Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

if their sole purpose is to disrupt an article and they haven't contributed anything of value I don't see any reason to permit them to keep editing. If they have contributed material of value to the article though an attempt should be made to reach out to them.--Crossmr 01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Block of 209.175.168.14 (talk · contribs)

This ip has repeatedly and blatantly vandalized random subjects. Please investigate and impose a block.

BetacommandBot running riot

Hello I would like to alert the wikipedia community that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) appears to have gone on a mess campaign to get every image licensed under the template {{logo}} deleted reguardless if they have a proper rationale or not. All the images are being tagged for deletion and when this happens the bot posts on the talkpages of articles in an intimidating matter saying in other words "The image will be deleted" basically, claiming that all Rationale's I think we can improve this bot because it just seems to be a nuisance. The sunder king 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of edits you think it's making incorrectly? --bainer (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images which have fair rationales as having no or incorrect rationales. The sunder king 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are looking for is a specific example or two. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit concerns me. The image is the standard resolution with a rationale and proper license, and the bot has threatened deletion on it. The sunder king 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the template, they fail WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's tagging images correctly to me. Image:Borough of Sunderland COA.png, Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, and Image:Nwlogo.gif...which you've recently removed the tag from...all have information lacking from their rationales. You've failed to include a link to the article it's being used in. --Onorem♠Dil 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

They are being used in articles, but please read Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg, it has a strong rationale. The sunder king 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From the tag, "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed."

I didn't say that they aren't being used in articles. A link to the article the image is being used in must be included in the fair use rationale. --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read and done that on the description pages. The sunder king 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If Betacommand would be more communicative (your reverts could have had something in the summary) this could have been resolved much sooner. —Random832 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest when you see the amount of complaints/requests on his talk page from people who haven't read the linked pages, you understand why he is now less communicative than before. We all have only 24 hours in our days. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Random. Orderinchaos 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if one finds that he doesn't have time to respond to major questions and complaints concerning his bot's behavior, he should decrease its activity to a more reasonable level. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is a simple matter of placing the article the picture is used in in the Fair Use rationale. If you do this, it should be okay. JuJube 16:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but couldn't BCBot be modified to insert the proper 10c article link rather than tag them for deletion on a technicality? Powers ^T 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that is not something a bot can do, how is it supposed to know where the current rationale is for? not all rationales are the same. β^_command 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, such logos are used on a single page. Powers ^T 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen images uploaded for page A and a rationale was written for page A, Image was placed on page B and later removed from page A. does that mean rationale A is valid for page B? (no) it requires human judgment. β^_command 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object to a bot inserting fair use rationales, that should never be done automatically, or what's the point in having a fair use rationale, anyway? How is the bot supposed to know if the article that the image is in, is actually being used under proper fair use considerations? Corvus cornix 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree, but in the case of logos it seems vanishingly unlikely. The vast, vast, vast majority of cases are blindingly obvious. Powers ^T 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? So, then you think there would be no problem with putting a TV network logo into every program shown on that network and letting the bot create the fair rationale in those cases? I would find the idea that a network's logo in a series or TV movie article would fail fair use usage. Corvus cornix 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here...

...Was not the bot, nor the user who undid the bot. The problem was two sterile reverts: [1] and [2] which restored the bot rationale warning tag without explaining why the tag had been placed.

All editors and administrators bear a responsibility for discussing issues which may come up. We accept bot actions within accepted ranges of activity as exceptions to that - the bot tagging here is appropriate. However, Betacommand manually reinserted the bot tag twice without so much as an edit summary or talk page comment to explain why the rationale that was there was not compliant with rationale requirements in the fair use policy.

I have warned Betacommand for sterile edit warring and failing to take reasonable efforts to inform and discuss and clarify policy when it was challenged. The bot was right; the tag was right; the rationale was deficient. Explaining why it was deficient was B's responsibility under the circumstances, however, and he didn't do that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm supposed to be on wikibreak and I'm getting emails and messages at my talk page from newbies concerned their images are being deleted (I'm sure I'm not alone amongst admins in getting these sorts of contacts) - they simply don't understand what they need to do to make them comply, and there is a general perception out there that the rules and goalposts keep moving, so if they fix it now, they'll have to fix it again in a few weeks or months. This is the main problem I have with this - for the sake of arbitrary correctness we are driving good contributors off the project out of sheer frustration. In cases where it simply points to a redirect or disambiguation instead of the final destination, the bot should fix it itself instead of mindlessly nominating for deletion. Orderinchaos 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That last biut seems kind of obvious to me... Viridae^Talk 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. It is understandable that a bot makes bot-like edits, but it is also reasonable to expect the operator of the bot to provide civil and helpful responses to good-faith queries. --John 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot follows redirects, as for DAB pages those are not valid. As for reverting, if a user actually read the notice, and the link that is provided they would know what the issue is. Instead the choose to undo or revert without fixing the issue that has been brought up. I just revert back. User who come to my talk page I try and help. β^_command 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. In particular, when applying arcane and often confusing policy to users who have little understanding of it, administrators and senior editors have a responsibility to proactively communicate in more detail to get the right message out. We cannot force the editor to listen and understand, but failing to make the effort to explain it to them adequately is assuming bad faith and unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. They should not have to come to your talk page to get an adequate explanation. If you revert, you owe them at least an edit summary that explains. You haven't been doing even that. Please take the time to help people. Assume good faith and explain it to them at least once, preferably at least twice if they don't get it the first time. WP:AGF and WP:BITE require that we treat them with respect and good faith efforts to communicate. The sterile reverts are as far away from that policy and underlying intended policy as you can get... Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

as for DAB pages those are not valid -- no, they're not valid, but what they are is automatically fixable. —Random832 21:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Worth considering (although tangential to GWH's post that began this thread) is that when one moves a page, a message appears to encourage one to do some housekeeping afterwards -- fix double redirects, etc. It might be useful to add a note to also verify that all non-free images in the article are also updated. -- llywrch 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be some MediaWiki text somewhere. If no-one responds here, raise it at the Village Pump (technical), and I'm sure someone will oblige with a link and maybe an edit. Carcharoth 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant page is MediaWiki:Movepage-moved. It already has this text. MER-C 10:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, since 17th September 2007. I'm sure I missed that on the 5 pages moves I've done since then. If I'm not the only one to find it easy to miss this, maybe make it more visible? Carcharoth 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

The tags added by BetacommandBot seemed to be valid, but users did not understand why the images were tagged. Perhaps BetacommandBot could be reprogrammed to write "rationale lacks information about which article the image is used in" in its messages instead of "bad rationale per NFCC#10c"? This is not the first time I see someone not understanding this message. Is he back? 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "bad rationale per NFCC#10c" may be linked, but it is still jargon and an example of using alphabet soup instead of explaining yourself clearly. Carcharoth 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with and support Betacommand's work, but it cannot be denied that this template needs some work to make it accessible to the average editor. No more bongos 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As a contrast, look at OrphanBot's {{no copyright holder}}. --Carnildo 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the amount of mopping up that has to be done after this bot goes through. For example. A vandal blanks a page (say a list of Simpsons characters) with 10 images on. The bot then runs through and puts an orphaned FU message on them. It takes 3 clicks to restore the blanked page but then users must go though every single image and remove the orphaned file template. If the images were put on by a now abandoned user nobody will be aware that they have orphaned tags on the and they risk being automatically deleted even though they are no longer orphaned. At the very least this bot should post an undo option on the talk page that originally contained the images so that users can simply remove the deletion warning tags without having to open up every single picture in turn.

I'm also concerned that this bot has no oversight. For example, when it comes to FU10C, how pages which actually say where they are posted, but not in a way that the bot can read (for example, a miss spelling or lacking a disambiguation), can be tagged. This bot needs to have a human at the helm. A human could see that an image is used on a single page but that it is misspelled or not disambiguated and they could add the link themselves. This would put the workload onto somebody who knows what they are doing and whom actually wants the workload, rather than on some poor user who doesn't fully understand what's happening or why.

Lastly, this bot doesn't give adequate provision for edits made by IP only users who don't have a talk page of their own or users who have left but whom have an active talk page that isn't checked by anybody. If one of these users adds several appropriate images but makes a small mistake in the rationale, nobody will ever know that they have been tagged or that they are about to be deleted. The bot should post a much clearer warning on the entry's talk page. What happens now is not sufficient.

perfectblue 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletions are done by humans. They should check for disambiguation pages and fix images needing only a simple correction. If they don't, please tell them to do so. Carcharoth 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In theory, they should... but when admins clear the backlogs (somewhat understandably) at rates close to 1 image per second, it's hard to have faith in the comprehensiveness of these checks. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of deleted images could have been fixed with the addition of a quick, perfunctory fair use rationale. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be time to do random checks of the deletion logs of those who clear CSD of images at bot-like speed and find out if anyone is actually deleting images that could have been fixed easily. By easily I mean only the addition of a backlink to the article the image is used in. Adding a rationale should be the job of the uploader. Adding a backlink to the image page is not intuitive, despite being clearly stated in the guidelines, because people may be looking at the automatically generated "file links" section and thinking the image page already links back to the article it is used in. Carcharoth 10:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to hazard a summary...

... of the rough consensus opinion on this recurring issue? Is it appropriate to tag articles like this which do not contain explicit links to the articles in which they are used, but from which a human could derive that information implicitly? Perhaps it is best that they not be tagged, but it is overall better to let the bot run anyway so that it can tag the other (maybe larger) group of images which do not implicitly or explicitly say where the image is to be used? This has come up quite a few times -- each ANI thread has a slightly different spin perhaps, but I think the similarities are quite substantial. Anyone care to attempt a neutral summary on what the general community opinion is? (Or are the issues too dissimilar?) — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I just changed the rationale and backlink for that image without spotting that a different "boilerplate" template had already been used. I looked only one diff ahead after the one you provided, and thought the editor was reverting the bot without realising what was happening. Pointless and sterile edit warring there, as GWH pointed out. Carcharoth 10:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) (aka Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)) is repeatedly disrupting XfD discussions relating to articles and categories in which he has a conflict of interest, despite the guidace at WP:COI to "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 2.Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors", which presumably also applies to autobiographical articles.

A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the most recent problems are with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers and with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the current AfD, Young has:

1. made one edit full of personal attacks, with lots of badly-formatted and barely-relevant links (it appears to be another block-copy-and-paste of a screen of google results) [3]
2. Accused me as nominator of having a COI becaise I nominated a related category [4]
3. chopped up and disrupted the nomination, leaving it unclear who wrote what [5]
4. abusively accuses another editor of "conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking" merely because they frequently comment on my talk page, calling this "a 'pissing contest'"[6]

Young also appears to contributing under an IP adress: [7].

It can often be useful to have the subject of an article comment at AfD, but this disruption is too much. I have restored my nomination, but please could someone try to apply some brakes here before this AfD becomes as much of a mess as the other XfDs where Young's COI has led him to post screenfuls of irrelevancies? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have tried discussing these problems with Young, both on his talk page and mine (see A, B B), including trying to discourage him from noting his canvassing, both in wikipedia and through his mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above user has conducted an unmitigated campaign that borders on abusive of the power and authority bestowed to a Wikipedia administrator. Questionable activities include:

A. Deleting relevant arguments

WP:AN on CfD disruption See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B. Using negative terms

C. Avoiding attempts at negotiation

D. Engaging in retributive AFD nominations

A check of the records will find that this originally started with Category:supercentenarian trackers AFD when the above user decided to delete pertinent material. I am a reasonable person but when someone begins making false accusations and then deleting the reponse, that has gone way, way too far.Ryoung122 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do read wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. BrownHairedGirl reverted your edit because the additions of your arguments made the AfD nomination unreadable. Interspersing your own comments between someone else's is bad enough in general Talk page usage (it's a lot like repeatedly interrupting someone while they're trying to speak) but to do so on an AfD nomination is worse. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, can you please provide diffs (Help: Diff) to substantiate your claims? Natalie 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have now had a further series of edits from Ryoung122 chopping up the nomination for a second time, and in this edit breaking indentation and introducing many paragraphs of material irrelevant to the AfD.

Two editors have taken some steps to tidy things a bit, but the discussion is still a huge big mess, and on past form will get worse if Young contributes again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is formatting, there is no issue. The issue is CONTENT. The content I added was highly appropriate. I merely documented the assertion that what I said about User:Aboutmovies was accurate: that he was the creator of the Mary Ramsey Wood page and therefore had a conflict of interest in this discussion, since he maintained that the woman was '120' years old, when research suggested she was around 97 or 98. User BHG claimed that some of the links didn't mention me, when in fact they did. Thus, in both cases the facts were on my side. The response, to delete them or 'claim' the issue is 'formatting', is a smokescreen.Ryoung122 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had a previous encounter with Ryoung122. I won't deny that he is knowledgable in his field, but the fact he acts as if his expertise excuses all incivil behavior on his part makes him a difficult case. He has been blocked once, & I wouldn't be surprised if he is blocked again, for a longer period. -- llywrch 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around. Some persons have made themselves into 'Wiki-stars' and have made process more important than 'content', making Wikipedia an end unto itself instead of the tool to arrive at the theoretical purpose, education of the public. I don't believe that 'uncivil behavior' should be excused. I do believe that persons who 'claim' someone else is being uncivil, OFTEN are being UNCIVIL themselves. For example,

How about THIS comment:

Comment. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe any of the claims made by Robert Young. In a comment above made from an IP address, Young says "there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet".

If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the typical, BAITING, FALSE comment that BHG has posted. When the facts were on my side, the response is now an appeal to emotion. I note that her track record isn't clean, either, with disputes such as on the Erdos numbers page and others asking her to tone things down a bit. Saying that "I have to seriously question whether anything (they) write can be trusted" is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, given that what I said was VERIFIABLE and FACTUAL. Deleting references that support my statements hardly constitutes a fair, balanced, or civil approach. If the arguments get heated, remember it takes both sides. Remember user BHG started it, by deleting appropriate comments on a CFD page. If one as the accuser claims something is not 'verifiable' then, at the least, one would expect that the 'defendant' could post evidence of verifiability. Deleting proof is simply muzzling free speech.Ryoung122 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that anyone has ever been "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", or even that such a position could exist. and the problem is that Robert does not seem to understand the sweeping nature of the claim being made. He probably intends to claim to that his role as a fact-checker for a popular publication is not limited to old people in any set of countries, but the inability to distinguish between the two is what leads me to query whether any of his claims is credible. This sort of hyperbole is one the things which fact-checkers should be rigorously hunting down, rather than employing it themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I'd like to note some items in your response. First, as Natalie asked above, please furnish diffs -- or at least links -- to the pages you refer. I have spent a couple hours trying to find any trace of this exchange where BHG acted inappropriately. (I assume you are referring to this talk page.)

Second, there is a very clear line between commenting on a person & commenting on their actions; sometimes it is easy to blur the line between them. However, BHG's comment you quote above can be read or seen as a comment on your actions: she is making an observation based on your claim that you are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Taken at face value, the words "in charge" imply that you are responsible for their welfare -- you make sure that these people get enough food, receive shelter, are attended to by a doctor, and so forth. While I know from other contexts that this is not what you meant -- IIRC, you are in charge of maintaining a list of these people -- rather than clarifying this statement, or explaining that you were quoted out of context, you respond with a strongly-worded paragraph with six words capitalized for emphasis! (Using capitalization for emphasis is not like adding hot peppers to salsa: using a little goes much further than a lot.)

This makes for very unpleasant reading, & I wonder whether you are aware of how intimidating your responses can be. And I speak from experience. The one time we crossed paths was at the article Katr67 refers to below. Looking back I'm amazed that although I was only marginally involved in that dispute, reading that conversation left me with an unpleasant impression of you. Every point you made could have been done with fewer words & far less emphasis. Have a look at the discussion at the link I made above, to the CfD on Erdos numbers: people were passionate, even angry, in that discussion, but I rarely saw anyone need to capitalize their words for emphasis.

All of this leaves me with an impression of a person who is given to making sweeping statements, & who responds to questions not with careful, rational arguments, but impassioned assertions accompanied by wild gestures. I don't think this impression is accurate -- seeing how you have a job that depends on meticulous work -- but it is very hard to reconcile these two. I believe this led to BHG to make her observation about you. Unless you change your style here on Wikipedia, more people will come to believe she is accurate. If that happens, they will act appropriately. -- llywrch 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that the conflict at the Mary Ramsey Wood article that Ryoung122 often brings up, (and in which he cited himself as source, which is what necessitated creating an article about himself) was not about whether she was 120 years old, a claim which nobody involved in the article was defending, it was about how to present the information that debunked the claim (which was made in 1908 and not by any of the involved authors, who were simply quoting cited sources). The article history and talk page gives the details of the mediation I requested by Trusilver, involving myself and Aboutmovies, with additional comments from Peteforsyth, who also made some attempts at mediation. I walked away from that article because of the relentless accusations of bad faith by Ryoung122, and I hesitate to comment here now because it's likely my comments will bring additional bad faith accusations, making my editing experience on Wikipedia stressful and unpleasant. If any editor previously uninvolved with the Wood article can point out how my actions there might be characterized as bad faith, however, I will certainly apologize to Ryoung122. Katr67 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what I saw on the talk page of that article it appeared that Young was attempting to brow beat anyone who didn't accept his word and opinions as irrefutable fact. Assuming good faith aside this guy seems to have a self-installed God complex. He appears to be rude, patronising and bullish. From what I saw you have no reason to apologise for anything. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since I’m apparently a topic of discussion, I’ll introduce my introduction to RY. After writing the aforementioned Mary Ramsey Wood article using reliable sources and no original research, I received this lovely message from RY accusing me of re-writing history. I replied to RY that he should really read the article and notice that it was sourced, so no I did not re-write history, I regurgitated it, otherwise that is a violation of original research. I and others then “battled” RY over his changes to the article, not because we cared how old she was, but as I think the talk page bears out, that it was about core Wikipedia policies of verfifiability and reliable sources (plus some WP:LEAD issues and undue weight thrown in for good measure). Instead of dealing with the issues in a civil, measured manner RY wanted to debate the whole age issue and god knows what else, when we just wanted sources per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A, and then presentation in line with the WP:MOS. That’s all. We said the age discrepancy should be included, but it needed sources. Then RY’s auto-biography gets nominated for AFD, and well yes I will comment on that AFD as anyone can. I didn’t stalk RY to find it, I just followed the link he inserted for the autobio in the Wood page. Low and behold it is an auto, and didn’t assert notability per notability guidelines. So yes, I will vote for delete every time in that case, as to me that is the only reason to delete an article (outside of legal issues with copyright). And my past AFD participation shows that is how I roll. Not notable with WP:RS that provide enough substantial coverage, delete. One article with substantial coverage is not enough for me. So when the article was back up for AFD, I reiterated that argument (of which BHG's looks similar to my breakdown of the sources provided). Now, had I actually had a vendetta, I could email the large number of editors RY has ticked off to inform them of the AFD so we could all dance on his grave and start an offical anti-RY cabal. Additionally, I would have also become involved and voted for deletion of the category partially at issue. Then I would have gone around nominating all the other articles for AFD that RY has started. But I didn’t, and I would not. I have not with this or any other editors. I have several “enemies” if you will on Wikipedia that piss me off far more than RY, and I don’t go around nominating their articles for AFD or vote in AFD debates about articles they are involved in. Tempting as that may be, it is not inline with Wikipedia guidelines/policies and that is what is important to me, hence the strong policy based arguments (not random collateral issues like the meaning of the Wiki or Universe) I make whether it is in AFD, CFD, or just in general on talk pages like the Wood article or more recently on this article. This is not about RY, its about Wikipedia, despite rantings to the contrary. I will NOW TYPE in caps for emphasis, that makes my argument better. Oh wait, where’s the bolding and italics? Aboutmovies 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More canvassing by Ryoung122

Just as he did at a recent CfD, Ryoung122 has now done some stealth canvassing of the AfD on his autobiography: see http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9032

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now. Carcharoth 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122: more canvassing and a sockpuppet

In addition to the self-promotional disruption, Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has acknowledged creating a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122). To add to the stealth canvassing ([8]) he has also engaged in extensive partisan canvassing on wikipedia: the AFD on his autobiography (see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), to which he has now posted over 4,000 words. He also been engaging on in more stealth canvssing off wikipedia, through his yahoogroups mailing list: [20], [21], [22]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've looked at the language he uses around the place - he's being pretty savage to people who don't support his "supercentenarian" neologism, falling into the classic trap of believing that not accepting the label implies disrespect to those so labelled. He's also quite blatantly engaged in sockpuppetry, vote stacking, and our od favourite vanispamcruftisement. I think he needs to clean up his act or get out of town, but he's unlikely to calm down while the deletion debates are underway since xFD is pretty brutal. What say we suggest a brief Wikibreak? Guy (Help!) 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note I did NOT use any 'sockpuppets' to 'VOTE' in any AFD debate. I did nominate the Keeley Dorsey article for deletion, which was withdrawn due to a formatting error (I haven't figured out how to create a 'second nomination' yet). The second ID was created with the first! What, that isn't obvious? Just the way that I suspect that User:Guy was once Just ziz Guy, You Know? Is that you?

How about this:

You claim the word 'supercentenarian' is a 'neologism', yet the only 'neologistic' aspect about it is that in the 1950's and 1970's it was hyphenated as 'super-centenarian'...and in the 1870's the term used was 'ultra-centenarian'. Thus, both the concept and the word are NOT new. This is just one of the many, many inconsistencies that others have not admitted to. Compromise and consensus-building must come out of not merely 'assuming good faith' but listening to what the other side has to say. I categorically deny 'vanispamcruft' on the grounds that there is no financial interest or .com link being used; all material is non-profit and scientifically oriented, save Guinness World Records, which in that case hardly needs mentioning as a COI since every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'

So, I ask: your NOT accepting that the word 'supercentenarian' existed before I came along, what does that mean? How can I assume good faith if others are resistant to even the facts? And while a Wikibreak seems like a good idea for everyone involved, continued tagging of articles like Habib Miyan (not created by myself) or A Ross Eckler Jr (not created by myself) is simply giving me 'more work to do' at the same time there are quite a few others. A non-Wikipedian e-mailed me that what is going on appears to be like Sherman's "March to the Sea." Consideration and rules-following must be in both directions. Both BHG and KittyBrewster have, at the very least, themselves engaged in questionable activity including COI nominations, name-calling, deletion of relevant material or crumpling into infoboxes, votestacking, canvassing, etc. Of course it's not called that when someone like them does it. But that's what it is, and the IP addresses show it.Ryoung122 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, no wikikipeda notability guideline says that "every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'" The fact that you claim this suggests that you either haven't read the guidelines or that you pay them no attention.

As to your counter-allegations I have not canvassed anyone, I have not votestacked, I have not offered opinions on the XfDs other than at the XfD pages or when Robert and others have posted to my talk page, and I have no interest in these issues for there to be a conflict, as Robert would be aware of if he read WP:COI. If he has any evidence of any of these things, then he should post the diffs here, and if he he doesn't have the evidence then stop making accusations.

Meanwhile, I'm puzzled by the remarkably limited response to the evidence of disruption and votestacking which has been posted here. Should Robert and others conclude from this that such widespread canvassing, self-promotion and disruption of XfDs is acceptable, or at least sufficiently tolerated to be indulged in without being restrained? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• When the hell is some admin going to sort out the disruptive behaviour of Ryoung122? It's bad enough his overt and OTT canvassing for his autobio's AfD but when he starts resorting to canvassing other editors to help get an administrator blocked for trying to keep his behaviour in check, then that's well over the line. This guy needs cutting off at the knees before he does any more damage. So who's up for it? The evidence is overwhelming, c'mon, enough is enough now. ---- WebHamster 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. For the past few days Ryoung122 has been running a campaign of harassment, bullying and intimidation directed against BrownHairedGirl and anyone else who has supported Delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Now he proposes on Carcharoth's talk page that BrownHairedGirl whose conduct has been unimpeachable throughout these constant attacks be blocked. Let’s have some action now please admins, as WebHampster points out, the evidence against Ryoung122 is overwhelming. - Galloglass 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ryoung122 appears now to have brought his harassment to this notice board. See below for his latest attack on BrownHairedGirl. Past time something was done about this. - Galloglass 13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This kind of behaviour is wholly unacceptable. It's disrupting the encyclopedia. My reasons are outlined in the block log, of which generally they are "Attempting to harass other users: Disruptive editing, pushing POV, repeatatly inserting unverifiable information", as well as (omitted in the reason), abusing multiple accounts. Now, hopefully, we can get on with doing something more constructive than pasting hundreds of diffs on AN/I about a disruptive user. Like writing a neutral, verifiable, stable, well-written article. I have a few of them that I'm itching to write, and I intend to do so. Maxim 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, removal of sourced material, POV-pushing, personal attack

Resolved

 – content dispute --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has removed sourced material from Neo-Nazism and National Socialist Front, in an effort to push an uncited point of view. I have made comprimises and searched out several references to back up the facts in those articles, but EliasAlucard continues to revert my constructive and referenced edits. He has also made at least one unwarranted personal attack against me in an edit note in the neo-Nazism article, and has used caps in edit notes (aka yelling). He was also recently edit warring to change the capitalization in the titles of Anti-fascism and Anti-communism; without justification, against standard capitalization guidelines, and against the consensus on Wikipedia for articles about isms (although he seems to have backed down from that).Spylab 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Spylab here is misrepresenting me. His sources don't claim that National Socialist Front has as its ideology, "Neo-Nazism". They call it a Neo-Nazi organisation/group, which is what it is, but they do not label its ideology as "Neo-Nazi". Second of all, Neo-Nazism, is not a unique ideology in itself, it's a political movement seeking to revive an ideology, namely, Nazism. This is even confirmed by User:Spylab's sources. About his sources, I didn't remove them, I bundled them together into one cohesive source. And as for his personal attack claim, I remarked: it seems you have a reading disorder or something; all of your sources confirm that "Neo-Nazism" is a political movement trying to revive Nazism; and Nazism is an ideology.[23] Why? because his sources, don't say once that Neo-Nazism is a unique ideology that differs from the original Nazism, they all say it's a political movement. This is hardly POV-pushing. I have been accused of vandalism by this user, and that can certainly lead to a block on his part for accusing me of vandalism over a content-dispute. What's more, is that he has been reverted by me and another user over his failure to understand that Neo-Nazi groups do not have an ideology called "Neo-Nazism", and he should be blocked for at least 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:17 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:Slarre reverted Spylab's edit by pointing out that his sources don't support his preferred version.[24] It seems to me, Spylab lacks a lot of knowledge on Nazism and he misinterprets his own sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:32 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

• My footnotes, do in fact, back up my edits. That is why I chose those references. That can be confirmed by clicking on those references and using control-F (or find) to find the appropriate text.Spylab 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The following references call neo-Nazism an ideology, not just a movement:

• "Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology..."
• "Neo-Nazism: An ideology which draws upon the legacy of the Nazi Third Reich..."
• "Where parents and teachers have fallen short of educating German children about the horrors of their past, as well as the dangers that come with allowing neo-Nazism to continue, the promoters of neo-Nazi ideology and organizations have been able to make inroads."
• "...the ideology of neo-Nazism is secondary to the cult of the music itself." I removed one reference that did not call neo-Nazism an ideology, but those four references clearly refer to neo-Nazism as an ideology.Spylab 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the place to discuss this. This is a content dispute, not about vandalism or anything else. You should stop pasting your refs here and let us discuss it where it belongs. For the record, your refs are all wrong and not academic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:12 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with the above. WP:ANI is not the place for content disputes; try dispute resolution. --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a simple content dispute at all, especially since part of the problem is incivility in edit notes and talk pages (not just the single personal attack you linked to), and the unwillingness to comprimise. As for the content dispute itself, I have provided several references, and you have dismissed them all out of hand, and haven't provided any references proving that neo-Nazism is not an ideology. We are just supposed to take your uncited personal opinion as fact. Here is a list of 15 more references. That makes a total of 19 references explicitly describing neo-Nazism as an ideology vs zero references attempting to disprove that fact.Spylab 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been very unwilling yourself to compromise, especially with your reverts. You should be glad I haven't reported you for violating 3RR. There's no need to compromise with you when you are entirely wrong about the facts and misinterpret vague descriptions of your sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:20 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I have comprimised many times, by combining the two versions and providing multiple references to back up the facts. You have reverted to versions that are not backed up by anything other than your own personal opinion. You may have also violated 3RR, but I'm not petty enough to check.Spylab 15:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved at all; not just a content dispute

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has continued to make uncivil and insulting comments in edit notes and talk pages, and has continued to blank out factual content backed up by multiple references; with no justification other than his own uncited personal opinion. He even admitted on Talk:Neo-Nazism that my references do in fact, back up what I have been stating all along, but still blanked out that content for no legitimate reason.Spylab 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note two other users have reverted Spylab's edit over his obvious failure to understand what we are trying to explain to him.[25][26] He has also accused me of vandalism over this content dispute several times, and that certainly can lead to a block. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:05 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Note I have requested this page to be fully protected until disputes are resolved. --Strothra 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to call Spylab to

a) avoid making false accsations ('vandalism', 'POV-pushing', 'uncivil and insulting comments')

b) avoid threats ( '... you will be blocked ...' who is going to block EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)??? you??)

c) accept discussion seriously, by respecting opposite side and by elaborating and supporting his own claims with serious references

If Spylab refuses to accept and follow serious discussion - we shall count this case closed, unblock the article, and prevent Spylab from further changes of the text the way he (or she?) practicised. --Smerdyakoff 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation

TDC (talk · contribs) and Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on this articles (as well as on come others, such as Mark Lane, for quite some time (a look through the history should show this without too much trouble). They were once the subject of an ArbCom case a couple years ago (note this Checkuser case that links Xenophrenic to the anonymous editor in the case). It seems to me that this edit warring has gone on for far too long and that we should seek either community sanctions for both editors or another trip to ArbCom. As far as I can tell, both editors are equally responsible here, so I would pursue equal sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been half-heartedly working on VVAW, but I've seen them tangling elsewhere. I suggest 1RR per day on Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Winter Soldier Investigation, and Mark Lane (author). Xenophrenic denies he's the IP from the previous ArbCom case, but a) I don't believe him, and b) there has been enough edit-warring from his account to justify a 1RR limitation (ArbCom is now calling this "editing restriction" instead of probation). TDC's long block log and Xenophrenic's lack of any real editing history outside those three articles lead me to support such a restriction now, though it would appear premature under different circumstances.--chaser - t 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, concerning Xenophrenic's denials: The checkuser evidence supports that he is the same as the IP, combined with the fact that he shares the same MO (i.e., edit warring with TDC over this and related articles). I do believe I hear quacking. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may respond to the above comments: Heimstern observes that "this edit warring has gone on for far too long." In my opinion, any length of edit warring is already too much. Once an editing conflict is discovered, it should be discussed until the conflict is resolved, before editing continues. I try to let this philosophy guide my editing, but sometimes it is impossible when some parties to the conflict refuse to discuss the conflict. Heimstern suggests community sanctions or ArbCom? It would definitely end up in ArbCom, especially with Administrators making noises like Chaser saying he doesn't believe my denial that I was party to a previous ArbCom; Blacketer saying he thinks I am Reddi; Heimstern misrepresenting a CheckUser result by saying it links Xenophrenic to an anonymous editor, when it does not; MONGO saying Xenophrenic is using multiple accounts. All a bunch of cow dump.

