Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive135

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Noticeboard archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Incident archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Request for removal of indefinite block of Keepthefactsinwikiplease (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Hello, AMA advocates Amerique (talk • contribs • logs) and Addhoc (talk • contribs • logs) acting on behalf of Keepthefactsinwikiplease (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) have been unable to determine the supposed violations of WP policies that have merited an indefinite block. The blocking admin Nlu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has indicated s/he would not contest someone else reducing the block, however s/he is not personally inclined to reduce this block. In this context, we would be very grateful, if there was a further review of this block. Thank you,--Amerique 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Addhoc 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain page move

There was a survey being taken at Talk:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain as to whether the article at Catholicism in Great Britain should be moved to Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain. As it appeared that there would be no consensus for the move, JzG aborted the vote and moved the article to agree with his own previously stated POV. -SynKobiety 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From the talk page the matter appears more complicated than that; please don't bring half-told content disputes here. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not intend to be misleading. I was just trying to follow the instruction: Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes. Are administrators exempt from WP:AGF? I brought this issue here because of what appears to me to be an administrators abuse of privilege. Would another unbiased administrator please look into this? -SynKobiety 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the page history [1] is very suggestive. Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) appears to be move-warring. Furthermore, I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Catholic is ambiguous. Roman Catholic is not. Why is this here again? Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't bring this here to inquire about an administrator's POV about the content: A survey was being conducted to address that. An administrator chose to abort the vote in progress in order to push his POV (one with which Mackensen apparently agrees). Are administrators given the charter to override users when they disagree with the users? -SynKobiety 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to matters of common sense and clear factual accuracy, I should imagine they are - that's why the community made them admins. Some catholic churches are seperate from the Roman Catholic Church. If the article is about the Roman Catholic Church and not inclusive of those Catholic churches that do not recognise Rome (and Rome doesn't recognise them!), then there it should remain. Crimsone 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What you believe to be common sense and clear factual accuracy may be seen by others as biased POV, whether or not you are an administrator. That is why a vote was being taken. Is an administrator entitled to ignore a vote in progress and impose his own POV? -SynKobiety 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article was moved unilaterally in a copy-and-paste move. I fixed it. One of the editors involved in the move war states on his User page his agenda the "Defense of the Catholic Church in the use of her name". Do not bring your battles to Wikipedia. All other articles on the national RC churches are at Roman (only Canada and Great Britain are out of step with the convention, I started a discussion on moving Great Britain to be consistent with the rest, there is already a discussion at Canada). Voting is evil. The last move created double and triple redirects, most of whicih I think I have also fixed. In other words, I did what an admin is supposed to do: fixed up the mess caused by editors on a mission. Guy 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the concept that "naming conventions of pages" is not subject to a vote. Once a norm has been established that should hold sway. Just because "k.d.lang" likes to downcase her name doesn't mean we should. Just because someone decides that the "Catholic church based in Rome" is the only legitimate one, doesn't mean we do. The standard is "Roman Catholic Church of xxx" and that's what should hold. Don't be a scone. Wjhonson 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually when it comes to personal names we should depict them the way they want. In fact v/v kd lang, it says right at the top of her page that the first initial of her name is cap'd due to 'technical restrictions' in the Wiki software. The 'l' is lowercase. Anchoress 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest a 'move lock' would be appropriate here to stop the POV pushing, and move waring. But since I've already expressed opinions on this issue, I won't be the one to do it. 'Catholic' is a ambiguous/contested title - and it is not NPOV for us to describe one denomination as the Catholic Church. Keep it at Roman Catholic, and note that the denomination in question usually self-designates by the contested title. --Doc 10:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I came here because of a procedural issue, which is exactly the kind of thing where I thought adminstrators should hold sway. What I have found is that there are many administrators who feel that their place is to enforce their own POVs instead of enforcing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. There is more consideration about what the policies and guidelines mean among users in the discussion at Talk:Roman Catholic Church than has been exhibited here by administrators. Of course, administrator JzG has shut down a survey being conducted there also. He tells us "voting is evil." WP:NCON says otherwise.
The title I gave this section has now been censored twice. It was originally Administrator JzG aborts vote in process. Please excuse me if that violates some procedure, but show me the guideline it violates. -SynKobiety 01:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I too am concerned by an edit by admin. JzG. In this edit [2] this vote was closed prior the announced closing. It included the comment "Thylacoleo's summary at the end of this section sums it up perfectly. Please note: voting is evil." This to me is not the way admins. usually close debates. JzG was strongly involved in the debate. --WikiCats 13:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this is not the first time JzG has done stuff like this. He has abused his administrative powers before. Fresheneesz 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make note of this: Administrator Code of Conduct: Consensus "Wikipedia works by consensus. One of the tasks of an admin is to implement that consensus. As such, if a discussion has led to consensus for a certain version or action, an admin should not ignore that to revert to another version or perform the opposite action, if they prefer that for whatever reason." --WikiCats 14:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rory096

Something odd is going on with Rory096 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). If you check his contribution history, he seems to be running a bot to add templates, but then all of a sudden you see these three edits: [3] [4] [5]. It's a very strange looking (at least to me) edit history. There seems to be some past history that I am not aware of. Can somebody look into it? -- Gogo Dodo 04:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He isn't running a bot, just making many minor edits. The other edits are apparently part of some IRC joke. JoshuaZ 04:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I see. I noticed that Teke just blocked him for 15 minutes. And I did read Rory096's response on his talk page. If this is some joke and admins are involved, I am very disappointed. -- Gogo Dodo 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a joke that admins are involved in. I saw the tail end of Rory acting batty on IRC and discussing these edits, so I hit his shutoff button that's on his userpage. The block was to calm him down. It can be extended if he continues, no problem. Teke(talk) 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get some explanation either here or on IRC for the people who use that method of what is going on here. JoshuaZ 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Here would be better than IRC; not everybody uses IRC. -- Gogo Dodo 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't either but since this seems to be IRC centered I presume it has a chance of being resolved there. JoshuaZ 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Rory was talking about being bored, and then went to do the Cats. Then, randomly, he mentioned his odd edits and in a matter of a minute after looking I went and temp blocked, he said he was going off for a bit. There's really not a whole lot to what happened; it was as quick and confusing on IRC as it was here. As I said I just hit the shutoff once I gathered the pieces that he provided willingly; I invite him to comment further or for another administrator to extend the block if necessary. Teke(talk) 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He's just being stupid, and he's keeping it out of the article namespace, so it's not a big deal. Don't make a bigger flap out of this than you have to.--SB | T 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He was making minor edits because he was bored, resulting from a conversation about trolling on IRC. Shadow1 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I have a feeling this isn't about redirect categorization. --Rory096 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is totally unacceptable! Let me suggest that social networking take place on a social networking site. I hear there are many of them to choose from. This is supposed to be an encyclopeida, not a social scene for in which to make "joke" edits out of boredom! There is plenty of realy work to do, and here's a bunch of wasted efforts Pete.Hurd 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This entire thing has been blown completely out of proportion. I made those edits as a joke that affected nothing encyclopaedic. I was in the process of self-reverting when Gogo beat me by a matter of seconds. Nothing malicious happened; my edits were completely harmless. Yes, there's work to do, but that doesn't mean that every editor should be forced to do whatever has to be done every second he's on Wikipedia. Might I remind you that editing, especially editing the encyclopaedia portion, is completely voluntary? There's no harm in edits like those that I made- do we ban "vandalboxes" because anyone editing those isn't editing the encyclopaedia itself? That would be silly, because if we weren't allowed to have a bit of fun here, the rate of editors burning out would almost inevitably go up exponentially. --Rory096 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The wasted time wasn't yours, it was all the people chasing after you trying to figure out what was going on. They could have been doing other things than playing an unwitting part in your joke. Pete.Hurd 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, this has been blown out of proportion. If this was never put on ANI, it would have saved Gogo's time, JoshuaZ's time and your time. As soon as I showed that it wasn't malicious it should have been dropped. --Rory096 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a joke, I was on IRC, User:Jasabella said that his userpage redirected to "Bitch", then Rory actually redirected it, thats all. Just a joke no one died, completely over exaggerated--Coasttocoast 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about freaking out over nothing. I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this. A block? You've got to be friggen kidding me. Self professed vandalism to a userpage of two people in a joke? That's the sort of thing that shows how our community interacts, keeps level and has fun, an important part of life. Next time this sort of thing comes up, unless someone actually complains, have some fun yourself. Everytime someone reverts take a shot or something. -Mask 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For those not on IRC like myself, it was not being blown out of proportion. There was no indication that it was a joke until after I asked about it. Look at it from the point of view of not having the information from IRC: User redirects another user's page to "Bitch" with the comment "vandalism". The targeted user has not edited since July 8. How is somebody not on IRC supposed to figure out that it's a joke? Then the same user makes another vandalism edit with references to an infamous vandal and then returns to sign said vandalism. How else am I supposed to interpret this without any information from IRC? -- Gogo Dodo 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Gogo Dodo is saying some important things that doesn't seem to be getting through. The subtext of the IRC crowd seems to be "look, if you're not on IRC, then you shouldn't be concerned about apparent vandalism, or bot misbehaviour, just leave it to us, the in-crowd, cuz we know what's really going on". Saying things like "I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this." sends the opposite message, something like "hey, we're just a bunch of clowns who should be kept far away from admin tools". Pete.Hurd 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"I like the IRC crowd, I spent a lot of time on there. They do this." Makes us sound like clowns who shouldn't have admin bits? Wow, and here I thought IRC was a old, respected protocol used to discuss and further many, many collabrative efforts. Hate to see what you'd say for a RfA where the user admitted to playing solitaire once in a while... -Mask 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that under the circumstances it was certainly a good idea to ask me what I was doing. However, once I replied to you and told you it was a joke, there was no need to take it to ANI. --Rory096 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are we still discussing this? There's nothing more to see or fix. It's a waste of time that could be spent fixing actual problems, as I see it. Luna Santin 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to keep adding to the conversation, but I'd like to clarify a few things. First, I think the two admins involved (Teke and JoshuaZ) did a fine job. After they clarified the situation to me, I have no complaints. Second, I put this whole thing on WP:AN/I because at the time, I did not know what you were up to and I thought it would be best to take care of the situation immediately instead of waiting to find out what was going on because you seemed like a bot gone wild to me. While I was typing here, you were replying to me and it was not until after I hit Save did I look at your reply. Finally, I agree that this case is closed. -- Gogo Dodo 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican politicians and BLP

