus far today in mostly geo articles, a sort of "alpha" spam. Three warnings, no replies.--Flawiki 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)