Chaser, your suggestion to reduce the 3RR to 1RR (or expand it to 7RR, for that matter) fails to address the problem. Moving the "electric fence" doesn't mean some editors aren't still going to proceed right up to it, repeatedly, day after day, where ever you happen to place it. Why not address the conflict instead? I've tangled with you about as long as I've tangled with TDC, and on much of the same editing. I don't recall ever edit warring with you. Why is that? Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't address the problem; it reduces the resources we must sink into stopping the edit-warring. Dispute resolution is the way to resolve content disputes. Anyway, in Xenophrenic's case, he abuses 3RR as an electric fence, going right up to the limit (see [27] and the current history of Winter Soldier Investigation). TDC goes over and gets blocked.--chaser - t 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, please. Can we not take things out of context? The link you provided does show Blacketer cautioning me that I've reverted three times, but what you fail to mention is that I contacted him and asked for his guidance. Instead of "abusing 3RR," and just mindlessly reverting whenever "legally" allowed to, I sought 3rd-party assistance to resolve the issue. Following Blacketer's advice, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," so I made the reverts. Now look at the current Winter Soldier Investigation history that you mention, and the talk page. (Since this ANI was posted, TDC has now started to discuss his reverted edits! Xenophrenic 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) TDC deleted text about Winterfilm Collective, and a wikilink to same. No explanation. TDC inserted false text about Cannes Film Festival, and a web link that counters, rather than supports, his edit. I raised these issues on the talk page and didn't receive a reply, so I reverted. The 3RR rule exists, so I follow it. There is also a rule against edit warring, and I follow that, too. This rule in a nutshell: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions. It takes two or more to have a discussion, and I am always there. Your statement that "Xenophrenic abuses the 3RR as an electric fence" is unfounded. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A few things, you only contacted 15:11 October 11Sam after he warned you15:17, October 11, and then you responded to him by saying another "too busy to check" admin breezes through. Secondly, you never sought any assistance to resolve the issue. As it turns out, the information was not "false" as the several links inserted in talk bear out. You continual denial of what is obvious to everyone here will make you aware of the old saying "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice attempt, TDC, but all of the edits are recorded in the history. I was commenting on a Diff provided by Chaser above, not on the ones you are slyly trying to substitute here. You can save the personal attacks. Xenophrenic 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum...there is no excuse for 3RR violation, but indeed, TDC appears to have been outnumbered due to, so not sure an "equal" block is fair. Xenophrenic is using multiple accounts (including his IP to evade 3RR) afterall.--MONGO 09:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean tag-teaming? There's never been overlap between relevant IP edits and Xenophrenic.--chaser - t 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--MONGO 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200#How about a little more info? which relates what happened to a previous 3RR report when I tried to give Xenophrenic guidance on how to avoid revert warring. He did deny being Reddi but I also think he is. I felt that Xenophrenic was trying to spin out discussion of what he knew to be unacceptable. Sam Blacketer 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO: I'm not so sure "equal" sanctions are fair. I have never broken the 3RR rule; TDC jumps that fence regularily, even today on the Depleted Uranium article. I have productive editing collaboration with other editors, where TDC prefers to endlessly revert the very same content. TDC tries to outnumber editors, instead of rely on good editing practices, afterall. Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As you may or may not known that article has also been subject to massive edit warring by another banned user and his dozens of sockpuupets. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I do not know the history of that article. All I saw was you reverting repeatedly, beyond 3RR, while claiming various editors were sockpuppets. I also saw administrators saying they disagreed with you, and warned you to cease casting accusations ... it all just sounded so familiar, so I commented. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would one of you brave souls spend five minutes and take a look at TDC's most recent edit and explain it to me? It's not long. He deleted a couple sentences and citations, and sticks in the word "allegations" here and there. Oh, and he added a line saying a film debuted at the Cannes Film Festival when it didn't. Someone explain that brief edit to me, please. Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that I stepped into this one without adequately reviewing the history. I'm going to unblock for now until this is sorted out. Ronnotel 12:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me state that I truly do not believe that I was in violation of 3RR, as I don not believe that the first edit was a reversion. As something that I have been chastised for on numerous occasions, I am very careful to explain revisions if required and not to cross the threshold.

Now onto the other things. From the checkuser checkuser and Xenophremic's behavior and particular focus on Wikipedia, I think its rather obvious that he was the IP user who was involved in the same Arbcom case as I was over the Winter Soldier article. Its difficult to surmise the depth and extent of his article ownership tendencies and edit warring habits, as the IP address was dynamic, and not easy to keep tabs on, bet believe me it was extensive, and involved at least a dozen other editors.

Article that Xenophrenic has been edit warring on include, but are not limited to the following: Mark Lane (Author), Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Winter Soldier Investigation, Fulbright Hearing, Going Upriver, Russell Tribunal, List of Vietnam War veterans, Al Hubbard (VVAW), and Massacre at Hue. I would also like to point out that I am not the only individual Xenophrenic has engaged in long and pointless edit wars with, there have been at least a dozen other editor that he has done this to.

Even editors whose only involvement was the removal of mass quantities of copy written material (this point is very well documented) were edit warred with, called names, and they eventually gave up.

It should also be evident that Xenophrenic has another account on Wikipedia, as the user account of Xenophrenic is always able to revert an edit he disagrees with within several hours of that edit being made, regardless of the accounts activity. That can only mean that either Xenophrenic goes to Wikipedia every few hours without making any edits (which would be rather odd) or he edits under another account and switches when he wants to assume the role of his sockpuupet. For example, the recent editing over at the Winter soldier article, Xenophrenic remained inactive from October 22nd until my first edit on the article, where he proceeded to RV it in less than a day. He admitted to as much a while back on one of the talk pages:

“my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required.(UTC)”

[28]

How anyone can deal with an editor like this and WP:AGF is beyond me. I have tried RfC on content, Arbitration and mediations, taken advice from Chaser and left certain things to work themselves out ... but nothing seems to make a difference. I know my behavior here has not always been appropriate, but I have never used sockpuppets to evade bans or deceptively edit articles.

There is a lot more to this story, and I am glad it is coming to a head. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) )

“RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)”

[29]

I filled in the quote above provided by TDC, that he attributes to me, and added the real signatory. Strange that TDC deleted from this page my first attempt to display this unparsed version. It was posted by an earthlink IP user calling himself Rob, apparently a Robert Morrison by the looks of other edits here and off-wiki sites. Other users also commented on that same archived page:

Apology accepted, and no - that is not one of my edits. Looks like one of Rob's, or one of the Poli-Sci students editing that mess during the election season. 165.247.213.43 04:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. As I mentioned above I assumed you were the anon who initially inserted this copvio (you both have EarthLink ip's)--Duk 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I share a service provider with some editors, and I share some disagreements with TDC, but not much more in common. I don't have sockpuppets, sorry. I don't have tag-team partners. My name isn't Rob, or Morrison, or Redding and I'm not a political science student. There is nothing "odd" about me noticing edits to articles I have taken an interest in, some are on my watch list. I also spend most of my work day, and much of my leisure time, at my computer. You will have to find your conspiracies elsewhere. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, but after dealing with you on talk for a while, user:Duk changed his opion of you a bit.

I guess that's the joy of editing behind anon ip's. You can deny you were the initial ip that installed this copyvio and beat your breast in righteousness over being falsely accused. While continuing to reinstate copied paragraphs that other people wrote, and which you modified slightly, over and over again. But what really matters is that the whole article is now a copyvio. --Duk 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you cannot get away from the fact that all of this is saved for review. Anyone checking your blockquote can quickly tell that Duk was speaking to User:165.247.202.83, not me. Xenophrenic 02:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And everyone here would seem to concur that Xenophrenic=Anon editor in question. And for those who were curious, your copyvio seems to have carried over to yuor new account as well [30].Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided show your copyvio issue, TDC. Would you care to explain what you mean here in more detail? Xenophrenic 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Both users in question seem to have forgotten that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Who has or has not crossed the arbitrary threshold of three reverts per 24 hours is simply irrelevant. What matters is that both sides are edit warring. Both the three-revert rule policy page and the more important one, the policy on edit warring, make this clear. It is time for the community to put a stop to this. A 1RR restriction would be one way to attempt this, and I would support it for now. If that does not solve the problem for either or both editor(s), we can seek a ban for the one(s) in question. Does the community agree that such a restriction is a good idea? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to a 1RR restriction on the effected articles, but only if Xenophremic’s 3 year edit warring is put to an end, and his master account is revealed. Otherwise, I would like to see him banned from the above mentioned articles permanently. He has not even waited for the resolution of this ANI discussion to make his Rv to the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TDC, you are already restricted to one revert per article per day. If you have a problem with other editors, suggest you try RFC or Arbitration. Thatcher131 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) My bad, it expired. However, renewed edit warring on this article is not promising, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter Soldier. Thatcher131 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As you know both have been tried (including mediation), with little to show for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried mediation with TDC twice, on the Mark Lane (author) and VVAW articles, with success to show for it. Xenophrenic 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I could demonstrate that Xenophrenic had edit warred with other users, other than myself, would that demonstrate that he might be more culpable in this dispute than I am? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the easy solution to this edit war found in:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement and
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Edit_this_section_for_new_requests

After months of edit warring, I was the editor who called the Arbcom in 2005. If the behavior is the same as it was in 2005 (and it sounds like it is--though I maybe wrong) I think both editors are too blame for the edit war. Travb (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the remedies from that case are now expired, so we'd have to have a new one for there to be any more effect. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would accept a community decision, Arbitration can take months. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been little discussion here of how to solve this problem; rather we simply discuss the problem itself and the solutions that haven't worked. I ask the community again: Shall we impose a 1RR restriction on both of these editors, or is there another solution we would prefer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement is still valid. The one year revert ban has expired, but the Ban violations and Parole violations have not expired. I would suggest asking an arbcom. Maybe I can. User:Xenophrenic seems interested in a new arbcom, I am strongly encouraging him to take a community decision, as TDC has offered. User:Xenophrenic also keeps refering to the anon in the third person. Travb (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep referring to that anon in the 3rd person? Go figure. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true, that proposed enforcement has no expiry given; however, there is no proposed remedy to go with it (the proposals in question did not pass the vote), so I believe it was determined to be a meaningless enforcement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am with you, Heimstern, in seeking a real solution. Previously, you said,

"Who has or has not crossed the arbitrary threshold of three reverts per 24 hours is simply irrelevant. What matters is that both sides are edit warring. Both the three-revert rule policy page and the more important one, the policy on edit warring, make this clear."

I agree. The number of reverts allowed is arbitrary, and irrelevent to the real problem: edit warring. What confuses me is that you immediately followed that observation with a proposal to change the irrelevant threshold from one arbitrary number to another arbitrary number, as if that would solve something? As I said before, that sounds like an attempt at punitive action instead of a solution. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing you're exactly right about, Travb, is that Xenophrenic and TDC most certainly should seek a community sanction rather than arbitration. Given how long this edit war has continued, it's very possible they will face harsh sanctions if ArbCom does become involved. If no community-based sanction can be reached, I will bring this matter to the committee (barring someone convincing me not to, of course), so I suggest both editors agree to a community-based sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion received, but I must pass. Please don't misunderstand me, if you feel punitive sanctions are warranted, like changing an arbitrary number from 3 to 1, then please do and I will abide. You are in effect saying, "There now TDC, you will only have to visit that article 1 time per day, instead of 3 times per day, to carry on your edit war. Let that be a lesson to you." I will still, however, be seeking a solution to this problem -- an actual working resolution. So far, ArbCom, along with thorough investigation, seems the only way to accomplish that. Your comments about harsh sanctions through ArbCom give me hope, since previous sanctions do not appear to have had the desired effect. He is still at it years later. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind a one-revert parole is that it makes it extremely difficult to edit war. Once you've made your one revert per day, you're required to discuss it as part of the parole, and can make no further reverts. Ideally, the user will realize the need for discussion. If not, the parole also allows administrators to more readily block the offender and thus prevent the edit warring. That is why 1RR has, at least, the potential to be an effective sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So the two benefits of the one-revert parole are easier blocking by Admins, and required discussion. I don't give much weight to the easier blocking benefit, as I've been told that an Admin can block an editor at the first sign of edit warring, whether there has been 10 reverts or even just 1, with equal ease. The required discussion thing, however, is an actual benefit. Based on my experience with TDC on the three articles we have both edited, I have my concerns about the simple way you have described the sanction. The sanction is too easily gamed, and can be wiki-lawyered around. Let me describe some past situations...

• He "discussed" his revert, but not to the point of resolution. Instead, he refuses further discussion and just reverts some more.
• Or he stalls the discussions with an insincere statement like, "I will photocopy Stacewicz, and upload it for all to evaluate" while he continues to revert for days. (The source didn't even exist.)
• Or most recently on the WSI article, he repeatedly reverts while discussing just one small segment of the edits contained in his reverts.
• Or he follows me to another article (Mark Lane (author)) and picks up edit warring with me there, no longer restricted by the one-revert sanction.

Maybe redefine the sanction to include, "...always discuss reversions, until fully resolved to both party's satisfaction even if Dispute Resolution needs to be used, before making another revert; applies to all articles..." I'm still not convinced it would be an effective sanction, even though I could really get behind the must discuss reverts stipulation. In fact, as a show of good faith, as of now I voluntarily submit to the following requirement: I will not implement a revert, on any article, without also discussing that revert on the appropriate talk page. This applies to any revert, even of simple vandalism, no exceptions. This requirement is for an indefinite duration, and violation of this requirement will carry a penalty of a 1 week block.

It isn't an imposition, since I already discuss the majority of the reverts I make. I'll remain under this requirement independently of whatever other course of action we decide to take here. I'll put a similar statement on my user page so those communicating with me will be more readily aware of this requirement. Xenophrenic 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for ArbCom: We could go there now, if you so chose. Nothing prevents you from making a request at Requests for Arbitration now. But I would advise against it. When I referred to harsh sanctions, I did not mean for TDC alone, but for both of you. I'm not an arbitrator, so it's no decision of mine, but I suspect that you, too, would be sanctioned. So here's the question: should we go to ArbCom, or should we mutually agree to restrict you both to one revert per day and to always discuss reversions? Or is there another solution we should consider? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your advice against an ArbCom, but we are looking at it from two different perspectives. You are trying to resolve an edit war between two editors of the WSI article. My perspective covers the interaction with this individual over several articles, edit warring and tendentious editing, deceptive editing practices, harassment and personal attacks since I started editing here. I am confident enough in my editing practices and history, good intentions and respect for the project to go before an ArbCom with my grievances. You are looking for a bandaid while I am seeking a cure. Are there any other solutions that can be considered? Xenophrenic 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with sanctioning the both of us equally is simple, Xenophrenic is a sockpuupet of another user, and as such his primary account and all of his other sockpuupet accounts (if they exist) will not be affected. If Xenophrenic would voluntarily reveal his main account, I would agree to equal sanctioning, unless for some reason his behavior in his main accounts calls for something else.

As for community based sanctioning, I would be willing to submit to the following community sanctions without objection.

1. An edit ban for myself and Xenophrenic (with an expiration date based on demonstrated good behavior) on the effected articles, if another editor(s) will spend some quality time remedying the sourcing, POV, and longstanding Copyvio/plagarism issues present in them.
2. An unconditional 1RV limit on these article (with discussion of all edits) if Xenophrenic is banned from editing them.
3. A general 1RV limit on any article (with discussion of all edits and an expiration date based on demonstrated good behavior), if Xenophrenic and his future manifestations are banned.

I feel that considering Xenophremic’s conduct, article ownership, personal attacks on other editors, sockpuupet (which even after the overwhelming consensus here he still refuses to admit to), the above three are more than equitable. Sockpuppetry is one of the most damaging issues here at Wikipedia, and to not factor this into any community based decision will only encourage it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you accused myself and Starkrm - falsely - of being sock-puppets, (violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in the process, imho) the standard procedure for reporting suspected sockpuppets worked pretty efficiently at showing you to be in error. Perhaps you should use that procedure in this case as well. Dlabtot 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So TDC has a history of making false accusations of sockpuppetry? Making a wild leap here; did you, Dlabtot or Starkrm, make edits on his article that disagreed with TDC's edits? Let me take another wild guess; did TDC's accusations try to associate you with another editor that was Banned or under other sanctions? He has done the same thing with me. I see the pattern now:

• TDC sees edits to his article that disagree with him, so
• TDC alleges sockpuppetry link to a sanctioned user, and demands enforcement,
• The effort fails; the CheckUser doesn't confirm the link, and the user isn't even sanctioned after all.
• TDC looks around for another sanctioned user and casts his accusations again.
• The effort fails; the CheckUser doesn't confirm the link, and TDC is urged to try Dispute Resolution.
• Since WP:DR usually leaves TDC "with little to show for it", he choses to continue to attack. He creates an attack page containing insults and offering monetary rewards to Wikipedians that provide him with more fodder for his accusation tirade. Several Administrators immediately admonish TDC and speedy-delete his creation.
• Now he is on this AN/I page continuing his attacks. I must have other main accounts, he says. I must have sockpuppets, he says. His reasoning: It would be "odd" if I didn't. Odd indeed. Xenophrenic 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Checkuser confirmed that you were likely the user in questions, so you wrong there. Nearly every other editor here believes you are the user in questions, so you are wrong there, and at least one other editor here also thinks you might be Reddi, so on that too you are wrong. There is really no point in continuing this line of debate with you, except that you continue to dig into an obviously transparent fallacy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragging other issues into this thread is not helpful. This was originally about a 1rr editing restriction and has turned into the airing of lots of old grievances by people other than the two this thread is about. Please stop it.--chaser - t 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is an airing of an 'old greivance'. Rather, I was firstly trying to suggest that throwing out accusations instead of following procedures is not helpful. And further, I am trying to get some help in working with User:TDC, which has been difficult. I would refer you to recent edits to Gulf War Syndrome and it's associated talk page. After he and I engaged in some edit warring on Depleted Uranium, I've pursued an approach of, rather than reverting, discussing. But I might as well have saved myself the effort. User:TDC seems unwilling to compromise or work towards consensus. He also seems to be unnaturally fixated on a past dispute he had with some other editor. If you still think it is inappropriate for me to post here, I would appreciate suggestions as to how I should proceed. Dlabtot 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sides in this dispute seem convinced the other is more guilty than they. This makes for a difficult situation in terms of finding a proper sanction. This suggests to me we may need a visit to ArbCom. But first, I have decided to ask another editor with much experience in community sanctions to weigh in here. If she's willing to, we'll see what happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While there may be two sides here, comparing these two sides reminds me of a cartoon that used to be linked over at WP:NPOV [31]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I'd guess? I think there's generalized support for a 1RR (outsiders and TDC mostly in favor, Xenophrenic seemingly warming to the idea, the recent message on my talk page notwithstanding). A third way might be for ArbCom to renew the editing restriction from the prior case and expand it to the other articles I mentioned above. Perhaps this other editor can comment on that.--chaser - t 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem with your "third way" suggestion is that renewal of those sanctions will affect TDC and not me, and I don't think that will sit well with TDC. He says there are people that believe I am an IP-user from that ArbCom, and I say there are people that believe I am not. He says there are people that believe I am User:Reddi, and I say there are people that believe I am not. All irrelevant beliefs aside, the fact is I am not any of those editors, and I will not be saddled with the baggage of those editors. Any ArbCom dealing with the edit warring issues here is going to have to address these frivolous charges, resolve them, and get them out of the way before we get to the nitty-gritty of the real problem here. Warm up to that, please. Xenophrenic 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The complexity of this situation, especially given the allegations and denials involved here, have made this a particularly complex situation, and I suspect it is too complex for the community to handle. Therefore, I have initiated a request for arbitration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over legal action in the US chess community. (User:Sam Sloan et. al.)

I have a concern regarding Sam Sloan (talk · contribs). He has filed a lawsuit against various officials of the United States Chess Federation. The list of defendents looks like the list of candidates for the USCF board plus the USCF itself, including Susan Polgar and Paul Truong and also User:Billbrock. The lawsuit has been posted prominently on Sloan's personal webpage ([32]) and the entire text of the lawsuit is available there. One will note that the Wikipedia involvement is mentioned in the suit.

Note that User:Sam Sloan has mentioned the lawsuits in the articles of Susan Polgar (diff) and Paul Truong (diff).

I do not know if the suit has any merit, and that issue is definitely for the court, and not the Wikipedia community to decide. However, I feel that the Wikipedia community can take a stance on the involved parties' editing priveleges while the lawsuit is being processed. I feel that involvement of this nature at this time brings up all sorts of conflict of interest issues, and possibly WP:NLT concerns as well, and would appreciate any administrator attention to the subject.

I will add the following notes regarding myself:

1. I am a member of the United States Chess Federation, but a passive one since I have not played in any USCF sanctioned tournaments, hold no positions of trust within the organization, have not voted for any board members (foreign members cannot vote), and I purchased the membership solely in order for the Chess Life subscription and access to "members only" areas of the USCF website. My active chess association membership is with the Norwegian chess association, an association Sloan is not affiliated with. I am not among the people Sloan has cited in his lawsuit.
2. My interactions with Sloan have been purely on-wiki. I think I spoke against Sloan on an ArbCom request he filed against User:JzG (case was rejected), and voted to endorse the deletion of one of his articles on DRV. I voted to "keep" the BLP Sam Sloan on an AFD once.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I echo Sjakkale's concerns. Sloan is and always has been completely unable to check his biases at the door, many of his edits have a blatant conflict of interest. He has also stated on Usenet that he will repost articles deleted by AfD, and has done so, and has personalised matters when they are deleted again. The lawsuit also involves individuals who edit Wikipedia. I cannot tell whether his contributions to chess articles outweigh the problems he causes, what is certain in my mind is that his edits to articles on people against whom he has an off-wiki vendetta need to stop. And actually I have serious questions in my mind whether Sloan is capable, in his own mind, of separating his opinion from objective truth. Here's an example of the kind of thing that's being directed against Polgar: [33]. It's almost as if a Certain Website were involved... Guy (Help!) 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  "...a Certain Website..." That would be Wikipedia Review, wouldn't it? LessHeard vanU 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For Sam I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#User:Sam Sloan as prior AN or AN/I discussion. (There is also one complaint that received zero response and a complaint about someone with a username impersonating this user.) Sam Sloan attempted to file an ArbComm case against Guy at one point; it never opened and I haven't dug into the history of why it was rejected. (Being completely ridiculous would have been an appropriate reason for rejection, from what I can see.) There are about a dozen bot produced subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam that I don't grok how to parse.

For Billrock I don't find prior AN or AN/I discussion. There are a pair of those bot produced subpages that I don't grok.

My impression is that we need to watch this. Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest are obviously relevant policy. I note that the particular diffs aren't obviously troubling - linking her blog responses is plausible, but there is a risk from comments (potentially later) to those blog responses. Billrock has indicated that the lawsuit received some NYT coverage. I think Sam and Billrock should be reminded that due to conflict of interest it would be best if they refrained from editing related content directly and limit themselves to proposingon the talk pages. This requires an uninvolved editor with at least some subject matter knowledge who is willing to watchlist the relevant articles. So I see two questions: 1) which articles are relevant and 2) who will be the uninvolved editor(s) with subject matter knowledge? GRBerry 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In his lawsuit, Sloan claims:

... purveyor of these false accusations [is] Defendant William Brock. Brock was banned from posting to the USCF Forums for this but he has continued to post to other public forums the same or similar accusations, including even on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia where he listed Sloan under the category of “child molesters”.

