Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive444

User:SacKingFans

User SacKingFans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding a low res (137 × 103 pixels) image (Image:Smoke at sunset.jpg which also has no information on the images page) on Wildfire and keeps reverting my removal. I've ask in the edit summary for them to upload a higher res image and add source info to the image. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask people to do things in edit summaries, go to their talk page instead. I've left a quick note. Lets see if he responds. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle uncle uncle and PouponOnToast

I recently came across the disruptive single-purpose account Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who claimed to have 92 sockpuppets according to his userpage. His sole contributions to the project consisted of popping up in contentious discussions, and updating a "sock counter" on his userpage.

Looking at Uncle's early contributions, it's clear he's an alternate account of DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka "Hipocrite"; Uncle's initial edits to the project were to articles DepartedUser had previously worked on, and Uncle started getting involved in Tor-related discussions right after DepartedUser announced he was leaving the project due to frustration at our policies on blocking open Tor exit nodes.

However, DepartedUser also returned to the project as PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (implicitly confirmed on his talk page). This user has also contributed to many of the same areas of contentious discussions as Uncle; PouponOnToast has also recently admitted to sockpuppetry on his userpage, where he says "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all, I'll be gone in a flash." (He also ends with the cryptic, trollish comment, "LAWL I DO IT AGAIN!")

It seems clear to me based on this evidence that User:DepartedUser == User:Uncle uncle uncle == User:PouponOnToast. If true, not only have they been engaging in long-term bad hand sockpuppetry, they have also been double-voting (e.g. in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2). I have thus blocked Uncle and Poupon indefinitely. I welcome any further review or community input into this matter. krimpet✽ 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion below, I've personally unblocked Uncle, as new, solid evidence suggests he is indeed unrelated to DepartedUser/Hipocrite/PouponOnToast. Investigation into DepartedUser's sockpuppetry is, however, still continuing. krimpet✽ 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an arbitrator emeritus and experienced checkuser confirmed to me some time ago in confidence that Hipocrite/PouponOnToast was "trolling with socks" for an extended period of time, but declined to identify any accounts. east.718 at 04:37, July 2, 2008

Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely consider what he's saying here, but it's a far cry from a solid case. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still support block of PouponToast, there is still some abusive socking going on here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. I don't see sufficient evidence to indef block User:Uncle uncle uncle, only suspicions, nor do I see the account doing anything disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have questions over the alleged connection between PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). While I have no comment on PouponOnToast and his own possible sockery, myself and a number of other checkusers are examining all the data right now. More later - Alison ^❤ 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... based on this and other evidence I've received, I'm going to agree that Uncle uncle uncle is probably unrelated, and though his conduct has still been problematic, not worth an indefinite block, so I will remove it. However, evidence still seems strong that DepartedUser/PouponOnToast has been sockpuppeting - hopefully the checkuser evidence will shed light on this. krimpet✽ 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet. Ok, this checkuser says that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated to each other. More on Poupon later ... - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking as well, probably not as extensive as Ally's, and the most I could come up with was "possible but not all that likely" based on technical. Could have missed something but I didn't see the strong link. So I concur with Alison. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle uncle uncle has asked that a link be placed to his talk page so people can see his response to the sockpuppet accusation. It starts at about User talk:Uncle uncle uncle#Yow! and includes a few other sections below that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a message from PouponOnToast, and have been asked to repost it here;

Thanks - Alison ^❤ 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that at least one of his socks was created for self protection. I also have to agree that while his style left something to be desired at times, he got it correct more times than most and I love it when editors cut through the bullshit like this guy.--MONGO 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly common knowledge that PouponOnToast was Hipocrite. I have found PoT to be a constructive, good faith editor. Hipocrite/User:DepartedUser was never banned, rather he chose to leave under that name and return under another subsequently. If the only remaining reason for this block is that PoT and Hipocrite are one and the same, the block needs undoing. However, if Poupon/Hipocrite is using other accounts, still, then that's different. I guess we wait got the Checkuser stuff to come back. Neıl 龱 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find evidence of other accounts being used by PoT. The sock policy does not absolutely forbid use of other accounts, it only forbids their use to evade or confuse matters or disrupt. More extensive research into contributions would be needed to see for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, such research is done BEFORE deciding whether a block is placed, not after placing the block. Unless evidence is forthcoming that PoT has abused multiple accounts fairly soon, suggest an unblock until and unless that evidence is provided. Neıl 龱 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle created the userbox saying he had 92 sockpuppets just because he thought such a userbox should exist, so people can say how many accounts they have, as at the time no such box existed, he told me this himself and it will be written somewhere so you can see our exchange. I think I said 'do you really have 92 accounts?:)' as it was obvious most people would only say that as a joke. I doubt he has and think it was just a test of the box and an unrealistic number he didn't think anyone would take seriously. Of course, someone could checkuser him to get some proof before saying such things. At the time I became aware of this userbox it was the User:!! debacle, a lot of us including !! as you can see from his userpage were being ironic about sockpuppet paranoia, and you can see it says on my user page I have 9000 accounts in accordance with policy:) Sticky Parkin 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except neither UUU nor PoT are anything like User:!!, PoT being mostly here to cause trouble and hassle those who oppose the WP:TE of WikiProject ID. PoT has even felt the need to reignite the long-since-dead WP:BADSITES debate by keeping a naughty log of comments individuals make on Wikipedia Review. PoT is at best a gadfly like myself and DanT, at worst he is socking to cause trouble. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying, I was saying Uncle says he has that many as a joke, as I do. I didn't see any prob with Uncle's edits in the brief time I was chatting and if you look in his contribs he advises people to look at his contribs further back, rather than making assumptions based on his more recent ones. But I don't know enough to comment on Uncle's actions any further than that- I was just commenting on his being called an admitted sockpuppet based on that box being absolutely daft. I mean he may have socks for all I know but they can't be assumed from that. As for Poupy I don't know enough to comment but believe his recent actions have been trouble-making, take that or leave it though as I don't know the details of what he's been doing. Sticky Parkin 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted my misunderstanding. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] honestly, irony seems to be lacking here:) Oh it was via email but this is when I asked him User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#email. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, PoT has definitely been using multiple accounts abusively. No question. I hope to have an answer shortly re. checkuser, and he's already 'fessed up to some of them off-wiki. He should definitely remain blocked for the moment - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• And while Uncle is probably mostly trolling, there are some throwaway accounts on his IP such as Versaversa (talk · contribs) which seem more along the lines of silly buggers accounts as opposed to dedicated disruptive accounts. This is complex and still under investigation. Krimpet erred in blocking Uncle and Poupon as socks of each other, but neither account is lily-white. Thatcher 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Prod, prod, prod - anything on this, yet? Neıl 龱 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

The following accounts are  Confirmed either through checkuser or directly, as being sock-puppets of PouponOnToast (talk · contribs). There are some other, older accounts, which had all been previously blocked:

1. LegitAltAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Archfailure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actually pre-dating the unrelated banned account, Archtransit (talk · contribs)
3. Throwawayarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. MusingsOfAPrivateNature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution, I think trolling is an accurate description of the behavior of many of them. Combined with POT's contributions under his own account, this is an editor I think that we are better off without. Heck, even the contributions of these reveal more puppets, such as Semiprivatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does anyone think we should do more paperwork to memorialize a community ban? GRBerry 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the community, of course. But I'd like to point out that the guy apologized to me in full for this incident. It should also be pointed out that for all his trolling and disruption, this was relegated to projectspace talk and user talk and he never once, AFAIK, vandalised an article - Alison ^❤ 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognising that he never vandalised an article, or ever abused anyone, I would like to see Poupon unblocked, and asked to restrict himself to a single account on pain of a ban. I would be willing to mentor him if he'd accept me. Neıl 龱 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been at least that generous to accounts much worse than Poupon, so why not? MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, please see User_talk:Lar#Mentorship (permlink) where, prior to recent events, PouponOnToast and I were discussing parameters of my mentoring him. I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if we let him comment further, he might tell it as it is and plain talk jus aint allowed around these here parts nomore. If I had a dollar for all the spurious accounts that come to some areas and troll about the virtues of nonvirtuous websites, I could finally afford to fill up may gas tank every week. But nah...we need not make a fuss about them, they are surely here for the benefit of this website. I'd be happy to mentor Poupon...my advice up front is to simply stick to one account and keep sticking it to those that seem to relish in demanding we link to garbage websites that are as notable as my pet rock. Nay, only anti-WR and anti-ED folks are disruptive...the opposite could never be the case.--MONGO 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Climb off the Reichstag, MONGO, considering one of the folks that post regularly on WR is the one who's pointed out that while PoT's other accounts have disrupted Wikipedia's processes (specifically the Attack Sites ArbCom case, amongst others), they've never vandalized a Wikipedia ARTICLE. Even considering my past history with him, I am also willing to see PoT unblocked, as long as he's restricted to one account, without even a topic ban. And to be quite blunt, I think having you as a mentor would not be at all a good idea. When you look for someone to be a mentor, you look for someone who is reasonable, and moderate, not an echo chamber for his own ideas, "turned up to 11", as you would be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view and in this case Neil/SirFozzie's proposal has merit. Orderinchaos 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, indeed you are so correct once again...the BEST mentoring would surely come from someone that uses offsite venues to post links to userpage vandalism that happens here and call it "funny". Poupon, in his way, tried to encourage yourself and at least one other to not feed the offsite trolls by giving them an audience or sounding board and to not collaborate in furthering axe grinding via such participation. The question is though as to why this matter IS being discussed offsite and if any decision making is happening based on these discussions, what power do such offsite venues have in formatting decision making here. When we start bowing to the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia and or its editors, then we have a serious problem.--MONGO 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one listened to "the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia or its editors", then Mantanmoreland's serial socking would still be "a WordBomb false theory spread by trolls and meatpppets". There are times when they are wrong. Spectacularly so. But they have been right, almost as much as they've been wrong. I know you have a history of issues (and I understand why you would, considering what happened) with off-site attacks upon you. And as for why its being discussed, gee, I wonder why.. Someone who accuses others of socking, disruption and bad faith is caught disrupting, socking, and acting in bad faith. The irony is so delicious, I expect it to be a dish on Iron Chef. PoT had moderated his activities in the last few weeks, which is why I'm calling for an unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I have no particular problem with unblocking and restricting, I'd like to point out that disruption isn't limited entirely to article-space. One can disrupt the encyclopedia just as effective from other namespaces as from article space, so I'm not really sure that the delimiter "he's never vandallized a wikipedia ARTICLE..." is important. It takes no less time for us to clean it up if it's in another namespace. - Philippe 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and disruption doesn't have to be simple vandalism. However I would like to see Lar as the mentor. Would not want MONGO to take the job for the same reason as Foz gave. Viridae^Talk 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case I will be his mentor. I think the best mentor is someone who does not participate in offsite venues that have a history of sponsoring harassment.--MONGO 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose having MONGO as a mentor, as I don't see MONGO as open minded enough (a good mentor should not come from a very similar worldview, unless we are looking to reinforce cliquish or closeminded behaviour), and as being likely to reinforce the problematic behaviour that caused some of the issues in the first place, and as someone who does not have a demostrated track record of working successfully with others in a way that doesn't end in blocks, conflicts, edit wars, and so forth. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to anyone with WR affiliation being his mentor. That would include Neil who started a thread there about me and posted that he thought vandalism that happened to my userpage was "funny". Look, so far I see that he did create sock accounts, some of which were deliberately insulting wordplays on another's username. Those were made almost a year ago...the top two are more recent, but I see no evidence of double voting or vandalism. He is not UUU either...so why are we demanding he have a mentor at all...all that need be done is get him to stick to one account and to encourage him to diversify his editing, the latter of which is voluntary of course. As Alison noted, he already apologized for his behavior and one of the rationals for his indefinite block...that he was UUU, has already been disproven. I am beginning to think that demanding he have a mentor is more and more about him questioning a few admins about their involvement in WR...we're not in the brainwashing business...if he holds that issue to be of concern, then he has that right, just as I do. Do you think he and I are the only ones that feel that way?--MONGO 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to anyone with ED affiliation being his mentor. That rules you out, because you after all have an ED article. ... or perhaps you are no more "affiliated" with ED than I am with WR. Yes I post there. I've explained why, at length. I post there to correct misapprehensions, to criticise, and yes, when someone is right about something, to admit it. Even if it's uncomfortable for me. I highly recommend admitting someone else is right about stuff, when they are, as a practice to everyone. I said I'm willing. He asked for me. I said I'm apparently not that good (but I AM willing to admit mistakes, block, and move one). He's OK with that, and said he'd be the one to break the jinx. This is the community's call, not yours or mine alone. Your objection is noted but perhaps more folk should weigh in. It's no loss to me if the community says yes, or no. Are you sure you can say the same? You seem to have a lot invested in trying to prevent this. Me, I don't think I have nearly as much invested as you do, one way or the other. I again call for other voices, enough to see if there is consensus one way or the other (lack of consensus to do this to me means... don't). I will not unblock without a clear consensus to do so, and I will not mentor without a clear mandate to do so. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Lar#Accepting_your_offer (permlink: [2] ... where this user (presumably, I didn't yet run a CU to check but seems likely to me) has accepted my offer of mentorship, acknowledged that the scope is no longer voluntary, and offered full disclosure of all socks set up with a restriction to just one account. I am willing, he is willing, but it is not either of our decisions to make alone... it is up to you all, the community, to decide if this is acceptable or not. Fair warning, my track record on mentorship is pretty abysmal, I think (just about?) every one I've entered into so far has resulted in an indefinite block at the end, rather than a success. But I'm willing and maybe this will be the one to break the jinx? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See this thread...he has yet to log into any of his former accounts or the Poupon one. Maybe he will...just saying. If you aren't convinced you can "reform" him based on past failures, then don't do it.--MONGO 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that he's waiting to come clean on all his socks based on this mentorship discussion's outcome. That's a guess... nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Which was wrong. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• sighs* PoT has now stated that he has yet ANOTHER sock that he's going to keep and edit with no matter what. [3]. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record... the accounts posting at my and Neil's talk pages are not PoT per his statement. So that was a big waste of time. Got me. Well played. Etc. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus for a community ban, so I withdraw that suggestion. If the good hand account does stay in article space, and no other accounts of this editor begin carrying on in the poor tradition of POT, then I'm comfortable. I do think if the editor begins using another account in the same fashion, it will be time to bid them fully adieu. GRBerry 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback BLP issues

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) keeps rollbacking the removal of bad-links from talk pages of articles. I've already brought it up on their talk page and the BLP noticeboard with no success.--Otterathome (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, he's restoring comments with external links to Uncyclopedia that you're removing. Is there some policy against linking to Uncyclopedia on talk pages that I don't know about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They are on the talk pages of:

• David Icke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Reid (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They are being removed as they are of no value and intentionally mock the subject which violates WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what admin action you want. On the one hand, it's customary to grant wide latitude to editors making comments on talk pages and be extremely circumspect about messing about with others' posts. On the other hand, the posts don't seem to have any relevance to article improvements and off-topic posts can be deleted, especially if they're seen as excessively disruptive. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you're supposed to notify another user when you start a thread about him on this page. You didn't do that, so I did. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How does "intentionally mock(ing) the subject" violate WP:BLP. Mocking is constitutionally protected. I realize WIkipedia is not directly subject to the Constitution, but there seems no way that mocking is excluded by WP:BLP. Furthermore, it's Uncyclopedia doing the mocking; with the exception of David Icke, there's no trace of mocking in the text itself, and the mocking there seems justified by the context. Need I mention WP:TALK#Others' comments? (And thanks, Steven.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps those (other than David Icke's) are not related to article improvement. But neither are transwiki requests, technically, and two of the comments looked like "transwiki to Uncyclopedia" or "take this discussion to Uncyclopedia". Furthermore, Otter is continuing to remove the talk sections, despite having no support. Is WP:3O appropriate for a dispute covering multiple articles, or do we need to take this to a content RfC to see whether there is any support for Otter's position? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to violate the BLP policy, on the face of it, since there is no other information other than a link on the talkpage. Either way, you should both stop edit warring before one of you ends up blocked. Not often I see an admin involved in blatant revert warring. Avruch 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abusive IP user calling me a liar and slanderer

User:75.73.71.194 has called me a liar on several user and article talk pages. I was going to wait for an apology until I looked at the time difference. He has done this on all his contributions to talk pages today [4]. I've responded a bit on his talk page User talk:75.73.71.194. Can his edits be deleted? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OWN on WP:RADWP

Resolved

 – ANI is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and admins are not going to play umpires in bickering over a trivial non-mainspace project. Please reach a compromise off-Wikipedia. Sarah 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

On Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia, User:StewieGriffin! is trying to own the project. Among many other things, he has

• Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and I joined from 1...to 2...to 5 full episodes.

• Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes".

• Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument.

• "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission."

• Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself".

• And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against".

Would a topic ban be appropriate? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on what exactly? RADWP? Considering he's the only broadcaster, it would end the project. However, WP:OWN is a policy, and I will speak to the user about this again. No one can grant permission once it's released into the public domain; it's there for public use (hence the term). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

me, User:Red Thunder, User:Xenocidic and User:Vhoscythe contribute to the project. We can certainly carry on.

And yes, a topic ban from the page of WP:RADWP. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewie: Here are the options open to you:

• Broadcast only off Wikipedia from now on. If you wish to own your work, don't upload it here; simple.
• The same cannot apply to your previous broadcasts. You released those under a free license. You even said, and I quote, "this sound file is in the public domain".
• Permission is not something that exists for public domain work. PD is without limitation.
• If you do decide to withdraw your work, it will likely be continued in your absence by the contributors above.
• Let's see where this goes before a topic ban is implemented.

--PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply said the fact that, I don't understand why we need it there. I prefer it here. Plus, with our website in development, that's just another source. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I also put up the episode limit because of one user just put them as staff. Every user who wants to be one, can't just put themselves as staff. Vhoscythe hadn't even hosted an episode! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and Shapiros10 joined from 1...to 2...to 5 full episodes. Because of people just adding themselves as staff

• Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes". Yes, if he hasn't listened to these. How can he comment about iTunes.

• Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument. Subscribers are all well and good, but it is for Wikipedians, and we can see our listeners here

• "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission." For my reasons

• Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself". Because if it gained majority support, I would do it officialy, not Red Thunder's Media. And I would at least put the episodes up daily.

• And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against". To resolve this

I suggest Red Thunder renames the podcast and updates it daily. You can put my episodes on, but I will not be involved with this. I do not like the idea, and I will continue to upload it here. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first off: you kept raising the limit when we actually met the criterion. What's up with that?

You don't have to be able to listen to it to comment on where it should go. I know for a fact that Gears of War can only play sound files using iTunes, so that's why he was able to comment, because he wanted to listen to them.

Seriously, why do we need to track our listeners? It's in the public domain.

And "your reasons" are a violation of WP:OWN.

Why, do you think you need to do everything officially just because you founded it? WP:OWN.

But the argument of "A staff member is against it". Do we vandalize because a WMF board member said so?

Stewie, I suggest still contributing to Radio Wikipedia, but not wanting to do everything yourself. And raise the Episode limit back to 2. Red Thunder has done only 4 so far. And Xenocidic hasn't done. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my guys, come on. How about building the damn encyclopaedia instead of arguing between yourselves about a radio show about the encyclopaedia. What the?! Alex Muller 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to just chime in and agree with Alex on a point: Rather than spend time arguing, build the encyclopedia. On another point, I'd like to say Stewie has stated multiple times that as "Founder", "Head", etc, he holds the ability at his discretion to add, change, or remove various points of the episode and the main page. If the project was one's business, the situation would be different, but this is Wikipedia, and one doesn't hold the ability to exert power over others, especially if that power exertion goes against policy and/or consensus. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pretty disturbing diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8]

RedThunder 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but are any of you actually asking for admin help with anything? We're not going to run your project for you. – ırıdescent 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No...just a topic ban from that page. I think that's an appropriate action. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say that. RADWP is a little project for Wikipedia news, why don't we stop wasting our time and actually contribute to the encyclopedia? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you'll keep thinking you own in unless something is done. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guys, take the hint from Alex, Iridescent and others above. This isn't an admin issue and there is no way you are going to get a community sanction for this so the other party 'wins' and can take over 'ownership' of the project. There's just no way that is going to happen. If anything, Shapiro, when other admins start to look at your own history and the fact you are on probation, they're going to start wondering if sanctions ought not come your way, too. Please take the bickering somewhere else, preferably off Wikipedia and reach some kind of compromise about this project. Shapiro, next time you want to make a report to ANI, I would request that you run it by your mentor first to receive confirmation that it is a suitable complaint for ANI. I'm archiving this section - please go and sort this out privately. Thank you. Sarah 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't care now. I'm running my own podcast (pay-for-advertisment) so will be busy with that. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You are complaining about me, wheras Red Thunder was supposed to do yesterday's episode. Was it done? And Shapiros10 was supposed to do todays, has he done it yet? They just want the project to themselves? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewie, I'm archiving this section and I really recommend that you stop responding to Shapiro about this subject on ANI. There's not going to be a community sanction against you without there also being one against Shapiro as well. Community sanctions are for serious offences and are used as a last resort and there will not be a consensus for a sanction, but you both may well get blocked if you guys can't resolve this quietly. I can really understand you not wanting it published on i-Tunes or whatever under the name "Red Thunder Media" but that is part and parcel of the GFDL and I can only advise you to either find a way to work together or if you just don't want others to participate then you will have to do as you say and take it off-Wikipedia but if you do that, I think it will be very unlikely that your listeners will follow you because a core principle here is working together and collaborating with each other. And so if you refuse to let others have a turn then I can't imagine very many Wikipedians being interested in following you on your own to another site in order to listen to a Wikipedia Radio show. You will notice that all the other similar multi-media projects have lots of people working on it together, as a community. Whatever you decide to do, please remember everyone is equal on Wikipedia and no one owns any page or any project here so you can't just assign yourself in 'power' positions and you can't retract the GFDL. Sarah 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive language

I requested an editor, Fennessy (talk · contribs), to observe NPA and CIV and his response was a personal insult, calling me a crying Jew saying he's surprised that I'm not crying antisemitism. i.e. suggesting Jews always follow some mold of pointing a finger and whining "antisemitism" every time they face adversary. Comment: I initially summerized this issue as 'calling me a crying Jew'.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=next&oldid=223720716

The diff contains his initial offensive comment, my request that he observe civility and his offensive response.

1) Calling people who disagree with him 'pro-Israeli Bigots':

"practically every user who wants this POV piece to exist is an Israeli or pro-Israeli bigot with an axe to grind." - Fennessy, 09:09, 5 July 2008

2) Abusive language towards Jews (and me):

"I'm actually surprised by your tone that you didn't cry antisemitism at the first given opportunity". - Fennessy, 13:09, 5 July 2008

The fact that he suggested it to be unique that I'm not crying antisemitism is extremely insulting. I was pretty miffed at his first "pro-Israeli bigots" comment but this one raised the bar quite further.

Anyways, to try again and avoid conflict despite this double insult, Durova noted him about the problem of using the term 'bigot' and suggested he refactor it, to which he responded "Storm in a Teacup. Sure maybe throwing in the word bigot was a little much, regardless of how accurate it may or may not have been."

It goes without saying that he did not refactor either the 'bigots' or the 'crying Jew' comments. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) clarify user 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) fixes 07:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At my request, Jaakobou held off from posting this while I contacted the user at his or her user talk page. With each post on the subject Fennessy repeats the offensive insinuations. Durova^Charge! 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And at least you didn't call him a 9/11 celebration denier (good form). Judging by his talk page, these particular personal attacks and incivility are not an isolated incident. — CharlotteWebb 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a brief note. Will keep a loose eye on things. Interested in further developments, should any arise. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the cited text, Fennessy did not use the term "crying jew." Edison (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't call you a crying jew at all, this is a false report if I've ever read one. Beam 03:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I've asked Jaakobou for a correction. What Fennessy did say, though, was far from unobjectionable and he maintained it three times. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not an error. You'll note that Jaakobou did not not say he was quoting Fennessy when he referred to the phrase "crying Jew"...it is splitting hairs to the point of silliness, however, to ignore here that what Fennessy is actually saying, is that anyone who might raise a claim of antisemitism is a whiner. Whether he actually said Jews who cry (call out) "antisemitism!" when it raises its head are "crying (whimpering/weeping/whining) Jews" is immaterial at this point...that he didn't say the exact phrase does not excuse that that was exactly what he meant. Villainizing Jaakobou for quoting Fennessy incorrectly when Jaakobou wasn't quoting Fennessy at all, is disingenuous and counterproductive to resolving this clear breach of WP:NPA. Tomer^talk 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncalled for, intentionally provocative language. Note left, and further violations should result in measures being taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, he's saying he's surprised you don't cry antisemitism, not that all jews cry antisemitism all the time. You shouldn't take offense for all jews. And his assumption that all users are Israelis or Pro-israeli bigots is a poor assumption. Then again, if you had assumed good faith you wouldn't have taken these as personal insults. I don't know. Warn him, no block seems necessary from these excerpts. Beam 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam I didn't say all users. Change the word "bigots" to "bias" & be done with it. Enough already. The reason I choose that word is because the article I was talking about —just from its title alone— smacks of the worst kind political POV pushing and intolerance of others, singling out a small country for an extremely negative grilling over the actions of a few. To take one word and run with it to the point where you are evoking heil Hitler salutes is really such a stretch. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that you shifted discussion from content issues to the potential motivations of contributors in a provocative manner: without evidence, and in a way that made accusations of bias the focal point of discussion rather than the substance of the article. That kind of shift damages morale and does nothing to help build an encyclopedia. Please refrain from that line of discussion in future unless you have specific diffs to back up the assertion. And Fennesy, the only one here who has demonstrated Godwin's Law is you. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Durova, it will probably be a chore but go back through the edits of this page— I assure you, Jaakobou compared a misrepresentation of what I said to a heil hitler salute. It probably got edited out when he modified his previous post(posts?) here.
As for evidence of what I said, review the user pages yourself, it's pretty clear. Maybe I'll list everyone there that is obviously pro-Israeli outlook when I have time. Or maybe not, I'm bored of this. ʄ!•¿talk? 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart needs to be moved back and protected from moves

Sometime on July 4, Sponge1987 moved Wal-Mart to Walmart* [9]. This was reverted by CoolCaesar [10]; and then on July 5, ZippyGoogle moved the page to Walmart Stores [11]. No discussion was taken on the talk page, and no consensus for the move was reached. I cannot move the page back to correct the situation because "a page exists at the old location" (the redirect from the Wal-Mart), so presumably, I need an administrator to do this. I would request that the page is moved back and protected from moves since there is no consensus for moving. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that apparently, ZippyGoogle has been blocked, based on his talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Moves like that need to be done via WP:RM. BTW, I also un-semiprotected the article since it had been sprotected for almost a year! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To really do it right, it should say Wal-asterisk-Mart. I've got a hunch that would cause practical problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they've changed their logo to Walmart(asterisk) [12] Yeah, that's just a blog, but that *is* the new logo. So it wasn't random vandalism. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Awright! They' switched from a good old American five-pointed star to a six-pointed star. I'm waiting for the conspiracists to claim that Walmart-asterisk is part of the Zionist conspiracy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect AfD closure

Resolved

 – Notified user that close was inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (4th nomination)? It was closed as keep by a non-admin who had already voted in the discussion. BradV 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck his signature, signed it myself, and warned him about issues with close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. BradV 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of article that just finished AFD Malik Abongo Obama

A couple of hours ago the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama was finished with a delete, and the article was redirected (and remains so). However the identical material has been recreated at Malik Abongo Obama (a variation on the name of the person). Someone tried to speedy it as A4G4 (recreation of deleted material) but someone else removed the template (why that's even allowed for an A4G4 I don't know). Oddly the creator immediately nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. Seems to me it should be speedied asap, and the parties involved advised to proceed to WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm spread thinly here, so I'll be brief: By self-nominating the article after adding sources, the creator made a de facto deletion review. He should be applauded for doing so, saince he was actually doing the right thing in a slightly unusual way. - brenneman 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any admin attention is needed (other than what we already have). This is in fact an unusual case, and the creator might not of know of drv? Regardless, the AfD should go on as it is, for the true fate of the article. — _Maggot^Syn 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To anyone contemplating this I removed the speedy as being out of process. It clearly doesn't fit the G4 criterion because the article as recreated overcame the reason for which the article was deleted in the first place, namely notability. The new article includes a number of sources that were not previously in the article and were not considered in the deletion discussion. One need not go through deletion review to recreate an article in this way, though the person should have either done that or actually integrated the new sources and revised the article prior to recreating it. However, now that the article is here it would be pointless to speedy it because that would leave the notability question unanswered. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it wrong. The closing admin has stated that the article was near indentical to the original (save a few external links) and is in fact subject to speedy. But a speedy is not subject to G4. — _Maggot^Syn 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I meant to show this diff instead, taken directly from the AfD, and not his talk page (although he says it there too). But to expand for a second: No, this is why we have DRV. To bring up things such as notability that in which were overlooked or were not discussed in a prior afd, and allow for recreation. Relisting at AfD could have been a likely conclusion, and since there is an AfD open, it should stand. This should summarize whats going on at this moment. — _Maggot^Syn 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikidemo has simply mistyped in mentioning G4. I nominated the article under A4, and he removed the Speedy. While I disagree with the judgment, Wikidemo is, I believe, claiming that the article is not "substantially identical" because of the addition of some references. I'd still prefer Speedy and DRV, but the closing admin has stated a desire to let this be "DRV by other means". LotLE×talk 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, G4 really is the one that (perhaps) applies... it was me who mistyped in the original speedy nomination. LotLE×talk 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, A4 doesn't fit either, so I doubt it. Unless I'm just completely confused. — _Maggot^Syn 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

G4 not A4 - ooops. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to the community that I didn't know how to do a review of an AfD decision. Incidentally, where it only had two sources, the article now's got more than eight and contributors (well, primarily User:Wikidemo) have doubled the bio's length through additions of new material.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions in contested cases accomplish nothing, they just leave the issue open. AfDs have the sometimes annoying tendency to require interested passers by to clean up articles so as to overcome the objections of those who wish to delete. DRv doesn't do that so well so it's perfectly appropriate to recreate an article in different form if that addresses the reason for earlier deletion. Just, as a matter of decorum, it's best to wait a bit and introduce it in already-rewritten form. In theory notability should be based on the sources available, whether cited or not and whether or not integrated into the article - notability being an attribute of the article subject, not the article. But that's not always how things work in practice. Perhaps this is best addressed on the talk page of the AfD. Certainly nothing here that requires administrators to step in and police things. At this point it's a routine, if slightly unruly, AfD discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This really should have been G4ed and sent to DRV. The current situation is just making a mess --T-rex 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In23065

Resolved

 – Mostly a content dispute, but User:In23065 and User:92.22.197.197 given a short block for edit-warring. All sides strongly encouraged to build consensus on article talk page. EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In23065 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me. He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with the Big Brother articles mainly Big Brother 2004 (UK). In a reply on his talk page he replies "No there not, who told you that. I am not going to change my mind but I will let you contribute if you promise not to add these nominations" to 92.8.110.17.[13] Sounds like WP:OWN to me.

His conduct on both Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and User talk:In23065 to 92.8.110.17 is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Wikipedia. Also by having Big Brother 2004 (UK) semi-protected when there was no real vandalism prevents 92.8.110.17 from making contributions.

He also has a habit of uploading high resolution logos for mainly Big Brother UK articles instead of lower resolution logs as per Wikipedia fair use. He also edits high usage templates like Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame to suit his own style which has also affects other Big Brother articles indirectly.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most considered about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alucard 16

Alucard 16 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me.

On this page he has said "He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected", however me and him discussed this and he agreed that it was an OK thing to do. Sounds like a bit of a bitch to me.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with all Big Brother relating articles.