All my previous interactions with administrators have been highly negative, but I'm posting here anyway, just for kicks.

There's an ongoing, lively debate on Vicente Fox (mostly), Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and Felipe Calderón about whether WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPA are policies, or just really bad ideas.

Pgk, Geoffrey Spear, Chacor and Hseldon10 believe I am a "dictator of Wikipedia" [6] for insisting that sources actually support the content. For example, my first edit to Vicente Fox removed a long diatribe about "racist comments" made by Vicente Fox. Notice no references or sources were provided[7]. I removed ([8]) the assertion that Fox's "campaign promised to provide every Mexican a job in Mexico" when the source provided[[9] did not mention this claim or anything close to it. Hseldon reverted those two edits with no explanation[10]. I then removed all and only unsourced content[11]. Hseldon10 then made extensive edits re-adding the content to an amazing assortment of dead links and obscure Spanish-language sources[12] followed by a wonderful edit from Joseph Solis of Australia that completely undid my enforcement of BLP by adding in other unsourced content I had previously removed[13]. I reverted these edits[14]. For the next ten or so edits there was relative peace with Bnguyen adding a reliable source to Fox's controversial comments and I removed a few references linking to blogs - forbidden by WP:RS. The next twenty or so edits consisted of a revert war between Hseldon and various vandal anons over when Fox's term ends. The details are irrelevant. At this point I went through all of Hseldon's "reliable sources" and realized I had been duped. I altered the content to actually reflect the sources here[15], removed a pov eulogy to Fox here[16] that was sourced to Fox's state of the nation speech[17]. I removed several more broken links and obscure Spanish language sources[18]. Since then Geoff Spear and Pgk (twice) have reverted my edits. Chacor is now claiming I'm violating WP:OWN and is demanding an WP:RFC[19]. He refuses to call me by my username and instead refers to me as "yyyyyy." The comments on the talkpage are a wonderful assortment of personal attacks. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, you do realise "yyyyyy" is easier to type than "Ya ya ya ya ya ya", right? Btw, just to point out WP:RFCU - here. Also, this is a content dispute, not an administrative problem. (See also) – Chacor 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Chacor is engaging in sockpuppetry, in addition to the myriad of other policy violations. Is this not grounds for blocking? How did this user ever become an administrator? Ya ya ya ya ya ya 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ya ya ya ya ya ya blocked 48 hours

User:Mike Halterman has blocked Ya ya ya ya ya ya 48 hours for WP:POINT for this. – Chacor 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. Ya ya ya was being highly disruptive -- Samir धर्म 03:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User's talk page history - protection? – Chacor 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just noting that the user removed Samir's reason for declining the unblock request he left on his talk page, and left an abusive edit summary. I reverted it, but the change can be found in the link Chacor gave. --Coredesat talk. o_O 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upped to indef

Mike has upped it to an indefinite block. Could other admins please review? Cheers. – Chacor 03:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't using the blocking time for what I intended, instead trying to stir up more shit with myself, Chacor, and other editors. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"He wasn't using the blocking time for what I intended"? Are you serious? That's a grounds for an indef, not following your intent? He made three contribs after being blocked. [20] [21] [22]. No legal threats, no threats of violence, just one replacement of the unblock template, some continued incivility, and some personal attacks. A lot of people get angry when they are blocked: you've put them in a little holding pen and many people respond to the shock by lashing out. This level of lashing out on a blocked user's own user page shouldn't be used to justify any block extension, let alone an indef. Reduce the block back to the original length and protect the talk page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not rolling it back. If someone else wants to do it, they're more than welcome. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason we should allow disruptive trolls to edit. – Chacor 05:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with *that* in general. I'm only able to evaluate so much information at a time; so far, in response to the request to review, I've looked at what's happened since he was blocked 48 hours, under the assumption that the 48 hour block made sense at the time. If it did, then what he's done since then does not justify an extension to indef. Are we saying the original 48 hour block was too lenient and he should have been indef'd from the get-go? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Indefinite is a long time. He may well have acted in a way that makes us all unwilling to shorten the 48 hour block, but it takes a lot to justify blocking someone indefinitely. Respectfully suggest the original block be restored. Metamagician3000 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done so. He has had constructive edits prior to these and, while I was also angered by his lashing out while blocked, I don't think an indef is warranted based on that alone -- Samir धर्म 05:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, I apologize, but after checking his user talk, why the hell did he want to talk to me? I didn't even do any reversions at pages he editted (IIRC). Ryūlóng 10:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw on WP:3O that people are asking for an informal mediator. When Ya ya ya ya ya comes off his block, I'm willing to lend a hand and maybe try to mediate the content dispute (leaving any personal attacks/whatever else in the hands of the capable administrators here). Captainktainer * Talk 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A block is a shock. If a blocked user "lashes out" or "tries to stir up shit" on his talkpage, I suggest you try just looking the other way. Please see my argument in the thread immediately above, concerning a blocked user who reacted a lot more rudely than this one: "Admins have too much power to be so fucking touchy." Bishonen | talk 12:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

This user is apparently, or at least allegedly, Freestylefrappe. From the unblock mailing list:

Ah... the eloquence of the administrator...
A lovely little comment from the administrator who blocked me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=74653272&oldid=74653083
Double standards? Of course.
-Freestylefrappe

++Lar: t/c 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The user asked me to look into this. When I did I found that the "content dispute" was over whether WP:BLP applies to completely unreferenced claims that Vincente Fox is a racist and having Wikipedia itself state (rather than attributing it to someone else) that Fox frequently says things which "demonstrate his inexperience or lack of culture." In my judgement... BLP does apply here. To put it mildly. My first thought was to simply delete the page entirely as suggested by BLP, but instead I reverted to a version which seems ok and protected it. Protecting a page you have edited (just that one revert) is bad, but in the circumstances... (with users edit warring to keep the accusations of racism unreferenced and admins upholding it) I thought that page ought to be locked down until this gets sorted out. I have just now seen that I've above been accused of 'bad' admin action (what, no note to my talk page?) for undeleting and expanding an article on a place rather than just re-writing it from scratch... no doubt this will be another example of 'crimes' on my part, but c'mon. We blocked the guy who was trying to add valid references? Like this one... where he replaced a blog ref with one from CNN. But not to worry, after he was blocked they put it back to having no references at all for that section! Yippee! --CBD 14:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
His block has nothing to do with the article. His block was for violating WP:POINT at WP:RFCU. – Chacor 14:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, someone is going to have to explain that to me. There was an IP edit. You accused him of making it to get around 3RR (which doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations anyway)... he accused you of making it to 'frame' him for such. You requested RFCU's against each other. I see incivility and failure to assume good faith. Where's the WP:POINT violation? -CBD 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The request filed by Ya ya is clearly retaliatory, which checkuser frowns on. Moreover, we'd never accept it anyway, because he was trying to out Chacor's IP address. I wouldn't be surprised if this is FSF, since he pulled the same trick on me last January. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So far as I know it is FSF. He has said as much and I see no reason to doubt it. However, it seems odd that if two users accuse each other of making the same IP edit we only consider the first accusation. Trying to 'out' someone's IP address also doesn't make sense to me. That would only happen if the checkuser performer revealed it... which they wouldn't. --CBD 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed we wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact that he asked. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD I don't think any reasonable person would fault you for trying to get Vincente Fox in compliance with BLP, (in fact, full marks!) but this incident doesn't seem to be primarily about that, it seems to be primarily about FSF's behaviour and sockery. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joehazelton - Violations of 3RR & deceptive edit summary.