I'm assuming that William Brock is User:Billbrock. I looked briefly for that edit at Sam Sloan but haven't found it. Does anyone have a link for this edit? If so, it needs to be oversited. --Duk 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good option for calling in oversight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Sam Sloan (talk · contribs · count) per my interpretation of WP:NLT. Although not a threat specifically, ongoing legal action involving this user and another (Billbrock (talk · contribs)), involving accusations of harassment on wiki is in my opinion grounds for blocking until the lawsuit is over. Please discuss here if you disagree with this action. Viridae^Talk 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've interpreted the letter of WP:NLT just fine. Usually people get blocked per NLT for using the threat of a lawsuit as a weapon - do as I say or I'll sue. In this case that hasn't happened. Instead, a person is being blocked for bringing a defamation suit, while the alleged wrongdoer continues to edit. Interesting. --Duk 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify that? please? Viridae^Talk 06:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. What would you like me to clarify? --Duk 06:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to support the block at the start of the comment but not at the end. Viridae^Talk 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your block is correct per WP:NLT. --Duk 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I support a block. I do not think Sloan is capable of shelving his biases, and he has clearly abused Wikipedia in furtherance of an external agenda. The legal case is just the last nail in the coffin. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• I think it is quite clear to regular Wikipedia editors that the intent of the block is to last for the period of the legal action and to be lifted thereafter, but it might be good to clarify that for casual observers, with an eye toward the press and legal authorities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• The problem is that the as the locus of the lawsuit is outside of Wiki, and by banning Salon, it gives the impression to an outsider that Wikipedia is taking side. SYSS Mouse 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• This is a rather novel and possibly inappropriate application of WP:NLT to block a productive long-term contributor with no block history. WP:NLT was clearly designed for legal threats that are directed against the Foundation, but Sloan's suit is primarily about Usenet postings. This "incident" was synthesized by activist admins as a preemptive first strike. I would have thought that the appropriate first step should have been a warning or an RfC to determine if there is a legitimate dispute of some sort. Clearly, Sloan is not at the top of the social hierarchy, but he has followed the rules and contributed to the project and shared his knowledge in his areas of experience and expertise. In terms of his wiki behavior and the rules as the currently stand, he does not merit a block because he clearly follows the rules once informed of them.--Swallowbooks 11:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PeterStJohn canvassing of DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_7#Category:Erd.C5.91s_numbers has been extensively canvassed by the nominator, PeterStJohn (talk · contribs). (See the relevant contribs list). The extensive list of those notified of the DRV appears to include none of those who !voted to CfD "delete", and at least one editor who did not participate in the CfD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I !voted for delete, and I was indeed very fairly and properly notified of the deletion review. DGG (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The user who you refer to as not participating in the CfD debate is somebody who has certainly expressed an interest in and has been involved in this issue, as can be seen by looking at this page that he created in his own user space: User:Mikkalai/By Erdos. -- Ramsey2006

Why is this posted here? It seems obvious to me that PeterStJohn is very new here and not aware all our guidelines. He merely needed to be pointed to the canvassing guideline, which is what one of the DRV participants did. I don't see a need for administrators to intervene. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a bit too fast here. PeterStJohn is not that new, but it looks very much like he was not aware of the canvassing guideline. In fact, after Jc37 pointed this guideline out to PeterStJohn (diff), the latter notified people that supported deletion like DGG (diff), as noted above, and MeegsC (diff). So the canvassing accusation seems baseless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing that some of "delete" voters were notified, however I can see that at least two delete voters were notified, and it appears that the notifications went to all the "keep" !voters, and to others. WP:CANVASS does permit "Notifying all editors who participated in a preceding discussion of the article or project, as long as it goes out to all editors", but the notification still remains selective, albeit not exclusively partisan.

Despite being notified of the problem, Pete still hasn't completed notifying the "delete !voters", an this comment seems like a fairly clear statement of intent to do try to stack the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks all very much, I was waiting, and prepared (forewarned is forearmed!) for this. I contacted all of the people who voted on the ballot to delete the category, with exceptions as follows. I put a note on each of the eleven editors who voted "keep", Gandalf61, Roger Hiu, KSmurg, etc (I have the list). There were only 6 votes to Delete (the nomination to delete carried anway, by Kbdank71's fiat). Of those 6, one was an anonymous IP address, which I ignored. Three I contacted as you can check in the hisories, DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez46. That leaves two I did not contact; BrownhairedGirl and SparsityProblem. Since the message of the "canvassing" had been to point out (for purposes good or ill) that I had opened a review towards reversing the deletion, it was not necessary to contact those two because they had both already responded to it. As Brownhairdgirl well knows. I consider her ad hominem accusation to be detrimental to the process of reaching editorial consensus. Brownhairedgirls arguement is completely eristic, as she presumably knows that she already knew about the review process, as she has already participated in it, so her claim to have not been notified is vacuous and unenthical. I believe this is abuse of the system to promolgate a PoV with personal attacks. Pete St.John 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NPA: a good faith report of canvassing is not a personal attack, and the claim that I had already participated in the DRV is demonstrably false (do check the logs before making that sort of claim). I did not post to the DRV on Erdos numbers for over 12 hours after your canvassing (at 14:42 today), nor had I contributed to any other DRV on the same page (see the DRV Nov 7 revision history). SparsityProblem has still not commented at all on the Erdos numbers DRV, and SparsityProblem's contribution to another DRV on the same page was at 22:58; but as PeterStJohnPeterStJohn's logs show, the last notice he sent was at 22:21. It seems risky to assume that an editor is aware of another thread on a page where they have participated in a separate thread, but even that was not the case when Pete stopped notifying. There may or may be any significance in the fact the two delete !voters lrft off the notification listhad been the most vocal at DRV, but Pete's other explanation doesn't fit with the logs.
    I accept that the initial canvassing may have done in ignorance of the rules, but it was quite extreme, and the subsequent notification of editors of the opposing view was incomplete. As above, this comment seems like a fairly clear statement of intent to try to stack the discussion, even after being warned.
    If Pete didn't really mean to be selective in notification, he should now notify SparsityProblem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're claiming I "already responded to", but I didn't know about the deletion review until 5 minutes ago when I happened to be reading this noticeboard; if I hadn't happened to read the incidents board, which I don't read regularly, I probably would never have known about it. SparsityProblem 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in all of my previous encounters with Peter St. John, we had been on opposite sides. He notified me because he thought I might be interested, not becuase he knew how I would side. --Pleasantville 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I must concede a point of fact. Brownhairedgirl, while very active at the Deletion Review page, e.g. the 21:46, 7 November 2007 item, did not in fact post to this particular thread prior to my canvassing. That is my mistake, and it's a significant mistake, as I had deliberately ommitted her not just because she already new (which I merely assume she did, but mistakenly thought I had seen in the activity) but because I expected her to accuse me (just as she did), on the theory that she was looking for accusations against her opponent, as opposed to looking for unethical conduct. I now must restate my case, which is appreciably weaker:
• I canvassed the voters (as per precedent, and in respect of stated policy guidelines, as I had been alerted, or if you prefer warned, already by jc37). There had been 11 votes to keep the category and 6 to delete. That the motion to delete carried despite the clear preponderance of informed opinion, made some of us feel railroaded, so I have resorted to the most severe rebuttal I can manage within the scope of ethical conduct. Of course I notified all the 11 keep voters. Of the remaining 6, I notified DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez. One of the 6 was an anonymous IP address that I ignored. That left Brownhairdgirl and SparsityProblem. I mistakely believed (probably on account of a false, or exaggerated, assumption on my part) that both already knew of the Review. I was mistaken about their having posted to the particular thread in question, I reviewed Brownhairedgirl's contribution history for that day. However, as both Brownhairedgirl and SparsityProblem, particularly the former, have been exceeding active in the movement to delete the Erdos Number category, the presumption is not so ill-founded and the claim that they had been left in the dark seems weak to me. In particular, before opening the ANI item, I believe that Brownhairedgirl should have checked the other voters (it's all plain as day as consecutive, and near-consecutive, items in my own contribution history) and seen that in fact 3 of the 5 non-anonymous "delete" voters had been informed, and that she overgeneralized from omitting her. The fact that my contact with her has been vitupritive, unproductive, and unpleasant, plus the fact that she plainly is extremely well-informed and active in the politicing, makes my having omitted her no so unreasonable, IMO. However, I was mistaken about the particular point of fact; otherwise in fact I would have notified her. I can't apologize because my overall categorization of her behaviour is highly negative, but I must admit the mistake. Pete St.John 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No apology, hey?

I had indeed monitored DRV intermittently for a few days after the closure of the CfD, but when there was nothing, I gave up. I only became aware of the DRV when I spotted some of the canvassing (not at that point by Pete), on the talk page of someone who had not expressed any substantive interest in the subject. I'm disappointed that you can't apologise for your mistake because we disagree about the substantive issue, and because, as you put it, I am well-informed.

Your canvassing of the DRV was widespread, and although you belatedly made some limited attempts to balance the audience, your message was not neutral, as required by WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could it be a coincidence that BrownHairedGirl and I, probably the two most vocal editors in favor of deleting these categories, were the two delete voters who were not contacted? And as for your claim "the presumption is not so ill-founded and the claim that they had been left in the dark seems weak to me", I request that you assume good faith and take both of our words for it that we were not aware of the DRV. SparsityProblem 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, SparsityProblem, it's no coincidence: your and Brownhairedgirl's high level of activity in the opposition is indeed part of why I ommitted you, on two grounds: one, I would prefer to minimize contact with the people I most associate with making me angry; but the other, the (mistaken) belief that you already knew about it, and so didn't need to be contacted. I admit the mistake, and I believe that Brownhairedgirl has admitted the mistake in overgeneralizing (that since I didn't notify her, I hadn't notified the oppostion voters as a class). Also I take we agree it was ok not to notify the Anonymous IP voter. This leaves two issues: first, do you feel disadvantaged in this debate because of my mistake? If so I apologize, but frankly I'm skeptical. Second, my notification of the majority "keep" voters was in the tone "please help" and of the minority "delete" voters was "I'm obliged to notify on account of canvassing guidelines". Is that unfair? I would have thought it perfectly obvious that I am on one side of this; I'm not pretending to be a neutral judge, but an open advocate of what I take to be the strong consensus of my profession. I'm trying to follow guidelines but I mean to be open and honest and to admit mistakes, as that is fundamental to the mathematical process I mean to advocate. If you caught me in a lie I would be severely discredited in the community I purport to advocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterStJohn (talk • contribs)

First, if you're rendered unable to follow policy because certain people "make you angry", that's a good sign that maybe you shouldn't participate in this debate until you can rein in your emotions.

I don't feel disadvantaged, since I did find out about the DRV eventually. But that was only a coincidence, and I might have never learned about it if I hadn't happened to click on the admin noticeboard while browsing fairly randomly.

I'm not really familiar with the canvassing guidelines, so I can't say whether it was unfair for you to canvas in the way you did as per the guidelines. However, characterizing opponents as "vampires" is never a good idea and always a breach of WP:CIVIL.

Finally, on your user page you state that your profession is software development. Is that right? (I wouldn't mention this at all if not for your statement about "the strong consensus of my profession.) It would be good if we could be clear about whether we're talking about the supposed consensus of mathematicians about Erdos numbers, or the supposed consensus of software developers about Erdos numbers. SparsityProblem 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Be all that as it may, there is a new ANI, perhaps we agree to continue the debate there, as this particular issue is mostly settled? I take that ANI items don't get "closed", just acted upon (or not) by any interested admin, and that eventually items are archived, as opposed to closed. Is that about correct? Pete St.John 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The votestacking exercise continues

• • I apologize for placing this remark at the top (feel free to move it) but I explain. Brownhairedgirl already has an ANI against me (which I haven't gotten to yet today). I'm surprised by a new one already. Presumably the previous one, which last I saw had been satisfactorily addressed, partly by my admission of a mistake, and partly by the testimony of people who had voted against me (thanks), has been closed, I'll go see. So as spammy as I may well be, I'm overwhelmed by the opposition, and I physically can not be fast enough to keep up with this. I'll do my best however. At this moment I have not read this ANI at all yet. Pete St.John 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

addendum I appear to have been mistaken; this is not a second ANI item, but a subcategory of the previous one, addressing something like campaigning generally, rather than the particular "canvassing of previous voters" item, which may have been satisfactorily addressed.Pete St.John

---

There are two threads running at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics in which http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics&diff=170200122&oldid=170182374 continues to blatantly and unapologetically attempt to votestack the Deletion Review:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Status_at_this_writing
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Updating_status

I have never seen an exercise like this one: most canvassers attempt a measure of subtlety, but this is acknowledged as an all-out campaign:

To me campaigning openly is preferable to canvassing covertly, e.g. by email. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• characterisation of those who support deleting the categories as "like vampires who crave blood but can't be killed"[34]

I employed that (possibly uncivil) allegory at the math project talk page, where the "streamliners" had just been characterized as "crazies". I've wanted to keep the debate civil on the pages where the debate is taking place, but I've expressed myself more freely elsewhere. I have never pretended to be neutral on the subject of the debate, or the urgency of protecting a benign group from being railroaded, which is how some of us feel about the unilateral action to delete the category after three successive votes had clearly been in favor of keeping it. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• saying "I felt, and feel, that it's important to get out the vote"[35] - this nearly 24 hours after he was first warned by jc37 about WP:CANVASS

I wish we kept time in days. It's about 16 hours between the time I log off and the time I log in the next day. I have responded to the canvassing criticisms in stages, mostly at my talk page. I logged in today to discover both a second ANI against me, from the same author as the ongoing one, and also a threat to ban me, regarding canvassing. It's difficult for me to respond nimbly to the overwhelming reactions. Fortunately, the 24-11 vote (so far) to overturn the deletion makes me feel that at least I will perceived as relevant, and not merely eristic. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• saying "As for slanting my notices, I am deliberating attempting to countervail a movement. I have a side."[36]

as opposed to pretending to be neutral. Apparently, canvasing openly is contrary to wiki guidelines, but eristic demagoguery and repeated threatening insinuations are not. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Repeating a characterising by another editor of support for deletion as "craziness"[37]

I think "crazies" was someone else's term. I may have used the term to reference back to the other comments. I characterize the opposition generally as deletionist and you particularly as a polarizing, eristic demagogue.Pete St.John

• Posting updates of the count of "endorse" and "overturn" !votes at deletion, urging editors at that project to "send a message"[38][39]

Yes as I said there, and freely admit here, I was doing everything I could to raise community awareness and collect support. Since then, the vote update has been removed and I have stopped campaigning at the project page, on account of the threat to ban me at my user page, which followed rather closely on the heels of these canvassing guidelines being pointed out to me. If I seem to act impatiently, it is because of the abrupt nature of the attacks, not any personal proclivity to act without thinking. As I learn more about wiki guidelines I'll do better navigating among them. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this sort of all-out campaigning to "get out the vote" for a particular result in a decision-making process is allowed to stand, we might as well tear up the guidelines on conduct in wikipedia's decision-making processes. What is the point of trying to make decisions by consensus if editors campaign to "get out the vote", despite multiple warnings to desist? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the way I campaigned, before yesterday, was not appropriate according to wiki guidelines; I believe the way I'm campaigning since yesterday is improved. I consider yesterday transitional. I believe that starting a second ANI concurrent with the first, on the same subject, is unethical. Not by wiki guidelines, just my own sense of ethics. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I retract the "second ANI on the heels of the first.." item. Apparently it's just a subcategory of the first ANI. Brownhairedgirl employs rhetorical technique quite sharply, but that's fair to me. Quantity and redundancy are other issues. Pete St.John 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved the most recent thread to the user's talk page. There's no need to lament the entire decision making process; this just seems to be one editor who has strong feelings about an issue. I hope that a few comments by uninvolved people will help to resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page asking him to desist. I have to agree that neutral notifications to a Wikiproject that an AfD or DRV is in progress are generally acceptable, but this goes way beyond that into the realm of active canvassing, campaigning, vote-counting, etc with a distinctly uncivil tone to boot. If there's any more campaigning by this editor outside the DRV itself, I would favor (and will impose, unless there is disagreement) a block for the duration of the DRV. MastCell ^Talk 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses, but at this point it's not just a matter of restraining Pete. I don't see how the DRV itself can possibly be considered to represent real consensus when there has been such a aggressive campaign to votestack it, even accompanied by a readymade pile of arguments to deploy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We deal with that sort of thing pretty often (think slashdot). I haven't had any part in the AFD or DRV, and I'm not planning to, but someone could leave a note for the closer pointing out this thread. The admins who close DRV discussions should be able to deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If mentioning proposed decisions on relevant WikiProjects is outlawed, we might as well outlaw WikiProjects themselves. And deletion sorting pages too, for that matter. Maybe even outlaw watchlists. It would be inappropriate for anyone who might know something about the subject to find out and influence the decision, after all: we must let the ignorant make their decisions on their own, because they're the only ones who are truly unbiased. —David Eppstein 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That (banning WikiProject notifications) has not been proposed here. Neutral notifications to WikiProjects, as stated above, are generally acceptable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion on WT:WPM was less neutral than I think appropriate, but it's natural that someone would have difficulty remaining neutral when a page or category he feels strongly about has been deleted, seemingly unreasonably. (I don't want to argue whether the closure decision actually was unreasonable, only that it likely seemed that way to that participant.) And in this case, other editors on WT:WPM already admonished him to calm down and stay civil. Why does this rise to the level of something needing admin attention? —David Eppstein 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

David, "less neutral than I think appropriate" is such a serious misunderstatement as to be a misrepresentation, like describing someone who reverts ten times in a day as "slightly inappropriate". The discussion at WT:WPM after the closure of the CFD was generally OK: one personal attack, but otherwise it was well within bounds. However, there's a huge difference between editors discussing how they feel about an XfD closure and what actually happened here: using the WikiProject to host a partisan list of "reasons to overturn" and aggressively canvassing and campaigning to "get out the vote". WikiProjects don't "own" a set of articles, and their areas of interest frequently overlap with other projects (in this case with the biography project); imagine the mess we would have if XfD or DRV became a battleground to be fought out between competing wikiprojects, which is the logical next step of allowing this sort of disruption to proceed.

It's good that other editors on WT:WPM had urged caution, but the aggressive campaigning came after the editor in question had his attention drawn to WP:CANVASS, and it continued after several warnings at WPM which the editor concerned rejected. Pete repeatedly acknowledged that he knew he was out of order but intended to proceeded regardless, replete with a stream of personal attacks. In what other context would that degree of disruption be characterised as unworthy of admin attention?

After the welcome removal of some of the more outrageous votestacking posts, the last remaining comment that discussion at WT:WPM is Pete's "stubborn-ness in the cause of mathematics is no vice". How is this end-justifies means approach compatible with WP:CONSENSUS? I support Mastcell's proposal to block Pete at least for the duration of the DRV. There is no indication that he has any intention of respecting the consensus decision-making process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of a "WikiProject War" was the crux of an ArbCom proposal recently, in my opinion a not very well considered proposal. See here for part of the discussion (I provide this particular link not because I'm attached to this particular WikiProject but because this is the area I added my comment). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We all have feelings, but as adults, we're all responsible for behaving maturely, even when it's difficult for us to control our feelings. I agree with Bhg; calling other good-faith editors "vampires" goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable behavior. SparsityProblem 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of the above, the user's talk page, (and more), I've given the user a warning that he may be blocked for the duration of the DRV, if he continues. I think by now enough "notice" has been given, and this has strayed quite far into "disruptive territory". - jc37 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kizor and inappropriate speedy keep

Resolved

Kizor and I disagree on deletions in general. He does not like me nominating things for AFD even though they clearly don't meet Wikipedia standards. However, I believe this closure was inappropriate and that he did it solely because he doesn't like me. He gloated inappropriately about it on my talk page. Now, if the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights) had been a snowball keep then I would have agreed, but it is not. He simply doesn't agree with the AFD so he just closed it. This is not appropriate behavior from an administrator. Pilotbob 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...I closed it because the article had been kept less than a month ago, and because two other administrators I asked agreed.
I keep away from closing fiction AfDs specifically to keep my opinion of the merits of the articles from being a factor, and made an exception here because the closure was on fully procedural grounds.
Later on, I decided to explain my reasons in detail on Pilotbob's talk page, to make sure this didn't jeopardize our good relation - he'd previously made a polite, respectful reply to me that was highly refreshing, and I want(ed) to talk to him further later - by making him think what he now does. Obviously the message went gravely wrong, so I'd appreciate your comments on how it did.
:(. --Kizor 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just put it up on deletion review. I know we disagree on deletions and it struck me as a bad faith move. If it had been an admin that never voted on my AFDs or expressed their displeasure on my AFDs, I wouldn't have tought that. The same as if all the responses were keeps. But seeing an approximately equal number of keeps and deletes gave me pause and I was a bit upset. I'm sure Kizor is just trying to help out and do what he thinks is best, but we disagree on some things. Pilotbob 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not sure your closure was appropriate. You closed it as premature due to a recent AfD; normally that would be correct, but the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". I believe current guidelines allow for near-immediate (although not compulsory) re-nomination in the case of no consensus. Powers ^T 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Those I asked were Jimfbleak and Resurgent Insurgent, though I mistakenly gave the time from the last nomination as five weeks. Jim told me to go ahead, Res said that he wouldn't close a nomination made over a month after a nc - and this turned out to be made under one. I searched the rules before closing, without finding anything about the grace period of a no consensus being shorter. --Kizor 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule about the time frame for nominating articles for deletion after a previous attempt, nor is there a hard and fast rule about closing such nominations. Personally, I wouldn't have closed an XFD discussion where there were already good faith !votes expressed unless it were clearly slanted one way or another or it was clear the nominator was not acting in good faith. I don't think either of those were the case here. That said, I don't think Kizor was acting maliciously and he was simply exercising his judgment. Unless Kizor feels the need to reopen the discussion at this time, I'd simply suggest the nominator wait 2 months, and then renominate it if the reasons it was originally nominated have not been addressed. This isn't an "emergency" situation and there is no timetable for considering this article for deletion.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If Pilotbob were to relist it at WP:DRV, I would surely !vote that the AfD closure was inappropriate, in light not only because of the obvious ill-will from Kizor, but Kizor's closing explanation being that there was a recent AfD, which is an invalid speedy close rationale. Corvus cornix 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, deletion review is certainly an option as well.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this issue is no longer a problem and there is no longer any dispute. Pilotbob 07:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Kafhimpa [40] has accused Touch Of Light of vandalism and spam [41] and made a legal threat in the edit summary in response to Touch Of Light posting the standard greeting on Kafhimpa's talk page. Edward321 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contribs look bad all around. There's a definite hostility going on. Probably needs a block, as he contribs show an ongoing pattern. ThuranX 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24h, but am open to extension of the block if people think that is too lenient. Tim Vickers 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That may depend on whether or not you get berated for spamming his talk page :) ---- WebHamster 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Users who make legal threats directly or by implication should be blocked indefinitely until the threat is explicitly withdrawn. In his edit summary Kafhimpa states, "I will withold [sic] from pressing charges against him for now. . ." which qualifies as a LT, I think. R. Baley 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Pilotbob

I have a real issue with Pilotbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Witht he exception of a (failed) deletion review request for Brian Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), pretty much 100% of this editor's contribution is tagging and nomination for deletion of popular culture topics, especially character lists. The edit pattern also looks very much like that of a sleeper sock. I have blocked for 24h for debate, to stop further disruption, as he's currently tagging articles like Rincewind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sleeper sock of whom? --EoL talk 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone. The behaviour is pretty standard; a small batch of edits, months of inactivity, and then start disruption. Guy (Help!) 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are several editors engaging in articles for deletion sprees on content about fictional universes recently - does Pilotbob's pattern differ from the others? In many cases, these have succeeded in deleting the articles in question, so consensus might indicate that this pattern isn't inherently disruptive. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 1, items 17-60, for example. JavaTenor 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not paying by the minute; you can spend the time needed to type 'for what it's worth'... HalfShadow 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the rate, it's just that it's all he's done since the Brian Peppers mention. Everything he's done is an AFD of some sort, and he does not actually read the articles half the time. With one, he said that an article on a television program wasn't notable per WP:FICT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which is the sock and which is the socketteer, but: [42]. -Chunky Rice 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He really needs to slow down the AfD tagging. Corvus cornix 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that he's deliberately doing this to be disruptive, but it is clear that he is at the very least taking little to no effort to review the things he is trying to delete. The AfDs of character lists and obviously notable characters such as Rincewind make that fairly obvious, as do his consistently phrased rationales when nominating them. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a lot of people feel the deletion sprees are very disruptive. For example, there's an RfC for Gavin Collins brought by 5 separate editors and endorsed by 28 more that finds his tagging and deletion sprees disruptive. [43] Near as I can tell, this hasn't affected Gavin's behavior at all. Edward321 06:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the character lists have little secondary sources as most of the primary sources are accurate(why would the creaters of the an anime/movie lie about their characters?), which he uses as a excuse to get rid of content. And because of the lack of them, many are getting deleted because almost all secondary sourcs are considered fan sites and even though they are clearly notable subjects.I think we should close every Afd he as nominated and the undeletion of the ones deleted, if anyone disbutes the undetetion, they can take it to Afd in a normal manner instead of a tagging spree. Af648 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Articles sourced exclusively from primary sources are not really what the encyclopaedia is supposed to be about. We are supposed to work from non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• • In the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that a lot of the articles Pilotbob nominated for deletion have been rubbish and fancruft created from a couple of primary sources, and were rightly sent to AFD. Neil ☎ 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. A fair bit isn't and mass nomination is not helpful, nor is nominating material because the article is disorganized. I get sick of the bizarre cultural snobbery that seems to view anything more recent than 1940 as trivia. Anyone with half an interest in the area can find massive amount of secondary sourced on the most obscure bits of pop culture, just that much of it is extremely esoteric and many of us aren't doing it. The idea of prompt citing is for where material may be challenged, not like, duh, Nemo is a Clownfish (which was removed recently). I have found some stuff but haven't prioritised it. Anyway we're getting off topic here. Pilotbob sprang into action as a deletion happy account around the time a number of other accounts have been blocked. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion too. I think that the advice Pilotbob has been given is sound: cut down the rate of nomination and actually do some work before nominating. That is generically sound advice, in fact. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think the blockage is at all justified. Nominations for AFD are just that, they are not deletions per se. I could understand his concerns if this action related to WP:PROD, but AFD is a process that is subject to peer review. All of his nominations I have seen have been justified; by examining the AFD's you will see that they all concern plot summaries without real world context, having few or no primary or secondary sources. The nominations were made in good faith, and the articles concerned all fall outside of WP scope would have been nominated for AfD eventually.

Secondly, I think Guy may have overstepped the mark, because taking a dislike to an editor's edits is not reasonable grounds for a block. His attempt to discredit the edits of Pilotbob in this way is not appropriate; there is due process to be followed in these circumstances. Village pump, or RFC have been created for situations. The arbitary exercise of admin power against editors acting in good faith is basically tyranny. --Gavin Collins 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why Rincewind shouldn't be sent to AfD? The Discworld books are notable, I think. But its individual characters probably aren't; they're not studied or analysed like characters in literature books -- Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield, and so on -- so there's not enough third-party paterial to write a well-cited article. This article is in-universe, and full of speculation and is almost completely unreferenced; things that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:FICT teach us to avoid.