His conduct on Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and other page relating to Big Brother to [[[User:In23065|In23065]] is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Wikipedia.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most concerned about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. In23065 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two near-identical, equally lame threads merged. This is an incredibly lame thing to edit war over. The difference between your two versions is virtually nil, yet neither of you will concede any ground because you both believe "you are right". Alucard 16, it is lame that you thought the best place to resolve a minor, minor content dispute was to report it to admins to try and get your opponent blocked. In23065, your copying of Alucard 16's message here was equally bad.

I suggest you both drop this, and go and find something better to do; at this point, anything would count as something better to do than this lameness. Counting blades of grass, or idle whimsy on just how orange is an orange. Neıl 龱 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Red or tangerine? All lameness aside though, looking at the various pages In23065 does seem to have some ownership and civility issues, and both users have edit-warred. BTW, I notice the page protection on Big Brother 2004 (UK) should have expired yesterday, but the page is still showing as semi-protected... am I reading this wrong? Anyway, I've left notes on their talk pages. EyeSerene^talk 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

May I comment on my behalf here, I do admit to being in disputes with him but I never agreed on having all the articles related to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected as you can see here I said if they need protection then fine and I also said he could go ahead if he wished but it will most likely be declined which was the case. And his complaint against me for the most part is word for word my complaint against him. I have never talked to anyone that way and I was reporting him based on his conduct towards the anonymous user he was talking to. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitic smears or innuendoes

I am against wasting admin time but this is becoming farcical, it is the fifth time in one year. Could someone bring to order two editors with a rap over the virtual knuckles who have laid against me, in lieu of source-based arguments on the difficult text we are editing, tag-team accusations to the effect that I am an antisemite (and this supposedly explains my edits in wiki). The two editors involved are Amoruso (diff) and Shevashalosh (diff) on this page [here]. I have explained why, despite Amoruso's prevarications, his remarks constitute an antisemitic accusation, on my talk page here. Shevashalosh appears to have a poor grasp of English, and therefore I find this first offence excusable, since it may be overreading remarks he cannot quite understand. But Amoruso also seems to be engaged in WP:STALK, also, since he, after a year, had edited the Shuafat page immediately after I began to edit there. If the two have the slightest evidence to corroborate these grave charges, I would appreciate someone inviting them to present the evidence at the appropriate noticeboard, since if this were so, I should be banned from editing Wikipedia immediately. Apologies for the disturbance, and thanking you in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs on WP:AE. Regardless, I've notified Shevashalosh of the ArbCom sanctions, and given him a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify other editors when you begin threads about them here. You didn't do that. Since Phil seems to have handled this and I don't want to import unnecessary drama to this page, I won't either, but please take note that it's supposed to be done. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the last few minutes Shevashalosh has acknowledged that his earlier comments were out of line. I'll continue to watch the page, but I'm not convinced that a ban is necessary at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies then. I have stayed clear of all complaint pages because I've seen far too much abuse of them in incredible haggling, 'unnecessary drama', that takes time off editing. I don't understand the rules governing them either (notification, which page). I didn't even intend to make a thread about the two, merely get this sneering innuendo stopped in its tracks. As PhilKnight notes, Shevashalosh has withdrawn his comment, and that's more than enough to make me happy. As to the other, the problem is incorrigible, and bickering and whingeing on the appropriate page won't fix it. (Though I have posted a note of apology on Amoruso's page for my oversight, which is due to ignorance) Apologies for any trouble caused to all then, and thank you, Phil Knight. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Shared and disruptive account

I have removed this thread. The account in question has been blocked and their edits will be oversighted. east.718 at 21:19, July 7, 2008

Update: all problematic edits have been removed. east718 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

alternative medicine dispute tags

I'm having trouble with keeping a dispute tag on Alternative Medicine, on the section Critics' explanations for the appeal of alternative medicine. ScienceApologist and OrangeMarlin keep removing the dispute tags I enter, preventing any broad scale notification of the problem I see. see these diffs: here, here, and here. the tag is appropriate, and while I am happy to discuss the matter on the talk page to reach a resolution, I cannot get proper feedback unless the dispute tag remains in place.

I mean, it would be one thing if this were a content dispute, but removing dispute tags is just petty and ridiculous. can an administrator please assist? --Ludwigs2 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page. I don't see why you need the tag in order to get feedback OTOH I don't see why they feel the need to remove so hastily either. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Coloneldoctor

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. A waste of electrons. --Rodhullandemu 21:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Coloneldoctor (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• guessing this isn't polite
• Clear anti-Semitic references
• BLP violation
• [23]

Thoughts? Avruch 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Woo, and a special winner here. Avruch 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban him. Now, please. Bstone (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was musing on that but awaiting some more consensus...oh wait, I see above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking through his contribs, his user page and talk page, he seems to have started reasonably enough but has apparently turned into a sneering intellectual with a superiority complex. I doubt we have room for editors like that. That's my view anyway. --Rodhullandemu 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indef. Unlikely to make positive contributions at this time, and has clearly abused many people. If they decide to stop playing games and want to treat the project seriously they can apologize and appeal, but an indef is appropriate now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

GianniRBergonzoni (talk · contribs) seems to be new but has been making a massive number of page moves that go against WP:MOS. Article names should follow the most commonly used name of the individual. This user is changing article titles to the birth or other names of individuals. There are far too many moves made to try and undo each one. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Betacommand

Resolved

Moved to subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. —Wknight94 (talk)

Issue is marked as closed, I think it's ok to archive now. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting 48 hour block for User:Blechnic

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

Resolved

 – Blocks are designed to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blechnic has seemed to have settled down and the edit warring and incivility has ceased. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on his abuses of AN/I and his rampant hostility, and the obvious underlying tantrum, I'm requesting a 48 to 72 hour block to allow him time to rethink his current repeated vandlaism/ edit warring path. While 'chill out' blocks are bad, blocks which prevent edit warrign at AN/I are good. He's not listening to reason, support, or anything. Block him before he gets himself community banned next to Carol Spears. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe through my previous run-in with Blechnic, that you're using the wrong gender specific pronouns, but that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, double public apology then. One, i no longer think the block is needed, per a reply on my user talk, and two, I don't know gender of most editors, and default to 'he' because i'm anti-PC like that. ThuranX (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just say they or there if I don't know there gender. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or "their". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) chillax, mate. BLechnick's just venting. If he has some problem with Carsolspears, who IS a banned user for a reason, he should be forgiven for lashing out at bit as a communtiy that he believes betrayed him. Just let him vent his frustrations, he'll cool off after a few days or weeks, and he'll contribute very wel. Smith Jones (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse a block, based upon the blatant incivility in this edit summary, and the above drama-mongering and edit-warring. Being pissed off doesn't justify his/her behavior, no matter what SmithJones says. S. Dean Jameson 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, ThuranX should be blocked along with him for his extreme incivility to administrators and CarolSpears.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's extreme incivility? Hahahha. I laugh at you. Go back and read all the lead-up to this. Some admins DID call him a stalker, and support Carol Spears, and they are flat out wrong. You want to stir up trouble and get an internet flame war going, you can go have fun with that, but you'll be doing it alone. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I guess many people already laugh at this closed show. Keep up the good works.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, ThuranX's post was entirely reasonable - it was simply saying things as they were, but not in an offensive way. Orderinchaos 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read above about the gender. ;) Also I don't think a ban would cool her down. I think it would fire her up more which would lead to a Community ban. Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With no comment to Smith Jones's post, I believe that a block is unneeded, at least at the current time. Things seemed to be calmed down now, and the flames need not be stoked again. —Kurykh 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The whole Carol Spears thing needs to die down, and blocking yet another editor won't help that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a class of victim who seem to enjoy self-immolation, in sometimes Wagnerian style. My opinion is that a block would merely stoke the fires under the pyre in this case. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I d have to agree again with this users. The idea that we should bully and toy iwth a user who appears to have withdrawn from the project (retired, as per his rtalkpage and userpage) seems punitive, which is furthermore against the policy of the adminsitrative block as humanly possible. Besides, if we blocked her we might have to block a good user like User:ThuranX who has expressed simialr views in the past as per: Caspian blue and that would be an and of itself a travesty and a defiance of the policy of WP:aGF

IF he comes back and does the same nonsense, then blocking her might be appropriate. Now, it wuld be inordinately punitive. Smith Jones (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: In all fairness, he's been goaded quite badly, by CarolSpears (who claimed that fixing her copyvio, etc, was harassment and stalking, and kept reverting attempts to fix the copyvio) and a few of her defenders. A block will only aggravate the situation and serve to drive him off. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is still going on. When I made the request, Blechnic had just run a little edit war falling on her? sword here on AN/I, and removing all comments of support with quite hostile commentary. When I Posted that I no longer saw a need for it, it was because after reverting MY note of support, she? Then visited my user talk, and left a note that had the tone of someone who was moving into the quiet cooling off period after a tantrum; as such, I then felt such a block would ONLY piss her off and stoke the fires unnecessarily, pushing her back into trouble. That everyone here is now commenting, without regard to my follow-up seems like a tinge of the dogpile, or 'me too' thing. As for Smith Jones' comment, well, that's sour grapes for my comments supporting a block on his AN/I thread of a couple days ago. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, dont snap at it Me, Thuran. I feel that blocking anyone in this case is ainppropriate at this time and that your comments on her talkpage were immeterial to this discussion. I only mentioend it above because I was baffled as why to his was mentioned at all? Smith Jones (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil and NPA remarks by User:Beamathan

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do here. Orderinchaos 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left quite a nasty remark on my talk page after I asked him three times to place comments about a particular project on the project page. I am really confused and do not understand why this editor thinks I am insulting him, thinks I am a jerk, etc. Perhaps an admin can remind him of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and other appropriate policies? I see he has been blocked several times for incivility and other similar infractions, so perhaps this is more epidemic? Confusingly yours, Bstone (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup, isn't it? Beam thinks that some comments are better off not on Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee and you think that they do. When these opinions collide, lots of nasty things happen. I'll go and leave a message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, x42bn6. Can probably mark this resolved. Bstone (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This is not resolved at all. Bstone, you still have not read my comments apparently. The comments were not about the project, they were about you. Hence, I put them on your talk page. You posted a problem on an Admin Noticeboard regarding someone reverting your addition of a policy tag. You claimed you had consensus, they reverted because you don't. As i say on your talk page, I just wanted to make sure you saw that you didn't have consensus, at least that pump. I didn't want you to keep making false statements, looking foolish. It had nothing to do with the actual project itself. Instead of reading my comments, you belittled me by ignoring them and saying I should post them somwehre else. I tried again to explain the purpose of the comments. Yet AGAIN you said post them somewhere else...again i explain the purpose and then you mock me, using italicized "please" and telling me that was "the sum" of your dealings with me on a talk page. You completely acted like a jerk.

Instead of actually reading my comments, or admitting you understood them you mocked me. I pointed this out and what do you do? You come and try to blacken my reputation within the community. I'm sorry your project does not have consensus. I thought it was out of ignorance that you claimed it did. I was trying to help you, so you don't look foolish in the future. You acted like I didn't understand what a talk page is for. Those comments were about you, not the project.

And, regarding my block history, since you cared enough to bring it up, perhaps you'd care enough to check out the history between me and that particular Admin, as well as the conclusion and resolution of all those blocks through mediation. Hint: it's not as it appears.

I will consider this resolved when you apologize, or remove this attempt at making me look bad within my community. This is the "sum" of my comments towards you Bstone. Beam 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested both parties apologise to each other. To me, Bstone gave the impression unwittingly that he didn't take Beam's comments into account while Beam persisted with posting on Bstone's talk page despite being told to take it elsewhere. Whether either one is correct is immaterial since there's little point in dragging such a small issue through the mud. Bstone has enough drama on his hands with his OmbCom proposal, so <<shake hands here>>. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a note, after reviewing the comments at his proposal for the project Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Ombudsmen_Committee_formal_proposal I think he may have acted like he did towards me out of frustration regarding his latest attempt at this project failing. Bstone, I have nothing against you personally and I'm sorry your project isn't going too well. There was still no need to act like that towards me. Beam 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, please, sir, please assume good faith. You made some comments regarding a project which I had to ask you three times to refer to the project talk page. You believe I was mocking you, acting like a jerk and another nasties. You're clearly not assuming good faith as I never desired, intended nor actually did mock you, act like a jerk, etc. So, without further ado, I will move on and hopefully you'll stop referring to me as a jerk. Agreed? Bstone (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven't read my comments yet! They weren't about the project. They were about you. I didn't call you a jerk, you acted like one towards me and I pointed it out. And you did mock me. Faith has nothing to do with it, just the facts. And if you call that an apology, you may want to head over to the Wiktionary. Beam 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please intervene here? We're getting nowhere and I grow weary of this drama. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you grow weary of the drama, I would suggest from personal experience that you unwatch this page, at least temporarily. Short of that, I don't think an administrator acting in the capacity of an administrator—i.e. blocking, protecting, etc.—could help resolve the issue of "getting nowhere" or drama/conflict: surely neither issue merits a block? --Iamunknown 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Iamunknown's suggestions. I don't want you blocked Bstone, :) Beam 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring under multiple IPs

It started with an anon revert warring of a piece of material in Charlotte, North Carolina: [24][25][26][27][28][29][30].

Editor also vandalized (at least) my user page [31].

Editor was blocked. He came back and persisted and so was blocked for longer.

Then an anon with a different IP reverted the same piece of material, but stopped on the 3rd change to avoid a 3RR block:[32][33][34].

Then an anon with a different IP did the same thing: [35][36]

Could we get some kind of protection on the page, or a block of these accounts or something?--Loodog (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought protection is a last resort when there are far too many IPs attacking the page. If it's just one person, don't we just block, with rengeblocks if the person is too persistent and the collatoral damgae not too high? hbdragon88 (talk)

Seeing as how it was denied, that would seem the next course. I suggested RFPP because the IPs were so different. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: more.--Loodog (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RFPP was denied, saying user should be blocked.--Loodog (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Report to 3RR then. Obviously the same user, so that should work. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Magellan (book) article

Please see:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#viartis.net^[37]

A new editor, Juan de Leon (talk · contribs · count), has just created an article for a new book "Viartis" is publishing and has requested we remove viartis.net from the blacklist. viartis.net is blacklisted as spam since links to it were persistently added in the past by General Tojo. For background on General Tojo, see:

• Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of General Tojo
  • over 100 confirmed sockpuppets
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of General Tojo
  • over 700 suspect accounts

I have declined the blacklist-removal request. The book appears to be non-notable and I have tagged it as such. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

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

Way past the realms of constructive comment or issues requiring administrator intervention. Neıl 龱 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, this is another thread. He's now gone on from IFDs to disrupting the featured article process. Of the five discussions he's joined, he has opposed all of them - four for fair use issues. Two of note include opposing the television episode FACs: "The Stolen Earth" and "The Shape of Things to Come". Of note, in each FAC:

• The Stolen Earth - he brings up his (far stricter than the policy prescribes) interpretation to say two images fail NFCC#8. He also brings up Image:TARDIS-trans.png, claiming its trademark status means it should not be used, despite recent consensus that it may;
• The Shape of Things to Come: opposes solely because "neither of the two non-free images have valid FU rationales". I checked their pages - they do have rationales. This is obvious bad faith against a helpful content-contributing user who passed her request for adminship yesterday.