User:Joehazelton has violated the three-revert rule in the Peter Roskam article. This user has been previously blocked two times for multiple violations (3RR & civility).

  1. 9/07/06 #1
  2. 9/08/06 #2
  3. 9/08/06 #3
  4. 9/08/06 #4

I don't have the time to completely review this user's edit history, but I am certain you will find repeated violations.

Also, the edit below provided a deceptive edit summary. It stated removed more list cruft but in fact it added back content which had been deleted based on the objections of two other editors.

I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks. Propol 05:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick review looks like this is an edit war between two sides of an election campaign (2006 Congressional election — Illinois) , with the editors using the articles as campaign platforms:
Both are recent accounts, which seem to be single purpose (2006 Illinois Congressional elections) — ERcheck (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck, would you please reexamine the situation. If you review my contributions, you will note that I have made edits to multiple political candidates of both parties from several different states. I have a general interest in politics and my account is by no means a single purpose account. Also, I would like to point out that I have not engaged in edit-warring. I have never been warned, let alone blocked. I always make every attempt to follow Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, User:Joehazelton is clearly a single purpose account, has been blocked twice before, warned dozens of times by other editors and administrators, and as demonstrated by the links above has clearly violated the rules (3RR and abusive edit summary). Also, I disagree with your assessment of my being pro-Duckworth. I have, however, objected to User:Joehazelton including many disparaging items about Duckworth in the Peter Roskam article. Frequently blogs have been used as sources, or negative quotes from Roskam about Duckworth - clearly items not of encyclopedic quality. I stand behind all of my edits. I am not asking anyone to choose sides; I am simply asking for the rules to be enforced! Again, I ask that this user be blocked. I appreciate your consideration. Please help me. I want a high-quality NPOV article. Propol 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck response:
  • With respect to Propol's response here:
  • Propol's edit history: Propol's first edits were on June 16, with 3rd edit (on same day) to the Peter Roskam article. While there have been edits to a number of other articles, the vast majority are to the Roskam and Duckworth articles. Yes there have been a few edits to other articles — 6 other Illinois candidates, one Kentucky candidate, one Indiana candidate, and the CRNC chairman; 2 Democrats, rest Republican. "Single-purpose" with respect to Duckworth and Roskam may not be the most accurate description; Propol's edits do focus on current political candidates, for the most part in Illinois. Propol's interest appears to be in Illinois and nearby politics and with a focus in Wikipedia on one particular race in which there has been public mudslinging.
  • With respect to edit warring: A definition is "two or more contributors' repeated reverts of one another's edits to an article." Propol and Joehazelton have been reverting each other's edits on the Roskam article. I see 3 reverts (within 24 hours) by Propol of the open letter.
  • Additional comment's on Propol's ANI report:
  • With respect to the 3RR rule, the report reverts, all fall outside of the 24 hour time frame between consecutive reversion. Note: 3RR violations should be reported to WP:AN/3RR.
  • With respect to the "abusive edit summary", the text is "removed more list cruft". Propol's edit summaries include "Revert whitewash", which is no less contentious than "cruft". I don't agree that is is deception (although it was not full disclosure). Joehazelton, while adding some info, did remove a link to a DCCC page criticizing Roskam. AGF, "list cruft" could refer to that link. (In my opinion, that is an inappropriate, biased link.)
  • With respect to the inclusion of blogs (not considered to be reliable sources), you have included Eric Zorn's blog as a reference. Eric Zorn may be a columnist for a mainstream newspaper, but do you know that his blog is subjected to editorial scrutiny and fact checking?
  • Concerning the basic issues here:
  • Content dispute, maintaining NPOV in articles on current Congressional candidates: Please see the Administrators' noticeboard section on Dispute resolution. In reviewing the edits and the talk page discussion, a neutral third party might be of help.
  • Propol and Joehazelton's dispute: There are talk page discussions between the two — none too friendly. Though both editors may have the motive of seeing a fair treatment of candidates, the situation with respect to the Roskham article has become personal. I do suggest that both take a cooling off period from each other.
  • With respect to Joehazelton's conduct: Though some tempers have flared (incivility), he has shown some willingess (see his talk page) to discuss the issues. I'm not willing to block for 3RR for the reported activity. Incivility / personal attacks (by either party) should not be allowed to go unchecked.
— ERcheck (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck, thanks for taking a closer look at the situation. I have just one minor response to your comments, you noted that I used a blog by Eric Zorn as a source. That is correct; however, this blog was published in the Chicago Tribune and was subject to fact checking and editorial review. Really, it's more of a column than a blog. They only call it a blog because readers can post responses to the article online. I don't think an online response would qualify as a reliable source, but the original article itself does. User:Joehazelton doesn't seem to see the distinction between this and other blogs found out there. This, amongst other issues, has lead to a contentious debate. I assure you that I am trying to work in a collaborative manner, but Joehazelton is really exhausting my patience. I welcome a fresh set of eyes on the article. Thanks. Propol 15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
ERcheck To respond to the Eric Zorn blog, he is a well known Chicago Tribune Journalist with a "hard core" bias towards Dupage County Republicans and has, an aggressive style and philosophy of Advocacy journalism(which in of it self would violate publish Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. I feel that Eric Zorn Blog editorial comments and the spin of facts to try to establish a link of disreputable and unethical behavior is Non sequitur or False Cause as well as just his opinion (Mr. Zorn's) and as such is not under very strong editorial review by the Chicago Tribune and I would classify his website as a blog. I feel Propol addition of this is, spurious and not consistent with Encyclopedic content. Also, in closing, the patronizing and condescending comments of Propol, have not been very AGF.Joehazelton 22:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef blocked user JB196 using AOL sock puppets

JB196 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) who was indefblocked recently for trouble making, harrassment, insulting of editors and admins and ignoring all warnings has begun to use sock puppets to continue his crusade to get his own articles deleted by spamming citation templates to information he himself posted, most specifically Vic Grimes and Texas Wrestling Academy.

205.188.116.195 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

152.163.101.11 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

152.163.100.136 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

I won't go into the saga of JB as it would include just about every admin page, several articles and several talk pages but suffice to say he's never going to learn. –– Lid(Talk) 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

205.188.116.11 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) - new puppet –– Lid(Talk) 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that this notice was blanked by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) recently who I am assuming is another sock[23]. –– Lid(Talk) 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I forgot this as I though it was odd but before I noticed the changes to the pages I received a test4 warning on my talk page from a random AOL IP for no reason, 205.188.117.11 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). I didn't put 2 and 2 together until now and am assuming it's another puppet. –– Lid(Talk) 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, 152.163.100.65 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) tried blanking this notice [24]. Perhaps yet another sock? --physicq210 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Another two socks 205.188.117.12 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) and 205.188.116.196 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). –– Lid(Talk) 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous 152.163.100.8 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). –– Lid(Talk) 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And more

152.163.100.11 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

152.163.101.5 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

Also another attempt to blank the section here. I don't think he liked the fact I added the story to WP:LAME[25]–– Lid(Talk) 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It goes on and on and on and on - 152.163.100.133 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). –– Lid(Talk) 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
And yet another blanking: 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). [26] --physicq210 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of listing a bunch of AOL IPs that'll probably just change, can't you just ask for semiprotection on the affected pages? —Whomp t/c 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm not involved in the dispute, but just reverting and reporting blankings of this notice. Other people/parties are involved in whatever dispute they are having. --physicq210 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, but I also think the use of AOL sock puppets by a banned user to the admins needed reporting which is why I posted it here. –– Lid(Talk) 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a report that this was blanked for the fourth or fifth time [27]. –– Lid(Talk) 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy Issue  ?