Further, I can't see any reason he needs to "slow down the AfD tagging". The process isn't meant to be throttled -- if lots of articles need to be considered for deletion, then lots of articles should be tagged with AfD. If Wikipedia is about forming consensus, and AfDs are a venue for building that concensus, then PilotBob is doing what Wikipedia has asked and he should be allowed to carry on.

As Gavin Collins points out, nominating for AfD is just nominating; I think it's less disruptive than posting marginal articles and fan cruft. -- Mikeblas 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Is there a reason why Rincewind shouldn't be sent to AfD? The Discworld books are notable, I think. But its individual characters probably aren't; they're not studied or analysed like characters in literature books -- Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield, and so on -- so there's not enough third-party paterial to write a well-cited article. This article is in-universe, and full of speculation and is almost completely unreferenced; things that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:FICT teach us to avoid."...

• I won't touch other issues here, but I'd like to take (very minor) issue with this above (quoted) statement (folks, feel free to skip the next few paragraphs if you don't like reading long comments). First, because "literature books" is redundant, as books are a type of literature to begin with so long as they aren't completely blank (even pamphlets are "literature", remember); I believe you're actually thinking of the oft-used term "literary fiction", which is sometimes used by writing critics and trade magazines to refer to anything that isn't basically just purely intended as mass-market entertainment or in the words of literary fiction's WP article: "...principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction (that is, work with claims to literary merit) from the many types of genre fiction and popular fiction. In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the 'pageturner') focuses more on narrative and plot.". However, in real-world terms, what is or isn't a "literary fiction" work is often a matter of opinion, and even massively popular entertainment can sometimes be of a "literary" (read: "serious/intellectual") nature and regardless of whether or not it is officially labeled a "literary fiction" work, has often been analyzed a great deal - Charles Dickens was one of the best-selling authors of his time, period, and was the equivalent of a "mass-market" writer in his era; and I'd like to add that even Buffy the Vampire Slayer has an entire academic circle and online journal devoted to analyzing it ("Slayage: The Journal of Buffy Studies" or somesuch, I believe it's called) in addition to the countless armchair critics seen elsewhere, owing to its focus on characters' psychological issues, morality issues, feminist themes, existentialist themes and so on (...no, seriously, it has them all in spades. No joke, Joss Whedon loves including existentialist themes and so on in his work - if you're interested in a casual look-over in regards to Buffy, there's at least one entire book devoted to philosophy in the show; I believe at least part of the title is Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy. I have a copy somewhere, let me know on my Talk page if you have trouble finding it and I can give you more information later when I've got it handy). I find it hard to believe that Discworld will have all that much fewer academic critics interested in it than Buffy does that there is no academic commentary on it at all. The Discworld novels include a great deal of satire, and despite their tone and popularity, I would have to argue that they're not of any less potential "serious" literary value than older comedies - yes, even including some of Shakespeare's comedies, which were popular entertainment in their time as well. (Taming of the Shrew, anyone? It's not any sillier than the stuff Pratchett's (sp?) been writing lately, except Pratchett's been working mostly in the fantasy genre - itself not an invalid target for satire, or lacking in "serious" works - JRR Tolkien, anyone?)...

• ...more importantly and less digressively, though, Rincewind from what I've seen is a very frequently-recurring character in the Discworld novels, which are very much notable due to being very, very consistent best-sellers in the UK and elsewhere, and having also spawned several popular adaptations in other media; and if you looked in the right places, I would not actually be all that surprised to see a few academic analyses of the character in question (though perhaps more in Britain than North America, as the books are far more popular there than here), additionally... the other issues you stated, such as being written too "in-universe", should NEVER be used as an excuse to delete something, because they are easily fixed (and often are) - and they have nothing to do with things like copyvio, autobio, or especially non-notability, which are another kettle of fish entirely from merely being not up to full FA standards. ;)

• I can, however, see what you're probably attempting to argue: that Rincewind is not nearly as inherently and obviously independently notable as say, Holden is; I would even agree that he does not inherently seem any more commonly analyzed than say, Buffy Anne Summers or Faith Lehane are (fairly popular amongst academic critics, those two) - though I'll readily admit as well that it could be just that I'm not that big of a Discworld fan and might not be aware of the "serious analysis" that may well be out there in droves for all I know. In any case though, I'd argue more in favor of a Merge (into a "list of recurring Discworld characters" type article) than a full deletion anyway, as the character is at least slightly notable simply for being used frequently in a best-selling book series... just not necessarily notable enough for an independent article. And I WOULD fully support a list article in this case, as most of these articles on Discworld characters I've seen appear to be fairly short and still easily pared-down, and yet if you were to simply merge all of the key recurring characters into the main article, it would be far too massive (the books feature a LOT of recurring characters, and I mean a LOT). I think in this case trimming and merging most of these characters' articles into a common list article would be a good compromise. :) (Heck, I might just propose that one the relevant pages now...) Runa27 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on these AfDs - they may be valid - but he's engendering a lot of ill will. He should start off slowly, let a few AfDs go through, and then if the articles do get deleted, go on to another small batch. Corvus cornix 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a practical limit on how many AfDs can be reasonably reviewed in a given time period. On the extreme end of things, if a user nominated 1000 AfDs in one day, it's simply not realistic to expect that editors will have time to fully review and discuss that many articles simultaeously. What the upper bound on our AfD capacity is not a hard line, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people slow down when they push that capacity. There's no rush. -Chunky Rice 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If he was nominating a 100 articles for AfD I would agree; but he is not. Guy's accusation that he is nominating AfD's "en mass" is just not supported by any evidenced and I would be supprised if the number of AfD initated by Pilotbob exceeds more than 10 a week. In any case, block cannot be justified; AfD is an important part of the editorial process. If only we had more editors like him working on buisness deletions, perhaps we could get rid of the endless spam that pass for articles and stubs.

On a related point, you can see that Pilotbob pays attention to objectors to the AfD's and gives reasoned answers, which is why I urge you to lift the block now. You are dealing with a polite, established editor who makes reasonable edits. He is not an angry teenager committing vandalism. I urge you now to raise the block, there is no reasonble justification for gaging an editor whose persective is not share by an admin. I hope this is not the first shot in an open civil war between deletionists and inclusivists. --Gavin Collins 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, there were over 30 AfD nominations in the last week initiated by Pilotbob. Surpirsed? -Chunky Rice 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The triple-teaming trio of Pilotbob, GavinCollins, and Mikeblas barely give the rest of us any time to breathe with their loads of AFDs. It would be more than wonderful if they at least slowed down. And yes, especially Gavin and Pilotbob seem to have taken a very adversarial, opinionated stance against the articles they nominate and the people who defend them. When Gavin PRODs an article I wrote instead of AFDing it, I just redirect it, no mess no fuss. It would be nice if Gavin and Pilotbob actually read an article before nominating it, so that we don't see so much of referring to a female character as a "he", stating that characters who were primarily used in novels as "being created to fill a game guide", or making other baseless assertions which clearly show their lack of knowledge of the subject they are trying so hard to get rid of. State the facts - if notability has not been established, then leave it at that; this seems to be an effective enough tactic as it is, and making things up (or just guessing, as the case may be) to make your case look better can backfire on you. BOZ 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PilotBob has been busted sockpuppeting too, as Doctorfluffy and AndalusianNaugahyde. Anyone want to put together an arbcom case asking for a ban from deletion discussions? I fear this editor cannot, on present evidence, be trusted to behave - David Gerard 19:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can swear that Doctorfluffy was utilized to comment in one of the seven AFDs that Pilotbob initiated and that I've had to deal with in my primary subject area, like this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

...and then there's this weird statement by Pilotbob....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that weird. He's basically saying that they're meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. -Chunky Rice 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not impossible, but highly improbable, based on what I saw when I ran the checks. And if they ARE meatpuppets, well... WP:DUCK, they're ACTING like sockpuppets so block on behaviour anyway. Pilotbob==Doctorfluffy==AndalusianNaugahyde ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it can appear this way, but we are not acting in concert. One example is that Andalusian was mad about a Star Wars related AFD I made and voted to keep it (he told me personally). However, I can see that there would be the appearance of meatpuppetry here, and I would agree (and hopefully they would agree) not to vote on the same item in a consensus building way. I'm unblocked now, but they are not. They really aren't sockpuppets. I hate to say this (and potentially get myself blocked), but they don't deserve to be blocked any more than I do. Pilotbob 07:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At least two checkusers (David and myself) and possibly more, have investigated and both of us have come to the conclusion that all 3 userids are the same user. You can protest that they are different as much as you like but they only way I would buy that they are different from you is if they were your friends over at your house editing from your computer... even then it would not really matter. We block on behaviour and appearance of collusion, and the things the three accounts were doing are a) similar and b) somewhat disruptive. I think you should be glad you yourself are not blocked, for the time being, and stick to one account in future. I will opine that if you continue with the general outlines of your current behaviour and approach, you might find yourself blocked again as well, for longer. Go forth and edit some articles ... add some useful, well sourced things to them, instead of focusing only on AfDs in a particular area. You say you're a pilot, and that you work with VMWare... there is lots of great stuff you could be adding in those topic areas. As pointed out below, you currently nom so many things now that no one pays attention. But if you continue to do it, you're wasting the time of others unacceptably. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think most people have stopped paying attention to Pilotbob's afd noms, I often support the deletion of some of these in-fiction "cruft" articles, but that "team" has been nominating so many lately I don't read them anymore, and I think others feel the same because there seem to be less people taking part in the discussions, or when they do, they're saying "keep". Crazysuit 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  It's hard to take the noms seriously when he does so many, even less so with the recent sockpuppet abuse and obvious lack of effort in actually reviewing what he's deleting. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The AfDs in question here are now falling due. By and large, they look to me like straightforward deletes; see for example the many on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007/November 5. Often, I am minded to overrule the simple content of the debate and make a redirect out of it, as long as the target is sensible. Sometimes, I am more minded to delete the cruft. However, in most cases is the trio of editors discussed above in the debate; sometimes there are others too, but they are mixed between delete and keep in fairly random ways with often only one other person in a debate. In short, I'm asking whether we should 1) cancel these AfDs; 2) read them as they stand since most of them have some reasonable basis or 3) by-and-large make redirects out of them. Splash - tk 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper process theoretically would be to factor these users comments out and check for consensus. If consensus was clear, do what it suggests. If consensus is unclear and there are a fair number of comments, close as no consensus. If there are few or no comments, relist. That's I beleive proper process. However I'd advocate doing the right thing. Use your judgement and if something really needs to go, do the needful. Going with redirects instead of outright deletes is always a good idea in any case wherever it makes sense to do so. You already know all this of course, I'm just validating for you. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I need some kind of mediation

After the month blocked by the arbitration committee, Maurice27 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) comes back trying to destroy everybody-who-doesen't-accept-his-POV's nerves. Without discussing in talk pages or, when he does, using a style too close to trolling and assuming he has the only truth, he started again his indiscriminate reversions.

Since I am already too tired (let me emphasize it: too too tired) of discussing with him with no result at all until a mediation is required (and by the way, then he accepts the solution proposed by the mediator, even if this one is exactly one of the many I proposed and he didn't accept), this time I decide directly to expose here the last reversions and then I will quit the discussion: I don't want to start an edit warring and I don't want to continue an already bad quality discussion which will bring us no more fruits than a complete loss of time.

• In Manuel Fraga Iribarne: this man has been considered in the category of fascists since may 2006. A couple of days ago, Maurice27 removes this category with the only argument in the edit summary: "removed a nonsense". Well, I thought that if a category remained for one year and a half in an article that is being edited quite regulary, perhaps is not so nonsense and, at least, it must be discussed in the talk page this removal before proceeding to remove it. Therefore, together with some other minor improvements, I added again the category just after asking in the talk page more detailed reasons to proceed with the removal (let's note I do not take part if Fraga is or is not a Fascist, I just ask for a justification). Maurice27 then deletes again the category after a despotic answer in which he asserts he has the only truth and I am wrong (excuse me, did I said if I deffended or I regected the category?) and moreover he adds "I really believe that your vision of how was Spain under Franco is rather weird". Sorry? Why this ad hominem attack? And then he starts speaking about his mother. I'm astonished. I have no arguments. Didn't he understand the question or he just acts as he didn't?
• Catalan Countries and Northern Catalonia: Both articles descrive both concepts clearly as (in other words) the name that certain Catalan people gives to certain territories (... a term which is sometimes used, particularly in Catalan writings..., ... The term is politically charged, and tends to be closely associated with Catalan nationalism and Catalan independentism...). But he includes in both articles the template {{Globalizecountry}}. Let's remark that in one article there is even a section about the controversy about the use of the name. Therefore, I don't see the point on putting those templates. Should we add also this template to Salegy, Bisi Bele Bath, Malagan, etc, because they don't represent a worldwide view of the subjects but they just represent the view from Madagascar, India and Papua New Guinea respectively? I asked the reasons to put this templates and the answers are... well, I'm sure we could be ages discussing without saying absolutely nothing: [44], [45].
• Estanislao Figueras, Salvador Dalí, and in general any article about any Catalan/Spanish person. I think no rule says that a biography must start telling the official citizenship of the person. So then, we can find many articles about people from Scotland which start with "xxx was a Scotish musician" and other which start with "xxx was a British musician (from Scotland)". And there is no problem and we can respect both ways, because both are correct. Well, it seems that is not possible with Catalan people. Maurice27 tries to make disappear any reference to Catalanity of any person in wikipedia. He argues: 1) There exist no catalan nationality and 2) Catalan is unknow, Spanish is known. Well, if there exist a Catalan nationality, neither Spanish politicians have it clear (almost 90% of Catalan politicians deffend there exists the Catalan nation -seen as cultural terriroty, NOT as a soverign state-, most of all the Spanish deffend there exists no such nation). So, if Spanish politicians don't know the answer to this problem, is my answer correct? I don't know. Maurice27 is however SURE, there is NO DOUBT, he has the truth once more and no, there doesen't exist the Catalan nationality. And this if already for him just enough to change all Catalan for Spanish. And about the knowledge of Catalonia, it deppends on the knowledge of the reader (some people from Europe will have problems to locate Missouri in a USA map, and some from USA will locate Spain under Mexico). Anyway, there is always a blue link that gives you this information you didn't know. But not being this enought, one user proposed some days ago in one symilar case a consensus solution: "xxx is a Catalan (Spain) musician...". Everybody is represented: Catalonia and Spain. Maurice27 seemed to agree. Well, it was just a mirage, because when after his change I tried to follow this formula and reach consensus, this time the solution was not valid: No consensus needed, his passport was from Spain. Note the sentence: "No consensus needed". Good example of his way of acting.

There are more articles, more disputes, more reversions. But as I said in the beggining, I am already too tired to discuss with him, it is not possible. I hope some administrator can mediate once more and we can find a solution that can please everybody and which increases the quality of the Wikipedia. Thank you, --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you need mediation, you should head for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern, like Xtv, I am also tired, discouraged and, to put it frankly, utterly disappointed at the so-called dispute resolution and mediation processes. Maurice27 has had a history of extremely (just to put it mildly) disruptive behavior in his attempt to discredit anything related to Catalonia. Unfortunately, in the English Wikipedia (or perhaps in the English speaking world), there is little knowledge of Catalonia, its language and culture, and therefore little is done to prevent vandalism in related pages.

There was a request for arbitration (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence), in which 6 different users exposed the inappropriate behavior of Maurice27 (including, but not limited to directly insulting and or cursing other people, article ownership, breaking or ignoring consensus, disregard of reputable sources to impose his opinion, vandalism and trolling). He has been blocked eight times. And after two months of silence, the arbitration committee closed the case by simply "encouraging all parties to debate" (as if we hadn't tried that before) and blocked Maurice temporarily. He has come back, and he refuses to debate and continues with his disruptive behavior.

Xtv decided to post his request here, because, after the utter failure of the Request for Mediation he, like me and many other users , do not know what else to do. Many good-intentioned Catalan users have already left Wikipedia due to the lack of proper administrative action -one administrator, who lived in Spain even sided with Maurice27, condoning his insults and disruptive behavior and even blocking those who opposed him! The Arbitration Committee also ignored this point.

If you decide not to intervene, then tell us if there is any viable mechanism within Wikipedia to deal with these cases, because we have tried everything, to no avail.

--the Dúnadan 14:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A second Arbitation case, perhaps? If not, then a few more eyes on this thread might help. This is the place to be for behavioural issues, after all. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan, the thread said "I need mediation", so I assumed that's exactly what he meant and pointed him that direction. If, on the other hand, what he really wanted was admin intervention, that's another story, and that does belong here. I unfortunately do not have the time to look into this now; however, I could look into this later. Also, Moreschi seems to be having a look, so maybe he'll be able to do something. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

His reasoning for adding {{Globalizecountry}} (to pick one example) to Catalan Countries is bizarre. Or am I missing his point? -- llywrch 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch, my reasoning is the following... If you take a look at those articles, you will find out that all of them are written in a catalan biased POV. The very same Catalan Countries are only conceived by catalan (and not even a minority of them), but all the other regions are completely against them, as they see them as a kind of, let me call it this way, "imperialism". The opinion of Valencians, Andorrans, Southern Frenchs... is completely negliged. The "globalize" template was made in wikipedia to make readers aware when an article is written in a "only one side" perspective rather than a global perspective. Xtv or Dunadan are only trying to get me banned because I oppose their way of, let me use this other word, poissoning wikipedia with pro-catalanist texts. Anytime a user tries to make the articles more neutral, he will get this kind of section in the administrator's noticeboards. --Maurice27 19:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's all take a look

Just for starters; isn't there a BLP issue with Manuel Fraga Iribarne being in Category:Spanish fascists? Another note; we are ducking our responsibility as admins if we send this back to the ArbCom. They've had one go at sorting this out. We should try to prevent a situation wheres it's necessary that they have to take another. Moreschi ^Talk 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Manuel Fraga Iribarne was a cabinet minister under Franco, so listing him in the Category:Spanish fascists seems to be a mere statement of fact. Edward321 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a statement of fact, it'll be very easy to find a citation for it, no? Picaroon (t) 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Albert Speer was a cabinet minister under Hitler. Does listing him in the Category:Nazi leaders require any more proof than that? Do you think Franco was letting anything other than Facists hold cabinet positions? Edward321 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's a yep. Take another case: ethnicity (in your own words, ???) and fascism of the philosopher Eugeni d'Ors.

Eugeni D'Ors (aka 'Xenius') is dead. But it'll be a hard work to find a source defining him as a "catalan fascist".

Anyway your answer could be interpreted as "I cannot source it" (When adding material to the biography of a living person, WP:VERIFY):

• "Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article."

• "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Jimmy Wales: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

'Let me emphasize it': aggressively, especially with negative information about living persons.

Is Albert Speer alive? Was he involved in the restoration of democracy? Was he member of German democratic government?

Manuel Fraga Iribarne is a living person (and he's a senator). You can find more info at es:Manuel Fraga Iribarne

On the other hand, Edward321... ethnicity... Catalan ethnicity (????, therefore we could talk about Catalan nationalism as ethnic nationalism, ????).

There was a Request for arbitration. And also there was Remedies. It's obvious that you had not enough (and other illustrative situations [46]). That's why you "do not know what else to do". But you're administrators from the wikipedia in catalan: what would you do in the Viquipèdia?

From your evidences, you expected another resolution from the Arbcom. As I said, I think disruptive. What to do now?

You cannot understand the Arbcom resolution. Think about it: may be you also did something wrong, and may be youre doing something wrong. Sorry, but once again I needed express myself (please, I hope not disruptive, just with flu symptoms... and also I'm tired). --Owdki ^talk 01:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us your fucking money

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [47] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian <shudder>. I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless. In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose. The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter. --Dynaflow babble 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg. --Dynaflow babble 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages. I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon

I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil ☎ 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow babble 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coelacan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shop steward's thoughts

While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrities are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)

I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is just funny :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [48].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also  Done.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again. The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use. If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner. But I have no choice. It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable. If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem. By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy. Just keep on editing. Keegan^talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Doctorfluffy

I believe that the block for sockpuppetry is mistaken. The evidence given is not warranted:

Evidence of sockpuppetry + disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia = eminently blockable. — Phil Sandifer 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the block be removed and the editor allowed to make his own case. Kindly note there is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pilotbob which make have given rise to this problem. --Gavin Collins 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. User:Doctorfluffy has been active since May; I'm not aware of significant disruption on his part, and I'm not persuaded that he is a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first step should have been to ask Phil, not post here. I've left him a message to direct him here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have here a user whose stated purpose is to delete articles, who says he will only participate in AfD discussions to vote delete, and who has no meaningful mainspace contributions beyond tagging and trying to delete articles. We also have evidence linking him to other accounts with similar editing habits. This is straightforward. Note that I am not the blocking admin - User:David Gerard is, and he blocked for the checkusered sockpuppet evidence. The statement "the evidence given is not warranted" does not seem to me to be meaningful, as I can't find anything beyond David's declaration that Checkuser determined sockpuppetry. This is generally considered sufficient evidence. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• First- you're right that I should have waited until the blocking admin was contacted, rather than endorsing an unblock here. Sorry. Second- User:Doctorfluffy has posted a defense against the accusations of sockpuppetry and disruption on his talk page, and since he can't participate in this discussion, he asked that someone point that out here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Doctorfluffy's claim that he and Pilotbob edit from the same IP during work hours but from different IP's at home (at the exact same time) is at least plausible. Phil, does this assertion comport with your checkuser results? Or perhaps is does not matter: Since other behavior has been found disruptive (on which I do not yet have an opinion), was the checkuser just icing? — Satori Son 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser accounts show all three usernames from different IPs at matching times. They're blatantly single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Pilotbob has been blocked for AFD dickery before - David Gerard 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand. Wouldn't the three users editing from different IPs at the same time indicate that they are not the same person? Am I misunderstanding what you said? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what David means is that, at any given time, all three accounts are on the same IP, and that when one changes IPs, the others do as well. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I understand it: different IP's at matching times. Just wanted to make sure we did our due diligence. — Satori Son 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really thought that User:Doctorfluffy was innocent of sockpuppetry. But if checkuser does not support his assertion, then that would make me wrong. Make a note of the date, because it doesn't happen often. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Slap my blindcheeks and call me Mary. Mental note for future use: just because you've agreed with someone whenever you've crossed paths with them doesn't mean they aren't fucking over the 'pedia. Are there any AfDs we need to revisit because of this? Because I'm too tired to look for myself and must away to bed now anyway: I'm cooking for a party of six tomorrow and need my beauty sleep to achieve it and the associated shopping ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's little more annoying than having someone you thoroughly agree with do dickish things to support it. This is an example of classic sockpuppetry: using second accounts to fake consensus. Which is a gross violation of the Wikipedia way of trying to do things by a real consensus - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left notes on all the open AfDs he participated in (well, the ones that User:JoshuaZ didn't get to first). — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no way for me to defend myself otherwise, I was forced to create a second account. I won't use it in the main namespace or for any other purpose than to resolve this issue, so please don't just block me off the bat.

I don't understand what exactly the checkuser has shown. To reiterate, Pilotbob, AndalusianNaugahyde, and myself edit at work at the same time. I've admitted this repeatedly. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently there are two possible IPs those edits could come from (not one as I originally thought), since we have two internet connections and sometimes users are switched between them. Regardless, all three of our edits during the workday come from that pair of IP addresses. At night, we all go home around the same time, and all of IP addresses would then correspond to our home internet connections. I don't see how this is so damning that the case is immediately closed. What exactly are Phil Sandifer's and SatoriSon's comments referring to? Why is it so surprising that our IP addresses change at the same time? I believe my initial explanation of the situation admitted as much. Doctorfluffytemp 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We don't draw any distinction between multiple accounts operated by a single editor and multiple accounts acting in concert from the same or similar addresses. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read my defense? As I have stated multiple times already, we independently have an interest in notability debates and AfDs, but we have never "acted in concert". The overlap between our edit histories is coincidental due to the fact that we happen to patrol the same sections of Wikipedia, mainly the AfD cats and boards. At most, one of us may have !voted in an AfD the other nominated, purely by happenstance. Can you please find an example where our edits to the same AfD were more than that? Perhaps a situation we were vocally supported each other in an actual discussion? A situation where we acted in such an actively collaborative way that the AfD was tainted? Are our opinions invalid simply because we happen to be in the geographic location? Even taking into account that our separate interests lie in the same niche of Wikipedia, I would still venture that the number of AfDs we have both contributed to is very small in proportion to the number I have participated in. Is it somehow against policy for two people who happen to be in close physical proximity to both contribute to Wikipedia in the same manner? Doctorfluffytemp2 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know about the checkuser evidence, but creating an account for the exclusive purpose of indiscriminately pushing for deletions does seem rather troll-like. The rapid, indiscriminate delete !votes you cast and nominations you made really offer no insight into the merits of the articles they pertain to, and very short time gaps suggest that you couldn't have done more than glanced at the articles. So I really can't imagine what intent you might have had apart from creating the appearance of consensus favoring deletion where there might not otherwise be one. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I refer you to the extensive defense section on my original account's talk page. It fully explains the rationale for what I do. Continually blocking me and not allowing me to even comment in my defense is rather exasperating. Doctorfluffytemp3 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  It would be smarter to cease attempting to stretch our credulity this way. Even if you were NOT a sockpuppet of another editor, it would still be disruptive to create an account solely to attempt to delete content from Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  Your exact concern is addressed in my defense section. I articulate precisely why solely particpating in AfDs is not disruptive and is actually beneficial. I implore you, please read it - I have linked to it multiple times now. Doctorfluffytemp4 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Perhaps the indef block should be reconsidered, as you intentions don't appear disruptive. (Not sure about the checkuser findings; probably best for those with the CU tools to decide.) Still, I think your rapid AfD !votes and nominations can be seen as forceful overrepresentation of a somewhat outlandish view. Your philosophy seems to be if someone else thought this should be deleted, then it probably should be deleted by my standards, so I don't need to look carefully at the content. This makes sense, but I don't think it's how AfD should or is meant to work -- rarely do you see users saying "keep - this is admittedly not notable but I inherently disagree with WP:N," and those who leave such comments are rightly told to bug off and read our guidelines (even though a year ago such comments were generally seen as reasonable). To an extent, AfD participants are expected to !vote in a way that they think is consistent with what the community thinks is best -- a reasonable amount of deviation is always acceptable and helps gauge consensus changes, but in my opinion you were pushing too hard. Perhaps, if the checkusers decide that your explanation is plausible, we should hold a request for comment to discuss these issues? — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (undent) I'm not aware that being a DeleteElf is a reason for being blocked. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing doesn't have a section that suggests a user should be blocked for taking part in AfDs, nor does WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used. Care must be taken when looking at cases involving users whose behaviour one doesn't like or agree with, but whose behaviour as such is not against Wiki policy and guidelines. I understand that Doctorfluffy's participation in AfD's has attracted attention. Though I think this on Nov 5th - for which Doctorfluffy was cleared - followed by a block on Nov 9th looks close to harresment. And, out of interest, I couldn't find any discussion for a request for a checkuser search. I think there are valid reasons to question this block. I do however find that the situation that Doctorfluffy has outlined of three people working in the same office who all set out to concentrate on deleting articles to be one that will invite close attention. If this is true then all three users would need to accept that mass voting in AfD attracts attention, and that if three people are doing it from the same IP address then those users are going to be asked some stiff questions, and will need to be very careful as to how they conduct their accounts. I would like the benefit of the doubt given to all three accounts and the block removed on the understanding that if the accounts !vote or comment on the same AfD in the future that it is highly likely they will get blocked again. Failing that I would suggest to Doctorfluffy and the others that they open new accounts and take great care never to edit in such a way to call into question their honesty - not to support each other in editing articles or in AfD discussions, etc. They would need to accept that given their situation and their editing preferences, they must take more care than the average Wiki editor. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a sound block. I checkusered this user as well and reviewed contributions and the net effect is one user acting to disrupt AfD discussions. I have addressed the objections and made an offer (despite it being a sound block) at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, similarly to how I counseled Pilotbob at his talk. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you mention at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry that you did the check "on request". Could you point us to that request because I've not yet seen it, nor the reasons and evidence for the request. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a request made privately, (estimates are that somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of all requests at en:wp are private and do not appear on WP:RFCU). I adjudged the reason for the request sufficient to warrant carrying the request out, so I did. ++Lar: t/c 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AndalusianNaugahyde

I believe that the block for sockpuppetry is mistaken. No evidence has been given and so I propose that the block be removed and the editor allowed to make his own case. Kindly note there is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pilotbob which make have given rise to this problem.--Gavin Collins 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to contact David Gerard at his user talk page. It appears that the CheckUser result was affirmative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser accounts show all three usernames from different IPs at matching times. They're blatantly single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Pilotbob has been blocked for AFD dickery before, it's entirely in character - David Gerard 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I deny that this I have any sock puppet accounts and also deny any dickery Pilotbob 13:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked this out too, in response to a private request for investigation. I strongly agree with this finding of David's that AndalusianNaugahyde==Doctorfluffy==Pilotbob ... further I agree that the user Pilotbob could vastly improve his approach to contributing here (less AFD disruptiveness and more writing about things he says he knows about, such as Flight training for example) and I have counseled him to that effect. The block was sound but if the user confines to one account going forward the lift is OK by me. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12 (talk · contribs)

I was about to issue a short block to TShilo12 (talk · contribs), but thought I'd bring it here for pre-emptive review instead. I first noticed this user when he posted vague, unsupported accusations of anti-Semitism against another editor while simultaneously complaining about violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I warned him at the time, he argued with me, but ultimately there were no further problems and the issue dropped.