If this was the first transgression Fasach has incurred, I'd ask for a warning. But no. I filed a requests for comment seven months ago, and he's still continuing the disputed behaviour. When are we going to stop giving him rope? If he wasn't dealing with fair-use images, he would've been banned long ago. I think he's become a net negative on the project: he's already created a chilling effect with uploading images. But disrupting FAC is crossing the line. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this something the ANI page needs to deal with do you think? Each nominator will encounter spurious opposes. I know I have in the articles I've nominated. SandyGeorgia will judge how serious the opposes are and make a decision to promote or archive. There are some nutty opposes that can't be addressed, and there are opposes that appear nutty then start to make sense. They have to be taken into account for each FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was his first action, I'd note it on the FAC and not bring it here. But this user has been disruptive for eight months (and ANI archives will show) and I've exhausted all other options except for ArbCom. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are these your FACs? I suggest addressing the issue directly in the FAC. If so, be honest and say that you don't think the opposes are actionable, and for what reasons. If opposition gets more heated, or even nuttier things come up, leave a note on Sandy's talk page explaining your issue. But she reads all the FACs anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One of them is mine. The other FAC is thedemonhog's. The FAC issue is only supplementary: he's still disrupting Wikipedia process. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question on what to do next. Neıl 龱 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAr is crumbling to bits at the moment (Giovanni33, Orangemarlin, Giano). Any request for arbitration will stay stagnant for a month or two while that gets sorted out. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this user's conduct since the RFC, but if it's becoming a problem, then take it to arbitration - it shouldn't be too complex. More straightforward like...Yorkshirian, for instance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If your immediate concern is getting your FAC promoted, address Fasach Nua's comments the same you would any other editor's. If you disagree with it, say so and say why, being respectful, of course. That's a record for SandyGeorgia to see when she reviews each FAC. If, say, Fasach Nua gets blocked for being a pain (I have no idea what this story is, by the way), and another editor makes the same oppose, you'll have to address it eventually. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise opposed the same way, but as he is highly partisan in this matter, I don't think he should've voted. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only disruption here is Sceptre's. He's engaging in blockable harassment by repeatedly throwing about spurious accusations just because he doesn't like F.N.'s opinions. What has F.N. done this time? He has expressed a well-founded, serious opinion that is well based in policy. The image use in that article is questionable. There is an image in an infobox that is not in any straightforward way related to analytical commentary in the text that it would be necessary to support. Questioning that image use is absolutely legitimate and necessary, and I would personally say F.N. is right with respect to at least one (possibly two) images. If there's poorly integrated and poorly justified non-free content, the article can't be featured, it's as simple as that. Shouting "disruption" just because you don't like to hear people reminding you of policy? If you think you can get F.N. sanctioned that easily, think twice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. About the Tardis image issue: There certainly was no "recent consensus" that the image is okay; the discussion stalled with opinions divided, and F.N. is certainly not alone in his opinion. And as for the images in The Shape of Things to Come, yes, they have rationales, but are they valid ones? Like in so many other images, they are meaningless boilerplate text with little or no individual explanation of what makes the image necessary. F.N.'s objetion here is, again, legitimate and deserves to be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it legitimate just because he's got the same viewpoints as you on fair use? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is legitimate because it is a seriously considered viewpoint on fair use, based in policy consensus. You may disagree, politely. You see, I am not calling for you to be blocked or sanctioned because I disagree with you. You are doing these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the viewpoint. It's the behaviour. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What behaviour do you mean, apart from the fact that he expresses that viewpoint? That's all he's been doing. And, last warning: Stop the personal attacks. Call him a "disruptive user" one more time and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FPaS, I don't think it would be a good idea for you to be the one to block. Let another admin decide if a block on those grounds has merits. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly hand off that decision to someone else. But I won't stand idly by as yet another legitimate image patroller, yet again, becomes a victim of a "we can shout louder" mob. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, he's editing tendentiously. That can't be denied even if he isn't disruptive (and there's a fine line). At least nine tenths of the images he's nominated are Doctor Who ones, and he's showing no interest in helping with compliance or doing the same for other episode screenshots. Legitimate image patrollers are indiscriminate. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I too do not understand the blanket amnesty these people get. There is a bigger issue at play here. If image patrollers are having so much trouble, doesn't that mean that consensus opposes the current restrictions? I'm trying my damnedest to iron out these issues that WP:TE keep citing by engaging in dialog at WT:NFC, but it has been difficult. I would invite other editors interested in fair use to come join the discussion. If you don't like what F.N. and others are doing, the only way to stop it is by changing policy. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't look like anything in this thread that requires administrator attention - even though it includes a user who has had run ins with ArbCom etc. in the past it appears to be the quintessential content dispute. Can we archive this, so that other elements of this dispute don't accumulate on this page where they don't belong? Avruch 15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that there may soon be a need for administrator attention, not against F.N., but against Sceptre, if he doesn't stop his spurious block-shopping. Apart from that, no objection against closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is F.N. who needs to be blocked for being a highly partisan, WP:TE editor. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, and maybe I shouldn't have added this, but...) It should be noted that WP:NFCC only discusses copyright fair use, not trademark fair use, and we don't have a policy on trademark fair use.

We should. (If you point me to where that discussion is or should be taking place, I have no objection to archiving. This is only tangential.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think pre-emptive archival will only serve to shoot us in the collective foot, as I think this problem with F.N. is going to keep recurring. He is fundamentally unwilling to exercise the policy and guidelines as they currently are, and until someone draws a parallel between his behavior and the defense of something else equally fringe, like considering any images of children as an example of child porn (since a pedophile can find any image of them to be provocative). He uses an interpretation that few others use, thereby offering undue weight to his fringe interpretations via nominations. This isn't simply a content issue; it is a behavioral one. We would block others for precisely this sort of behavior, and have. Why are we offering Fasach Nua a free pass not once but twice? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except that, no, not really. As the success rate of his IfDs clearly shows, F.N. acts on the basis of an understanding of policy that is safely within the mainstream (not the mainstream of editors writing fiction articles, but that of people who actually deal with image policy on a regular basis). He's towards the more restrictive end of the spectrum, but well within the bounds of legitimate interpretation of policy. People have no other complaint against him than that he expresses these convictions frequently and forcefully. No, we do not block people for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gmaxwell has started an essay on this at Wikipedia:SOSUMI and there is a template for such content at Template:Trademark. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for you to back slowly away from this discussion, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Threats to block Sceptre are completely ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Depend on it, I will not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of this particular case, I can appreciate the complaint about Fasach Nua's general approach. You can't treat other editors like Epsilon grade morons and expect them to lap it up, never mind seriously appreciate your point of view. He's arbitrary, he never explains, deliberately walks away from dialogue, and would sooner stomp you flat than lend a hand up. There's no need to be so aggressive and essentially be picking a fight at every turn. This keeps coming up because its frustrating to deal with an unresponsive editor who preaches down at you. Points to you FPaS for your response at User_talk:Fasach Nua on the Samantha Smith image. I would never imagine that sort of evenhanded view and helpful suggestion from F.N. That sort of thing appears to beyond him and I find it hard to see how in the long term he expects to continue to usefully contribute if his participation is rooted in contempt for other editors. Wiggy! (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps repeated attacks for trying to enforce policy has given Fasach the point of view that you identify. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he came to the table with that point of view and has been very up front about it. He unnecessarily earns repeated appearances in places like this through his disdain for other editors and an unbending and narrow interpretation of "the rules". Wiggy! (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree F.N. is not the nicest of Wikipedians. Not the most communicative either. Few image specialists are. There is a special type of recurrent dynamics here. Image policy enforcement is such a hugely unpopular and thankless job. You get so much flak. Nice people don't do it. Nice wikipedians want wikipeace and wikiharmony, so even if they agree with the restrictive understanding of the policy in principle, after a while they will walk away from the topic. That leaves only a particular type of editor doing it in the long run. They are: stubborn, a little bit obsessive, not particular flexible, not particularly communicative, with sometimes a certain evil streak that might even derive some underhand pleasure from "winning" a case against bitter opposition. They are the Abu badalis, Fasach Nuas, Betacommands, TTNs, Jack Merridews of Wikipedia. You need to be a person like that (or an arrogant authoritarian bastard like myself) to stick around image patrolling. It's sad, but we need these people, they do an important job and apparently only they can do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly we can't use the excuse that "they're the only ones that do this job" forever. Luckily (on the whole) it's not this extreme, but what if such contributors regularly made personal attacks? Would the argument still be "Well yes, they shouldn't be making personal attacks, but at the end of the day, we need them todo this job"? Absolutely not, or at least I hope absolutely not. This general 'brick-wall' behaviour (for want of a better expression) is permisable to an extent, but at some point a line needs to be drawn, and it needs to be recognised when said line is crossed. It is unfortunate that in my opinion (and that of others), the line has already been crossed by Fasach Nua and Betacommand. _TalkIslander 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regularly? He hit out against you the other day, because you performed a pretty horrible block against him as an involved admin (previously edit-warring against him and strongly involved in the Dr Who project). Not nice, but you are really not in a good position to complain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But it seems the only way to get this guy to the table is to stand up to him in such a manner. He just won't bend. I tangled with him on some logos and got painted as an edit warrior when he's the guy that threw the first brick (and a mittful of others) by deliberately chasing down and targeting my work in the middle of an on-going debate and tagging it all according to his narrow perspective, which in this case was just bald face wrong. And it doesn't faze him. As an experienced guy I could stand up to him, but its wrong to watch him bully folks that are less practised. Wiggy! (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The thoughtcrime accusations continue. He did nothing but nominate some images for deletion. He may have overshot the mark in that instance, but that's why we have IfD, if a nomination is ill-founded, it gets rejected and all is well. You still want him sanctioned for his opinions about policy and the fact that he expresses them. So, who's bullying who here? I do see a lot of bullying, yes, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FPaS: Re. the 'hit out' - check logs, I blocked him (rightly or wrongly) after trolling accusation. That aside, as I'm not commenting on it here, what do you mean 'Regularly'? I'm talking about a line where crossing it equals a sanction, not a line where, crossed once or twice, nothing comes of it. It comes back to the fact that your argument seems to be based on "they do something we need, thus we must be more accomodating" - no. There is no reason why any editor should be treated any differently than any other, and let's be blunt about this, there are patterns of behaviour here that would have gotten 'newbies' blocked a while back. _TalkIslander 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Certainly throwing essays and so-called consensus at other editors under the cloak of "enforcing policy", when those editors are perfectly capable of exposing the weaknesses in the arguments, isn't constructive. What is constructive is trying to fix the policy so it is a usable policy all round, but I see little will to bite that bullet and actually consider how the policies we have can enable the building of an encyclopedia within the Foundation's Exemption Policy. It's perfectly possible to achieve this, as our current policy is framed as enabling rather than disabling. --Rodhullandemu 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is rich! You know what, FPaS? We don't need you or anyone else in particular. You are not special and neither is F.N. The problem is a small minority trying to push this very misguided ideological purity on the rest of the editors. So, people go a little overboard with the fair use? Who gives a fuck? Does it really injure the project? Quite frankly, a lot of people have had it with mindless pedantry, which is why you people are getting attacked. Fair use is a part of life, so just suck it up and move on to more important things like finding real legal threats to Wikipedia. As for Abu, I say good riddence! That clown was one of the people who drove our most productive free image creator off the wiki (the stalking was the last straw). You don't get to poison the well and then complain about it later. It is thanks in part to you image clowns that we've lost many great free image creators. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least admitting that your stance is contrary to the project's policies. So you are bullying, attacking and insulting people because they uphold a policy you don't like, right? Can somebody now please block this editor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds almost like the textbook definition of malicious compliance. Orderinchaos 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there is nothing constructive being added to this conversation. Marking as archived. If you want to trade insults, do it via your talk pages. Neıl 龱 08:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of a block

Relevant discussion at

→ Rollback BLP issues → Disruptive talk page removals by User:Otterathome

I blocked Arthur Rubin (again) for 3RR. He made a report to 3RRN, I blocked him and the other user (48 and 24 hours respectively). Same as last time, I feel a bit iffy blocking another admin, so I'd like to request a quick review (Evidence of edit warring: [38], [39], and [40]) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Might want to get PeterSymonds' opinion - I'm assuming that, based on my protection requests (he protected all the articles in question where edit warring was occurring) which pointed to the 3RR concern, he had decided not to issue a block to either party and only removed rollback from the one. Avruch 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe getting too picky but Arthur Rubin only reverted three times on each of those talk pages. Considering his history of edit warring and that it was warring across multiple pages, some would probably still consider it a good block but I'm on the fence. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And, to anyone interested, this is the third thread on this page about this same issue. Avruch 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is. I linked above. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it that we have an admin who has had five blocks for edit warring in the past six months? [41] Naerii 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That doesn't look good, does it? As Arthur Rubin is currently blocked, I suggest waiting until the block expires, and then opening a request for comments. Please let's not have a pile-on here while he is blocked. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess the only way to redress it if you believe Arthur is unsuitable would be to ask Arthur to voluntarily step down (an RFC on this may assist in obtaining the community's opinions), and if he refused, filea request for arbitration. Neıl 龱 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if it was just me that noticed that. I can't recall an admin with a longer block log... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[42], for one. There are others. — CharlotteWebb 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand was blocked quite a bit while he was an admin, probably edit warred even worse than AR. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Patience is a gift I guess. However unless he is edit-warring on a protected page, or protecting pages he is edit-warring on, or unblocking himself, etc., there is no compelling rationale for this. Would removing (or resigning) his adminship would make him likely to edit war? No, that would be punitive, not preventative. It would also set a chilling precedent. — CharlotteWebb 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An editor who had such a block log would never pass RFA. I think it would set a good precedent; admins ought to be following the rules and setting an example for others. One of the things we urge editors to do is to communicate, not edit war. Neıl 龱 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seven blocks in the last six months does seem a bit over the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block to 1 week. This admin who has already been blocked 4 times in the last 6 months for edit warring is too likely to begin edit warring again after only 2 days. However, I would like a review of my action. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

not a fan of block extension, without additional provocation. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the block log of Arthur Rubin makes me think of highly problematic editors and vandals. We hold admins to a very high standard and it's important that they not be allowed to slip by just due to being an admin. He needs to voluntarily resign or be referred to ArbCom for desysoping. Bstone (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Upping the block looks like it's been done on the basis of already adjudicated conduct, which could (and I put it no higher than that) have been taken into account when imposing the block. --Rodhullandemu 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Gwen, but not a good block; there is an ArbCom at the moment relating to extending blocks on the basis of further transgressions (and another a while back which was initiated for the same thing resulted in a desysop) and this has no further transgressions. The initial judgement call should be respected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is only my own take on it and if I don't have consensus I'll likely shorten it back, noting that in the log. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

48 hour block? Fine. The extension? I'm not a fan. There's also more to this story at WP:BLP/N, User talk:Otterathome & User talk:Arthur Rubin. They shouldn't have edit warred, but the whole issue is about links to uncyclopedia in article talk pages and differing views on whether BLP applies, which might warrant an actual discussion. — Scientizzle 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the retroactive extension, no comment so far on the original block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case opened. Bstone (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, an unblock solely to allow ArbCom activity is warranted? — Scientizzle 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom case is premature. Its unlikely that a block of a week is going to make more of an impact than a block of 48 hours if none of the prior blocks have made a dent. What we're looking at here is three instances of administrator review of the same conduct, with three different outcomes - no block and a warning, a 48 hour block, and a week long block. If nothing else it demonstrates that the appropriate response is a bit ambiguous in this case. Personally I'd like to see what Arthur has to say before coming to a firm conclusion on what the block length, arbitration case or RfC should look like. Avruch 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's too soon for arbcom. Meanwhile I've set the block back to 42 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is concerning - but an RFC is needed first to give him a chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's deletion of Global apartheid

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

Take this to DRV please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Could I please request that an uninvolved administrator review User:Jayjg's deletion of Global apartheid. His summary statement for the deletion is "(G5: Creation by a banned user)".

The problem is that Jayjg left out something important: General Criteria for Speedy Deletion #5 indicates that articles may be deleted if they are created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. The editor who created this article was in good standing at the time of its creation, and several other editors had contributed to this page over its two-year history.