In User:Essjay/Archives/41 under the heading "User:Compaquser" a real name of a person was written against Wikipedias Privacy Policy and under "The "right to vanish" Policy by User: Kirjtc2 on August 4,2006 . This should be erased as the policy should be enforced. Especially if they have departed Wikipedia . I find this to be a poor repesentation of Wikipedia .--204.225.122.150 23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you need an admin for? Remove it yourself. --Golbez 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No, please don't edit material in other people's User space. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, he removed it anyway. Essjay hasn't been around in a long time and I was about to do it myself, as I think he more or less trust me. I would recommend not reverting unless Essjay wants to himself. It's pretty small potatoes all in all. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user Daniel Brandt making anon edits

69.149.104.45 (talk • contribs) is making talk-page postings claiming to be Daniel Brandt (talk • contribs), who has been banned for legal threats. *Dan T.* 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. JoshuaZ 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another one: 69.149.104.17 (talk • contribs) *Dan T.* 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And blocked. Would anyone object to a range block of 69.149.104.*? JoshuaZ 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
*looks around* I don't see any objections :) — The Future 07:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP official policy: "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." This policy appears to be a smokescreen. At the very minimum, there is no enforcement, and no provision for redress if a subject of an article feels that he is prevented from implementing the policy. There are numerous admins on Wikipedia who contend that a banned user who is the subject of an article forfeits this welcome, and has no right to "correct inaccuracies, to remove inaccurate or unsourced material, or to remove libel." That makes this BLP a dead letter, and it isn't worth the pixels it takes to display it. Remember, it takes only one admin to ban a user forever. I was banned by Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 because I was trying to explain that a new federal criminal law affects many Wikipedia editors. I appealed my ban to the mailing list and have proof that my appeal was received, but my appeal was ignored. I have been repeatedly reverted while attempting to correct information on my article. --Daniel Brandt 68.90.165.190 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This IP has been temporarily blocked to implement the ban on Daniel Brandt. Gwernol 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Jews for Jesus

Could someone (other than admins already involved) pleased review the Jews for Jesus. Most editors haven't violated 3RR, but there's been a lot of edit warring and reverting without discussion. Even some experienced admins appear to be warring there. Justforasecond 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any issues with our current administrative response. The article is, and will continue to be, a hot button issue for many editors. Our best course of action is to encourage discussion between editors, and invoke appropriate sanctions against those (from either side) who knowingly violate policy. alphaChimp(talk) 05:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I second that. An alternative (or complementary) solution would be to just take it through the dispute resolution process. It seems more like a content dispute, which doesn't really belong on this noticeboard. --physicq210 05:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree Alphachimp. Editors that discuss civilly are fine, but those editors violating policy, such as edit warring or incivility should be sanctioned to prevent this from continuing any further. Justforasecond 05:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To that end, I'd encourage you to report any editors violating policy to the appropriate venue (e.g. WP:AN3). It doesn't matter if said editors are admistrators. alphaChimp(talk) 06:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'd be happy to but I couldn't find a noticeboard for edit warring? Justforasecond 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Violations of WP:3RR go to WP:AN3. Pages needing protection from vandalism go to WP:RFPP. You might also be interested in checking out WP:DR. alphaChimp(talk) 06:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- is this the correct place for edit warring? (edit warring that doesn't reach the "electrified fence" of 3RR?) Justforasecond 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
One doesn't have to make 4 reverts to violate 3RR. WP:3RR mentions that editors skirting around the policy either by using a different account or by reverting exactly 3 times repeatedly may be deemed to be in violation. The policy itself explains it better. WP:AN3 would be the correct place for such reports :) Crimsone 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've just pulled up the exact quote - The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. --Crimsone 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ericsaindon2 evading block again

Arbcom banned Ericsaindon2 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is back using another anonymous IP at 69.230.41.31 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). -- Gogo Dodo 05:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Noticed and dealt with, via another ban reset. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shangwen Fang

A new user, Prior400 (talk • contribs), whom I suspect to be Shangwen Fang himself (due to his claims of familiarity with Fang's family history and career), has been removing large chunks of references to a cat abuse incident that Fang became infamous for, while adding POV statements praising Fang. I've removed a large number of them while trying to restore NPOV-ness, but I'd like folks to look at the article as well as the history to see if protect is warranted/necessary. (I do not feel comfortable protecting the article myself.) --Nlu (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's willing to look at this with a different set of eyes -- please also review whether the unsourced sections (that Prior400 introduced, and which I tried to NPOV-ize) should stay at all. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piotr Blass

Piotr Blass (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (and anonymously under 69.163.189.9 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)) has been consistantly been recreating articles about himself in the mainspace for the past few months, beginning with Piotr Blass, going to Piotr blass, and currently at Piotrek Blass and now and Piotrus Blass. Something needs to be done about this editor, who has recreated this article over nine ten times, once after userfying, and once after an AFD. This is getting ridiculous now. Ryūlóng 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't he be warned (if not blocked) for blatant disruption? --physicq210 06:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)¢
I have just done so now. Ryūlóng 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyereh Mireku

Kyereh Mireku (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has once, again, tried to get a bot created, including making a userpage for it, even when it is not even registered or scripted, or approved in anyway on WP:BOT. This time, it is User:MayorBot. Ryūlóng 08:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find any evidence of User:MayorBot, account actually being created so I've tagged the page User:MayorBot for speedy deletion.--Andeh 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
God...Now he's gone back and made another pointless template. This kid is way too young to be doing much of anything on Wikipedia; he has not been listening to our warnings, and continues to edit unconstructively. Ryūlóng 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google bug sufferer requests assistance

Could someone revert the Jainism article, which has in the last few minutes has been vandalized, my browser has the google bug problem, so unfortunately, I'm unable. Thanks, Addhoc 12:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Addhoc 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry for St Mary the Virgin, Ewell

Please ring me to discuss the wiki entry for the church on <phone number redacted> It would be appropriate to delete this, once actioned.

Thanks

Church Webmaster

Is this about the vandalism to Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell and Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell by a now-banned user? If so, that has been fixed. Guy 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I did notice an uncited negative statement on the page about the organ, which I removed. Demiurge 14:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the phone number quickly. (I'm not an admin so I won't do it myself.) Newyorkbrad 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking incident, Need immediate help

I have a SERIOUS stalking problem. A user, User:Peartdrumsticks,who started as a GIPU, and then registered, who kept adding a commercial link to the page Rush (band) and Neil Peart, and whose links were repeatedly reverted out, began confronting the editors removing it, on their pages. I asked him to stop, because he was acting quite hostile. He re-edited a single comment time after time to reflect whatever new wording he wanted to use to seem innocent, even after I'd replied. When told how to communicate on a wiki talk page, with multiple entries, he became MORE hostile, and told me he'd edit however he wanted. I told him I was done talking about the issue because of his hostility, and I placed all his harrassment into a single archive, found here User_talk:ThuranX/Special_archive_1. He was asked again to stop, and I continued to add his material to this archive. things kept getting worse, and I decided the best thing would be to tell him that anythign further would result in me seeking administrative help. I soon had to, and went here Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Harassment. This still wasn't enough. This mornign I received an E-mail from him. He titled it 'Batman', and the message body was 'hello ThuranX' and a big smiley face. I can ONLY take this as a serious and possibly criminal stalking action, as it means he had to track down my alias by searching the internet for ways to find and contact me. The 'batman' reference I believe refers to his 'detective skills.' He has requested total removal from Wikipedia under the 'right to vanish' policy. I take this entire action as a criminal act of stalking, and I want to know HOW I can deal with a wikipedian so angry he can't make money here that he's taken to stalking me outside of Wikipedia. I also do NOT want his account entirely deleted, so that if needed, the material is available for law enforcement research purposes. Please respond promptly, because I'd really rather not have to go to the local police for assistance with this stalker. Thank you. ThuranX 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I still need help, he now has found my real name, my address, and is attempting to sue me for discussing his harrassing behaviors. I'll wait another couple hours, then repost all of this on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Again, please help. ThuranX 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Is an admin addressing this situation? It might be best dealt with off-wiki, but it shouldn't be overlooked as seems might possibly be happening. Newyorkbrad 23:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Peartdrumsticks claimed he was leaving the wiki and had his userpage and talk page deleted. Since he continued to mess wtih ThuranX's archive pages, supposedly in the spirit of m:Right to Vanish, I blocked his account indef to help him with his going away. I'm continuing to receive emails which have escalated to threating, all caps and lots of bold text and colors. On wiki, he seems to have been stopped; I'd suggest ThuranX block his email address to avoid further distress. Shell babelfish 00:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet of Indef Banned editor

Hello Admins, the banned editor User:Tallboydoctorpepper and User:Tallboydoctorpepperthesecond has surfaced again as the imaginatively monikered User:Tallboydoctorpepperthethird and has already indulged in some minor vandalism. Rockpocket 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Naconkantari 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User is refusing to talk