Today I noticed that User:TShilo12 added new "evidence" to the "Allegations of apartheid" ArbCom case, which closed several weeks ago. The "evidence" in question was not evidence at all, but merely a rehash of the unsupported, inflammatory accusations he's made in the past ([49]). All the worse, this was added to a difficult and controversial ArbCom case long after its closure, in what appears to be an attempt to inflame and perpetuate the dispute.

I view this sort of baseless accusation of anti-Semitism as a problem for 2 reasons: first, because it violates the core of WP:NPA by attacking the character of another editor rather than his arguments. Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem. I see no mitigating factors to what appears to be a serious, unsupported attack, made in a long-since-closed ArbCom case, designed to inflame a dispute, and coming after a previous warning. My inclination is to issue a short block here, but as NPA blocks are always a bit controversial and I generally don't issue them (not to mention the underlying issue is inflammatory), I'm bringing it here for feedback before I do so. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I could be happy with the NPA block but a stern warning and reversion of the addition might work too. I certainly agree with your thoughts here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed to see that TShilo12 has done this again. As far as I know, I'd never had any interaction with this editor before he made his unprovoked personal attack on me and other unnamed editors ("an opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins") back in August. I've not had any involvement with him since, other than asking him on his talk page to withdraw his attack (see User talk:TShilo12#Your accusations), to which he did not respond. I have no idea what prompted this fresh attack, since I don't habitually edit Jewish-related articles and my editing lately has been fairly light. Once again it seems to be completely unprovoked. What makes this especially disappointing is that I see he's actually an admin of about two years' standing, so he of all people should know that Wikipedia:No personal attacks means what it says. Given all of this - the repeated attacks, the lack of any contrition, and the fact that as an admin he knows that this isn't acceptable conduct - I think a more significant penalty is merited. I'm not calling for a desysopping (though his conduct does make me wonder about his fitness to hold the sysop bit), but I do think this requires more than a 24 hour block. As an admin myself, I think we need to show that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when it involves repeated, willful and unprovoked misconduct of this kind. -- ChrisO 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with a 24-hour block for repeated and very serious personal attacks, aggravated by the choice of venue. If there is evidence that an editor is an anti-Semite then that's certainly a valid issue, but it's absolutely not acceptable to repeatedly make such a claim without any supporting evidence, based on what appears to be personal animus or something, and to aggressively complain about a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at the same time. Unsubstantiated and repeated accusations of this sort are corrosive to any sort of dialog or community-building here. I recognize this is potentially controversial, so if there's a strong feeling (i.e. multiple editors/admins) that this block is inappropriate, then I'm willing to undo it (or if I'm offline, I don't object to it being undone provided there is real discussion about it here rather than a unilateral reversal). MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody neutral please take a look at this

Ummm… my God? This block is wrong in so many ways. First of all, MastCell, you seemed to me to be very much a partisan in the very arb case from which you excised TShiloh’s comments. To have blocked someone who you disagree with therefore is inarguably an abuse of your admin role, not to mention that blocks for NPA are not generally given except in very severe cases (which this clearly is not), nor am I aware of a block policy regarding adding evidence to a closed case—and if that were a policy, I’m sure the clerks/arbs could handle it.

What Tshiloh was up to, near as I can tell without having talked to him, was blowing off some steam because nasty things were being said about him in an arb case that he was not informed of until after it closed; I think most of us would find that pretty frustrating.

And you leave this up for just a few hours on AN/I (when you can clearly see TShiloh has stopped editing and can’t respond), and get exactly two responses, one lukewarm support at best, the other from ChrisO, who I think we can all agree would not be a neutral voice as this concerns him directly, and you take this as what? Community endorsement? Consensus? I recognize that there are tough calls to be made in blocking form time to time; this is not one of them. I urge you, or some uninvolved admin, to reverse this ASAP. IronDuke 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to unblock at this time. Is MastCell in conflict with TShilo? Because simply "disagreeing" with someone does not prevent you from blocking them; that's not part of the blocking policy. I don't think MastCell is claiming community consensus; he made it clear in his message that he is planning on blocking, does anyone object? No one objected, so he did. I don't understand what would compel someone to make accusations (and that's using a far milder word than I think could apply) of the sort TShilo has made while being entirely unwilling to present any sort of evidence or support. Judging from the previous responses of TShilo to questioning, I'm unsure that a block will do anything to deter him from his actions, so it could be argued that the block is punitive rather than preventative. I'm not entirely convinced of that, which is why I'm unwilling to unblock myself without knowing much, much more background. If the actions do continue, then steps up the dispute resolution ladder must be taken; this behavior is absolutely not acceptable in any shape, fashion, or form. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

bbatsell, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. When I say that MastCell is in conflict with TShiloh, I mean that he was a party to a case that was brought against people who are, or who are perceived to be, pro-Israel, and that the strong possibility exists that, as no remedies of any kind were enforced in that case, MastCell is using a tenuous excuse to block someone he's had a political dispute with. See here among many other instances of MastCell’s taking a decidedly political position on this issue. If I may offer a mild global criticism; I think admins are far too willing to overlook fairly obvious conflicts of interest when other admins use blocking to gain an advantage in content disputes. It troubles me greatly. IronDuke 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from U.S. military?

Could I get someone uninvolved to assist in a situation, and possibly give a NLT warning to a user who is threatening potential criminal charges over my reverting of their page blanking? This is all over the now deleted page Weather earl, this user's multiple blankings of that page, and their non-explanation/demands for the blankings on the article's talk. I'm a bit shaken by the threats, and even if I could write a civil enough response on their talk page, which I'm not certain I can currently do, I suspect that any more correspondence should come from someone uninvolved at this point. Also note that the editor in question regularly blanks their talk page, so if you want to see previous conversations with them you will need to go into their talk history. - TexasAndroid 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned them, it's a pretty b.s. threat to begin with so we can let it slide for now. -- John Reaves 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked (before I was aware you were warning them) on the basis that it was a clear threat of criminal charges. I've clearly stated that I'll unblock the minute the threat is taken back. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine Ryan. I'm now more concerned after viewing the deleted page in question. It appears to be an article on a new military technology(?) The last deleted edit was also a legal threat, but given the WHOIS information, it may be credible. -- John Reaves 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it could be a legit legal threat. Maybe let the foundation know? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(After a couple of edit conflicts) My best guess is that he's trying to say that the page was "Sensative", if not "Classified" information, and it was from there that the idea of criminal charges built. If he's with the US Air Force, and in a position to act on the fact that WP had such information inproperly on the project, then I could see how it could somehow lead to such charges. (And that's a *lot* of "ifs".) OTOH, his demands for it's removal were far from clear on what the problem was, making it hard to know if he is for real, or a creative troll. OTOH, with the page deleted by another admin, the threats were mostly moot, which is a good part of why I recommended a warning, not a block. I'm an admin. I know I have to have think skin around here. But this one just has me a bit rattled for some reason. - TexasAndroid 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP taces back to "Air Mobility Command Comp/Systems Squadron" with *.mil adresses, I'd say it's not his creativity. I'm in the process of sending an e-mail. -- John Reaves 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not an official legal threat; rather, I suspect that it is someone in the Air Force using their personal judgment of what is allowed/not allowed. Official channels would call the Wikimedia Foundation.

However, since the article cited no sources, deleting it was proper. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to demand official action they need to do so though WP:OTRS and/or the foundation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weather earl was deleted by prod "No real claim of notability, nor references to establish such.", but it looks noteworthy to me: forecasting weather at airfields is important to save lives and aircraft. Undelete it and AfD it? Anthony Appleyard 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to, go for it, anyone can dispute and undelete a prod. Though it might be best to wait until the situation is settled out a bit first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The version that was deleted should probably stay deleted: it appears to be the operating manual for a specific piece of hardware, and not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. --Carnildo 19:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks, content removal

Resolved

 – ··coelacan 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tweetsabird (talk · contribs)

I left a warning on this user's talk page about deleting content, and they left me this in response. This person has an extensive history of personal attacks[50][51][52], blanking sourced content without explanation[53] as well as some plain out vandalism[54][55]. JScott06 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block by Madman, 72 hours. ··coelacan 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears that User:Madman has issued a short block for harassment, but not mentioned any of the other issues. I would suggest letting this matter go, either the editor will improve or they will leave WP one way or another in due course. LessHeard vanU 21:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was 24 hours, then I extended it to 72 hours, given the other issues. I did not explicitly list the other issues, but they're clear to anyone who reviews this user's contributions. — madman bum and angel 02:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Serial hoaxer

New articles, Phoebe Price by User:Alice456, Gary Thader by User:Bobjack456, were in my view hoaxes. More to come? Charles Matthews 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Phoebe Price is definitly an American actress, although I can't vouch for the reliability of anything else there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't Lyle123, is it? I can't tell for sure because the pages are deleted, but it sounds like his MO. Vashti 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

American Brit 2: Electric Boogaloo

So, my most favoritest editor evar, User:American Brit, is apparently back, in the form of User:American Brit the second. As AB was community banned, not just blocked, I've blocked the current account and want the community's feedback on whether to lift the ban or not. He left a message on The Haunted Angel's talk page, apparently wanting to put the whole thing behind him.[56]

For those that don't know who AB is, he was community banned for making outrageous threats and insults. (How outrageous? See User:EVula#Collection of threats; that section wouldn't exist without him). You can find a listing of some of his socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/American Brit, read about the initial stages of this situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Crazy wacky funtime, and the actual ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Proposed community ban of American Brit.

As his favorite targets were myself himself (his socks would make death threats against the puppetmaster account), and The Haunted Angel, his statement "I am as fond of you as I always was" to THA doesn't fill me with much confidence...

So, what does the community decree? Shall we do the right thing, or should we lift the ban? (gee, I hope I didn't load that sentence too much... :D) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do pigeons eat human flesh? I thought they were herbivores. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Only when hung from oak trees, apparently. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong, immediate unblock. Look how remorseful he is! He regrets his "creaul and heartless banning," and is eager to "get things back the way they were." How can we resist the opportunity to get him back, just as he was? Er, wait a minute. Let me think about that. Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm changing my vote to No, I don't think so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as a non-admin, I find something like this alone (sockpuppet of AB) reprehensible, and in no way deserving an unban. The Checkuser case is so long, and so disturbing in demonstrating the non-constructive nature of the editor, that I feel this is further proof this editor is not deserving of an unban at this time. Ariel♥Gold 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I fairly surprised that this isn't a request for review of a "No, thank you very much, but it was kind of you to ask all the same." response... LessHeard vanU 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I decided to be even nicer than the situation actually warranted. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

COmmunity bans of some users could/should be removed because their net effect on the project will probably be positive. This isn't one of those cases. Daniel 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• The instigator of the community ban votes no. Banned. Let ArbCom review it, but that was nothing more than trolling. Keegan^talk 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot "rating" articles and leaving notes about it

For quite some time now the talk pages of articles have been filling up with WikiProject templates saying things like "This article is supported by the Sports and games work group" or "This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma". I personally think this is, at best, meaningless non-sense. Saying that an article is supported by a certain group should mean that there is a group of people which is actively involved in improving it or maintaining it. Usually nothing of the sort is true - the article is usually written by a random Wikipedian and then some other Wikipedian involved with a vaguely related project has auto-tagged the talk page to claim it for the project or some subgroup thereof. What we get out of this is cluttered talk pages containing misleading and distracting text. This is probably particularly misleading for newbies who will think that this stuff about projects and workgroups "supporting" the article means something and will get the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works.

These WikiProject templates typically contain a parameter for rating the quality of the article. Quality assessments could potentially be useful but there's no reason to tie them in with WikiProject templates unless, and I think that's the original idea, an article could be of different quality depending on from what project you're looking at it. For example an article on a famous chess player who's also a politician could cover the chess part of his career in an excellent way (meriting, say, an A rating) but be lackluster in the political part (say, a B rating). In reality people don't seem to apply the tags this way a lot, the different projects seem to usually have the same rating for a given article. User:Betacommand seems to have picked up on this and is now having his bot go through articles and duplicating ratings across different WikiProject tags. So if an article is already "rated as Stub-Class" on the scale of WikiProject Biography then it now gets to be rated as stub class on the scale of WikiProject Oklahoma too. This is massively redundant. If ratings are not project-dependent (and they don't really need to be) then don't keep them in the project tags - make a new tag just for that and cut down those banners a bit.

Now, I'm used to seeing my watchlist spammed by useless juggling of project tags on talk pages but now BetacommandBot has started leaving notes under new headings that the bot has rated the article with the method above. Enough is enough. Talk pages are for talk. Human talk. They shouldn't be full of clutter. I asked Betacommand to stop the bot. Five hours later I followed the link on User:BetacommandBot which is supposed to stop the bot. Nothing happened so I went ahead and blocked it. Haukur 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last edit made by the bot before I first blocked it: [57] Haukur 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject tags have a broad consensus and universal use. Presumably Betacommand has proper approvals for the assessment project, and it's very useful for the projects that care about assessments. What are you asking for? That the bot not leave a note? I don't think the note is terribly obtrusive, and it does highlight a relevant change to the article. What are the pros and cons of omitting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Have you even tried talking with User:Betacommand? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note and then waited five hours before doing anything. He doesn't seem to have been around for the last ten hours or so. The method he gives for stopping his bot doesn't work, forcing me to manually block him and that's why I brought up the matter here (not that I think blocking bots is a big deal but still). Haukur 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making useless clutter. Of course we can live with it but there's just no need to. If what the bot's doing is uncontroversial then it doesn't need to leave a note. If it's controversial then it shouldn't be done by a bot. The bot will even happily leave more than one of these notes per page: Talk:Neel E. Kearby. And why, oh why, doesn't the bot handle all the project tags on each talk page in one pass? Haukur 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't address the thrust of my criticism: Why should the ratings be embedded in the project tags if they're going to be the same for every project? Why not just have a separate little tag for the ratings? Haukur 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not useless, if you don't think a practice is good them discuss, don't block. 1 != 2 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked a bot, not a person. I did leave a note at the bot talk page, but wouldn't you know it, the bot went right on editing into the night without attempting any discussion with me at all. Rude fellow, you should scold him. Haukur 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for what it was doing and many other bots do this task as well and have done so for a while. This is not the type of thing to block for. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was never approved to add comments to thousands of talk pages. Nor was it really approved for the specific thing it is doing. Nor is it doing what it's supposedly doing very well. Haukur 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Adding wikiproject banners to article talk pages and associated issues." - how was it differing from that scope? Mr.Z-man 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is leaving comments under new headings to explain that it rated an article an "associated issue" to adding wikiproject banners? That's certainly interpreting its mandate very broadly. Haukur 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should note that even this approval you cite urges caution, saying: "please be aware that there is mounting dissatisfaction at the number of talk pages with multiple tags" Well, I'm part of this mounting dissatisfaction, I suppose. Haukur 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, your comment about trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating, and, probably more important, it would basically require an entirely different tab to keep track of the banners, which is probably all but completely unworkable, and would certainly be rather expensive and time consuming. If you really want to reduce banner clutter, then probably the best thing to do would be to use either the {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to reduce the amount of space they take up. In fact, it's even recommended that one or the other be used if three or more banners are in place. However, in several cases I've seen today, there has been absolutely no discussion ever on a given article, even if it has existed for several years. In those cases, adding the banner and at least letting the associated project know that article exists might be one of the few ways available to get any attention to the article. John Carter 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating I don't follow, what about the article's talk page? Is a more central forum for discussing the article's worth needed? trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before But isn't that what the bot is doing? Anyway, yes, hiding those silly banners under yet another banner is somewhat helpful - but the edits doing it still throw up dust on my watchlist so I'm a bit apathetic. Haukur 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for adding WikiProject tags to pages in specific categories, not for anything having to do with ratings. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking comment per link to another approval page posted by Betacommand. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to sleep, you lot do what you want. If you honestly think edits like this and this are useful then go ahead and unblock the bot. (Not that you need my permission.) I stand by everything I've said, though. Haukur 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering your invitation, and the general consensus here that the block was not the best solution I am unblocking Betacommandbot. 1 != 2 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth on this one -- I just don't see any benefit to adding redundant ratings. It just causes page clutter, watchlist clutter, and possibly confusion. If it's just done so that a human from a Wikiproject never has to touch the article, then the article probably shouldn't have the WikiProject tag in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dont like bot edits on your watch list there is a nice little option to hide them, use it. Ive got full approval for what Im going, Ive been doing this for a long time and have had over 10,000 pages fixed prior to today. β^_command 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. I don't necessarily want to hide all bot edits - I want to review some of them. It's the useless talk page edits of your particular bot I don't want to see. You say you have "fixed" 10,000 pages, I say you have done marginal damage to 10,000 pages. Besides, your bot is just plain buggy. Why doesn't it stop editing when its talk page is edited like it says it does? Why doesn't it add this redundant rating stuff to all WikiProject tags at the same time? Why does it leave the same message twice for pages it does two passes on? Haukur 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When was this approved? Link, please. (And I don't use my watchlist, FYI in case anyone was dying to know.) :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 is where this task was approved. β^_command 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm, and actually a lot of benefit to adding ratings to existing wikiproject templates. One of my projects, WP:BAY, has a drive to help identify important articles that can be expanded beyond stub status. I for one often look there to see how I can help. In the past few days it has assessed about a dozen, probably more than any of the project members. In fact I was about to give the bot a barnstar until I realized it had been blocked and brought here, which would make my barnstar a little ironic. There are probably things to improve such as the way it leaves messages and how it decides what to do if the ratings are contradictory. But it's a great start and in my opinion doing a lot more good than bad. Incidentally, I consider it bad form to rate articles I create or significantly expand, and a little pushy to add assessments for projects I have no involvement with, so that's one way tags are left without ratings. Also, if I know the bot will soon conform the ratings it's a lot simpler for me to just add it once than to multiple templates...kind of the way you don't have to add the date to the {{fact}} template because you know the bot will fix it for you. Wikidemo 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is substantial harm to filling talk pages with redundant bot output. For one thing it makes everything less accessible and friendly to newbies. They go to the talk page of an article they may be interested in and find that it's full of this bureaucratic claptrap. They might think all this non-sense about such and such a group "supporting" the article is actually meaningful and maybe figure that they shouldn't edit the article because they're not a part of the right group or whatever. I'm sure redundant messages from bots "rating" article don't help. Talk pages that should be empty are now full of cryptic template code and redundant bot output. I've never seen any of this lead to actual improvement of articles. Haukur 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My god, why are people getting so worked up about this? Calm down, have a cup of tea, a biscuit, and go edit an article. No more bongos 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All out of biscuits. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This practice must stop. Does Betacommand also use "autocontent wizards?" There is no such thing as an "automated assessment." It is a contradiction in terms. If it's automated, then it's not an assessment. If it's an assessment, then it can't be automated. This -bot, from one of the shabbier folks about, insults everyone who has ever performed article assessment. Their work has hereby been reduced to the level of a checksum. Their minds have just been evaluated by Betacommand and concluded to be negligible. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever written an article. Your work at putting together sentences, at being concise, at finding the correct terms, has hereby been called irrelevant by Betacommand. Those arguing "for" not blocking are, essentially, saying that convenience trumps both the editing spirit of the people doing assessment and the people doing writing. If you think that is no big deal, then you probably need to go do some checksums and leave the world of editing articles. Geogre 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do you understand what the bot is doing? the bot does not do any real assessing. what the bot does do is add a already present assessment to another template. you seem to misunderstand what it is doing. β^_command 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of having the exact same assessment duplicated across multiple templates? Why are you making thousands of edits to talk pages which add nothing to them which isn't already there? And why do you feel this activity is so important that the bot needs to leave notes about it at every talk page it visits? Haukur 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its part of the WikiProject system, since you seem to not understand that system and hate it, I will not attempt to explain it. Also I was requested to do this and have had a lot of positive feedback. β^_command 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, Betacommand, you "have been requested" not to do this. In fact, you say that you won't communicate with people who don't like the "system" (because they don't understand it, of course!), so I'm not sure that claiming virtues of listening to people really sticks. Try listening to people who don't want the autocontentwizarding. Consider the following: in the absence of consensus, the status quo is the preferred form. Is there consensus for you? Is it just consensus among those you like? Is it only consensus in your mind? Again: you're being asked to stop, so stop. Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's part of the system" - so it doesn't have to make sense? How is your bot leaving comments on thousands of talk pages a part of a system useful to Wikipedia? Why do you feel you don't even have to explain this? You are completely responsible for every edit done by your bot. If you can't (or won't) explain why you think edits like this and this are useful, then you shouldn't be doing them. Haukur 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just assuming here, so I could be completely wrong, but doesn't assessing the articles allows the WikiProject's to decide which articles they can collaborate to improve? If they are unassessed then it means a human being has to do it and it's time-consuming work, more easily completed by a bot. Is it the action you find disagreeable or the note? Seraphim ^Whipp 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, yes, all those stub/start assessments and tags are supposed to lead to actual people actually improving articles. I can't say I have observed this happen, though, and the plan seems rather Dilbertesque to me. Step 1: Tag lots and lots of articles and automatically rate them. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit! If anyone has diffs which show some causal relation between a bot editing templates on an article's talk page and that article being subsequently improved then please present them. Haukur 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Haukur, Im choosing not to explain it because you obviously do not like or understand the wikiproject system. What the bot does is share the basic rating of stub or start between wikiprojects that are unassessed but have been rated by someone else. β^_command 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the bot does - I don't understand how what the bot does is supposed to be useful. I'm starting to think you don't either because you're not making any sense. How is my not understanding something a reason for not explaining it to me? Haukur 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's useful for the reason I pointed out. I don't know if there is a relationship between the articles being assessed and improvement, but there it is, that it what the bot is for. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<-- moving back

The bot is useful in that it addresses the thousands of project page that have been tagged but left unassessed, this occurs purely because editors create a stub add the project tags but dont include the rating on each one. As such I see the bots action as useful in addressing that, but maybe it should be expanded to add {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} thus combining project tags. Gnangarra 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

id rather not mess with re-arranging text, (its open to a lot of errors) and there is already a bot for bannershell. β^_command 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the maths WikiProject does not want this given Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 24#Tagging math articles (which is admittedly not quite about the same thing but in my opinion it's sufficiently similar). Personally, I don't think this is useful. I'd prefer that the bot stopped doing this, and I think I have a good case to request this at least for maths articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has decided to listen to those who agree with what he's doing ("like the project" = "agree with him," and he has said that he doesn't want to talk to (presumably to hear from, as well) those who do not "like the projects") and substitute that for general consent. It isn't. The eventual crisis of "Projects" contradicting site-wide policies remains in the future, but we are merely seeing someone with a -bot executing across all articles without reason and refusing to listen to someone. I'm sure that the Math Project will fail to understand or like Projects, too, by Betacommand's rhetoric.

If the only way to forestall autocontentassessmentwizardbot is to go through and remove all assessment tags from any articles that one believes deserve human consideration, then so be it. I imagine, though, that that would only prompt another -bot that understands Projects to go on another rampage (and count all those edits toward RFA). Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot performs a valuable service

As someone who regularly goes through the Category:Stub-Class Wine articles and Category:Start-Class Wine articles for the Wine Project, I am one of the many different project members who are grateful for the work of the Betacommandbot in assessing start/stub articles (feel free to look at our assessment logs). There are many times when a new editor or anon IP will slap the {{wine}} tag on a new article they created and then forget about. Being a project that is fairly active about the status of our stub articles, with Betacommandbot's assistance, we can better categorize our articles and areas of need. Now there are times when I disagree with the Bot's assessment but it an easy fix to reassess it. While the extra "talk page message" is probably not needed, the basic function of the bot is useful in catching articles that project members might not be aware of. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't this be an opt-in service for particular projects? Assuming for the moment that ratings are useful, different projects are surely rating against different things. An article about a scientist can be a decent biography but do a mediocre job explaining the science, an article about a protein can adequately cover its structure but give short shrift to an associated disease, etc. If two projects opt in and both have their tags on the talk page, then the assessments get duplicated; if not, no need. This would at least keep the clutter restricted to articles where projects are active and actually use the ratings. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An opt-in option would be the best way to resolve this. Carcharoth 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war underway at requests for arbitration

Resolved

It looks like there's an edit war going on between Michaelbusch (talk · contribs) and 217.233.211.230 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. See the page history for more details. Someone should watch and make sure it doesn't get out of hand--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with, thanks Durova!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just taking a look at it as an arbitration clerk. As of now, it appears the filing party has been blocked indefinitely for legal threats, so the request was properly removed, although hypertechnically it might not have been the right person who removed it. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I exceeded acceptable limits by removing the case before a member of ArbCom kicked it back, please let me know. Michaelbusch 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP 217.233.216.208 justed posted the request again, and I have removed it. Unfortunately, this editor is working through a server farm owned by Deutsche Telekom, so blocking him would necessitate blocking 65536 IPs. Michaelbusch 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor seems to also have violated WP:POINT, if the edit history of Prison Break is any guide. Michaelbusch 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:高 edit-warring and changing page name without consensus

A few days ago User:高 decided to unilaterally turn the longstanding disambiguation page Magnetic Hill into a redirect to Gravity hill. Another user has reverted this several times, and so have I, but User:高 continued to make this major and non-stadard change five times, even though he obviously had no consensus or even common sense reason for doing so. Looking at the edit history, User:高 doesn't seem to understand what disambiguation pages are for.