On the face of it, this seems to be a misapplication of policy. I'm not going to undo Jay's actions myself, as I'm currently involved in a controversial discussion related to the page. I'll simply note that I don't believe that Wikipedia needs any more gamesmanship over the "Allegations of [...] apartheid" articles at this stage. CJCurrie (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look at this, and I don't see how it was created by a banned user at all, let alone one in violation of a ban. The article was most recently created by the decidedly unbanned Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) (although just as a redirect) and then expanded into an article by Lothar of the Hill People (talk · contribs), whose user talk page gives no indication of a ban. All of that said, is there a reason this article isn't speedy-able under G4, given this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two points that need to be addressed here: (i) It seems that you're correct -- the article was most recently created by a non-banned user (I was referring to the article's original (2006) creation my first remarks, and didn't realize it had been re-created once since then), (ii) this deletion was subsequently overturned on appeal, and three subsequent afds have been started since then (one is currently in progress). In any event, "Global apartheid" is a different article. CJCurrie (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd completely missed the fact that the AFD resulting in the deletion of the article was actually for a different article, to which Global apartheid redirected at the time. That being the case, I don't see any valid speedy deletion rationale at all. In the interests of WP:AGF, I'll drop a line on Jayjg's talk page to ask him to clarify his rationale before I undelete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I allege apartheid against articles about apartheid! ;) MessedRocker (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is covered under WP:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid. CJCurrie (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been hoping to get User:Krimpet/Fake link to featured status, myself... krimpet✽ 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought my mouse was broken... Viridae^Talk 06:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article had already been deleted once, then on April 16, 2007 the article was re-created as a simple re-direct by User:Kendrick7. Those were the entire contents of the article (REDIRECT Allegations of apartheid) until the disruptive sockpuppet of a banned editor User:Lothar of the Hill People showed up on August 21, 2007 and created the entire contents of the article. Since he was responsible for essentially the entire contents of the article, and therefore the article was "created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others", I deleted it as a WP:CSD G5, per my summary. CJCurrie's complaint (about which he failed to notify me) was premised on his failure to realize that the article had already been deleted once. Finally, I'll also simply note that I don't believe that Wikipedia needs any more gamesmanship over the "Allegations of [...] apartheid" articles at this stage, and in particular not from people claiming not to want any such gamesmanship. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that straightforward: the article wasn't created by a banned user, though you're correct to note that its content was mostly created by one (something I failed to notice in my initial post). If your point was to undo the work of a banned user, then you should have reduced the page to a redirect, not deleted it. The timing of this deletion (coming so soon after this was filed) also strikes me as a bit odd.

On another matter, I don't see how you can state that I "fail[ed] to realize that the article had already been deleted once" and simultaneously imply that gaming the system was involved. CJCurrie (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The timing was no coincidence, since the AfD made me notice that yet another sockpuppet of that banned editor had deleted the relevant content from the Allegations of Apartheid article, and instead inserted links to his article. In fact, he did that for several articles, but most of them have already been sensibly re-directed to other articles, so there was no real point in deleting them. I suppose I could have re-directed this article too, but since the article had no content aside from that created by a banned editor, it qualified under CSD:G5, and since CSD:G5 is there for a reason - to discourage exactly this kind of behavior - I chose that route. And gamesmanship and "gaming the system" are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters now, I suppose, but I still disagree on the main point: the article wasn't created by a banned user, so speedy-deleting it wasn't the appropriate course of action. To rephrase my second-point, I would tend to think that gamesmanship and a good-faith error are mutually exclusive. CJCurrie (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

From the deleted histories of the article and the user page of Lothar of the Hill People, it is clear that the deletion was proper. After the article was recreated as a redirect following the second AFD, its primary contributor was the sockpuppet of a banned user. Had another sock of a banned user (not sure if it's the same person) not tagged the page (and several others) with {{indefblock}}, it would be clear to see to non-administrative users. For admins, there's this and this to look at, in particular.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard, but for deletion review. I recommend the closure of this thread.  Sandstein  07:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Disgusteddad

Resolved

 – Seems to have gone quiet. Drive-by protest, apparently --Rodhullandemu 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could a (tactful) administrator do something about the recent edits by User:Disgusteddad? See [43] and [44]. I know that content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but I'm hesitant to get involved myself, since I don't have much wiki-experience dealing with concerned parents. (His claims are not totally bogus; if you do an image search for Avengers 71, you'll see what he's talking about.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his edits to Joe Quesada have been reverted. Still, it would be great if an administrator could politely tell him what he did wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a {{welcome}} and references to WP:RS and WP:BLP. Also pointed out this is not a forum for complaints. I think he just wanted to blow off some steam. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If DisgustedDad is in fact Victor Randall, WP:No original research would be most on-target. Has this alleged incident attracted news coverage of any kind? — CharlotteWebb 18:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't gone quiet. He's forum-shopping now. [45] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a blog that shows the illustration. [46] He's not wrong about the racy nature of it. But note that the blog is 3 years old, and I think the comic is from a couple of years prior. So I'm not sure what this guy's on about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The nature of the illustration is irrelevant; we don't host it. Neither do we link to it. Neither are we a platform for complaints, or even a bastion of free speech. His remedy, if any, lies elsewhere and I have pointed that out to him. Any more and I'll block him for disruption. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's now closed on the other page as well. It has now been "resolved" twice. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Alex191

Resolved

 – At least, the admin action part. User indef blocked by Ryulong. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I protest the treatment at WP:AIV regarding Special:Contributions/Alex191 [47]. The user contribs is 100% vandalism. This is not an IP, but a registered editor who was final-warned two weeks ago, and now decides to vandalize again. Do we reset the vandalism counter for registered editors who's contribs would fall into vandalism only account? Yngvarr (c) 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The user has been indefblocked by User:Ryulong as a vandalism-only account. Just to note, per WP:BLOCK, such accounts can be blocked on sight (there's no requirement to follow the warning escalator). Thanks for your report. EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you cite the rule to that effect? Seems to me I've seen entries on WP:AIV where admins claimed that insufficient warning was given to a reg. user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a bit relative - if an account has both good-faith edits as well as the odd bit of vandalism, it would rightly not be indef-blocked as a vandal-only account. Similarly, a users first edit or two( ("oh my god I can actually change this!" or "Hello") may look like vandalism, but would get the benefit of a doubt, and warnings may then also be given rather than an indef block. Probably about five or six edits are enough to realise an account is vandal-only (unless the first edit is something obviously bad faith). I bet I haven't cleared it up at all, have I? Neıl 龱 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, thanks Neil ;) Warnings are a courtesy to editors who will then hopefully read the linked policies and change their behaviour. If an editor has had warnings in the past (and this one did, up to and including a final warning), and has only used their account for vandalism, there's no need to reset the warning escalator or give the benefit of the doubt just because we're in a new month. As Neil says, the same wouldn't necessarily apply to new editors or those with a more mixed edit history. EyeSerene^talk 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It sounds like there is no rule, a such - it's a judgement call. Well, it's usually pretty obvious when a user is vandalism-only, although the first edit by itself may not be so obvious. Typically I don't issue a warning at all unless they do it a second time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no specific rules on this, but I generally would not report an account to AIV unless they have had three warnings, one of which includes the text "final warning", and there was vandalism after the "final warning". (This depends on context, of course -- e.g. some types of edits call for an immediate final warning. Just use common sense) I look at AIV as a place to get "rubber stamp" blocks, because you never know the position/attitude of the responding admin. For stuff that requires a judgment call, go to ANI. I reserve AIV for stuff where no judgment call is required.

As far as "resetting the counter," I reset for IPs after a couple of weeks, but I only reset for registered accounts if they have had a lot of constructive contribs between warnings. If somebody registers an account, vandalized up to a final warning, then comes back a year later and vandalizes, block 'em.

(I have marked the thread as resolved, since no more admin attention is required, but this does not prejudice further comments about the process here) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In difficult cases I flip a coin; Heads means block and tails means flip again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a corollary to this Grouchoism: "I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer." 12:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page removals by User:Otterathome

See #Rollback BLP issues. Despite having no support, he insists on removing talk page sections. The Talk:David Icke section actually seems quite relevant; the others probably aren't worth fighting over, but there's no real reason to remove the comments, per WP:TALK. The WP:BLP "violations" are completely bogus, even though the fact there is no reply on the BLP notice board other than our argument suggests a systemic problem there. There's still no relevant WP:BLP claim, but it's possible that the two latter ones should be removed for irrelevance; however, WP:TALK suggests that only disruptive irrelevant comments should be removed, and the only reason these are disruptive is User:Otterathome. David Icke's seems relevant. Wikipedia is very slow for me at the moment, but the total number of removals by the Otter since July 4 is 6, and the total number of my restorations is 5.

Talk:David Icke

Talk:Paul Barry

Talk:John Reid (politician)

Any comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just commented above, but since you've posted a competing thread... I don't think you ought to be aggressively revert-warring with this editor over these comments. I agree that there really is no BLP violation inherent in linking to Uncyclopedia (although, given its history, I imagine others will disagree vehemently). Having said that, edit warring over it is a bit ridiculous. Is the person who made the edits upset at having them removed? I've requested the talkpage be protected at RPP - I expect that once it is, in whichever version, you'll leave it. Avruch 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a blatant misuse of rollback on both sides. I removed the feature from the Oterathome; however, please do not use rollback during edit wars. It is forbidden. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From his appearance on March 5th 2008, User:Otterathome seems to be have been using automated scripts to search for mentions of uncyclopedia and delete nearby comment. No human being could have made this edit for example, reverting the inscrutable User:SineBot.[48]. The rapidity of some of his edits also seems beyond human capabilities. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray

This needs to be speedy-closed per WP:SNOW, WP:BADFAITH, and WP:DISRUPTIVE. It doesn't take an administrator to do this but due to some of the sockpuppet allegations going on, at least one uninvolved administrator should start watching the article and the people making or on the receiving end of sockpuppet allegations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this AfD through a user talk page and quickly closed it as a speedy keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move the new nomination to a page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray (2nd nomination). Per this diff, it looks like there was a previous nom that was overwritten by the IP. I also note that the previous nom was deemed to be trolling as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like both noms were made by the same editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So I've blocked the IP 48 hours for sockpuppetry, in the hope this might stem further disruption for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem - formatting is  Done, with notations linking the two debates and their contribs. There is probably a better way to do that, but it's a minor thing. As for the editor, I concur that there are some similarities, including the fact that both of the IP editors involved in the old and new AFDs resolve to the same ISP. Good block, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the IP is asking to be unblocked (having skillfully found and filled out the unblock template on their own). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That IP range has grown pretty skilled at requesting unblock (and abusing the template, as well). Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko(8th) should probably be dealt with if people have already bagged and tagged the IP. Note that User:KingLilTroy is mentioned there as well, and I'm willing to concede that the evidence against KingLilTroy is a bit weak, although I am quite certain that time will tell.
Kww (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to keep a smile on your face when you sigh, Gwen. Personally, I found the accusation that Jayron32 is my sockpuppet amusing enough to be worth the price of filling out yet another sockpuppet form.
Kww (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

<joke> How clever of you, to send a note to Jayron32 to hide your sockpuppetry. </joke> :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 again

In the last 12 hours or so, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) despite this conversation and after a month-long history of the same (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again), edit warring[49][50][51][52] and contentious comments. Removed edit war caution from talk page[53] and responds on an editor's page with the same taunts and AGF violations discussed above[54] ("Barack Obama whitewash brigade", "obstruct this material until after the election (their obvious goal)"). Plus this contribution to the above:[55] ("nice dodge", "bogus apology", "classic passive-aggressive behavior"). Wikidemo (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been made pretty clear to WorkerBee74 that his attitude has been an ongoing distraction for the rest of us trying to edit the encyclopedia. Some of his arguments at Talk:Barack Obama have been sound and useful, but I'm not sure too many people are taking them in, given the stuff pouring out of the abuse spigot. Why not give him a final warning, and if that doesn't work, a very long block? Noroton (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet another disruptive post on the Obama talk page.[56] Could someone please do the deed - either block or issue a final warning now? He's repeatedly declared me one of the "whitewash brigade" / "obama fanboys" / "obama campaign volunteers" / liars / etc. for my objections, so my warning is unlikely to do any good. Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And now this[57]. WorkerBee74 is fresh off a 3-day block for edit warring and it's become apparent he's learned nothing. Despite a truce on a previous edit war which called for a moratorium on editing the Rezko language in the Obama article until consensus is reached, WB74 made these edits [58] [59] [60]. Although he claimed he thought there was consensus for the version he added "word for word" [61], anyone following the discussion could not have reasonably believed that version had anything close to consensus, especially for the word "simultaneously", which had almost-universal opposition. This is despite the fact that WB74 had been advised to use "extreme caution when declaring consensus" [62] due to his past efforts to assert an inaccurate consensus (note: in this diff WB74 blanked the article, apparently in error, the edit summary is the important item here)[63].

At least as important, however, is WB74's personal attacks, incivility and generally disruptive behavior. We made more progress toward consensus and toward incorporation of conservative viewpoints (WB74 falls on the conservative side of the issue) during WB74's 3-day absence than we did during the preceding two weeks. Since I offered to help mediate the discussion two weeks ago, I've bent over backward to ensure that conservative viewpoints, though underrepresented in the discussion, were heard, fairly considered, and accommodated. His participation has proven disruptive to the discussion and to any effort to reach consensus. Given the egregiousness of this behavior, coupled with the fact that this appears to be a WP:SPA, I recommend a 4- to 6-month topic ban for this editor. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A 4- to 6- month ban seems a bit overdone to me, given that this primarily looks like a content dispute. I'd rather see this move through dispute resolution first. His language, while intemperate, does not, in my mind, cross the line -- unless I've missed something obvious in his diffs. I'll drop a comment on his talk page, though. Nandesuka (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps there is a kind hearted soul around who would mentor this fellow? He may very well benefit from it. Arkon (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week per the above and my own investigation of the behaviour since the last block. I think a 4-6 month ban is excessive at this stage and I tend to agree with Nandesuka's comments (although there is a strong behavioural element). It is important in my view on contentious BLPs that we try to ensure the highest standards of behaviour and do not encourage rank incivility between contributors. It is questionable whether people unable to contain their own strong political views (note there is nothing stopping people with strong political views from editing so long as they can adhere to WP:5) should be editing BLPs to begin with, so a topic ban might in the end be called for. Orderinchaos 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this. On a related note, would you mind looking over the activity of User:Shem as well? Although I do not believe any blocks or other similar actions are necessary for him, my perception is that his approach toward other editors has at times been more confrontational than necessary, so some guidance from an uninvolved admin may be beneficial. For that matter, if there's anything I'm doing that you feel I shouldn't be, or am not doing that I maybe should, feel free to cluebat me as well. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ohio state buckeyes football68

This user is getting to be more of a detriment than anything. He's had several warnings recently on User talk:Ohio state buckeyes football68, from different users. His contributions are a curious mix of factual stuff and out-and-out vandalism. It's almost like there are two different guys using the same account, which as far as I know is against the rules. Maybe something could be done here? Thank y'all. P.S. I took this to WP:AIV recently [64] and they advised me to bring it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User posted on my talk page. It turns out he was trying to fix a problem. I believe it is now resolved. Bcspro (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That does not account for other incidents, like this [65]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Although unusual, that is what he did to fix the problem. I don't see how it worked, but that's the way he explained it to me.Bcspro (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's also messing around with the Packers page [66] where he's been reverted several times for a deletion that he apparently refuses to discuss (his normal pattern). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers issue is essentially a content dispute, but the edit warring is starting to become disruptive. I have left a message which hopefully will encourage dialogue. Further reverting without discussion should result in a stern warning and eventual block. — Satori Son 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As was my specific issue with him, 1882 vs. 1869 as the Cincinnati Reds founding date. The basic problem is, he won't respond. I looked through his contrib list and only saw 2 occasions where he has posted to a talk page, since starting here in April. His unwillingness to discuss things is the primary issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Reviews of Actions taken to address a BLP violation

I'm bringing this here because an editor has challenged administrative actions that I have taken to removed BLP violations from the article Edward de Bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Relevant policies are RS [67] and BLP [68]. Discussions have taken place on article talk [69] and user talk pages [70] and [71].