User:KarlBunker reverted my good faith edits to telepathy, and deleted my message asking why. He reverted me agian, violating 3RR, whitch I'll report later. If he refuses to talk and continues to POV Push, what can I do? -- Selmo (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have ways of making him talk. Seriously, though, I believe short blocks can be handed out to stubbornly uncommunicative users. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And this is on telepathy? Maybe he's trying to make a point... Tom Harrison Talk 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Somebody try and contact the two parties telepathically to work it out! *Dan T.* 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've left him a polite note telling him to discuss the conflict, hopefully he doesn't remove that one, too. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sargonious' vandalism/trolling

Can someone please block Khoi Khoi (talk • contribs) and Shazuko (talk • contribs)? It appears that both of these users are sockpuppets of Sargonious (talk • contribs), who was recently blocked by FayssalF for a week. During his block, he has continued to evade it almost every single day... I'd just appreciate it if some admin action could be taken here. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Both done Jaranda wat's sup 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really fast. I also think it's high time that someone look into Sargonious being blocked for a longer period of time, as he clearly hasn't improved his behavior since last week... —Khoikhoi 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guillen, WP:NLT, WP:NPA

Please see [28] and Special:Contributions/Guillen. This use has been blocked before for personal attacks and is back at it again. His repeated attacks on my faith are getting old. Could I request that an administrator deal with it accordingly? BigDT 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked indef, was an sock master, and came back for obvious personal attacks, just an troll. Jaranda wat's sup 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911 article

you better change that last sentence ASAP !!!!


The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks were planned and carried out by the United States government.

[edit] Misuse of policy template for questionable proposed policy

A proposed policy, and yet in userspace: User:Kelly_Martin/Policy_council. When the template has been removed by three consecutive editors, Kelly has replaced it each time.

Kelly having a history of unilateralism when it comes to policy since wikimania, the proposed policy is alarming enough on it's own, seeking to limit who creates policy and how policy is amended, while being drafted in userspace away from an unsuspecting community and proper community input, but it gets worse when one considers that recent IRC discussion on this topic at #wikipedia Kelly proposed that all policy needs to determined by a small group of policy makers in face-to-face meetings funded by the foundation, and away from the community and its' input, led by Kelly Martin and Kim Bruning. Viewed in this light, Kelly ignoring calls for this proposed policy to be placed in the Wikipedia namespace, then edit warring to keep its' proposed policy template while hidden away from community review is simply unacceptable. I'd like to hear what regulars here have to say about this before I try to remove the template again. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 23:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly should not edit war, even in her userspace- this cannot simultaneously be a proposal AND a page that only she can edit. However, I don't see that what namespace it's in is a big deal. Discussions of the merits of this (IMO appalling) proposal belong elsewhere, of course. Friday (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems a somewhat pointless edit war. If this proposal is to be put before the community, then it'll obviously need to be publicized, so there's no problem with letting it sit in her userspace for the time being. Conversely, if this were to be a fait accompli from the WMF, the location of the proposal wouldn't matter in the least—so there's still no problem with leaving it in userspace. Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. The Land 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of where it is, it needs to be discussed and other people have to be allowed to edit it, so I suggest that Kelly moves it to project space so that a discussion can begin. The Foundation would presumably want to know the strength of feeling about it, Kirill, if they were to involve themselves in any way, so that's why it needs to be in project space, or at least publicized and open for editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If it were a fait accompli from the WMF, community participation would not be an issue. It's a fait accompli from Ms. Martin that I'm concerned about. FeloniousMonk 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering the level of community involvement being proposed—elections, WMF support, that sort of thing—I think that concerns about this being imposed by any single individual are somewhat far-fetched. (At the very least, there would need to be enough support from the stewards to get rid of the dissenting admins! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake. Please stop removing the "proposed" tag from what is, wherever it may be in Wikipedia's namespaces, clearly a policy proposal. This is an utterly ridiculous and petty little squabble. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm about as worried about all this as I am an invasion of Michigan's Upper Peninsuala by Canada. People work up policy ideas in their userspace all the time. The assumptions of bad faith flying around here are staggering. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • So what exactly is the problem with people being reminded that "This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy""? Demiurge 23:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing whatsoever. I'm in favor of it being marked as such. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a tempest in a teakettle. It's a subpage of Kelly's userspace. What does it matter whether it's labelled a proposed policy or not? Stop reverting Kelly in her userspace. --Cyde Weys 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy template is not being misused, so it should be left alone. There is nothing wrong with her drafting a proposed policy in her userspace. If you think the policy itself is questionable, then question it. Mexcellent 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I'm still very confused about all this. This is a policy proposal under development. The {{proposal}} tag specifically covers this possibility. I really can't come up with a rational reason for the passionate insistence that it is wrong for a draft page in user space to have the {{proposal}} tag. And given some of the comments above, I find it extraordinarily hard to assume that the objections being levied at the mere existence of this proposal are truly offered in good faith -- especially the charges of "unilateralism" and of attempting to engineer a personal "fait accompli" for a proposal that would create a majority-elected body whose principal function is to recommend policy to the community. I did say that I would seek to get Kim Bruning drafted to the council.

I've already told the people who are so vehemently objecting to it being in user space that they can move it. Radiant! removed the tag in what appears to be me to have been "good faith" because it appeared to have been "stale". He was mistaken, however, and I reinstated the tag and solicited preliminary comment from a variety of people. Some of those comments have been fruitful (thanks, Alison), and have led to what I think is a better proposal. However, I was not quite ready to take it fully "public"; I should think that that should be a choice I get to make (but apparently not). So, I invite anyone who feels that this proposal should be debated in full now, before I've decided to move it for discussion, is free to move it to an appropriate page in Wikipedia: space.