Now he has changed the title from Magnetic Hill to Magnetic Hill (disambiguation), again without consensus, but even worse, he has started deleting articles listed on the disambig page, for example here [58].

There are now eight different articles associated with the term "Magnetic Hill", and there is no primary topic for the name. Believe me, I have been researching gravity hills for more than ten years (hence my username), and gravity hills are nearly always referred to as gravity hills. If anything, the tourist attraction in Canada is more commonly associated with the term, but there is really no single article which could be determined to be the most likely target for people searching the term. Therefore the disambig page should be at the Magnetic Hill title.

Could an admin please change the name back to its previous correct name? Thanks. Magnetic hill 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment - I have tried to assume good faith of this editor, but now User:高 is violating WP:POINT as has removed the list of locations in the Gravity hill and pasted them to a list named List of magnetic hills. Once again, no consensus for this drastic change, and naming it "List of magnetic hills" instead of "List of gravity hills" (to match the article) appears to be just to make a point. Can an admin look at his editing and take the appropriate action please? Magnetic hill 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would really recommend the WP:DR tools. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute, it's a straightfoward case of an editor making drastic changes without consensus. I was under the impression that responsible editors should seek consensus before renaming pages, removing content, etc. Magnetic hill 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• No offense, but IMO that list of hills shouldn't be in the Gravity hill article or in a separate list. I had a look at the history of Gravity hill and it's mostly made up of passing editors adding dubious unsourced claims, even many of the gravity hills with refererences have sources that I wouldn't call reliable. Merge it back to Gravity hill and remove all the unverifiable stuff and that way it won't take up so much space. I agree about reverting the dab back to Magnetic Hill though. Crazysuit 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost comical to see one rant of consensus conveyed by scorn. I'll kindly point to WP:BRD. Apparently the first and third steps are lesser known than the second. 高 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• (I'm the "other user" who reverted some of 高's edits, in case anyone hasn't looked at the edit summaries). I was assuming you thought the disambiguation page was a list of gravity/magnetic hills, instead of a list of articles called Magnetic Hill, but your recent creation of List of magnetic hills does appear somewhat pointy, given that the article's called Gravity hill and the category's called Category:Gravity hills, so the list should be called List of gravity hills.

Regarding your constant revertions to Magnetic Hill (disambiguation), why would someone searching for Magnetic Hill (Canada) find it helpful to be directed to a page listing hundreds of gravity hills? Disambiguation pages help readers find the article they are looking for, just because the disambiguation page contains articles that also happen to be gravity hills doesn't mean it should be redirected to the article about gravity hills. It would show some good faith on your part if you moved the list of magnetic hills back to the main article and tried bringing it up on the talk page, editors respond more favorably to major changes when they are discussed first (and WP:BOLD isn't an excuse here for not discussing first, because your changes were clearly going to be controversial considering your other recent edits). Masaruemoto 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's migrate this to the relevant talk page without further aspersion, for the sake of step three. Perhaps in the process you could read WP:BRD-- bold edits are acceptable without prior discussion. Maybe next time step three can be mutually followed to prevent the needless elevation exhibited here. 高 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg and its uploader Fresheneesz

When I saw this untagged on 8 November 2007, I tagged no license. The uploader removed the tag and replied to me in an uncooperative way on the same day, claiming the copyright info clear, but I disagreed as 'This picture has permission to be used by wikipedia: "I can send them a permission form if they need/want something like that. Doug Malewicki"' would not be enough. I asked what kind of permission that would be, such as GFDL, CC, or PD. The uploader remained uncooperative by removing warning tags without giving exact license and claimed my tagging inappropriate while I would still disagree my tagging inappropriate. For the uploader's uncooperative attitude, I would like to ask any other admins some actions:

1. Please intervene to tell the uploader that we cannot accept images with permission to be used by Wikipedia if not properly tagged.
2. For admins who can access OTRS, please check if any mew message is received in connection with this message.
3. If the uploader remains uncooperative and still removes the no-license warning, the image may still have to be deleted. Blocking is what I prefer not to do, unless there is absolutely no other way.--Jusjih 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I tossed him a note, let's see if he understands this. Should we tag with {{db-noncom}} now or later? hbdragon88 08:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems that you've already informed him about the "no permission-only" rule. Let's see if my explanation will do the trick. Personally I am tempted to go ahead and get it speedily deleted after he told you to "pull that stick out of your ass." It can always be undeleted after copyright status is clarified. hbdragon88 08:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. This is a promotional image of something that actually does not exist, even in prototype, but I am sure that Fresheneesz will be able to persuade the inventor to release it in order to maintain his wonderful advertisement on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The uploader does not understand our licensing policy well. If you come to my talk page you will see uncooperative attitude. Now, I need someone to check OTRS if any mew message is received in connection with this message while I have no access.--Jusjih 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we got it now. He tagged it as {{promotoinal}} and I added a fair use rationale. A smaller version will have be uploaded. I have requested that Fresheneesz keep trying and asking the copyright holder to release it under a free license. Yet the ultimate question still must be asked: does ti contribute significantly enough to the article in question to justify its fair use claim? hbdragon88 08:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne

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

I am camping on DreamGuy's talk page because he's been subjected to near constant trolling. One of his trolls, User:Ideogram, was site banned based on a report I prepared. Ideogram claims to have undiscovered socks, so I keep watch.

Earlier today I semi-protected DG's user page when an IP vandal redirected it to asshole. [59] Yes, there are nasty folks who get their jollies bothering DG.

For whatever reason Arcayne seems to have joined forces with the trolls, or maybe been fooled by a Joe job. I don't see any connection to Ideogram, but I am concerned about the situation. Arcayne has made two posts to DreamGuy's talk page [60] [61] after being politely asked not to post there, twice.[62] [63]

Around October 25 DreamGuy removed a thread from his talk page that consisted of pestering. [64] Users are given broad latitude to do what they want on their own talk pages. Arcayne restored the thread. [65]

Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 and greatly lengthened a thread at arbitration enforcement with a lot of verbage, but few enlightening diffs. (Overly critical)

Does anybody have suggestions how to handle this matter? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i would imagine that the first way to address the matter would be to actually get your facts a bit straighter. Let's address them singly, shall we?

• Arcayne seems to have joined forces with the trolls, or maybe been fooled by a Joe job - prior to today, i didn't even know what a "JoeJob" was; I can fairly assure anyone who is interested that I am in fact real, and have never engaged in any net or email spoofing. Of course, if Jehochman has anything approximating proof of this, I welcome him to submit such. As it is, I have never acted in a trollish manner to or about GreamGuy, and have in fact defended his edits and ability to edit until i discovered that he was likely sockpuppeting and breaking his ArbCom restrictions.
• Arcayne has made two posts to DreamGuy's talk page after being politely asked not to post there, twice - this is in fact incorrect. My first post after being told that I was in fact one of these apparent "trolls" was to inquire as to why I was included in this bunch as well as to point out that my posting was was required to inform him of the ArbCom complaint. The second instance was to inform him - as required of the SSP report that was filed. Again, my notifications were required by Wikipedia policy.
• DreamGuy removed a thread from his talk page that consisted of "pestering". Users are given broad latitude to do what they want on their own talk pages. Arcayne restored the thread - while I may have erred in reinstating his talk page comments, i thought it important that anyone wanting to comment on DG's uncivility and/or personal attacks shouldn't feel like they were the only ones doing so. I didn't evaluate the comments, but none of them seemed to be uncivil, attack-y, pestering or trolling.
• Arcayne has also filed a rather flimsy report against DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 - actually, I did this at your suggestion, Jehochman. While you are of course able to form an opinion of the accusation of your friend, you, I am following the steps you suggested I take.
• and greatly lengthened a thread at arbitration enforcement] with a lot of verbage, but few enlightening diffs - again, apparently, you haven;t read the scope of the issues i have with your friend DG. As its rather clear that you aren't very neutral in this matter, perhaps a really good idea is to avoid acting int he capacity as an admin?

My suyggestion is to await the results of the Checkuser and Sockpuppet reports. When they return results, those will be applied as evidence to the ArbCom complaint (which someone else filed, btw). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection to nor friendship with DreamGuy. He's had his own problems, but that doesn't mean he should be subjected to abuse. He deserves the same protection as any other user. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, calm down, and present a few diffs showing DreamGuy doing something wrong. Within your SSP report, there's one IP that is quite likely DG. The others most likely are not. Can you show evidence, in the form of diffs, of incivility by that IP? If so, I will block DG myself. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you with the research:

• These are potentially rude: [66] [67] [68]

I'd like a second opinion as to whether these are sufficiently uncivil, per the terms at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#DreamGuy restricted, and also to determine whether this IP is a sock per the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2 to warrant a block on DG. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that those diffs are at least borderline uncivil, the first one probably going into inivility. I'd like to see the IPs checked at SSP before any further action is taken. Wizardman 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a lot to work through, but I am fairly sure that the two anon IPs are going to show as being from the same user, as User:71.203.223.65 created the account for user:82.38.177.222 here (it's worth noting that the first edit under that ID was blatant vandalism). the telling connection is going to be that between DG and user:71. Proving the connection between those two essentially proves the connection between all three - and all three edited in the same article.

Jehochman, if I have misinterpreted your zeal in protecting DG, then an apology is in order. I do not feel like I have subjected him to abuse whatsoever; I too have in fact defended his edits and his right to overcome the hurdles set before him as well.. It was only after this IP stuff came up that I was less inclined to defend him - I have zero tolerance when it comes to socks. Even when the behavior set off alarms, not once did I post a personal attack or was uncivil.

I too will wait until this all becomes clear with the SSP check. As I had not filed one before, could someone please check to make sure I filed it correctly? I'll do all the heavy lifting, just tell me what needs fixing if it needs such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. There's enough trolling aimed at DG that it's sometimes hard to identify friend or foe. The diff you cited between the two IPs just shows one IP giving the other a vandalism warning. I don't think the IPs are related to each other, but I do think one IP is related to DG. This happened three weeks ago, so we can wait to see what DG has to say about this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. However, I did ask him on at least five different occasions if he was in fact any of the anon users, and each time he either said it wasn't important or avoided addressing it. it begs the question, if you are innocent, why avoid saying so? I think its fairly likely that the IP was used to side-step the rstrictions and edit freely, or in this specific case, edit-war - something DG isn't supposed to be doing, as its inherently uncivil; the edit summaries don't help, either. Had DG addressed this and taken whatever lumps ArbCom Enforcemetn felt were necessary when it first came up, it wouldn't have become as involved as it has. I do see that it might very well be that the 83 user's talk page was "created" by 71 posting a comment there; on closer inspection,it seems likely to be the case. Again, had DG said anything about this before, it wouldn't have become a Thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus. Can you present a sequence of three or four diffs that show edit warring by User:71.203.223.65 and User:DreamGuy? If you can present a sequence that shows them acting in concert, or separately, that will be helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I kinda did that in the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, but perhaps I showed too many diffs.

As user 71.203.223.65:

1 - 12:33, October 18, 2007

2 - 09:59, October 20, 2007

3 - 16:19, October 21, 2007

As User DreamGuy:

4 - 13:50, October 22, 2007

5 - 13:52, October 22, 2007

6 - 13:54, October 22, 2007

7 - 13:56, October 22, 2007

8 - 13:58, October 22, 2007

9 - 13:59, October 22, 2007

10 - 14:00, October 22, 2007

11 - 14:03, October 22, 2007

12 - 14:12, October 22, 2007

Edits #1-3 were made by the anonymous user. Edit #3 was a revert of the article version.

Successive edits #4-9 by DG show successive edits to restore to the prior version previously reverted to by the anonymous user (I'm willing to be charitable and consider them all a collective revert, though an admin weighing 3RR or civility might see it differently), so we'll call them a single revert as well (revert number two).

Edit #10 is revert number three.

Edit #11 is revert number four.

Edit #12 is revert number five.

There are three more edits after that, all serving to reinforce the edit DG (and user 71 beforehand) continually reverted to, all within a 24-hour period. Even were the issue not of multple accounts serving the same purpose (reinforcing a previous version), DG still violated 3RR. When we count in the reinforced edit of the anonymous user, the violation becomes that much more egregious. As edit-warring is specifically considered hostile (and therefore uncivil), an editor under civility restrictions would normally be avoiding reverting more than once, preferring to discuss their edits instead. In point of fact, both the anonymous editor and DG were asked repeatedly to discuss their edits instead of edit-warring, without success. It bears meantioning that similar activity took place in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee article between 10/18/07 and 10/22/07, again involving three reverts by the anon user 71 and DG. As 3RR is not confined to simply three reverts, but instead a pattern of disruptive behavior (in this case by a registered user and his anon), I think it should be considered as well.

Was that what you were looking for, Jehochman? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy blocked

We have strong evidence that DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) engaged in incivility, edit warring, abusive sock puppetry, and gaming the system to evade ArbCom sanctions. I'll add that DreamGuy ceased editing under his own account from Aug 24 until October 22 ("he has not been heard from since Aug. 24, so maybe there's no longer an issue" [69]), and used a sockpuppet during that time while his ArbCom case we being discussed. [70] [71] [72] This was apparently a ruse to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. I am going to block the account for abusive sockpuppetry, gaming the system, and disruptive editing. The reason for the block is to prevent further disruption and sockpuppetry. If an IP appears to edit for DreamGuy, it may be blocked for block evasion. DreamGuy's block should *not* be lifted without a discussion and consensus. I am going to bring these matters to the attention of ArbCom and ask them for advice. The block is stated as one week, but may be increased because there is no reason to allow further editing until another arrangement is made. The sanctions imposed were based on an incomplete understanding of the situation. Had ArbCom known that abusive sockpuppetry was occurring during the discussion of the case, I think the result would have been different. I invite discussion, but please don't refactor the block until we come to a consensus. DreamGuy may comment on his talk page, and the comments may be copied here. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the situation the IP 71.203.223.65 first edit was on 29th August and the bulk of the edits relate to Jack the Ripper most telling I find in this is that at 20:08, 23 October 2007 -- was the IP's last edit and that 20:18, 23 October 2007 -- Dream guy account made its first edit of the day. While the issue is under consideration by Arbcom theres enough apparent commonality for the block of DreamGuy and this IP. Gnangarra 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Snuh?(!) This is all far too convoluted and longwinded. I click on the second link in the passage reading while his ArbCom case we [sic.] being discussed. [73] [74] [75] and it is simple vandalism reversion (The Mammoth cock of Jack the Ripper → The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper). What on earth is going on here? El_C 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs) for the same period Gnangarra 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jack the Ripper#The The 'Canonical Five' gives a brief insight to the commonality of these two accounts. additionally this edit isnt vandalism its removing "Ripperologists" link something I saw frequently in DreamGuys edits. There also this by the IP and this by DreamGuy notice the similarities in edit summaries. Gnangarra 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've placed this in ArbCom's competent hands.[76][77][78] Let's see what they say. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly impressed with your conduct here, Jehochman. I expect more efforts geared toward clarity, next time. El_C 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you seriously just block an editor for month-old edits, or are am I just missing something? I don't understand quite what the point of this in-depth investigation of old edits in order to find something blockworthy is. Dmcdevit·t 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I commend you for having undergone through the labyrinthine collections of diffs, Dmcdevit. I don't think it was fair to subject us to this (which to say, a more concise, organized approach was to be expected, on the part of the blocking admin, if not the original individual who levied these charges). As concerning is Jehochman seeming unwillingness to spell out what he found abusive (instead of sending us all over for the non/answers). El_C 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we have another individual appearing on AE, who, immediately after I ask for (any) evidence of abuse, tells me that DG "violated 3RR pretty badly," yet provides zero evidence to that effect(!). Am I the only one finding this conduct suspicious? El_C 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you suggesting by that? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it not obvious? I am suggesting that when someone says "reference your claims" and then the immediate response to that is another, wholly unreferenced claim, that is suspicious. El_C 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I get that, but you obviously have something in mind to explain the suspician. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't. It's just odd. My last sentence was literally "please reference your claims" (quote not paraphrase). El_C 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems not in the least odd to the individual in question. (Me.) I prefaced my remarks with "I have no comment to make about that', which I would have thought would indicate that I was not responding specifically to your complaints about lack of organisation, especially since I was not the individual addressed. However, in case you felt that running through all the links would be too much work, I merely pointed out the most salient fact, which was that if the IP was DG logged out, then it appeared to me - on the basis of the diffs provided in a location which you had already been made aware - violated 3RR. My concern was to simplify the accusation sufficiently for you to plow through the diffs yourself. I have read it again, and i see nothing in the least odd about that. Nor suspicious. I can't understand what you're driving at, frankly.

I do gather that you are displeased with Jehochman's pattern of blocks - I believe he blocked Dbachmann punitively? (In which case I seem to recall I was among the first to comment about it, expressing a certain degree of support for Dbachmann in that case.) Whatever the reason may be, I think you should either spell out what you think is suspicious about my attempts to clarify things for you, or withdraw it. I oppose, as much as I imagine you do, arbitrary blocks. As the rest of the comment on the AE board made clear, I would have waited for CU to come in. It certainly is the last time I try to make anything clearer for you; I tried it once before recently, and got snapped at that time as well. Relata refero 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand less and less the more clarification I get. Dbachmann has been blocked once in his entire wikicareer.[79] The block happened recently, it wasn't imposed by Jehochman, and, before further mystery claims get put on the table, I undid the block. (With something of an accompaniment of punitive nagging by Jehochman, admittedly... but I think you were probably talking about someone else, RR? Different blocker, different blockee, relevance..? [/me starts to cry. I have flu! I can't do this! ] Bishonen | talk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I probably was. I do remember, however that seeing El_C popping up asking for clarification almost every time Jehochman's been involved, which is why I was seriously angered that he was taking his irritation out on me. I apologise for exacerbating your flu. Relata refero 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm expected to "plow through the diffs [myself]", then, for evidence of a 3RR breach you claim? El_C 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim it! I have nothing whatsoever to do with it! I merely summarized the accusation for you, as I have said several times. And whether here or at AN3, I do suspect you have to plow through the diffs yourself. There aren't any shortcuts to checking whether 3RR occurred. Since you want to do it, and demand evidence, and then refuse to check the evidence, I can't see what on earth you want. And I still haven't seen an explanation of your remarks above ladling "suspicion" on me. What the hell? Relata refero 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence, no consideration. El_C 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the list of diffs above (in Arcayne's post) the evidence you're asking for? Arcayne claims those diffs show that DreamGuy used his named account and the IP to edit war and violate 3RR. Assuming that Arcayne's interpretation of the diffs is correct, that's abusive sockpuppetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just reference claims that 3RR was violated (if we invoke it) in our own sentences, shall we? El_C 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...I'm not sure how to read your tone, El_C, but I'm not claiming that DG violated the 3RR; I don't have an opinion at the moment. But I am noting that Arcayne's post, just one section above, seems to have the diffs you're looking for. But maybe I'm wrong...your comments are quite terse, and I'm not even sure what evidence you're looking for. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone has diffs they wish to submit, here, in this section, that would be helpful. El_C 21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are two summaries for those who don't like wading through ANI threads and chasing links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dreamguy
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2

I hope these help. I am waiting for the checkuser evidence to come back, for DreamGuy to respond, and for ArbCom to respond before taking further steps. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I told Arcayne, that should be moved to the top of [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy. Relata refero 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep sending us to subpages, Jehochman. I'm asking for diffs where you show abuse. Cite one or two for us, please. El_C 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of sanity can someone please cite a single edit from this month that justifies a week-long block? Dmcdevit·t 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! El_C 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Jehochman playing games? I keep asking for one or two diffs and he keeps linking those subpages. I'm beginning to feel that he may simply not be suited for the sysop bit and that supporting him in his RfA was a mistake on my part. El_C 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, the edit war at Jack the Ripper involving DreamGuy and his IP sock puppet has caused the page to be protected indefinitely since October 26.[80] That's why there hasn't been any more edit warring since then. Discussions at the talk page have deadlocked because of DreamGuy's refusal to cooperate. Here are a few diffs from November that show the sort of uncooperative approach and hostile tone DreamGuy takes with editors who disagree with him: [81] [82] [83] [84] I don't think this behavior complies with the restrictions that ArbCom has placed on DreamGuy. If we agree to keep DreamGuy blocked this article can be unprotected. I don't think it makes sense to punish the innocent by forcing them to deal with an uncooperative, uncivil editor. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding any one of those diffs too problematic; can you focus on the worse one? El_C 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, I trust you to do the right thing. If you think DreamGuy should be unblocked, then you have my permission to do so. Of course, I may still bring this sockpuppetry to the attention of ArbCom, and any administrator may reblock DreamGuy if he resumes edit warring. Would you also unprotect Jack the Ripper and be sure to warn DreamGuy so he doesn't get into further trouble? Does that arrangement sound fair? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, to all concerned, if there are disagreements about Jack the Ripper, try WP:RFC instead of edit warring. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that since his ArbCom sanctions, DreamGuy has gotten better at keeping his comments just short of incivil. But he has not gotten any better at being able to work with other editors toward consensus. I don't know if this justified a block, or whether his use of an IP sockpuppet for a month to avoid ArbCom scrutiny while his case was open deserves a block, but I just want to caution people from blaming others for his problems. The idea that there are groups of editors who get their jollies harassing DreamGuy is one that he and some of his admin friends have proposed, and I say that's just absurd; he behavior brings on these reactions. And when he characterizes himself this way: "I do consider the opinions of others, but what I do not do is suddenly decide to follow the opinions of editors who show up out of the blue demanding changes against the way other editors have agreed to do it in the past when it's clear that they have no real consensus to do so, have not read prior discussions, and do not understand how Wikipedia policies apply" he is just rationalizing why he always has to have things his way; his too-common tactic of citing a prior consensus, when nobody is willing to support his position, makes him impossible to edit with. I'm just glad he hasn't come back to any articles that I'm watching. Dicklyon 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's called gaming the system. When an editor causes an article to be protected for two weeks and refuses to cooperate with other editors, do we let them carry on until they drive away the other contributors? When an editor uses a sock puppet to avoid scrutiny and to edit war, do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month? Excuse me for using common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, instead we drive them away with spurious blocks based on stale diffs dredged up by an edit warring adversary, I see. This is a bit ludicrous. I note that there was no evidence of any edits this month warranting a week-long block, and you explain that it was because the article was protected... so you blocked him out of the blue because he wanted to edit war, or what? This attitude that "do we excuse that because it hasn't happened this month" is a license for witch hunts by editors' opponents and branding people without regard to their actual value for the project. I guess the whole "blocks are preventative" concept is quaint now. This what I think you should have done if you thought the continued protection was harmful (which of course is true): unprotect the article with the clear directive to all involved editors that any edit warring will result in an immediate block. But block for real misconduct; don't block willy-nilly for old or presumed misconduct. I also notice that you weren't, apparently, so concerned about the article's long protection to, say, unprotect it after blocking the editor that you blocked so that the article could be unprotected. Bizarre. Dmcdevit·t 04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't unprotect articles without first consulting with the administrator who placed the protection. Seeing how El C has unblocked DreamGuy, and there's still no agreement about how to resolve the edit war, the protection should probably stay in place. Don't you agree? - Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcdevit. Jehochman uncommunicable conduct here has been truly bizarre, likely abusive. El_C 06:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really quite shocked over Jehochman's conduct in this case, so I am taking this to arbitration. El_C 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wer'e discussing the matter on Jehochman's talk page, so maybe this can be resolved informally. El_C 07:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I certainly don't consider it resolved, though you may have resolved your discussions with your fellow admins. I am a bit insulted at being characterized by Dmcdevit as "an edit warring adversary". If it isn't too much trouble, perhaps that fine gentleman could point out where I have acted at all uncivilly or edit-warred in this matter? I see someone who did something wrong - a person with a considerable history of doing the same thing wrong and being told not to do so. When I ask the user in question about it, I receive disturbingly evasive responses, as Dicklyon discovered recently at DG's own user talk page. I wasn't keen on bringing Dreamguy's background into this, of for no other reason than its far more complex a venture than I am willing to spend my time on. Being characterized as an edit-warring adversary for pointing out the obvious seems more than a little tendentious and, of course, pretty damned inaccurate.

Granted, I didn't really know how to handle a fairly complex administrative procedure as ArbCom Enforcement coupled with RfCU and SSP and AN/I, and my resulting post was too long. However, I have responded with DIffs when asked - even when those requests weren't necessarily directed at me. Jhochman requested further clarification as to wrongdoing, and I provided it - not my opinion, but the Diffs. El C requested the DiffTimes for the 3RR, and I provided it. Decrying those results as being 'old' is somewhat disingenuine - had we discovered that DG had violated 3RR and his ArbCom restrictions through his use of his anonymous IP earlier, we would have filed it earlier. It wasn't dredged up as has been disparagingly described.

Granted, there are editors who have worse track records than DG, and editors who have less respect for ArbCom restrictions, too. However, most of those folk have already been shown the door. If he cannot be persuaded to follow the rules when they are specifically pointed out by ArbCom, what voice are you thinking he is more likely to heed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf

It has been an ongoing struggle over the past several months to maintain the effectiveness of the indefinite block levied against banned user TyrusThomas4lyf. This user has repeatedly resorted to sock-puppetry to subvert the block, resulting in a string of cases against him (the latest being Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (6th)). His latest incarnation as 75.32.38.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has not been resolved, as his activity continues virtually unabated. For the short term, I'd like this IP blocked. For the long-term, I'm open to other approaches -- whether it involves page-protection or some more creative solution. Myasuda 03:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given a reasonable length block to this dynamic IP address from AT&T. It was clearly stalking you and reverting your contributions for no reason. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I appreciate the effort, now that the block has expired 75.32.38.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back to his old tricks. Either a longer block or page protection might help. Myasuda 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Which pages need protection, and why? - Jehochman ^Talk 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Death threats by User:Lock Box

I've blocked Lock Box (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making death threats in almost every edit he/she has made. User also appears to be a sock of some sort. I was under the impression that death threats were supposed to be mentioned here, so here I am. Please disregard if I'm mistaken. --Bongwarrior 07:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In one edit summary, they claim to be a sock of Starwars1955, a user who was banned a few months ago, if I remember right. I seem to recall some checkuser blocks were issued, at the time; if they keep at it, it may be worth another request. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sleeper/sock accounts

Mrwalkers (talk · contribs) has an obvious sock/meat Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk · contribs). Both have the same spa behaviour, adding the "anti-christianity" to articles. Mrwalkers several months ago tried this on The God Who Wasn't There but consensus was against it. More worryingly he has popped up with his sock to place this on Brian Flemming in violation of BLP as there is no reference. Both accounts appear to add no value to the encyclopedia. I have brought this here in case it looks like a slow edit war - can someone external please warn/block accordingly. Thanks. Sophia 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree there's something suspicious, here. I've left both users a note, for now. I should check back over the next day or so, but feel free to let me know, or leave a note here, if any more accounts show up. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - I don't think he's interested in homey words of advice [85]. Due to the severe BLP concerns (he places a film director in a category that deals with persecution of Christians) both accounts need to be blocked until they agree to abide by wikipedia editing rules. Sophia 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser neither proves nor denies that they are sockpuppets. Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle edits exclusively from public terminals in a college library, and there are several other users that may or may not be his socks or friends. Mrwalkers edits from work or home in an area nearby enough that they COULD be the same person, but could not be. If not the same person, given the fact that they're nearby, there could very well be collusion going on. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Perspicacite Part 4

Closed, not a complaints department. Viridae^Talk 21:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider a rangeblock for 58.8.21.*

• All the latest Cheri DiNovo vandalism is coming from that area (see Meggie Cleary and Lilith), and it would really help avoid future pointless nonsense. JuJube 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A range block might be too excessive as that could impact thousands of other users. I'm looking at a semi-protect on one of the articles. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

After more review, I have issued a range block (/20) which should help. Advice or change from other admins is welcomed. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are probably a better bet than semiprotection, as the anon user simply moves on to other articles. They don't really care about what article they edit, only that their bizarre obsession spreads all through Wikipedia. Also, I have rarely noticed any non-vandalism edits coming from these IPs, so I think the collateral damage will be minimal if not non-existent. Natalie 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Administrator User:FCYTravis For Using Sockpuppets To Write Commercial Advertisements And Protecting Them Abusing Admin Powers.