Yesterday I removed a serious allegation of plagiarism from this article because the sourcing was inadequate and was reverted by Harry the Dirty Dog‎ (talk · contribs). The source quoted as a primary source that did not meet our requirements for sourcing serious allegations so I removed it again and started a talk page discussion that was supported by a regular editor of the page. This morning, Harry reinsterted the allegation with another obviously inadequate source with an edit summary that suggested they would continue to do so - "(Reverted 1 edit by Spartaz; I will look for other sources, but in the meantime the allegations were made, and ackowledged by de Bono. WP:BLP should not be used to censor..)". I therefore removed the material again and protected the article to prevent its reinsertion per BLP and continued the discussion on the article talk page. One regular editor of the article has supported the removal of the text and I do not believe that there is any consensus to restore the material until such time as the sources have been agreed. Further, BLP does not allow the inclusion of poorly sourced serious allegations and this claim must be properly sourced from a decent reliable source. Harry clearly does not agree with the position I have taken and has taken umbrage to messages I have left him on his talk page. My position is very clear here - the material is inadequately sourced to meet BLP, there is also no consensus on the article talk page to restore the material and the onus is on any editor who wants to include material to source ít and obtain consensus. Harry on the other hand believes that since the offending material has been in the article a long time the onus is on me to show why its should be removed. He also comments that because it is an old allegation it would be hard to find reliable online sources for it. He

I would appreciate review of my actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The section was not about the allegations of plagiarism themselves (no POV was taken on that) but about the controversy, which both protagonists acknowledge. WP:BLP clearly allows for primary sources to be used when the writer is the subject of the article, so using de Bono as a source is perfectly valid. The issue is also mentioned on the article about Michael Hewitt-Gleeson (which Spartaz only edited after I drew his attention to it. However , he left "In New York in 1985, due to a dispute over publishing rights and attributions, Hewitt-Gleeson closed down the School of Thinking, which he started with de Bono. In 1988, Hewitt-Gleeson re-started the School of Thinking in Melbourne. There was also a dispute over ownership of course materials such as the School of Thinking's Six Thinking Caps." This is totally unsourced, but refers to the same allegation that he removed from the de Bono article. Why remove the reference to the controversy from one person's article but leave it in the other? I will leave it to others to judge these actions, but I will say that the material removed from the article certainly did not violate WP:BLP (we were referring to a controversy acknowledged by both participants, not commenting on the merits of one side or another). The controversy was serious enough to cause Hewitt-Gleeson to close down the company he founded with de Bono, and is therefore notable and worthy of mention without taking any view on the merits of either man's case. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts: this is an incredibly petty outside squabble between two academics. It is not Wikipedia's job to monitor blog sites and publish a digest. In my opinion the point at which this argument would merit serious coverage in the article would be that at which press releases, writs, and the like were exchanged. It's a matter not so much of sourcing (both sources moght well be relevant to de Bono) but of due weight. --Jenny 08:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This occurred in the mid-80s. So finding online sources is difficult, but I am trying since Spartaz won't accept the validity of the source even though WP:BLP allows for it. I agree that we shouldn't publish a digest of blog sites but I hardly think that a three-line mention of a controversy that is central to both men's professional lives constitutes that. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick note that I have to go to work and will probably not be able to monitor this discussion and do not have time to respond to either comment. I'm quite happy for someone else to resolve this if a consensus on my actions emerges in my abesence Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of mainstream sources for the accusation/refutation, I don't see how this section can be allowed by WP:BLP. If it were, then Gleason could make any heinous accusation and have it included here, with a refutation by de Bono offering the appearance of neutrality. I concur with Spartaz' actions here. Kevin (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Spartaz's actions as well. BLP issues should be seen to quickly, and if the admin happens to be involved, there should be no issues with protecting the article. BLP falls outside the boundary of "content dispute", so this decision is correct. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Yet again, can we please focus on the real issue? It is not about the allegations (there is no allegation made in the article) but the fact that there has been a controversy (not denied by either party) and Spartaz's inconsistency in how he has handled the de Bono article and the one on Michael Hewitt-Gleeson, the motives for which I will leave others to judge. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, yet, but I'd ask that you Assume Good Faith in regard to Spartaz's actions. As I'm sure you are aware, WP:BLP is one of our most strictly enforced policies. An admin need have no "motive" for removing poorly sourced material other than enforcing the policy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, and I don't believe that Spartaz is editing to an agenda. But we are talking about his judgement as an admin here, at his request. I leave it to others to judge (or Spartaz to explain) why, after making such a big deal about the section on the de Bono page (a big enough deal to invoke full protection) he left reference to the same controversy on the Michael Hewitt-Gleeson page despite editing it heavily. If the same issue caught his eye on one article, I am surprised it didn't on the other. That's all. If you are going to go so far as to escalate it the way it has been, I would at least expect consistency. As to the content, I have said what I have to say on the article's TP. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, anyone would think I had an agenda. I'd say the other article is such a mess that my first thought was to delete it in its entirety but goodness knows how that piece of administrative activity would have gone down. 0_o - unlike some others I don't have mountains of spare time to spend on wikipedia so I think that having a go at tackling what should have been the easier of the two articles first is hardly an unreasonable choice or one that should lead any reasonable observer to the conclusion that I'm editing to an agenda. I'd much prefer Harry to discuss content rather then editors. I'm also tempted to point out that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but that would be rude so I'll just strike that bit out.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both articles are a mess. Ronz and I have spent a lot of time removing OR, unsourced and libelous material from the de Bono article, and it has been tagged for neutrality, peacock terms and references since May. Maybe both need to be deleted or stubbed until better sourcing can be found. (The de Bono article quotes mostly sources authored by him - where it is sourced at all - not only in the deleted section). This is what I said on the TP back in May: "Thanks Ronz. I've deleted some more, but the article is still dreadful, frankly. It shouldn't be that hard to source info on someone as famous as de Bono, but right now the article fails to meet Wikipedia standards by a long way, which is not good for a BLP. If sources (beyond de Bono's own site) can't be found soon, more will need to be removed." So I am not disagreeing with Spartaz in that sense. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of banned User:General Tojo

Resolved

 – 3 accounts blocked as socks of Tojo by Alison. Beam 14:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Juan de Leon (talk · contribs), H.M.Revenue (talk · contribs), and Jan Van Leer (talk · contribs), encountered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magellan (book), an AfD for an article that the first-named user created and the last-named is defending. Can I get blocks for these obvious puppets? Deor (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - all three. Rather obvious Tojo socks - Alison ^❤ 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

TinucherianBot and Issues with WP:FOOD Tagging

Link to main thread of this discussion in BON: Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot

A bot which I operate TinucherianBot was employed by the WP:FOOD project members for WikiProject Banner Tagging of {{WPFOOD}} on talkpage of articles on Category:Food and its subcategories. I didn't run the Bot blindly and recursively on the Category:Food , but created a list of categories from main list, removed the possible wrong categories from them ( with my limited knowledge on the subject matter ) ,gave the list to the project members and got it further cleaned . It was then I created the article list by manually supplying only the 'approved' categories....and finally running the bot over the talk page of the articles ...Altough this was done in good faith , there were issues due to some misassumptions with the categorization and the bot was blocked and I had stopped the bot from running further. As the bot owner, me and the Project members are actively sorting and cleaning some of prossibly wrong tags added.

The whole issue is being discussed here at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot. Upon my explaination here at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator , an admin, MaxSem unblocked the bot. But another admin, User:Davidgothberg blocked the bot again TWICE ( The bot had stopped 24hours ago before he blocked it) after this unblock and persistently unwilling to unblock the bot inspite of recommendations by most people. Those interested may comment at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot to avoid scattering of the discussion at different places . This is just FYI -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Davidgothberg also regarding this here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tinucherian was feeding his bot a list of about 1100 categories which means he was tagging somewhere around 10-100 thousand pages. He only announced that list at 1-2 WikiProjects and only for some hours before he started the bot run. That is hardly enough time for people to have a chance to check such a huge list.

Then when people protested against the massive mistagging of pages he did not bother to respond to the questions and suggestions. It wasn't until some hours ago after his bot had been blocked for several days that he bothered to give any kind of comprehensive answer to the questions and suggestions. (Instead of just complaining about the block.) Those answers now have to be discussed.

And regarding "blocking twice": I reblocked his bot to correct my block comment, since I had done a mistake in my first block comment. Thus it really is one block.

It is unfortunate that the only way to get Tinucherian to communicate properly is to block his bot for several days.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

David, As you know, this is just bad faith accuse. It is evident from my talk page and this discussion Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot that I have been trying to explain and convince you. Apparently everyone except you have understood it. I summarised again everything at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator . It has been asked by almost everyone ( including lots of admins ) to unblock the bot like this , 2, 3 , 4 5 6 , 7 8 , 9 10, but you are still holding on to your bad faith and personal judgement. With all respect to you, you are abusing the admin powers and trust upon you -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This must be the one that tagged Wrigley Field. Since when is Wrigley Field a food? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, another crappy project-claim-o-bot spamming a hundred thousand talk pages and getting about half of them wrong (but it is vital that projects claim these articles!). I blame the stupid GA/A-class/B-class system for this. Bad targets instil bad behaviour. Um, the consensus there seems to be to unblock the stupid bot. Neıl 龱 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, here's where Betacommandbot might come in handy. Luckily, all this idiot bot is doing is tagging talk pages. So whoever is on that project will have 100,000 pages to look at. That should keep them busy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Before calling the bots and project members idiots, I request you to kindly read this to know what had happened here at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator. WP:FOOD project members had requested by the Bot Operator ( see User:TinucherianBot/Autotagg/WPFOOD ) to tagg articles in Category:Food and its subcatergoies. I didn't run the Bot blindly and recursively on the Category:Food , but created a list of categories from main list, removed the possible wrong categories from them ( with my limited knowledge on the subject matter ) ,gave the list to the project members and got it further cleaned . It was then I created the article list by manually supplying only the 'approved' categories....and finally running the bot over the talk page of the articles ...It was agreed that project members and the bot operator should have paid further careful attention in selecting and eliminating the possibly wrong categories. Wrigley Field came from Category:Food companies of the United States > Category:Wrigley Company. The project member s and the bot operator is actively working on cleaning the wrongly tagged articles. Having said this, It is too be noted that more than 95% of the tagging was related to WP:FOOD only. All these have been discussed and agreed upon for future course of action by the bot or the project.

The issue now is that an admin David Göthberg is still unwilling to go by the community consensus to unblock the bot and still holding it on his personal judgement and bias.

We would appreciate further discussion on this at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot to avoid fragmentation of discussion. This note at ANI was placed for the information of a larger audience -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the alleged "consensus", tagging 100,000 articles is idiotic and the bot should be kept blocked until some common sense is brought to bear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs , Wow ! I still cannot understand from where did you get the figure of 100,000 ? It tagged only around 6,000 articles. Are you aware of WikiProject Biography having already 523534 articles and WikiProject Military history has 68567 articles etc. If you are not aware of why and what for are Wikiprojects, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide should be a good starting point -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I got it from the earlier comment "he was tagging somewhere around 10-100 thousand pages". And don't lecture me. Just realize that the more items you tag, the more fragmented your project will be, and will likely run out of steam. Unless that's OK. Personally, I don't care about the tagging. But it seemed silly to me for Wrigley Field to be tagged as a food. And why it was in the food category is equally baffling. They sell hot dogs there. So what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume it was there because of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, a chewing gum manufacturer, who undoubtedly should be in the category as a food product producer. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the exact numbers now are under discussion: I looked around and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink#Bot Tagging Tinucherian himself (the bot owner) claims: "This is a huge effort that involves around 1500 categories and approx 24,000 unique articles."

You failed to mention in your comment above that the reason your bot "only" tagged around 6,000 articles is that we blocked your bot.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both Wrigley Field (Chicago) and Wrigley Field (Los Angeles) got tagged, evidently because of their being categorized with "Wrigley Company". That illustrates the risk of using categories blindly. Categories are often added (or not added) at the whims of the editors. For example, Busch Memorial Stadium has an obvious connection to the Busch brewing company, but no one put the stadium into a Busch category, so it did not get tagged. Unless the guy running the bot intends to personally sift through all umpteen-thousand items and fix the ones that obviously don't belong, his bot program should stay blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that the wikiproject itself would have its act together, for lack of a better term, before handing off a request of this magnitude for some poor bot op to get hammered on. That said, I think the request was made and handled in good faith, and in a manner consistent with current policies and practices for how such things are usually done. I think more time should be taken in vetting the list, but I think the bot op has agreed to exercise more care in the future (and with the remainder of these tags, if and when), and so should be unblocked - acknowledging that there will be a lot of eyes on his bot for the near future. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fittingly, did you know that "bot" is the root word of "botch"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, actually... which is specifically why I stay as far the hell away from them as possible. Why I've found myself discussing two different bots this week is beyond me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should really be questioning why Wrigley Field is in Category:Food companies of the United States? Really if WP:FOOD wants all these articles in their project then they are free to do so. The fact that this bot is still blocked at this point is insane. --T-rex 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the food category, at least not directly. It's in "Wrigley Company" category, which is in the food category, which seems fair. But they are taking too broad an approach here. Part of the problem is relying on categories. As far as I know, Wrigley Field was never owned by the Wrigley company, it was owned by the Wrigley family - which, by the way, is also now tagged with the food category, e.g. Philip K. Wrigley. The stated goal of the project is, "This WikiProject aims to provide a centralized location for the discussion of standards for work on food and drink articles in Wikipedia. This covers but is not limited to beers, wines, restaurants, chefs, recipes, etc." I wonder which category P.K. Wrigley fits into. He's not a beer or wine. He's not a restaurant or a chef. I don't think he's a recipe. And what about Wrigley Field? Is it a "restaurant"? Not really. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not directly, but it is. theoretically any article in a category, also belongs in all parent categories. As for Philip K. Wrigley, he's a food inventor. That one makes sense to me.

Well, his father was, maybe. P.K. just ran the company (and the Cubs) after his father died. Anyway, I hope the project members have fun editing 100,000 articles. Who needs vacations? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with T-rex. I would myself be willing to unblock the bot. The project is free to determine which content is relevant to it, not others. However, it does seem to me that it might be best to at least have the bot operator review the categories he's considering, and possibly tag them with the project's banner, before running the bot. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot. While there is still discussion about the details of tagging process, there is obvously no consensus for blocking a stopped bot. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, when those spurious tags start showing up on pages we happen to be watching, are we supposed to just let them be, or delete them if they look stupid? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem, Thank you for unblocking the bot. I concur with the valid concern that the bot operator and the task requester should carefully and diligently review all the categories before the bot run to the best way possible and with the best efforts. Simply running the bot recursively over a category to all its sub-categories is fundamentally very very dangerous. The bot task requester or the bot operator , if at all wants the bot to run over a category and its subcategories , should first collect the list of the sub categories either manually or using tools like AWB,then eliminate any possible wrong categories and prepare a final 'cleaned' list before the bot run. The bot run should be only on these 'selected' categories. Project tagging based on categories is how we always used to do and one of the best methods to identify articles in the scope of a particular project. Having said that, Wiki Categories is very useful but NOT perfect. And hence 'false positive' tagging may occur any time. Having assessed hundreds of articles myself for lot of Wikiprojects I work for, I have seen manual stupid tagging as much as bot tagging ! Baseball Bugs , you have every right to remove a project banner if u feel that it was wrong tagged. In your own words , You have every right to delete them if they 'look stupid' ;). There are issues and concerns from some Wikiproject members whether 'they should allow' tagging the article by another project in their project scope. Like whether WP:FOOD and Drink can tag WP:BEER articles. Personally I feel such a ugly situation of Ownership is aganist our fundamental Principle of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If that is the case, soon the day will come when a WikiProject will not even allow anyone other than the project members to edit the article itself. Well, This is something we need to have a very serious discussion , but it is beyond the scope of ANI. Being also a member of WikiProject Council , I will start a discussion on this topic to arrive at a community consensus . -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To follow up , discuss and resolve some of the important issues on multiple project tagging ,an important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul doesnt agree to the discussion and closed the discussion. I am being WP:BOLD and reverted the closure here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

CadenS - Homophobia, incivilty and more

Resolved

 – CadenS has apologized to the satisfaction of Realist, adoption/mentoring suggested and apparently agreeable by CadenS. Beam 14:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi a number of weeks ago I made a wikiette case against the editer "CadenS" because of his offensive behaviour. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world".He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous. These were the links I provided at that wikiette case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality? 11 - and again, Caden has found another example of the "Homosexual Agenda", running wild in wikipedia

After that things blew up and CadenS went on a 4 week break, we were all hoping it would cool him off but it didn't. He came back and continued on a rampage.