Oh, and FeloniousMonk, this proposal in no way limits how policy may be created or changed. I suggest you reread the proposal, as you are clearly mistaken about that. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no issues with why {{proposal}} should'nt be used in the user namespace. El_C 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But isn't there an issue with an edit (which Kelly later says seems to have been a "good faith" edit) being reverted with the edit summary "kindly stay out of my userspace"[29] when the page is described as a proposed policy? AnnH ♫ 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. The editor in question is quite capable of negotiating on this with Kelly. There's no need to bring every piddling little spat to this forum, which is already groaning with serious problems requiring actual administrator attention. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, if I wasn't assuming good faith, I'd say this sounds a lot like a 'let's get Kelly for this' thread. --Doc 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly protests that she does not understand why people are upset, and she, and many others, present this as a conflict over the placement of a proposed policy tag. These people are missing the point. What is at stake here is very simple - the degree to which transparency and equal participation are core values at Wikipedia. Like many others, I believe that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and a semi-anarchic wiki-community second. Nevertheless, it is our being a semi-anarchic wiki-community that distinguishes this from all other encyclopedias. And participation and transparency are essential to the integrity of the wiki-community. This is the issue. I and many others feel that Kelly's proposal would represent a major move away from these values by creating a small, institutionalized group with excessive power. Many of us feel that there should be some limits to editing policy pages, but placing them in the hands of a small group goes against the essense of Wikipedia. I and others like JoshuaZ have stated these objections (politely, I believe) on the proposed policy talk page. But the problem goes deeper. The way in which Kelly has forwarded this proposal is emblematic of the thing I and others so dislike about the policy - by placing it in her namespace rather than a wikispace, she is suggesting ownership of the space in which the discussion of the policy is to take place. I think this is why so many people felt that it was inappropriate to designate this as an official proposal as long as it was in her userspace. No one has advocated any kind of censorship - simply the position that if it is in her userspace it should not be considered an official poroposal yet, and if she is ready to make it an offical proposal it should be moved to a Wikipedia space. I suggest that people care about this so much is not because the placement of a tag is such a big deal, but rather it served as a metaphor, a symptom, of the greater issue, to what extent is does wikipedia belong to everyone or just a few. The way Kelly responded to these concerns just confirms the validity of these concerns - she was dismissive of any criticism or request to handle it a little differently. Again, this is the opposite of the wikipedia spirit where no one owns an article or a policy, and people should deal with one another in good faith in order to facilitate the collaborative process of wikipedia. Kelly's actions suggest a disregard for these values. Someone has criticized SlimVirgin for bringing up an IRC conversation, but in fact this IRC conversation once again illustrated the danger in Kelly's approach, because the IRC conversation lacks the ease of access and transparency of a discussion on a talk page. Kelly told me that she had not been keeping the proposal a secret and has been discussing it for nearly amonth. Really? How many people have been participating in this discussion? Where is it? If you look at the talk page of the proposed policy, which is where all this discussion ought to take place, more than half of the discussion is from today, not from the past four weeks. Hardly evidence of a transparent process and a discussion over policy with broad participation. This is the issue, folks, not whether a tag belongs on the page or not, that is just symbolic of the real issue, which is Kelly's disregard for the transparency and participatory and inclusive ideals of the wikicommunity, ideas her very proposal would subvert. As our community grows we increasingly face two challenges, the increased incidence of vandalism and trolls on the one hand, and new efforts to create more bureaucracy and a less open process and concentrated contol in the hands of a few. The former is a real problem, but the latter is not the solution / it is an equally dangerous problem Slrubenstein | Talk 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, so who decides precisely when we stop being transparent. If I work out a policy idea in my head, is that too far? What if I transfer it to paper and solicit ideas from several friends who are Wikipedians, am I going to get my own thread where everyone accuses me of sneaking behind their back? The fact is, it doesn't matter what state the policy/guideline is in, the community can comment and make changes when they get a hold of it. Shell babelfish 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
SlR, I agree with much of what you say, but I think in this particular case, the proposal draft will have to be proposed on the project page at some point, anyway. At that point, equale participation can commence. We don't have tags for unofficial proposals, so I don't see any harm in it being listed as a proposal. It will __not__ be ratified, however, as policy straight from her userpage and onto the project page (!). It will undergo the same length of discussion on the project page as any other proposal, even if there is an influx of support from those comfortable enough to edit her userspace (and I am not among them). El_C 04:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. I would never have guessed that by creating a policy proposal draft in plain sight in my user space, I exhibited "disregard for the transparency and participatory and inclusive ideals of the wikicommunity". I had no idea that drafting proposals in the plain light of day was so subversive. I shall endeavor in the future that I am more careful to ensure that any proposals I might make are drafted entirely in private and discussed solely through backchannels, lest I find myself acting in a manner that does not further transparency, broad participation, or inclusiveness. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not being shown sufficient good faith. You placed it in the category, which leaves it open to review and editing by interested parties; it appears that you attempted to make changes to the article based on others' feedback, which is in keeping with the wiki spirit. I am fairly confident that, if someone made a productive content-related edit, you would have allowed the edit to stand. Bear in mind, however, that making a claim on something in your userspace that is, in theory, being brought to the notice of the community through the proposed policy/guideline/whatever category was not likely to make many fans; I don't think you meant "stay out of my userspace" quite the way it's being taken, but for various reasons certain segments of the community are not willing to assume as much good faith as one might wish. But really, as long as you're willing to foster discussion on the talk page and consider useful edits to the policy, I think people should just chill a little. I also hope that you were being sarcastic about moving proposal drafts off-wiki; that would be a sad end to this little tale. Captainktainer * Talk 07:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
AGF is not suicide. Kelly has, in fact, acted with disdain, lack of transperency, and unpredictability toward established editors fairly recently, so the concern that she will attempt to do something ... shall we say unexpected with the draft on account of it being a {{proposal}}, is not entirely unreasonable. While I, myself, do not share those concerns, I am able to understand the basis for these. El_C 10:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So, wait a moment. You're telling me that there are people who hold some belief that I have some unique, unexplained ability to change policy, perhaps via some sort of eldritch superpower? And that the current hue and cry is out of paranoid fear that I might inexplicably exercise this alleged superpower so as to cause my proposal to be implemented without discussion and against the wishes of the community? I'm flattered. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be. I think there are those who think there might be an attempt to circumvent in some way the normal processes of policy proposal. This does not imply success, but it does imply conflict. As mentioned, I don't share those fears in this case. El_C 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't that, essentially, the crux of the allegations at the recent images-related RfC? That particular incident, I think, illustrates the effects of (and, for some, a source of) that particular fear of unilateralist action. In that particular case you formulated a policy and acted on it, claiming (and receiving) support from discussions at Wikimania. It was at least perceived as a unilateralist action. You explained why that wasn't necessarily the case, but that central lack of congruence in editing styles- "edit first, form consensus later" versus "form consensus first, edit later" - is, in my opinion, one of the reasons for the suspicion and interference in this case. Captainktainer * Talk 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The recent RfC regarding fair use abuse was the result of a combination of people who don't understand how policy is made on Wikipedia, people who dislike (or even fear) me personally, people who like to throw rocks at admins for doing what admins do, and people who just like a good fight. In any case, in that instance I was purportedly criticized for acting without consensus. In this instance, I am being criticized for attempting to build consensus. If people are going to criticize me whatever I do, I may as well do whatever I want and simply ignore the criticism, which in this instance seems even more baseless than it was on the fair use abuse RfC; at least there there were some vaguely credible complaints regarding civility. Here it's just a blatant display of the assumption of bad faith on the part of a small but vocal group who seem to be in abject fear of my purported extraordinary power to alter policy on the English Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Kelly, I tried to stay out of that RfC and I thought your policy suggestion was a good one. However your attempted method of constructing the tightened fair use policy was unilateral and unnecessarily divisive. Furthermore, many established editors expressed concern over that behavior and it is unreasonable to dismiss them all as "combination of people who don't understand how policy is made on Wikipedia, people who dislike (or even fear) me personally, people who like to throw rocks at admins for doing what admins do, and people who just like a good fight". And while I do see the concern here to be at best a minor policy issue, the users who have pointed out that this is symptomatic of a larger problem may be correct. In general if you approached things in a more diplomatic way we might get a lot more accomplished without these long, drawn out dramas. JoshuaZ 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you don't get it. I could be more diplomatic, yes, but then I'd be far less effective. I'm actually very effective in accomplishing what I want to accomplish. Yes, it's true, typically any effort on my part to accomplish anything is surrounded by a huge mass of drama. None of that has any impact on my effectiveness, though, and it's not even really a disincentive for me. I personally actually find the drama rather amusing, and I think it's beneficial for Wikipedia in the long run, too, because it exposes the drama queens to the community so that the rest of us know who not to trust. I'm apparently being stalked by dozens of editors who apparently have nothing better to do but look for things to go after me for -- and they will come up with things to go after me for no matter how diplomatically I do it. It's certainly not reasonable to require an editor to stop editing simply because other editors are stalking him or her, looking for opportunities to create drama. Seriously, do you really think I'm at fault here simply because I created a policy proposal draft in my user space? Kelly Martin (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You'd first have to try being diplomatic, or else I think it's hardly credible for you to so confidently proclaim how successful being undiplomatic is working out. Thus, drama is a double-edged sword that may indeed follow from that approach. But, as for finding drama beneficial: we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to agitate, expose, be amused by, etc., real or imagined drama queens. Which is why it is important to communicate in straight forward and clear manner, with a helpful, friendly tone. El_C 04:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) It is perfectly valid to create a draft of a proposal for a policy under user space and I don't see any benefit in pressing Kelly to do it off wiki. Some concerns this draft may rise is it's inclusion into Category:Wikipedia proposals due to the template tag. Maybe the proposal tag could be substed and then the cat inclusion disarmed. Or we might change template:proposal in such a way that it doesn't add pages to Category:Wikipedia proposals if they are in userspace (can be done with m:ParserFunctions). An example of a namespace dependent activation of category inclusion can be seen in the code for temlate tfd. --Ligulem 07:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the real issue here is that some people are simply afraid of me having anything to do policy at all, and start banging gongs and drums as soon as they see me sneaking up on a policy page. (Although, oddly enough, nobody reverted or even commented on my reorganization of the blocking policy the other day. Did I really sneak that one in under the radar?) Frankly, it's getting old. Don't we have policies against stalking? Kelly Martin (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this page serves no harm, perhaps after working on it a while Kelly will see there is no point in finishing it or abandon it all together. It can be on userspace because kelly is unsure if they even want to proceed with prosoing it. I say leave it for now, eventually the community will have a say, I doubt they will decide to give away their power anyway. --User:Zer0faults 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the proposal itself (see positive and negative aspects), but I don't see any harm in 'where it currently resides'. Always seemed kind of a weak issue even on the 'article space shortcuts' and 'userboxes in template space' debates to me. Does it really matter what it says to the left of the colon in the page title? If/when the proposal 'goes active' for community discussion we can discuss. Until then it's a proposal in progress and arguing over whether it should have to wait until 'left of the colon' says 'Wikipedia' before having the proposal template on it seems like quibbling over the minutiae IMO. --CBD 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem, CBDunkerson, is that that page is now featured in Category:Wikipedia proposals. If it is such, it needs to be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. If it is only Kelly's sandbox, then it should not be listed under that category. All Kelly needs to do is to remove the category from the subst'ed template. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is that a problem? 65.127.231.6 04:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear on that, either. My proposal is, in fact, a proposal in development, and I don't see why it's wrong for it to appear in a category for such entities. Perhaps if I were obsessive-compulsive (or just anal-retentive) over things like what appears in a category, I might feel differently. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What kind of weird process wonkery says that policy proposals under development have to be in a particular namespace? Why? Where's the common sense behind that? Does anyone seriously believe that people's User: namespace implies ownership? I admit that I utterly fail to understand any objection to the location of this proposal, and I think anyone objecting to its location should keep their eye on the prize, and drop that objection like a bad habit. It's utterly unproductive. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Besides, it's moved now, so everyone's happy, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS BLOODY RIDICULOUS. Let Kelly have her userspace page for a proposed policy, and let me have my userspace page for proposing an alternative to RfA. This does not belong on ANI, and looks like little more than a lynch mob. — Werdna talk criticism 06:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur... If this wasn't a lynchmob, nobody would have even NOTICED it in her userspace. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any spelling or grammatical errors on the page? —Centrx→talk • 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that she can develop whatever proposals she wants in her own userspace. If she ever seeks to get them accepted by others she'll have to move them somewhere else, if she hasn't already done so by now, and then there'll be plenty of opportunity for people to oppose, support, suggest amendments, ignore, or whatever they want to do. I'm not sure why this is considered a big deal by anyone. Metamagician3000 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no lynch mob. There is simply a few editors who believe that the "proposed policy" tag should be added only after the proposer has worked it through enough to his/her satisfaction that it could be moved from the proposer´s user page to a wikipedia page. That´s all. Some people reject this view as unnecessary - well, okay. But just because we disagree on this doesn´t make one group (or the other) a lynch mob. As for drama queens, in this entire discussion I see only one, Kelly Martin. So, she has had her day (or two) as a minor center of attention. I hope she enjoyed it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBD reverses valid DRV decision