For the archivebot, east.718 at 22:12, 11/10/2007 22:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Fodient

This is something I came across while RC patrolling, and I'm not sure I want to get involved, but . . . I see that there was a report here a couple of days ago about this user's repeated recreation of a deleted (via AfD) article on one Russell Timoshenko. Now the user has launched himself on a campaign to add redlinks about Timoshenko to various marginally related lists and disambig pages, repeatedly violating 3RR on several articles. I've placed a 3RR warning on the user's talk page, but I can't revert any more of his/her edits without violating 3RR myself. Mightn't a time out be in order for this user? Deor 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, multiple violations of 3RR despite warnings. Given a 48 hours block to reflect on his editing patterns. ELIMINATORJR 15:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wherebot broken?

I think Wherebot (talk · contribs) has gotten sick again and has started matching wildly. Could an admin please block it for short while? (it usually gets better after 24 hours or so). — Coren ^(talk) 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Madman. How about applying for the mop yourself? ;) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Coren doesn't have a mop, at least not at Wikipedia. I think the sysadmining referenced on his/her userpage is refering to a day job. Natalie 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, that's why I suggest him going this way) MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Where bot broken? bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

Hehe. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis

This section is a reopening of a case that was started by a possibly bad-faith report. However concerns arose when the matter was investigated. Due to the presence of bad-faith puppetry in the original thread, and the original report being tainted, a new thread was proposed to be started for better discussion.

Background

A report was made on ANI by a one-edit SPA ("Triash") stating that FCYTravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uses his position on the wiki to subtlely promote for third parties, and pointing to the articles Total Recorder and the commercial article Time Machine (Solution-Soft software) as examples. The user account was blocked by user:JzG as a sock of Abhib (talk · contribs) who was himself blocked for 2 weeks for the post. The original post contained a couple of other allegations by the bad-faith user, but it's fairly obviously a grudge post, the above is the gist of it.

See above: #Reporting Administrator FCYTravis For Using Sockpuppets To Write Commercial Advertisements And Protecting Them Abusing Admin Powers.

Review

After some ANI discussion, I decided to look into the history of these matters from scratch. My report was as follows:

Total Recorder: Total Recorder was created by SPA GlenRowan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then linked to Digital audio editor, the account's sole edits. The article was tagged for SPEEDY deletion, and shortly after, deleted by an administrator. 13 hours later it was recreated by FCYTravis, without explanation, and despite the visible deletion. It would have been visible to FCYTravis that 1/ it had been speedy deleted A7, 2/ The speedy was valid, and 3/ no action was taken to remedy this (ie, the page was recreated with the deficiency it had been speedy deleted for, unchanged). The page was then PRODed by a different editor. 3 hours later the PROD was removed by FCYTravis again as "sources were available"; although in fact, none were listed and he did not add any [100]. (Nor did he address the initial deficiency for which it was SPEEDYed, either.) Time Machine: On Sept 28, a single purpose account user, Michaelmorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is Michael Morrison, director of marketing at Solution-Soft [101] (creators of a different program from Apple's, also called "Time Machine") began editing. Amongst his first edits were: Adding a marketing conflict note to the wiki in a discussion [102] Adding promotional links to marketing information [103], and Overwriting the article on Apple's "Time machine" program with his own company's software of that name [104]. On Nov 2, Morrison engaged in edit warring via repeated page moves and incivility, over the article [105]. On Nov 5, FCYTravis and Morrison engaged in edit warring via reversion, involving multiple reverts within a period of a few hours. FCYTravis reverted 5 times 20.19 20.31 20.44 21.08 and (similar) 23.08. Morrison reverted at 20.17 20.24 20.36 20.58 and 22.30. The 5 edit summaries of the latter also included a degree of personal attack [106], misdescription as "vandalism" [107] and POINTiness [108][109]. I have not examined FCYTravis' role in detail beyond this. As with Total Recorder there was no evidence or claim of notability to this software article, and one would have expected (FCYTravis being an administrator) that this would simply have been SPEEDY'ed, AFD'd, or evidence requested, too. Impressions: At a minimum Morrison needs 1/ to be directed to apply WP:COI in his editing and not to edit directly on subjects related to his work or company, and 2/ to have basics about Wikipedia, and policies on edit warring, collaborative editing, and civility, pointed out. (Hopefully the latter were mostly due to lack of awareness.) FCYTravis' conduct in this matter is of valid concern due to, 1/ edit warring (especially via 3RR), 2/ multiple failure to appropriately apply basic article inclusion/deletion policies and criteria, 3/ recreation of previously speedy deleted material in its obviously deficient state, 4/ failure to respond to reasonable requests of multiple others to either act in accordance with basic policies on inclusion/deletion in these cases, rectify the articles before recreating, or (as an administrator) explain himself when asked by other editors. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of reputable administrators and experienced users concurred (diff/EliminatorJR diff/Rlevse diff/Starblind diff/Coren) and further items of concern were presented:

Concur. Additionally, I am very unconvinced by this restoration of a previously correctly deleted (IMHO) article. ELIMINATORJR 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC) concur. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Agreed. I'd love to assume good faith here, but this looks bad. Hopefully FCYT has a doozy of an explanation for all this, although I can't imagine at the moment what that might be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC) I agree. I've looked over FCYTravis's history, and there is the unpleasant odor of WP:COI pervading it. — Coren (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The thread still being visited by sockpuppets of the original complainant, it was suggested a new thread be started:

I am concerned about the blocked sock puppet Triash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who seems to have filed the original complaint. I think the discussion can be biased when it starts on a false basis. In fairness to Travis, I'd prefer to start a fresh thread. - Jehochman Talk 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

Since the above, two further events have taken place:

1) FCYTravis has recreated the article further, adding a couple of sources. However despite the above (and despite having read this thread and the stated concerns), no evidence of significant notability has been added - a PC reviewer calling it a "pearl" is pretty minimal by any standards. The insistence on proving a point that this suggests, is a further concern for me.

2) An incivil and disparaging (and factually incorrect where facts are stated) post has been added to my talk page. In this post, titled "You have no clue", FCYTravis: Ignores my previous WP:AGF comment above, which states: "Travis - all that "concern" means is just that.... there's a basis for concern, and a resolution would be a Good Thing. That might be many forms, and a good fair explanation certainly isn't excluded. If you read my summary above, you'll find it is accurate, thorough, and does not "jump to conclusions". No label is used, no claim made. The sole conclusion is, "I am concerned, for these evidenced reasons". Would you be willing to consider a second answer that addresses the matter in more detail?" [110] Sidetracks the issue by repeating his statement from before that "Michael Morrison has nothing to do whatsoever with the Apple software known as Time Machine. He is apparently linked with a company called Solution-Soft", ignoring the fact I have not only 1/ stated this in my summary (which I also asked him to re-read) but also gone beyond that and 2/ sourced it via DIFFS and 3/ presented evidence beyond that of Morrison's COI via Solution-soft's website and his posts elsewhere. (See boxed post above.) Admits edit warring via 3RR - a good call since it's obvious, but an aggressive acknowledgement with name-calling isn't helpful. Reasserts "Total Recorder is an encyclopedic product as well - just friggin' Google-search it". States "This whole thread was started by a sockpuppet of the person who speedy-tagged Total Recorder, and is now randomly pissed off that it's not deleted. Maybe you need to look at his motivations, eh?" - concerns are visibly based on diffs, not complainant's text. States "You really, REALLY need to get a clue before you make wild accusations about a long-time administrator", disparagingly ignoring the fact no "accusations" are made, much less wild ones, and that the concerns (which have apparently not been read) are based upon diffs, not hearsay.

WP:NPA states that: "Editors should be civil ... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done [italics in original] ... a pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith ... users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks[...]" Various comments posted above are incivil, disparaging, confrontational or hostile.

Notably, disparagement aside, the actual concerns arising from an experienced admin's review of his activity, concured by 4 other experienced admins or users to date, are not really responded to at all.

Instead I now have an incivil and aggressive denial of matters that either are not germane, or were accounted for already. There is not one point made that actually is a "good valid one" for the concerns raised. Instead the concerns persist. To recap:

If any experienced user wishes to dispute my summary having reviewed the case, that a user 1/ breaching 3RR with 5 reverts in three hours, 2/ restoring problematic speedy'ed articles whilst very visibly still deficient, 3/ accepting "there are sources" as meaning "they are notable" and on that basis overriding other administrators' judgement, then 4/ repeatedly failing to discuss or explain ones' actions when asked and when there is a visible question, [5/ responding to a factual list of concerns by an experienced admin citing diffs by ignoring the actual concerns posted and disparaging/attacking the writer], are not a matter of at least some reasonable concern, please let me know.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good summation. Perhaps a response without the hyperbole will be forthcoming. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. Why was the original reporter blocked, and bad faith assumed? The various variations on WP:GHBH being suggested are not yet policy. Relata refero 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless the main account was blocked beforehand, in which case it was straightforward block evasion. In which case, I may point out that JzG's comment, "Go back to your main account or we won't take you seriously" runs counter to the spirit and letter of WP:SOCK as currently written, and is uninformative about the actual reason. Just thought I'd mention that. On with the show. Relata refero 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss that block, let's move that discussion to a new section. This needs to stay focused on the allegations against FCYTravis. The nature of that editor is really a separate issue now. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, but I don't want to waste my time. Its not as if anyone is going to stick their neck out and suggest that JzG rein himself in. Which is why I said "on with the show." Relata refero 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: from here, the facts as they are, have been evidenced by diffs presented for others to review too. There are no 'allegations' as such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And those are concerning, especially the wheel-warring at Total Recorder after it had been twice deleted by two different admins and the general hostility of FCYTravis when these concerns are brought to his attention. I don't think it's unreasonable in this case for anyone to ask him for an explanation as to what's going on here, and I would strongly encourage him to provide one so that the matter can be settled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think, at the very minimum, the community is entitled to a simple yes-or-no response regarding whether he's editing with a COI regarding these particular articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no conflict of interest - except my interest in writing an encyclopedia conflicting with someone's interest in deleting an article. FCYTravis 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

So, what am I being accused of here?

• I have undeleted Total Recorder. That's correct - it's not a candidate for speedy deletion at all. It's a piece of software that appears to have at least some reliable sources. While it has been "deleted by various admins," it has never been subject to an AfD process. It is established policy that anything which is speedily-deleted may be recreated if it can be sourced. I'll repeat - The article is not subject to speedy deletion. Now, someone can AfD it - that's fine with me, that's how it works. I have no interest in the subject except to save an article. I don't even use Windows software (except when I dual-boot my MacBook Pro to play Team Fortress 2.) I am amazed that I am being attacked for salvaging encyclopedic content. Isn't that what we're about here - writing sourced, verified encyclopedia articles? Absolutely astounding.
• I edit-warred with someone on Time Machine (Solution-Soft software). That's correct, I did. I edit-warred with a single-purpose account holder, probably an employee of the company, who was absolutely insistent that the article include a trademark symbol in the name and include a long, irrelevant line detailing the exact trademark number, in violation of common sense and MOS:TM. I believe we both violated WP:3RR there. If you want to block me for 24 hours for doing it, fine, go ahead. The article's deleted anyway and the edit war's long since over.
• It appears to be the trend on Wikipedia that people immediately assume bad faith on the part of longtime administrators with a track record of defending encyclopedic content and resolving sensitive BLP issues - such as myself. This is extremely disturbing, dismaying and discouraging. FCYTravis 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• • To comment on your first point, if you disagree with a deletion, you should take it to WP:DRV, not wheel war over it, without discussion. The least you could have done would have been to userfy it whilst you were working on it. Whilst you may believe it's OK to edit war over the MOS with an SPA, this isn't an exemption from 3RR, and could have resulted in a block (although I agree with your ascertation that is purely punitive now). Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so. DRV is to contest AfDs, not to contest speedy deletions. If an article can be recreated with good sources, let it be. If someone wants is deleted, it can be sent to AfD. I don't see any merit in this complaint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:DRV - "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion", so yes, deletion review is used to appeal speedily deleted articles. The problem here is that was not followed, and FCYTravis twice reverted another administrators speedy deletion, without grounds to do so, with no discussion and with no forth coming sources that were promised. As I said, this should have at least been userfied whilst improvements were made. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is long-established practice (and probably policy) that an article not deleted by a consensus-driven process such as AfD or DRV may be recreated at any time. Speedy and proposed deletion is not a bar to article recreation if the recreated/rewritten article falls outside speedy deletion criteria. Take it to AfD. FCYTravis 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not good practice doing it a second time, when two previous admins have deleted it. That's wheel warring, and that's what deletion review is there to stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have had to do it in the first place if an admin hadn't take a blocked troll's sockpuppet at face value and deleted a perfectly valid article. FCYTravis 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Feh. FCYTravis's response gets filed in my "fair enough" basket. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts

This whole mess has been created by a banned user, User:Abhih, who is pissed off that JzG blocked him for two weeks for something completely unrelated - so he has apparently decided to take his aggression out on me. Abhih placed a speedy tag on the article, apparently in good faith. I read his ANI post and decided that I should take a look. The article was clearly salvagable as a quick Google search found reviews in major computer magazines. Borderline? Possibly. But why not save something? Aren't we here to write an encyclopedia?

Three days later, Abhih is blocked by JzG for a reason unknown to me. Today, Abhih uses a sockpuppet to post on ANI wild, unfounded and completely unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry and conflict-of-interest about me. Why? I have no clue. Apparently he just hates admins now, though he has since posted a grudging-yet-insulting apology to his talk page.

The facts of my actions are thus: I undeleted and have sourced an article about a piece of shareware. I enforced Wikipedia's standards on a now-deleted article by removing trademark logos that a single-purpose account insisted on revert-warring into the article. For those actions, I have been vilified. This is just unfathomably stupid.

Blocked-user sockpuppets are supported and good faith assumed when they make untrue, trollish and slanderous attacks, while every action of a long-standing, trusted administrator is dissected, analyzed and criticized in the minutest detail, with no quarter given for the slightest mis-step. Why am I wasting my time on this community? FCYTravis 22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, you aren't accused of anything, nor is the banned sock relevant, nor are you being "slandered". This section and the above check is by admins and ignores the original sock-user, who is blocked and not (as you state) "supported". The concerns here are carefully considered admin concerns not "trollish" ones, and so far some 4 - 7 admins and reputable users have concurred they would like calm, considered answers to them. As I've said (3 times I think) and Seraphimblade, and others, there are apparently genuine concerns, one's view on the sockmaster notwithstanding, and your comments on them would be helpful.

You're an administrator, and as you note, a long-standing one. I can't speak for others, these are the things I'd like comments on. There's a few of them. I will spell them out in detail, to avoid the above problem where concern is expressed about "A", and your response is essentially, that there is no reason except bad faith to be concerned about "B", which has happened some 3 times now:

1. You undid another administrator's SPEEDY on an article. Reversion of other admin's work is supposed to be with checking, or only if clearly wrong. The speedy was clearly correct as it did not meet A7, and yet you did not rectify it on undeletion. Explain the reversion of the other admin's speedy delete on an article that was verifiably correctly deleted, and which you didn't rectify.
2. You edit warred. You've known about 3RR for several years now. Is this going to repeat?
3. You removed a PROD, on the article that was at that point still a failure for speedy deletion, and still were willing to leave it without sources or discussion of notability, and despite two people now showing concern. Having seen there were concerns, why did you simply undo others concerns (deletion, prod), including administrators concerns, without discussion, rectification, or respect for their work.
4. Your sole statement that was left for several days was "there are sources available". You only added (limited and moderately flimsy) sources several days later, today, under duress. Please explain this decision.
5. Wikipedia is collaborative. You were asked to discuss, and refused to do, or were reluctant to do so. Do you understand that collaborative editing requires mutual discussion and explanation of decisions, and decisions of an administrative nature more so, perhaps.
6. You were given a neutral, factual based summary of the case, citing DIFFs, on-wiki administrative and user logs, and nothing else, and this was concurred by multiple others including administrators, of good reputation. Your response was to (evidently) not bother to read this, but to heatedly dive in and accuse others of failure of good faith, of merely (and implied, irrationally or stupidly) attacking you, and of 'farce'. You ignored everything that was actually and specifically asked, in favor of 'rhetoric', bad faith responses, and flames. You answered straw men (responses to questions no reputable person had in fact asked, in preference to their actual questions) only.
7. You were then given a clear, uterly explicit, WP:AGF statement, that made clear a second time that these - genuine - concerns were what was being asked about. In response to this, you posted a second set of rhetoric, 'flames', incivilities and (per WP:NPA) attacks, which:

   1. commenced "You have no clue",
   2. described the concerns evidenced from system logs as "wild accusations" which they clearly are not (they are simple evidence which beg questions, and are far from 'wild' or 'accusations'),
   3. implied indignation that even evidenced concerns were out of line since you are a "long time administrator",
   4. responses again to only the matters that were not in fact at all being asked, nor really related to the concerns at hand,
   5. insulted and disparaged those noting the diffs at hand, and
   6. despite being heated, failed in fact to address any of the issues mentioned by any administrator as a concern.

8. At this time you still have not really done more that assert 1/ an admission you edit warred, and 2/ that in some indeterminate manner yet to be described, the rest of the above are justified as they stand, to the point a person who asks is evidently acting in bad faith.
9. You have access to delete and undelete tools. These are to be used in accordance with communal norms. The actions above do not seem to be in that fashion, nor is there an exceptional circumstance under IAR to indicate why you might have 1/ undeleted a newly deleted article that lacked any evidence of CSD A7, notability or sources, 2/ refused to explain it, 3/ unprodded it, 4/ refused to explain that, 5/ failed still to rectify these, and then 6/ express anger and aggressive hostility when asked by others at ANI. Your main response is a generic "I think it's right", and flames and attack, when it seems few or no others are in agreement yet that these are okay. That is not the standard of awareness, communal norm compliance, or manner that one would hope to expect from administrators.

I have (and am) extending good faith; no accusation has been made, nor is any being made, no assumptions are made, nor is this anything personal in any way -- this could be to anyone who makes edits and administrative decisions that there is concern over and one wishes to have explained. None the less, you have asked what the issue is. It is not Mr. Morrison, nor Apple, nor trademarks, nor salvaging content. It is the matters above.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I've already explained this several times. I'm not going to waste my breath any longer as I really should be studying. The frivolous accusations of a sockpuppet have caused me enough needless stress as it is. Good day, sir. FCYTravis 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Just to bring out a couple of points from above. Removing PROD notices is perfectly acceptable, though it is recommended that the edit summary explain why the PROD is being removed. If the reason is not good enough for the PRODder, then AfD is the next step. This also applies to the use of speedy tags ("Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it"). People may be confusing this with what happens after speedy deletion has taken place. The idea is that speedy deletion should only be used in obvious cases. A contested speedy in most cases means that the reasoning probably wasn't as obvious as it appears. This should be grounds for an immediate overturn, but what happens after that depends on the nature of the speedy. For most speedies, just talking to the deleting admin might be enough to get an undeletion or a listing at AfD. For speedies for copyvios or other cases where restoring the article should wait, again, talking to the deleting admin is best, followed by DRV. That's my take on it, anyway. Carcharoth 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's only the context that makes it worth comment. Otherwise, agreed, removal of the PROD notice is exactly how it's intended to be used. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Smackdown10, Sockpuppet of User:Roadcrusher

Seems that Smackdown10 is a sockpuppet of Roadcrusher, since Smackdown10 was created 2 days after Roadcrusher4 was blocked and immediately proceeded to re-upload deleted copyvios previously uploaded by Roadcrusher4. Last edit was less than an hour ago, so it's a pretty current problem. I didn't add to WP:SSP as Roadcrusher is already listed as a puppeteer. Kelvinc 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef as sockpuppet of Roadcrusher JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gas chamber edit war

• Pages Gas chamber and Talk:Gas chamber seem to have become edit war battlefields involving Holocaust deniers. Anthony Appleyard 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected Mercury 19:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected it, Mercury, you seemed to unprotect it? In the log it said you had unprotected it due to edit warring?, but it had never had protection in the first place. (Also why would you unprotect it because of edit warring? :). It is my first protection, is it done correctly? Woodym555 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I have some script bugs to work out of my js. Its done correctly, I've adjusted it to expire 7 days time. This is what I intended. Thank you for catching it. Mercury 19:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be one holocaust denier in particular - User:Keltik31. He's been warned for his section blanking in the main article. However, looking back at his few mainspace contribs, I am struggling to find one that is constructive. His very first edit was to call Menachem Begin a terrorist, his second was to change the 'Capture' of Adolf Eichmann to 'Kidnapping', he removes the word "Jewish" from biographies .. apart from his edits to Grand National, practically every edit is POV and related to racism or anti-semitism. However, his edits are such low-level vandalism that he has few warnings. Comments on this account would be welcome. ELIMINATORJR 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say block him, for at least a month, if not indef, do we really want this kind of anti-semitic behaviour on the project, and i can't see how his edits have been anything other than negative, and i doubt he would be missed--Jac16888 19:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

i am not anti semetic. i am anti bullshit and that is what there is a lot of on wiki regarding the gas chambers. Keltik31 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I've indefinitely blocked the account - for evidence see the above linked RfC, in addition to more recent problems. Addhoc 20:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad - I missed the RfC - if I'd seen that I'd have blocked him on the spot myself. ELIMINATORJR 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just in case somebody else uses this little factoid to re-ignite anti-semitic ravings; Menachem Begin was declared a terrorist by the British following an incident during the British Protectorate of Palestine, as it was then. The classification was rescinded just prior to a State visit by the them Premier of Israel - the same person - as memory serves. Beware the POV warrior attempting using this for their own ends. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As right as this block is, the view that Begin was a terrorist goes beyond the British. Jd2718 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a fuck what "the view" is - Begin was the Prime Minister of a Nation who had also previously been declared a terrorist by a different State; these are verifiable facts and I make no judgement on the validity of the label (and I am aware of the incident that lead to it), but pointed it out simply to make people aware it might be used as an excuse to push a POV... such as we might have here. LessHeard vanU 10:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Following Keltic31's block, I've unprotected the Gas chamber article - hope that's ok. Addhoc 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Malware linkage

80.200.227.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) linked a malware site from Erotica. One time address so I left a warning. I mention it here in case there is a procedure I should follow when this happens. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is in order here :) Qst (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone's sure it's malware, the IP should probably be blocked: it just inserted the link into History of erotic photography. I'm not going to block because I can't verify the linked file is malware: ClamAV says it doesn't contain any viruses, and there's no such thing as a spyware detector for Linux. --Carnildo 10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Emily Perkins and Katharine Isabelle

User:Lost Girls Diary (contributions) seems intent to keep these two entries written in a style that doesn't fit even the basic tenets of Wikipedia's WP:MOSBIO (most notably, insisting that the subjects of the article be referred to by their first name throughout the article, rather than by their surname). This account may be using either meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry as well (stated that she "emailed a good number of interested parties from outwith wikipedia" - [111]). User:Ktbyosmosis (contributions) appears to be a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I suspect the same of User:Relister (contributions), who did not edit for a month, but returned after User:Lost Girls Diary began reverting (this user also appears to have the same preference for referring to subjects of articles by their first name in the text [112]). (Relister, Lost Girls, and Ktbyosmosis all once edited Katharine Isabelle within the span of 2 hours [113] - on July 23rd). When asked if he/she is a sockpuppet, User:Relister issued a legal threat. Not sure how to proceed with these two pages. All Hallow's Wraith 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is tantamount to libel. The user all Hallow's Wraith is intent on changing the pages in question no matter what, nor how many other users find the style and content perfectly acceptable. as I have pointed out to him, the first statement in the mosbio page is that one does NOT have to adhere to the guidelines, it is merely "recommended". His "revisions" aren's even accurate, or beneficial. Furthermore admin FCYTravis has recently seen the page, as written, and didn't ask, or insist that it be changed, nor did he change it himself. Our only dispute was over an image, which, I admit, he was right about. My contacting other interested parties, are those who run websites, and and are close the subjects. This was done merely to inform them what was happening. If they choose to add, change or delete content it is entirely their decision, not mine. Lost Girls Diary 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Lost, I'd suggest you be more careful about violating WP:LEGAL. The fact that others have found the style acceptable doesn't matter; Hallow's is prefectly right to follow WP:MOS. Second, read WP:OWN; I concerned about language like "if people come along and mess with the pages which I have looked after" from you. Assume good faith. Your edits summaries overall are not at all helpful ("unnecessary and ridiculous") so be civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for making another legal threat after a warning. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblocked declined until the user withdraws the threat. If anyone (other than Lost Girls Diary) disagrees with my assessment, feel free to initiate a discussion here about it (drop me a note on my talk as well so I don't miss it). Cheers, Daniel 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting and POV pushing on Larry Darby

Resolved

I'm having some trouble at this article with repeated sockpuppeting and POV pushing. See [114] . I reverted an editor Copythat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who appears to be an SPA for promoting Darby and Darby's POV. Edits include referring to David Irving as a "Holocaust expert" and stating about Darby that "Darby's campaign focused on States' Rights, but mass media stories tended to focus on the veracity and scale of the popular version of [the] Holocaust". Copythat referred to my edits as vandalism[115] [116] [117] [118] [119] etc. I reverted again and left a note on the user's talk page [120]. A new user then immediately appeared [121] and made one edit [122] . Another editor then appeared with the amusing name VandalJosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), again with one edit to the article [123]. Another SPA then showed up |Juice Rule. I would like an uninvolved admin block the sock farm, and consider semi-protecting the article. JoshuaZ 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Officertrueblue (talk · contribs), Birminghammafira (talk · contribs), JuiceRule (talk · contribs), and Copythat (talk · contribs), and semied the article. Rather nasty spat of BLP vios, POV-pushing and socking. Maxim 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

insults by User:202.10.89.28 again

Resolved

 – blocked

I filed a report on this contributor a couple of days ago. It can be seen here. After I explained to him I do not like to be referred to in any such way, here is what he said on another talkpage. Its obvious who he refers to as c*nts --Laveol ^T 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Per the above and [124], and the fact that the user is helpful enough to inform everyone that they are editing on a static IP, I have blocked the above IP for 48 hours. Further incivility will be met with a much longer block. ELIMINATORJR 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked him for 24 hrs before you. Feel free to unblock and extend to 48 hrs if you see it necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I never even noticed the 'already blocked' message :) No, 24 is fine. ELIMINATORJR 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

De-escalation request

Sorry for bothering AN/I with this, but I suspect the user in question is not going to shape up without administrator intervention. Or at least, he/she appears to be convinced that administrators are disciplinarians.