Quickly he got new warning on his talk page about grossly uncivil edit summaries such as `Use common sense and quit pissing me off with your reverts` seen here and `It's specific enough so quit undoing my edits. Your really starting to piss me off` seen here. He has already started commenting on controversial talk page articles such as "male rape research" seen here and "heterosexuality" seen here

Today he asked another editor if they were heterophobic for no reason Seen here. Then he removed the LGBT wikiproject from another article seen here. He loves doing that.

CadenS went on a month long self imposed wikibreak which clearly didn't weaken his dislike of homosexuals. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:TLDR, a number of my thoughts on this topic are here (I was going to attempt to mediate). Executive summary from a not-at-all-uninvolved editor:

Prior to his Wikibreak, Caden made a number of highly problematic edits, as evidenced by the diffs provided by Realist2. There has been a marked improvement since the break, but there are still some problems. For one, Caden needs to stop removing Wikiproject LGBT tags from articles, as they are very WP:POINTy removals and generally not appropriate. He also tends to slip very easily into an us vs. them mentality, as evidenced by some of the diffs provided by Realist2 (e.g. [72] -- although in that case, it is worth mentioning that Caden eventually worked things out with the other editor in a civil manner on their talk page). Caden needs to understand that most people here are not out to get him.

I am sure Realist2 is acting with the best of intentions here, but it may be advisable for him to back off and give Caden a little bit of space. At this point, both editors are clearly following each other's contribs, and it is not a healthy situation.

It would also be highly desirable if CadenS would back off from articles that involve sexual preference, as he has difficulty editing neutrally in this space and very easily slips into conspiracy-theory-mode. (e.g. the "heterophobic" accusation, which wasn't for "no reason" as Realist2 stated, but it still was uncalled for)

Those are my thoughts, at least. Not sure if admin action is necessary at this point, but feel free to peruse. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The BLP element of some of those edits is actually more important than the tendentious editing, which while irritating and disruptive has no real world ramifications. The edits about the EO Green shootings and the two kids involved clearly beat against the BLP policy, particularly since the people involved are minors. Avruch 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He had a 1 month break and is still accusing people of all sorts. He forum rants and soapboxes as well about his theories. Enough is enough at some point, you know? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Caden's edits to E.O. Green School shooting were extremely problematic, as were the edit summaries he used at the time. However, all of that was prior to his Wiki-break. I would prefer to view his actions before and after the break as separate. Prior to the break, CadenS was a highly pov-pushing editor cruising rapidly for an indefinite block. However, some folks were able to get through to him, and his behavior since the break, while far from perfect, is much more manageable. There are still problems, but I'd prefer to address those issues independent of each other. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if you just look at his edits after the wikibreak. He is still accusing people of heterophobia, he is still telling people to "piss off", he is still removing project tags and making pov edits. Its hardly ideal is it? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I quit. Before I do I want to make it clear that I am not homophobic as Realist claims. I find him to be a bitter, angry and vengeful person who has personally hated me from the very beginning with no reasons whatsoever. Also, all of my edits were done in good faith and I tried to do my best as an editor. I wanted to help and nothing more. Sure, I made mistakes along the way. I'm only human. I am, and I repeat, I am truly sorry for the mistakes I've made. But just so you understand my past edits (which I have since changed from repeating) a little more or why they were taken the wrong way, I will explain since Realist has now forced me to do so. My story is no different from Jesse Dirkhising or Jeffrey Curley. The difference is that I lived and they did not. In 1997, I was drugged, bound, raped and sodomized for roughly three hours by next door neighbors. The drug "G" was put in my apple juice, which caused me to vomit uncontrolably during the time I was being sexually assaulted. And because I was gagged, I literally began choking on my own vomit. I slipped into an unconscious state because I couldn't breathe. This nearly ended up killing me. It was near fatal. Because my horror story didn’t fit the agenda of the biased mainstream liberal media, nobody got the opportunity to hear or read about the crime committed against me. The evil monster, aka political correctness, played a big role in this. What happened to me received no coverage at all. It got virtually zero attention. But that's the North American liberal media for you, biased as hell and only interested in being politically correct at all times, because God forbid they should offend anyone. Ignoring my story is how they dealt with it. But regardless of this, I changed the way I edited on here. My recent edits reflect that. I guess only Jay was able to see that. Thank you Jay. I don't understand why my past edits are being used against me once again. It was my understanding that we had dealt with the WQA and were finished with that. Looks like I was sadly mistaken. Well I guess it no longer matters. I hope that you are now happy Realist. Thank you for destroying my chance of becoming a good editor on Wikipedia. Now, I think it's best that I quit sine you've made it impossible for me. Caden S (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't blame homosexuals or liberals for your issues. You have a conflict of interest, you just admitted to that. I'm sorry for you, but it has warped your ability to edit articles regarding sexuality. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not blame all homosexuals nor do I blame those who are liberal. I never once said that I did. I blame the monsters involved (who just so happen to be also both homosexual and pedophiles). I also blame the biased liberal mainstream media and society to an extent. But I blame no others. Caden S (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Caden, I'm very sorry to hear all of that. FWIW, the US media is pretty random when it comes to what they cover at the national level and what they don't, and it's not all to do with a "liberal agenda". For instance, a couple years ago you may remember there was a church charter bus that crashed in Texas and killed five people, and it was plastered all over CNN for several days. What you may not remember is that the very same week, a church charter bus crashed near Rochester, NY killing seven people (if I recall correctly -- maybe it was 9 now that I think about it...) under fairly similar circumstances. This made the local news in upstate New York, but that was it. Almost identical incidents, same time frame, but one was picked up by the national media and one was not. Messed up, huh?

Given what has happened to you, it is probably best if you avoid articles related to sexuality. I for one could not possibly be neutral if something like that had happened to me (I don't make edits to articles such as Intelligent design, because I know I could not separate my own personal bias from my edits, for instance). Anyway, it is up to you, and if you do want to leave Wikipedia I can respect that. I am sorry your experience here has been so negative. Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal experience can alter someone's perspective. To equate a homosexual rape with homosexuality in general makes no more sense than to equate heterosexual rape with heterosexuality in general. People sometime become crusaders for a cause once it directly affects them: Jim Brady on gun control, Chris Reeve on paralysis, Michael J. Fox on parkinsons', etc., etc. That makes it risky for them to be editing wikipedia articles, since it's hard to maintain the NPOV rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your person problems Caden, something that happened to you a decade ago does not give you the right to tell strangers that they are "pissing you off" (thats after your 4 week wikibreak too).— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with admitting some users piss you off. I'd admit it if you pissed me off. Beam 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, there was plenty of media coverage of the Catholic priests molesting altar boys, including within the so-called liberal media. It's just the whims of what they cover and don't cover, randomly, as per a previous note. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see I have gotten to this discussion a few minutes too late. Instead of the long, detailed comment I had written going through each of the post-wikibreak diffs provided by Realist2, I'll just say I agree with Jaysweet, and am very disappointed that Realist2's overaggressive reaction to CadenS's bias (and we all have biases) has resulted in the current situation. CadenS, I encourage you to stay and help out as much you want (keeping in mind to assume good faith), but I now realize that certain editors will probably continue to follow you wherever you go, even when asked by several editors not to. If you want to start fresh with a new username, you may do so as long as you completely discontinue use of your current one. -kotra (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that smacks of irony, why not assume good faith on my part that I was making a legitimate complaint against an editor who has been breaking numerous policies for numerous weeks. I really couldn't care for his warped bias, we all have our thing. I do however care when an editor is so grossly incivil as to label anyone who disagrees with him a "Heterophobe", tells people to "piss off" and proclaims that homosexuals are plotting to take over the world with their clever "Homosexual agenda". Regards. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I never assumed bad faith on your part. I merely said your complaints have been overaggressive. The improvement in CadenS's edits has been significant since his wikibreak (which was designed to put these old issues behind him), and it's unfair to describe his behavior before then as being current. Since then, he made one moderately uncivil comment (the "heterophobe" comment you mention), but the "pissing me off" comments were resolved civilly. As for "homosexuals are plotting to take over the world", I don't believe he ever claimed that. He did mention the "homosexual agenda" several months ago in one of his very first edits, but "homosexual agenda" does not mean a conspiracy for worldwide domination, and anyway it's surprising to me that you would bring such an old issue up again at this late stage. Regardless, it is not fair nor productive to continue to accuse CadenS, since he has apparently left. -kotra (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He used the agenda quote multiple times, anyway we have had this talk before and it's going off topic slightly. His unacceptable behaviour speakes for itself, it seems unlikely that he won't be back to his usual tricks soon. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but my reasons have already been stated and I see no point in continuing the discussion at this point anyway. In the event that CadenS returns and his behavior again comes into question, please let someone else take care of it. If it is a serious problem, another alert editor will bring it up. If you want to discuss this with me further I suggest a change of venue to my talk page. -kotra (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that there is, in fact, a "gay agenda". That is, to try to get society to the point where homosexuality is "no big deal". The kicker is that some of us think that's a good thing, some of us don't care one way or another, and others (like the editor in question) think that's a bad thing. But if you look at where things are vs. where they were 40 years ago, let's say, that "agenda" has made great strides. But it's never "over". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a bad thing. If it's used for the right reasons, then it's okay and could be a good thing. But when it's used against you as a young child, I will say it is very bad and evil. When it's used against you during a trial as a weapon to rip you apart, or to rip your family apart, as it was done to me then it becomes a very evil thing. Caden S (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your story sounds similar to what often happens to heterosexual rape victims - the accused tries to turn it around and become the accuser. "She made me do it... she wanted it... she's a slut" or whatever. That mindest has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it has to do with extreme narcissim. Call it evil, if you want. Not everyone is a rapist or a narcissist. There are plenty of good homosexuals and bad homosexuals, as there are plenty of good heterosexuals and bad heterosexuals. I'm vaguely reminded of an activist named Andrea Dworkin, who I gather had really bad things done to her by men when she was young, and as a result she hated all men, or at least that was her public stance. It's misplaced hatred. If an individual does something to you, it's not some social classification that committed the crime, it is that individual that did it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not beat a dead horse here. As CadenS said above, he realizes not all homosexuals are bad, and he is not blaming homosexuals in general for his experience. Besides, this isn't the proper venue for this subject anyway. -kotra (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a dead horse, i.e. the issue is not yet marked "resolved". The editor has been accused of pushing a homophobic POV in his editing. It's important to find out what's going on with that, as long as he's willing to discuss it. Too often, blatant POV-pushers won't talk about things. Let's not be too eager to squash those who will talk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my last comment, CadenS already addressed your concerns earlier in this thread. I quote: "I do not blame all homosexuals nor do I blame those who are liberal. I never once said that I did. I blame the monsters involved (who just so happen to be also both homosexual and pedophiles). I also blame the biased liberal mainstream media and society to an extent. But I blame no others." What else is there to say? -kotra (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I have just taken CadenS on as an adoptee. The purpose of the adoption is to mentor CadenS in wikiquette in hopes that, going forward, there will be no longer be accusations of POV-pushing or personal attacks like we see here. With the patience of other editors, I believe this will go a long way in resolving this longstanding dispute. -kotra (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let this go for now, he's apologized (of sorts), he's agreed to adoption and agreed to avoid articles on sexuality. I have no problem with him editing the `male rape research` article so long as someone has it watch listed, favourably his adopter. If someone doesn't watchlist it then I will. If CadenS continues on this path it's quite easy for me to drag these links up at a later date. For my part at least, feel free to mark as resolved. If an Admin still wants to take action however, they are free to do so — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this be marked as "Resolved" for now. I am probably too closely involved to mark it myself--Jaysweet (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted Male rape research. -kotra (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

sock block needed

Resolved

 – Obvious socks blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block both User talk:Tennis scores Federer and User talk:Tennis scores Nadal as painfully obvious socks of User:Tennis_scores. Their pages are identical to the deleted contribs of the puppetmaster and of his other sock.

Related link for the interested: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Tennis_scores#User:Tennis_scores --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavier Sanctions needed

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

Being discussed in a thread further down the page. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Muntuwandi was blocked for a month by User:Elonka after he resumed edit warring in a pattern that got him blocked for two weeks earlier in the year. A day after his block started he began creating socks to do his work for him. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. The basic problem here is that Muntuwandi simply refuses to accept the consensus version of Origin of religion instead trying over and over again to edit his own, several times AfDed version of the entry into Wikipedia. Since it is clear that he is incapable of editing this topic collegially I'd like to see something more than simply a one month ban here from the community. Can we get a topic bad? OR a some kind of topic related restriction, should he return? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See also below: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed indef block of User:Muntuwandi. Something needs to be done about this. I'm more than happy with topic bans as opposed to an indef block or community ban.PelleSmith (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Muntuwandi, and this is being discussed in a second thread further down the page - let's centralize things there. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mindv

Resolved

 – User blocked indef by Danielcase --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a block on Mindv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued addition of "MindVisualizer" to List of mind mapping software, despite repeated userpage warnings and obvious WP:COI? Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report at WP:UAA as well, since clearly the username is being used to promote "MindVisualizer". --Jaysweet (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalindoscopy

Resolved

 – WP:DRC has been clarified (my fault for the confusion, really) and Kalindoscopy has been warned not to make incivil comments in non-English languages --Jaysweet (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This user recently broke a 3RR on Maltese language against 3 editors who each consecutively attempted to undo the user's changes. The user appears to have a history of uncivility, particularly directed at User:Yolgnu.

The user was warned about the 3RR on their talk page. However, they continued to edit war, and removed the comment from their page. It clearly states on the templates page on Wikipedia that a warning does not have to be a warning template, but can instead be handwritten, as this one was. At WP:DRC it states that comments related to blocking may not be removed. A warning is a comment on a potential block, and therefore, the user does not have the right to now start edit warring on their talk page to hide the warning.

I think it may be time for a little break for the user. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking for the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify here ... if the IP is wishing to report the 3RR violation on Maltese language, it should go to WP:AN3RR, however if the IP is wishing to report the 3RR violation on User talk:Kalindoscopy, he or she should just stop harassing Kalindoscopy as editors are permitted (via WP:USER) to remove messages at will from their own talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The original user is incorrect on the removing warnings front. A user is most definitely allowed to remove warnings. It is only block notices that must remain Mayalld (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The user has now swarn in Maltese at me ([73]). Based on their previous incivilities to Yolgnu, their 3RR on Maltese language, and their latest personal attack at me by swearing, I suggest a block of 24h at least. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

'Sworn', and not. Where is there a single word that could provoke offense? I suggest you get your facts straight before launching into any sort of 'attack'. Re:Yolgnu, I'd hope that any kind of hostility was at an end, we've seen little of each other for a while now! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh let's not be ridiculous. We both know what it means, and I am not going to repeat the obscenity here. Anyone with an understanding of the language, or with access to an online translator can work it out for themselves. This disruption is becoming tiresome now - perhaps a longer block may be suggestable. Not only have you had incidents with Yolgnu, but the entire history of your talk page is full of comments about your civility. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. 24 hrs? What a charitable suggestion! Why not a week? ;p golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

WP:DRC was a bit confusing in that regard, in that it said "comments related to blocking", which was meant to indicate comments related to an active block should not be removed (and if you read the entire sentence, that is clear, but there is a conjunctive clause in between that makes the sentence less clear). It is my fault, actually, as I helped write that addition to WP:DRC. heh... I have revised it to be more explicit. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So what is up with that diff, then? What does "Mur hudu" mean? Users are strongly discouraged from communicating in non-English languages on the English Wikipedia, because it interferes with the transparency that is such a critical component in facilitating the collaborative nature of a Wiki. Kalindoscopy, you should refrain from doing so in the future in general, whether it was an incivil comment or not. (Although I suppose if "Mur hudu" means "Have a nice day," that would be alright... heh...) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, "Mur hudu f'sormok" means "go fuck yourself", and "Mur hudu f'sormok" means "up your ass", as can be seen for the non-Maltese speaking community here. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Language! My ears are burning.. 'Mur hudu' simply means 'take it'. The rest is left up to the listener/reader's (fertile) imagination. I'll keep my passive-aggressive posts in English, in future. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we brought another Maltese speaker in on this, since as it stands, the community at large does not understand the nature of the language. Literally, the phrase brakes down into "take it in", but is used to basically mean "Fuck you", just in the same way that "up yours" does not neccessarily have to mean what it does, but always does. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be even more helpful if you dropped it entirely and realised that you'd been acting like a so&so by reverting things on my talkpage when you really shouldn't have. But if you'd like to wait around for a Maltese speaker on wikipedia (a rarity..) lets do it. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A reviewing admin shall decide upon your block. I have provided a website that shows uses of the phrase. That is all that is available on the matter, with maltese having such limited useage online. Your actions are certainly needing of a block, and it would be a great discredit to the site if your behaviour was allowed to continue. You intentionally used another language to swear at me, in the hope that no one would be able to understand it. If you were not swearing or saying anything offensive, you would have spoken in English anyway, and your continued Trolling is not helping your situation. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed previous comment to say:) I'm about done with this. Admins, do whatever you think's best. If preserving the integrity of an article from repeated, undiscussed and generally mediocre edits is 'trolling', so be it. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one don't really care whether it's translated as "Take it" or "Fuck you." (Actually, in some contexts, I would be way more pissed off if somebody said the former to me than the latter, but I digress) The point is, it was a rude comment in Maltese. Kalindoscopy, please don't do that.