Now going completely against the policy he claims to be inviolable, CBD has recreated Bad Eisenkappel out of process even though it was deleted and then had its deletion unanimously endorsed at DRV. Evidently it is ok for him to ignore process, but not for anyone else. pschemp | talk 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears CBD did the correct thing. The town does exist, right? El_C 00:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This should be a fairly simply one. If there is really a town called Bad Eisenkappel at those approximate coordinates, then obviously Deletion Review got it wrong. If not, then CBD is being a bit overkeen. And yes, fuck process. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the article is now significantly longer than, Eisenkappl (slov. Zelesna Kapla) is located in Austria in Völkermarkt (district)., which was the entirety of the previous article. Dragons flight 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason why this article should not exist. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with what CBD did. DRV is not infalliable. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason he should be complaining about other people's out of process deletions and technicalities then as was done earlier this week. Good to know. pschemp | talk 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What an odd series of events. Nice article. --Zer0faults 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have asked the user not to violate WP:POINT again in a casual manner. --Zer0faults 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not point, I beleive the article should remain deleted. pschemp | talk 01:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is that? I am sorry your reason an article on a real town should be deleted is because CB did it out of proccess, however thats not a AfD appropriate reason. If this was deleted by accident and missed in review, then why exactly should it return to deleted status? --Zer0faults 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

He also called not one but two people trolls [30] (edit summary) which according to him is a personal attack and admin abuse. --W.marsh 01:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What happened to assuming good faith? I think Pussy Galore probably meant ever word sincerely. pschemp | talk 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whats this have to do with the DRV? --User:Zer0faults 01:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I can start a new topic then if it bugs you so much. Maybe I should go back and resection all those long conversations up there where someone goes off on a different subject? I wouldn't want anyone to be confused. pschemp | talk 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is a complaint about a personal attack the proper forum is WP:PAIN --User:Zer0faults 01:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about a personal attack, its about a double standard. Or do you think its ok for CBD to tell people not to use the words trolls and trolling, and then do it himself after lambasting wmarsh for doing it? If you do that's fine, you are allowed. pschemp | talk 01:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You said this was about the town, the section is, a user above then complains about the usage of the words troling to describe them, thats WP:PAIN. I am not sure about the confusion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Zer0faults, please change back your sig as you did above — so that my sigh of relief wouldn't be for naught. El_C 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the out of process restoration is not the big issue here, really, although the article is not worthy of life. What matters more to me is that it's a demonstration of what we've all been saying, no one is perfect. CBD would do well to remember htat and perhaps cut his fellow admins a little slack instead of attacking them on the talk pages of disruptive users. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV endorsed the deletion not because it wasn't a real town, but because the article was effectively contentless. I've re-deleted it. I won't do it again, of course, but my suggestion would be that if this town is deserving of a real article, that someone actually write a real article, rather than a stub that says "X is Y." If no one can be bothered to actually do that, then I really can't be bothered to cry crocodile tears over the poor abused baby article, cut down in the prime of its life. Nandesuka 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming the town dosen't exist? El_C
This is rather strange. If the town exists, why not let the article exist? Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, DRV said make it larger. CBD already made it 3 times larger than what DRV endorsed, and I would have happily said it was a border community with a population of about 2800 [31]. Dragons flight 01:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
nevertheless Nandesuka got it in one. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I also have some content to add, however I am not sure if its already noted as the article is deleted. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ye gods. This is another non-issue. The town exists; therefore its article should stay. Please find another forum to crusade against short articles. — Dan | talk 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was restored by Rdsmith4, who beat another admin (not me) to the draw. Please stop pointlessly deleting this article. It isn't going to work. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rdsmith edit-conflicted my undelete.  ;-) The town exists, and there is absolutely no reason we shouldn't have an article on it. It is really that simple. This is not a valid CSD G4 or WP:SALT candidate. As said before, this should be a non-issue. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you are missing here all is that the original author of the article had MONTHS to recreate it with content, at which point no one would have complained. However, he refused to until he got his way with the original article being restored. Indeed he spent those months whining and complaining about admin abuse rather than writing a decent article. And now, by restoring it, and writing it for him, we have sent the message that that kind of behaviour and manipulation is ok. pschemp | talk 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You should be happy that Wikipedia did not lose an important article on an actual location, if anything this drama helped expand an article. I am happy when Wikipedia grows in content in general. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[Zer0faults, see sig comment above] We do not make such a point at the expense of the encyclopedia, on a town entry, pschemp. El_C 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was Tobias who refused to rewrite it not me. If anything his refusal to do it until he got his way is what hurt the encyclopedia. Note also I didn't vote to delete the original. I objected to the ignorange of process when just this week CBD blasted me for not following it perfectly. the article is just an example of this. pschemp | talk 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)pschemp | talk 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So this is entirely personal issue. Accordingly, please take it to the relevant user talk pages, and discontinue this conversation. — Dan | talk 02:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Should I go remove all the other personal issues posted on this page too? Though I hardly think an admin behaving badly is a personal issue as its discussed at lentgh in threads up above where I was accused of not being perfect. pschemp | talk 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The point here to me is merely this... we all make mistakes and we ought not to rail about failure to follow process in one instance and then fail to follow it in another. Better to have some balance and not be so quick to judge other editors, which point I think is lost now. Hopefully CBD will realise that, and cut more people more slack. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry edited a few after Tony did, just havent edited the actual settings yet, 2 minutes, thanks for reminder. --User:Zer0faults
What's wrong with an article about a place that says "X is a village in Y at Z?" For heaven's sake, this is a place. It was probably here before we were born, and it will probably still be here when we're all dead. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping this is a no brainer. This is exactly why we should not let silly squabbles get in the way of the encyclopedia, which I remain convinced is around here somewhere. Friday (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely we have a name for short articles on places - {{stub}}s, or possibly even {{geo-stub}}s. Are you arguing that they should all be deleted? What is wrong with a short article on a place that actually exists? -- ALoan (Talk) 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing, as long as the "place" isn't, say, one guy's house! :) Xoloz 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi - DRV closer here. The deleted article didn't even bother to "X is Y"; it said "X is in...", but didn't even bother calling the place a "town", or calling it anything at all. If someone has a draft now in good faith calling this a town, that's fine IMO. The DRV does not then apply. Xoloz 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Xoloz, please don't take my action as an implication that your DRV close was improper. You followed the clear consensus and it wasn't clear that the article was about a town... unless you are familiar with German place names like Bad Mergentheim, Bad Lausick, et cetera. I just couldn't imagine that anyone would object to an expanded article on an encyclopedic subject once sufficient info were added to address such concerns. --CBD 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
We definitely need DRV closers who are prepared to admit that they have brains and that on occasion the use of a brain is not only unavoidable but desirable. . --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The DRV was shot down unanimously because of blatant WP:POINT. Only a couple of days earlier the same editor used DRV as a soapbox to attack admins and editors over the deletion of a Pilcomayo Department microstub. When I actually created an article on the department to stop the stupidity it turned out that it took me 14 researched edits to revert the damage the editor had wreaked in 30 seconds. This was quite properly closed by Xoloz. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And quite properly recreated by CBD, who was willing to expand the article on a real place. -- SCZenz 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. ~ trialsanderrors 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dbiv and Peter Tatchell

I know it has been going on for a while, but User:Dbiv is editing Peter Tatchell despite the ban imposed by ArbCom. The editing is happening right now, and User:Calton is reverting; he is also saying some things in edit summaries he perhaps shouldn't. User:Freakofnurture is reverting as well, although he is not being so harsh in his edit summaries (he is using rollback).