State:

1. User Fennessy (talk · contribs) corrupted a sourced statement by an authority on the subject as published in a peer-reviewed tertiary source. The corruption is extended by a mid-sentence insertion of a "new-age" publication by a non-academic & non-peer reviewed source.
   Edit comment rationale claims WP:NPOVization, but user's edit history suggests confusion with "bias."
2. I reverted with followup explanation of my action on the user's talk page.
3. The user deleted my talk comment supposedly because it was "insulting & unnessasary edit by a suer"
4. The user reverts my article revert.
5. The user posts a message to my talk page claiming incivility, non-cooperation etc, etc. and breaking-off all lines of communication.

Now what? Whats really charming is that the sources accompanying his/her insertions apparently do not actually contradict the previously existing RS statements. He/She just hasn't read his sources properly and/or is misusing them to present something that they do not say. -- Fullstop 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this deserves a block or anything like that but an admin getting involved might cool this down a bit and make Fennesy see some sense--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, no blocks please. That would be overkill. Yes, just an admin doing the talking would probably suffice. As I said, he/she appears to be convinced that admins are disciplinarians (sorry for that characterization folks, and for having to dump it at your doorstep). -- Fullstop 22:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV stance

SOPHIA (talk · contribs) has an obvious beef with Cristianity that she is allowing to interfer with wikipedia's NPOV stance. More worrying is that she is making accusations that people are sockpuppets because they disagree with her. Her edits appear to add no value to the Brian Flemming article but serve only to aid Brian Flemming's activities that I have described for what they are. I have brought this here in case it looks like a slow edit war - can someone external please warn/block accordingly. Thanks. 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Fixed the userlinks above. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this earlier report for more information. IrishGuy ^talk 21:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also see the article Brian Flemming to see the damage being done by SOPHIA (talk · contribs). 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Yeah, it looks like you need to read WP:NPOV, Hoofhearted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Any part in particluar? 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Also WP:BLP. Putting this on BLP/N, if not already there. Clearly needs watchlisting. Relata refero 22:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So because he's alive he can't possibly be anti Christian? 22:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk • contribs)

Because he's alive, we must take especial care that anything claimed about him in the article is verifiable to strong sources. Pro Christian, anti Christian, or anything else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like he's denying he's anti-Christian Flemming is pretty proud of it. 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Generally when given the choice between a neutral description of someone's acts and making conclusions about their motives, Wikipedia should do the former. Statements about someone's motives should generally be drawn from sources rather than being in the words of a Wikipedian. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia "Anti-Christian discrimination, (AKA) anti-Christian prejudice, Christianophobia or Christophobia is a negative categorical bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity. Such prejudice and discrimination is a type of religious intolerance and a form of religious discrimination. Anti-Christian prejudice can be held by individuals or groups, and may be the result of religious or antireligious fanaticism or bigotry. Anti-Christian discrimination is practiced by members of other religions, as well as antireligious adherents of secularism. As a mental and emotional attitude, anti-Christian discrimination leads to stereotyping, hate, and oppression. Anti-Christian prejudice results in the dissemination of hate speech, the commission of hate crimes, and the formation of hate groups, as well as other forms of discriminatory behaviour. Widespread Anti-Christian discrimination may attach social stigma to Christians or Christian beliefs, and may result in an experience of social inequality by Christians. In nations where freedom of religion is limited, the issue becomes persecution of Christians." He fits the bill 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle

Which is you wanting Wikipedia to draw a conclusion rather than state the facts of his actions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(indented) Indeed; what exactly do you want Wikipedia to do about Flemming's anti-religious beliefs? I don't see any admin action required here. ELIMINATORJR 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Taiketsu

Resolved

 – LessHeard vanU 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Taiketsu (talk · contribs) has a bad habit of yelling at people who don't follow his interpretation of policy. I think he needs an administrator to talk to him, because he won't seem to hear it from anyone else. JuJube 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on their talkpage. Remove that banner and come back if it didn't do the trick.LessHeard vanU 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content break down

In case people haven't seen it, the latest analytical 'break down' of Wikipedia's content is now complete. The statistical analysis is available here--Doc^g 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I didn't realise we had so much useful content. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just mainspace, right? Jd2718 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the other namespaces are filled with never ending arguments, stupid questions, autograph books, spurious reports of admin abuse, spurious reports of sockpuppetry, spurious reports of conflict of interest, and lots of hue and cry about some particular thing being the end of Wikipedia. Natalie 03:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's 'Stephen Goddamn Fucking Colbert' now. He got a name extension. HalfShadow 04:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That analysis reeks of NPOV, censorship, liberal bias, anti-Western eurocentrism, ageism, atheism, vandalism, criticism, elitism, inclusionism, cabalism, bagism, imperialism, and a bunch of other stuff. (I'm stealing it for my user page.) Raymond Arritt 05:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

old so no the Colbert name was correct at the tme.Geni 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonconstructive reverts and edits to ancestry templates by IP address 24.57.196.130

24.57.196.130 (talk · contribs) is habitually reverting changes made to ancestry templates in royalty articles. A lot of these articles are in my watch list, where I am monitoring changes, and the anonymous user is making nonconstructive edits to the effect of linking to redirects and adding in titles where they were not before and where they are not needed. Generally, ancestry templates have names linked in them according to WP:NC(NT) which simplifies names for kings, queens, etc, by omitting titles and using territorial designations. While I can understand this happening once or twice, I have already left a note on the user's talk page, which appears to be stable and used by one individual and it is still happening to the point where it is disruptive. For instance, it just happened again at Charles I of Austria. It is becoming disruptive and it is coming to the point where it is vandalism as the user will not respond to the talk page or to requests to stop. Charles 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also note these differences and the respective article histories [125][126][127]. Charles 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Something odd is going on, he adds soome titles, and removes others. Unusual behavior, and no edit summaries. ThuranX 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some minor constructive edits, but to me it seems, for the most part, that it is this continual reverting which is taking centre stage in his/her editing activities. I would like to change the templates back to the form generally used for articles, to bypass redirects and have names in compliance with WP:NC(NT), especially if someone decides to turn an unlinked name into a link (so that the article is first created at the right title). I do not, however, want to break the 3RR. Would you consider this habitual, nonconstructive editing to be vandalism? Charles 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring blocks on Adult-child sex

I've blocked both Pol64 (talk · contribs) and Albert Wincentz (talk · contribs) for revert warring on Adult-child sex. Neither had actually broken WP:3RR, but Wikipedia:Edit war is policy and revert warring is quite disruptive. I am inviting review on both these blocks. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had just warned them both about 3rr as they are new users and neither had edited after the warning but its only 24 hours and I think it is a good call. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A warning might have sufficed in this case. I won't complain, I just think it might be a way to consider going in the future. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper AFD closure

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Time (radio show) seems to have been closed early by a Non admin, Shalom (talk · contribs), after only a day, marked with a misleading result. Since I nominated Pacific Time (radio show), I feel it better for another admin to have alook at this situation.--Hu12 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears Shalom (talk · contribs) is closing other Afd's early and inapropriatly--Hu12 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at his/her most recent closes and I don't think they are obviously improper. Are there specific other AfDs you thought were closed early? Natalie 03:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On the example above, 5 "keeps' on an afd which has 4 more days to go hardly equals a "Speedy keep". I've reverted the AfD above (changed the link to oldid) so it can run their course and gain full consensus as intended by the process. Several others include;

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heller center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle MLS
• A few Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

I see this user is up for Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shalom, while I grately respect the co-nom's, I'd hope better judgement is used by Shalom in the future. The process are in place for the pupose of consensus, understandibly if all opinions/votes are "speedy keep (or delete)". Then this type of closure would be appropriate, however they were not.--Hu12 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In case the question is about non-admins closing xFDs, see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several non-admin closures in which they were done appropriately in the proper manor, however I have not seen this done with AFD's that just begun. --Hu12 03:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The first one wasn't not a candidate for speedy keep on those grounds, and had not yet reached snow proportions. The other closes were valid. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The closures may have been a bit brusk, especially the first one, but they appear to have been done in good faith, and they all appeared to be heading for WP:SNOW keep. Even the first one, which appears to be the fastest closure, looked unlikely to generate ANY result better than "no consensus" given the number of keep votes already cited, with reasonable keep rationale. It would be nice to see most of these stay active for a day or two, but I see no evidence of malice here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

LI agree with the lack of malice. More a case of jumping the gun/mistaken use of speedy keep. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps here he should have ideally waited to let the snow get rolling, but I really don't agree that this is a persistent problem. This is a perfectly acceptable, I would venture to say nearly unobjectionable, withdrawal in which no one wanted the article deleted. If someone comes across and does want the article deleted, they can start their own AfD. This was an extremely clear snowball case, and IMO a perfect example of a non-admin closure. The three that he closed here had, by my best speculation, virtually no chance of resulting in deletion. Looks like mostly uncontentious housekeeping to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, there really is no such thing as a valid WP:SNOW speedy keep. WP:SNOW is not an invitation to break proper process (it is an invitation not to dig in your heels and climb the Reichstag dressed as spiderman when process has already been broken; quite a different thing.) WP:IAR is also hardly ever a good reason to speedy close an AFD, because a running AFD doesn't "prevent people from improving Wikipedia"; proper process shouldn't be broken unless there is a problem to be fixed, and there very rarely is a problem in simply letting an AFD run its course. Speedy keep is only for dealing with irregularities of process, such as bad-faith nominations, and for retracted nominations. So-called SNOW speedy keeps should almost never be done, and certainly not by non-administrators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I think such practices are generally viewed as permissible by most. Quite a lot of AfDs are closed early for snow-like reasons, in my experience at least. — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe those practices are generally Not viewed as permissible by most.--Hu12 11:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with FutPerf. Several of these were closed after only a day or so, which I think should only be done for bad faith noms. People need time to respond. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Threats at Sandbox

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along. Metros 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What does anyone say about this comments? -Goodshoped 04:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I say your signature is excessively long. Viridae^Talk 04:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What does that have anything to do about what's with the subject? -Goodshoped 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the operative term here is '...' HalfShadow 04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a serious threat. Maybe WP:OR. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment was real cute; however, all edits afterward have been vandalism. JuJube 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a threat? They said they're leaving... WODUP 04:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. I left him a message appropriate for his obsession with "bork". JuJube 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:J-doggerz

Resolved

 – Indefblocked, now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

J-doggerz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I don't know about this guy. It is not really a big deal but it started here when I removed the "This user is an administrator" infobox from his user page, because he is not an administrator. I even left a note on his talk page explaining why I removed it. Today, he leaves this message on my talk page (personal attack included) saying that he is an admin, which he clearly is not. I left him a notice for the personal attack, which he then apologized for. Today he re-added the Admin userbox. Would somebody else like to explain to him that he is not an administrator, and advertising as one is disruptive? - Rjd0060 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note and removed it again. Further issues from him will result in a block, possibly indefinitely since he has expressed no desire to positively contribute to the project outside of his user page. Metros 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks Metros! ...And JuJube. - Rjd0060 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mystery Man

I have indefinitely blocked The Mystery Man (talk · contribs) for continued copyright violations and false licenses. Numerous warnings and previous short blocks for this go back more than a year. There are still many uploads by the user which are dubious and should probably be checked one by one-- for example recently the user was uploading a series of photos of members of the US congress with several legitmate PD-USGov images mixed with images yoinked from Associated Press falsely with the same PD-USGov tag. -- Infrogmation 05:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issue on anonymous shared IP talk page

The person who is currently assigned IP address contributions insists on blanking the associated talk page User talk:66.176.85.30, which contains templates showing the hostname, ISP, and recent warnings from that IP address. The editor has far exceeded the WP:3RR threshold although I'm not sure that applies to talk pages. Several editors (including myself) have attempted to restore the page, but the anon editor seems to insist upon ownership. Any way to resolve this? =Axlq 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the only reason for my restoration of the talkpage is to keep the long-term vandalism that this user has committed apparent. This is a shared IP, so this talk page is probably registered to several people, thus nullifying the user ownership clause, IMO. The Hybrid T/C 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While editors are usually free to blank notices (and doing so implies they read the warnings), with the case of shared IPs, my understanding is that it is not generally acceptable to remove shared IP headers and notices given, as the information is there for administrators and editors to understand the history of the shared IP, as well as for the IP it is registered to if need be. I think reverting in this case is perfectly acceptable, and I've seen many an administrator revert blankings of shared/educational IPs for this very reason. Ariel♥Gold 06:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Combined with the vandalism (mostly blanking) in their recent contribs there's enough here to warrant a block. 48 hours, which may be enough time for the IP to roll over to someone new. If anyone thinks this is excessive you can dial it back. Raymond Arritt 06:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.x2) Aside from the keeping-warnings-visible issue, 3RR specifically does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." Regarding the removal of warnings by a user, see WP:UP#CMT. The IP doesn't seem to be violating any sort of policy, as the removal of warnings should simply be taken as proof the user has received them. --Dynaflow babble 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages". It isn't their talk page; it is Comcast's, and whoever has used it previously in addition to what stake they have it it. The warnings, and the IP notice needs to remain for the benefit of any future blocking admins, and any users who need to warn the user in the future. It should not be allowed to be blanked. The Hybrid T/C 06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A look through the IP user's contribs seems to indicate that the same user has been on that same IP for quite a while, and it should probably be treated as we'd treat any other account. The warnings are in the history, and assuming CVU and other patrollers leave summaries when they leave the warnings, seeing what "level" this user on is a simple matter. [EDIT:] As for Comcast IPs' "dynamicness," see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321#User:24.62.241.203. In the case of an educational institution, I'd probably say that the warnings and especially the {{SharedIPEDU}} template should be kept, but we're likely dealing with just one person here. --Dynaflow babble 06:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) I'm sure we can all agree this is no big deal. If good faith is applied to this IP's recent summaries, then we can assume that the IP has just changed hands, but all in all I'm tired, and want to go to bed. Do whatever you feel, as my intense apathy has just kicked in :P. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 06:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin review required please

IMO this attack on me is unacceptable, especially ther threat to take me down. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the comment could have been expressed in a more politically correct manner, but to put it bluntly, I think your behavior in the pedophilia-related articles has lately been very provocative. Remove it if you'd like, but I think it's a very understandable, if not desirable, reaction to your involvement. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? IO have not been at all provocative as all, the contribs I make there amply prove this. I am looking for admin review, and that is not you. And no, it is completely unacceptable for supporters of pro-pedophile activism to advertise a collective attempt to take me down so that they can pursue their well known pedophilia pushing agenda on wikipedia, an agenda the arbcom are very keen to clamp down upon. Your defence of such a statement is not needed either. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"...he'd have even less adversaries to protect his victim, due to his general lack of rationality...that's why I'm trying to create an atmosphere that he might be taken down by collective effort."

Wow, that's not just a failure to assume good faith, that's a threat of harassment, defined as a personal attack in WP:NPA. Since Squeakbox has done nothing wrong it is totally inappropriate for editors to talk about getting rid of him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, from my (sometimes involved) perspective, it seems that you have

• Removed pertinent discussion threads from other users' talk pages and WikiProject talk pages, against the reasonable requests of editors(*)(*)(*)(*), edited acceptable comments made by others(*), and removed criticism of your behavior (*)(*)
• Labeled virtually everyone who contested the neutrality of your behavior as a pro-pedophile advocacy activist and/or POV-pusher(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Accused several editors you didn't agree with, myself included, of being SPAs, trolls, sockpuppets or meatpuppets(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Accused editors of using "dirtier and dirtier" tactics(*)
• Used derogatory terms like "ridiculous and childish", "idiot", twat, etc.
• Neglected to assume the assumption of good faith(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
• Made a large number of comments in a tone that some, though not necessarily all, might interpret as mocking (examples: (*)(*))

That's what I've observed, which is a relatively small portion of all the related discussions. None of the above actions are individually outstanding, but taken together one can understand how they might cause other editors stress. I have noticed that a number of editors have complained about your behavior recently.(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) I'm sorry if anything I'm saying offendeds you, but I feel strongly that if you're going to request that action be taken against an editor you are in dispute with, the broader context of the dispute should be disclosed. — xDanielx ^T/_C 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper conduct of admin user:Butseriouslyfolks

User:Butseriouslyfolks improperly unblocked an aggressive user which was blocked after several warninngs about improper behavior, see User talk:Nergaal under ridiculous justification "as the blocking admin apparently has a relationship with the other party". I was not informed about the unblock. I insist the block reinstated and user:Butseriouslyfolks warned. `'Míkka>t 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you not initiate a discussion with the unblocking administrator first on User talk:Butseriouslyfolks, rather than 'reporting' them here? Out of general courtesy and common practice, this noticeboard is used in these situations only after discussion has been tried and failed between the involved parties (in this case, yourself and Butseriouslyfolks). Daniel 09:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the last time Mikka reported me here was after he unilaterally restored about 25 pages I had deleted, without any prior discussion or subsequent notice, other than the report here. Then, after his insult laced reports here, he refused to respond to the notes I left on his talk page. This incident is preserved for posterity here. And yes, I admit my deletions there were . . . overzealous. (OK, they were wrong!)

In this particular case, Mikka went after Nergaal after the latter was embroiled in a content dispute (or perhaps a format dispute) with Fabartus. After the two had apparently settled their differences, with some positive comments on both sides, Mikka escalated the conflict with warnings left for Nergaal and encouraged Fabartus to go back to doing whatever had upset Nergaal in the first place. Fabartus told Mikka "long time no see", and when Nergaal suggested that Mikka had abused his admin powers by taking the side of an old acquaintance, Mikka blocked Nergaal for "trolling" and deleted Nergaal's comment that pointed out the friendship between Mikka and Fabartus. In my view, Mikka was clearly wrong in two respects -- the block was completely undeserved, and Mikka should have reported it and then stepped aside due to his friendship with Fabartus so someone else could decide whether Nergaal should be blocked. So I unblocked.

Look, I know I'm not ZScout, but neither is Mikka Jimbo. I know a rotten block when I see one, and I also knew Mikka would refuse to discuss the situation, per my past experience and the friendly notice on his user talk page that "Any messages left here will probably not be unanswered [sic]", so I did the bold thing. -- But|seriously|folks  10:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I feel you should at the very least have advised the blocking admin of your intention to unblock and given your reasons, but preferably have initiated a discussion on why you thought the block improper - notwithstanding your belief that such a discussion was unlikely to formulate a consensus. In this particular case, per your comments, I think it even more appropriate to have followed procedure. This may be an example of the end not justifying the means. Them's my tu sense. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. This complaint was originally posted to the Wikiquette alerts section [128], and has been redirected here with the comment from User:Jamessugrono as follows: "This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits". Vizjim 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Loose cannon, chasing rapidly changing IP editor

Recently, there have been a number of contributions to various Kent-related articles that are coming from IP numbers (80.0.110.148, 80.2.201.239, 80.0.117.237, 80.1.88.210, etc.). It looks like it may be the same person. The problem is that although the contributions seem well-intentioned, the editor appears to be blissfully unaware of WP's guidelines (POV, linking policy, verifiability etc). So far I have been unable to communicate with him/her because the IP address keeps changing.

It seems heavy-handed to revert, but at the same time their contributions need extensive fixing and it would be good to introduce them to Wikipedia principles. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? How does one chase an ip-editor? Pgr94 12:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When reverting/tidying up leave a request to discuss the edits on the talkpage in the edit summary? Include a non visible message (I know it can be done, just not how - who made me sysop!?) in the text that is being edited to the same effect? LessHeard vanU 13:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Laertes d

Despite the apparent differences we may have in editorial issues, I have repeatedly tried to help this user edit within the spirit of civility of Wikipedia ( past: but I am sorry to have failed.

Below is a list of their most recent pattern of language, and I am afraid I cannot tolerate it any longer, so I present the diffs here for your input:

[129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147]

Your insight is valuable. NikoSilver 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wish one single user, administrator or not, to see how blatantly, and in a ugly fashion, this user has been pushing his POV in this or several other articles..Instead of presenting here bits and pieces of the dispute, i invite anyone to see the discussion..

He changes non-pro Turkish historians` citations to things that they dont say, fanatically revert the article without entering into any discussion, or say completely unrelated things just to seem like he is actually discussing something when in fact he doesnt..

I dont have any problem with any particular nationality, and if somebody would check my edits it will be obvious that i do not promote any nationalistic pov pushing, i myself several times added definitely non-pro Turkish citations and quotations to wikipedia, but i cant stand to see such an ugly POV pushing to be continued for such a long time..--laertes d 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Laertes we are not discussing any dispute here, this is not WP:DR or anything. Also, please do not interfere with my comments ever again.[148] NikoSilver 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

i just wish you could simply stick to the point instead of making ad hominem attacks to show yourself on the right side, bring your issues with that particular `dispute`..--laertes d 13:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you are altering my comment. NikoSilver 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is the third. NikoSilver 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the tenth time youre employing ad hominem stretegy, as i said just use things that is directly related with the current discussion, if anybody is interested that much about these things they can see it with a little research..Im taking them as an another attempt in your part to change the topic and thats why im moving them..I do not list here countless links of how blatantly nationalistic pov pushing edits you have made in wikipedia..--laertes d 13:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Urgent: User:Brown-Haired Girl launches all-out assault on the GRG and myself, and by extension Guinness World Records and the Western media

Dear Arbitration Committee,

I have before you a matter of extreme urgency--the actitivies of ONE particular administrator, Administrator Brown-Haired Girl, who has engaged in an UNMITIGATED campaign of terror, harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and name-calling against not simply my person, but the entire world system of determing who is the world's oldest person. To give the complete story here would be long-winded. However, noting that ALL the latest edits involve articles that I have either created or edited:

13:29, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Emma Carroll‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 13:28, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) William Seegers‎ (cleanup) (top) 13:26, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wilhelmina Kott‎ (refimprove, notability) (top) 13:25, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Elsa Tauser‎ (notability, refs) (top) 13:23, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Ellen Dart‎ (botability, cleanup, refimprove) (top) 13:23, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Ellen Dart‎ (notability, refimprove) 13:21, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Alonzo Herndon‎ (refimprove) (top) 13:17, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ryoung122‎ (Stephen Coles AfD) (top) 13:15, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 11‎ ({subst:afd3|pg=Stephen Coles}}) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles‎ (nomination) (top) 13:05, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Stephen Coles‎ (afd) (top) 13:04, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Raymond Cambefort‎ (PROD) (top) 13:02, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth Kensley‎ (notability, refs) (top) 13:01, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Florrie Baldwin‎ (notability, refs) (top) 13:00, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Alberta Davis‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:59, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) James Birren‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:58, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Paul Baltes‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:57, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Charles Brunier‎ (notabilit) (top) 12:57, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) James Hard‎ (notability, refs; PROD) (top) 12:53, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Gerontology Research Group‎ (peacock terms, fact tags) (top) 12:50, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Anne Primout‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:45, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Denzo Ishisaki‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:45, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Flossie Page‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:44, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Florence Homan‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:43, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Giulia Sani-Casagli‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:41, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Grace Nelsen Jones‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:41, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Lucie Péré-Pucheu‎ (notability, refs) (top)

12:40, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Mary MacIsaac‎ (

) (top) 12:39, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Mary MacIsaac‎ (

) 12:37, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marion Higgins‎ (

) (top) 12:33, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Maggie Barnes‎ (

) (top)

12:31, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Mary Bidwell‎ (Marked as unreferenced (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RS). Please don't remove the

tag until references have been added.) (top)

12:28, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) E. Beatrice Riley‎ (prod) (top)

It seems fairly obvious this user is OUT OF CONTROL and needs to be blocked immediately from further editing until which time she calms down.

The Wikipedia system is SUPPOSED to be based on RELIABLE sources. However, user Brown-Haired Girl FIRST questioned my integrity when I challenged her deletion of a category she didn't like. When facts were presented that I was in fact an established authority in the field, instead of doing the right thing, she gathered a lot of 'friends' and launched an all-out attack to wipe not just myself but the 'Gerontology Research Group' and 'supercentenarians' from Wikipedia. Pick up a copy of the 2008 Guinness World Records. Look on page 67 (hardcover edition) and you'll see the GRG (www.grg.org) listed as the source for Guinness World Record's oldest living persons category. Given that the (western) media has viewed Guinness as even the 'official arbiter of longevity',

MILESTONES - TIMECalls inundated the offices of The Guinness Book of World Records, official arbiter of longevity. Herewith a few of the candidates in the vintage ... www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986874,00.html?iid=chix-sphere - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Are we now going to let a SINGLE administrator on Wikipedia decide, all by herself, that this is just 'linkspam'? I note the Gerontology Research Group is a NONPROFIT scientific organization that includes a Who's Who of the world's top scientists, such as Leonard Hayflic, Aubrey de Grey, etc. Note that User Brown-Haired Girl also attacked the James Birren article (a co-founder of the Gerontology Society of America group, the top organization in the field, end of story). Mis-use of admin. power to harass, intimidate, incorrectly remove links, calling reliable sources 'spam', refusing to talk or negotiate, making inappropriate AFD nominations, etc show an administrator completely out of control. If ever there was a time for a block and a mass reversion of someone's edits, the time is now.

Current revision (13:29, 11 November 2007) (edit) (undo) BrownHairedGirl (Talk | contribs) (notability, refs, rm linkspam)

Line 1: Line 1:

+

+

Emma Vironia Lanman Carroll (May 18, 1895 - July 10, 2007) was, at age 112, the U.S. state of Iowa's oldest person  Emma Vironia Lanman Carroll (May 18, 1895 - July 10, 2007) was, at age 112, the U.S. state of Iowa's oldest person 
since the October 29, 2006 passing of 111-year-old Hazel Blecha, and also the Guinness recordholder for the oldest person to ride in a hot-air balloon at 109 years and 70 days old in 2004. Since her husband Clair lived to be 100, their combined age of more than 212 years also ranks as the second-highest aggregate age of a married couple (total combined age), only behind a Dutch couple.  since the October 29, 2006 passing of 111-year-old Hazel Blecha, and also the Guinness recordholder for the oldest person to ride in a hot-air balloon at 109 years and 70 days old in 2004. Since her husband Clair lived to be 100, their combined age of more than 212 years also ranks as the second-highest aggregate age of a married couple (total combined age), only behind a Dutch couple. 

Line 13: Line 15:

* http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_191233045.html  * http://www.ottumwacourier.com/local/local_story_191233045.html 

- * http://www.grg.org

* http://www.geocities.com/k_gene_carroll/emmacarroll.html  * http://www.geocities.com/k_gene_carroll/emmacarroll.html 
* http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Magazine/Articles/May-June_2007/SaltShakers_Carroll.htm  * http://www.freemethodistchurch.org/Magazine/Articles/May-June_2007/SaltShakers_Carroll.htm 

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you sum that all up in a simple, brief manner? BrownEyedGirl is doing what, exactly? and why is what shes' doing wrong? Thank you. That mess of text and templates is hard to read and sort through without links. ThuranX 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)