It also was one rude comment in Maltese. We typically don't block people for that. Consider this an official warning that telling people to "take it"/"fuck you" is considered incivil and is not acceptable, in any language.

Is there anything else we can do here? The IP has been advised not to restore warnings, Kalindoscopy has been advised (and has agreed to) keep it in English and keep it civil. If there is a 3RR issue, it can be taken to WP:ANI/3RR. Anything else? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. English FTW! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. We can close the case, and I will be keeping an eye on Kalindoscopy. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cripes, another wiki admirer! You and Yolgnu should club together and get me something really special come Valentine's day.. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 124.104.*.* user.

For the past several days, four anon IPs, 124.104.92.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.91.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.84.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and 124.104.92.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been vandalizing pages and are possibly the same person. Each of these addresses attacked a lot of articles lately, with several of the common denominators (not by all) are as follows, leading me to suspect that these four are the same person:

• Annabelle Rama‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pinoy Idol‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Raymond Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including its talk page)
• Ruffa Gutierrez‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Regine Velasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (including its talk page)

In fact, there is some range hopping going on with vandal edits by 124.104.80.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.89.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.80.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.88.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.81.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.94.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 124.104.87.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and many others on this range. Again, I suspect that this is the same person who used these address on his vandalism.

Can a rangeblock be applied on this case because this vandal? Whoever he is, has gone chronic. Or do you have any other thoughts? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The vandal used the IP 202.138.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but since this IP belongs to a school, maybe that user studies there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fastest with the Mostest

Andrewb1 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the {{or}} tag I placed on the looooonnnnnggg plot summary he has written in this article. I'm at my revert limit, so I won't do it again, but he's up to three warnings for removal of tags. If he refuses to provide a reliable source for the plot, would I be in the wrong if I removed the entire plot summary? Corvus cornix_talk 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So then every single plot summary I have produced for this series, and Tom and Jerry as well, would be liable to be removed?

Because they all came from Youtube cartoon viewings. Andrewb1 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) While Wikipedia:Plot summaries is only an essay, this bit rings true with me (comma splice notwithstanding): "Where the plot is of one single piece of work, it is not necessary to add a citation, for example, if your article is on a stand-alone film, book, comic, television or radio programme, the citation would be the work itself." Does it not enjoy wide acceptance?

This doesn't negate the requirement to keep plot summaries concise and encyclopaedically-written, of course, but I thought writing plot summaries from a primary source was fairly well-established practise. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope not, as it would seem to egregiously violate WP:V. In addition, Andrew is now on his fifth revert of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't prohibit the use of primary sources. As for the edit-warring issue, I've warned him. If he reverts again, I'll block. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As well, note that he's only reverted four times, not five (the fourth of the five revisions he's made to the page since your addition of the OR tag wasn't a revert), and he seems to be under the impression that the fourth revert was just fixing an error made by a bot (I admit that RyanLupin's edit - the one being reverted with the fourth revert - was one that looks to me like it was made in error). That's not what happened, and I'm discussing it with him on his talk page, but I'm not blocking for 3RR just yet, even though it was violated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Sarcasticidealist is right. Plot summaries are assumed to be sourced to the episode/book/film/whatever, and in my experience, even at FA the only parts of a plot summary that explicitly require sourcing are direct quotation from the work. EyeSerene^talk 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine. OK, plot summaries violate WP:V and can get away with it. Now I understand. Corvus cornix_talk 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify which portion of WP:V you think is at issue? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, just to start. Then add If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, writing a summary from your own viewing/reading of the primary source is fine, just as writing a summary of the argument of a secondary source is. We have lots of horribly bad plot summaries, but their problem is not an over-use of "originality" ("OR") on the writer's part. Quite to the contrary: to get better plot summaries, we need more originality, not less of it. We should encourage editors to be "original", in intelligently condensing and structuring a plot summary, rather than doing what most of them do (sticking slavishly to the source in the sense of following the work scene by scene and just retelling it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That said, the page (I hesitate to call it an "article") in the present case is of course among the horrible ones. Is there no CSD for that kind of stuff? There should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries necessarily "violate" WP:V, or you would never have a plot summary. If you quote someone else's summary, you're violating copyright. And it's pretty hard to "paraphrase" what's already a summary. You might want to look at how the latest Indiana Jones film has been covered. An extra effort has been made by several shepherding editors to keep it relatively short and to the point; to keep out fluff; and, especially, to keep out speculation, spin, or reading-between-the-lines. That's where plot summaries get into trouble. If you report exactly what's on the screen, without applying spin to it, then you have a verifiable plot summary. Then you use editorial judgment and keep the fluff to a minimum. One example is the attempt by various editors to insert something about Mutt picking up Indy's hat and trying to put it on. There are various ways of interpreting that, but there's nothing in the movie that places any significance on it, so it doesn't belong in the plot summary. "Just the notable facts, man." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said. It's now clear that plot summaries do not need to follow WP:V. Corvus cornix_talk 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think that you may be perceiving a contradiction with WP:V that doesn't exist. When I asked you to cite the portions of WP:V that you think this contradicted, you cited Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. All of that is true: if there are no reliable, third-party sources in existence about this episode, the article should be deleted. Moreover, for the article to comply with Wikipedia standards, it should rely primarily on these sources. The article needs to be expanded to include its release date, writer, canonical significance (if any), critical reception (if any), etc., and none of these could be sourced to the episode itself. I think perhaps your mistake is interpreting "article" and "article topic" to mean "every piece of information within an article". But as WP:NOR (a core policy just like WP:V) says, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." A properly-constructed plot summary would seem to comply :with this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case it violates WP:NOT#PLOT! Hope that helps spot the violation :) Wikidemo (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the article as it stands violates WP:NOT#PLOT as well as WP:V. I'm not defending the article at all. I'm defending the principle that an article can include a plot summary drawn from primary sources, provided that it's succinct and encyclopaedically-written. I don't see any contradiction of this principle in WP:NOT#PLOT. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Plot summaries are well-accepted on Wikipedia and when given several ways to interpret a longstanding policy, everything else being equal it's best to choose an interpretation that does not conflict with a widespread practice. If one play's the devil's advocate one can interpret almost anything to contradict almost anything. It was a bit of levity on my part to play spot the policy violation. Something's clearly wrong with that particular plot summary but it doesn't make a strong case for saying the policy is kaput or widely disregarded. Simpler just to say it's a bad article. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So now if that appears to be resolved, why then do Fastest and Scrambled Aches redirect to the main Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner page, while Zip 'N Snort, the other cartoon that I created the page for and posted the plot summary to, goes to the actual cartoon page? And if you're going to delete cartoon summaries without citations, why are cartoons 1-9, 11, 12, 16, and 20 going to the cartoon pages as well? I wrote the plot summaries to all 13 of those cartoons without incident. Andrewb1 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several courses of action that should have been taken instead. First of all, what should be removed are either all three cartoons or the two specifically that were created from scratch. Instead of completely deleting the page and making it inaccessible, just remove the plot summary and let's talk it out as to whether it should be kept. Though that has not been an incident for the previous 13 cartoons. Andrewb1 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Corvix, I think you are getting hung up on the details in applying WP:V to this case. Summarizing a work or opinion does not (& should not) depend on finding a secondary source to provide a summary of that work or opinion -- as long as no interpretations are include which a reasonable person would expect to be attributed to an expert. To illustrate my point, suppose A & B have a disagreement over what A has done (for the sake of this argument, A is accused of wanting to injure B): A writes a letter of 5,000 words wherein he denies attempting or wanting to hurt B. So is it original research to provide a brief summary of that document as I just have done (i.e. "he denies attempting or wanting to hurt B")? If you say yes, then that would presume that it is important for us to disable our intelligence before writing an article: we are reduced to being little more than glorified copyists, forbidden to make any kind of judgment on the materials we use in the articles we write -- & that's the point we just remove the edit button & all leave Wikipedia.

If it indeed is the case that WP:V forbids us from making summaries of a text or source, then WP:V is broken & must be fixed -- or ignored, based on ignore all rules. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta, Mirelam, KhoiKhoi and other stories

Right, bit of a long and winding situation we have here. I've heard a number of sides to this whole debate, including a private one with the currently blocked Rezistenta (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). An attempted summary of the situation (according to Rezistenta) is as follows - involved users in bold:

• Rezistenta (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) creates an account for Mirelam (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for the latter's benefit, presumably.
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), a user that Rezistenta has had disputes with in the past, files a report at WP:SSP attempting to link Rezistenta with seemingly unrelated user Feierabend (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). The checkuser case ends with no link between these two, but a link with Mirelam, Rezistenta, and another user, Sebi mihalache (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is uncovered.
• Third party admin Tiptoety (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) blocks Sebi mihalache indefinitely as a sock of Rezistenta, who is then also blocked as the puppeteer. Mirelam was already blocked indefinitely for incivility.
• However, Rezistenta claims (in an obviously private conversation with myself) that they only created Mirelam (as aforementioned) and that Sebi could simply be a sockpuppet of Mirelam. This seems plausible.

My personal thoughts: Khoi has it in for Rezistenta. I wouldn't exactly endorse an unblock at the present time, but the alibi and editing patterns do indeed suggest that Rezistenta's story is true. I will await further response. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the users involved were created in the order: Sebi in October 2007, then Rezistenta in November 2007, then Mirelam in April 2008. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry about my rambling :D ) but it looks like Mirelam may well be a sock of Sebi. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that Mirelam and Sebi mihalache would be socks of Rezistenta. Mirelam and Sebi edit from a location apparently many km away from Rezistenta. Not impossible, of course, but the technical evidence of direct sock puppetting is not strong. That's not to say Rezistenta should not be held responsible in some way for knowingly helping to create sock puppets for another user, and Mirelam and Sebi can stay in the bit bucket as far as I am concerned [74]. Thatcher 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made an error here, I don't know how that happened. Mirelam and Sebi mihalache are socks of each other, but Rezistenta is unrelated. I'll have to apologize to Rezistenta. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There's something I don't understand here, an earlier CU showed them sharing IPs and other characteristics - that's the way I came across Mirelam in the first place - but now it doesn't. I've forwarded the earlier results to Thatcher, because they're baffling. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Resolved

 – Case suggested to be brought to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soccermeko(8th). Beam 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

I think this goes far beyond the pale: "Can't you get that through your stupid head. If you can't get that, then someone needs to take a hammer and beat some sense in your head." (diff) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What administrator action do you suggest is taken against user:4.129.65.144? Beam 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the IP is currently halfway through a 48hr block. Hello Control may not have been aware of this. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if the IP can already get around that block, what can we do? I'd support 6 months if possible. Beam 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, the message in question was posted prior to the block. CIreland (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Control seems to be currently on a semi-wikibreak. This is the first time he has logged in since the message has been posted, and since that, the user was blocked. It is just a misunderstanding. The IP has not edited since being blocked. Lradrama 15:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Jaysweet confused me. As the 48hr block was to stop "account creation" and "stem disruption" how was this brutal post missed? If it wasn't taken into account for the 48hr I immediately propose a 1-3 month (minimum) block for prevention of further civility violations. I'm a very lenient person when it comes to WP:Civil and in fact think that it is used way too often for very strict definitions of Civility, but this is obvious. Beam 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an IP, and the user is obviously hopping IPs at this point. Blocking for that length will probably do little to help. If the drama continues, a rangeblock might be of use, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: On a short break from my wikibreak, I checked out a few past "problem" areas. I found the above comment and posted here before realizing the IP had been blocked as a sock. (The IP user in question is undoubtedly the permablocked user Soccermeko.) I didn't have a specific admin action in mind; I figured that posting would bring about an appropriate result. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you see as an appropriate result? Beam 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. That's why I thought I'd leave it to the experts. A range block would solve a lot of problems (the user has a dynamic IP) but could end up blocking good editors as well. At the very least a stern warning from an admin is in order. In any case, whatever is decided here is fine with me; I just thought someone with authority should be notified. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The community has already issued pretty much the sternest possible warning to Soccermeko, who was the person editing from that IP at the time: "Don't come 'round here no more. Ever." He is unwelcome due to persistent abusive sockpuppetry.

As many have said, a rangeblock may be possible, but somebody would have to do the legwork to find out what range of IP addresses Soccermeko is editing from. That is probably better addressed at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Soccermeko(8th). --Jaysweet (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp , threatening comment

Resolved

 – No threat made, Randy2063 will abide by any consensus reached, and has reviewed relevant policy. Beam 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Editor repeatedly attempting to engage others in discussion of a substantive issue on the page rather than the proposed addition to the article. Then he adds: "I'm just trying to get each one of you on record." Given that the article subject is part of real-world contention, this sounds like a threat. I reverted the addition but he has reverted back. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert non-offensive and non-privacy issue related talk page additions again. This doesn't seem like a threat at all, the user appears to simply want everyone to state their opinions so that he can decide how to discuss them. I stress, again, do not remove talk page comments like that again. Beam 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If the user ends up not wanting to hear these opinions for purpose of editing the article, than simply remind him that it's not a place for discussion of the topic without the goal of editing the article. Otherwise, you're not assuming good faith on his/her part. Beam 16:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been very patient with this user and I don't think you've understood the situation. This page has a particular history which on reflection I shouldn't have expected you to know. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My recommendations stand for talk pages in general in combative topics such as Guantanamo Bay. They have applied in talk pages such as Israel-Palestine topics, Balkan topics, and other similar topic pages. I think they can apply for you and your dispute. Now, as my 2nd statement says, if it ends up that this user just wants to use the talk page as a soapbox than a warning is in order. Still, I'm uncomfortable with removing talk page comments. Beam 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's really not a threat. Naerii 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No it's not. Beam 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You should have notified him of these proceedings, I have done so now, as well as given him some things to consider. Beam 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

After he's given a chance to comment here, and after I give him some policy guidance, and no one else has anything to contribute, could someone mark this as resolved? Beam 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have given him some things to consider, see this section on his talk page. Are you satisfied, Itsmejudith? Beam 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not in any way meant to be a threat of any kind. I consider that source to be entirely unsuitable for the reasons I've stated. I want to know where everyone stands on what they consider suitable.

And as I've said on Beam's talk page, if anyone truly believes it's a good source then try using it for the Mohamed al-Kahtani article. I might point it out outside of WP but I won't dispute it here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)