I am not taking sides on this issue, but 1. Dbiv's edits are undoubtedly useful to the article 2. Dbiv is undoubtedly in direct violation of ArbCom's ruling and 3. There is an revert/edit war going on right now. Someone braver (and with protection/blocking tools at their disposal) than me might want to go and sort out what is happening. Batmanand | Talk 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a tension here. We've been put in the ridiculous position of reverting good edits. I never saw why the article ban was necessary and it's clear that we're actively harming the encyclopedia by keeping it in place. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, in the next few minutes, 3RR violations might well happen from both users. Batmanand | Talk 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The only "edit war" going on here is blind canceling out of David Boothroyd's (User:Dbiv) positive contributions. While it is a bit understandable that editors want to help enforce an ArbCom decision it strikes me as more sensible to merely mention Dbiv's editing of the article somewhere (ie: here) rather than just blindly edit out his beneficial edits. In the interest of full disclosure I happen to generally disagree with the ArbCom decision to ban Dbiv from editing this article for a year. A better solution (imho) would be to have placed him on revert patrol for the article. (→Netscott) 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I find it to be a dark and scary road when we start deciding which arbcom decisions we ought to ignore. For the record, I've also warned Carlton for his part in this, and may issue a brief 'cool down' block shortly. --InShaneee 15:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tony Sidaway's comments below. Are adminstrators obliged to enforce every ArbCom decision? Obviously there will be those who will say yes but if in ignoring all rules an editor is benefiting the encyclopedia why should they be penalized? Also just as an editor can be banned under "community patience" logic, why not have the inverse apply? (→Netscott) 16:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I would ask why can the issue of a lifting of their previous decision simply be brought up to the Arbs instead? --InShaneee 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It was. Batmanand | Talk 16:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Though that link does raise some interesting points. --InShaneee 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Previously Tony Sidaway spoke about David being a positive contributor that the project would suffer to see him leave (a statement that I agree with). This whole story goes hand in hand with that. (→Netscott) 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is now lacking references because of the reverts. This is beyond absurd. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) I've currently blocked Dbiv for one week and noted so on his ArbCom page. If the ArbCom would like to rollback their decision, I'll be more than happy to unblock. --InShaneee 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For my part, I've re-added the references, in the interests of promoting the encyclopedic quality of an article. I would note that I'm not presently under any kind of sanction, at least none that I'm aware of. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I decided this morning, after giving Dbiv a warning, to stop trying to enforce this remedy. Administrators aren't required to enforce arbitration remedies, and in my view if I performed such enforcement in this case I would not be improving the encyclopedia, but probably making it worse. Ignore all rules applies here. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
But the question surely is this: would you, or anyone else who disagreed with the remedy (or at least have stopped enforcing it) actively revert someone who reverted Dbiv's edits? Or would you reinsert them as "yourself" (as opposed to a rollback)? Or are you going to just stay out of the whole sordid affair? It's a toughie... Batmanand | Talk 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's also a question of politness--rolling back a sysop is beyond rude (although we've all done before, as a survey once showed). Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
They're good contribs, there's no arguing that. I'm all for putting back in what belongs there. --InShaneee 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't revert to retain well sourced, neutral and balanced information inserted by User:dbiv. I wouldn't revert to avoid retaining it either. I wish he would place his information on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 16:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Since he is currently blocked, I'm adding the following text from Dbiv's talk page:

Since the axe of the Arbitration finding fell I have continued to edit the article, and no-one has actually criticised the substance of my edits. They have all been accepted in the article. I am not going to put edits through a 'filter' of the talk page; such a suggestion is an insult given that I wrote most of what's there in the article at the moment, and it's also pointless given the fact that no-one outside the Arbitration Committee seems to believe I will actually be disruptive. (The Arbitration Committee itself has refused to offer any true explanation of the article ban, however). Even if they do believe that I might be disruptive, then there are mechanisms in place which allow control - article-specific probation, or even general probation - which I would be quite willing to accept. If such a change was made then I would consider the article ban repudiated and return to contributing to Wikipedia generally. David | Talk 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(→Netscott) 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a solution:
  1. Page-banned editors are still allowed to make suggestions at the talk page.
  2. Any other editor can add them to the main page.
  3. To streamline this, one or more editors could function as a proxy, he makes the suggestion, they judge it, and add it if they see fit.
As far as I know, the page-ban was for disruption, not for content issues. This would allow the ArbCom ruling to be enforced, while the positive content contributions benefit Wikipedia.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)\
A good idea, but he has written in the rant on his userpage already that he would not accept that as a solution. --InShaneee 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Two things. One, I don't know that I'd characterize it as a "rant" (I reserve that word for incoherent tirades). Two, this solution doesn't seem any different from the present situation. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The minor difference would be that I for example would use as a filter *.* aka, everything he suggests is added, unless it is uncivil or something like that. It would be really a proxy without additional filtering. BUt I guess it will not be accaptable for him. As for the page ban, I actually disagree with the ArbCom on that, just as various other editors. As such, I think the ArbCom might want to rethink this as the ban itself is now more disruptive than the editing of the page due to the lack of community support for that ban. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would be better for the project if Dbiv would restrain himself until and unless the arbcom ruling is changed/amended/etc. It's possible that the article may be improved by his edits, but it's very harmful to the community when our last-and-final-resort dispute-resolution mechanism has its remedies ignored in this fashion. IAR has its place and it's very important, but I believe that Arbcom should have its rulings honoured while they stand. I have no comment about the justice of the ruling, which I haven't followed enough to have an opinion on. --Improv 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm still looking for a warm supporter of the ruling convinced by the merits...Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am. Dbiv was barred from the article for disruption, edit-warring and misusing admin tools. He has a pattern of edit-warring alongside his many useful contributions. Given Dbiv's propensity to edit-war, ArbCom had little choice than to limit his ability to do so. In continuing to make constructive edits to the article Dbiv is just a much interested in playing games with the community as he is in improving the article. That said a bit more calm from some of the other people involved might help the situation as well. The Land 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The same could have been accomplished by putting him on 1RR and general parole, and would in the end have been much more productive for Wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(Reindent): I don't think that admins (or anyone) should ignore ArbCom decisions because they think that they are wrong, counterproductive, ... They are supposed to be binding decisions, and the only way to go against them (except emergencies, which this isn't) is to appeal (at ArbCom or with Jimbo). If you disregard ArbCom decisions, then you loose all authority, both as an admin and the authority from ArbCom. In this case, the user has every ooportunity to make edits to other articles, and a good solution has been given to let him make indiret contributions to this article. That he disregards this shows a thorough disrespect for the decision taken by ArbCom and does not give the impression that he accepts that he was wrong earlier. That some admins are willing to support him in this against this ArbCom decision is beyond me, and is in a way much more serious than the behaviour of one editor. If you can't live with the policies of Wikipedia, if you can't accept the few binding decisions taken, and if you disregard them in such a blatant way, it makes me wonder how you can still be at the same time an administrator. Fram 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several seperate issues:
  1. Do you accept the binding nature of the ArbCom decisions? Yes
  2. Do you agree with those binding ArbCom decisions? Most of the time
  3. Do you enforce ArbCom decisions you agree with? Yes
  4. Do you enforce ArbCom decisions you disagree with? No
  5. Do you obstruct enforcement of ArbCom decisions you disagree with? No
  6. Do you voice your disagreement with ArbCom decisions you disagree with? Yes
I am here as a volunteer, not as a paid law-enforcement officier. I think there is nothing wrong with voicing disagreement with ArbCom rulings, as long as you do not obstruct them. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Dbiv's rejection of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is the cause of his problems. From start to finish he chose to ignore standard dispute resolution policy that is used to find consensus. This behavior continues with his blatant disregard of the arbitration committee ruling. Damage *is* done to the encyclopedia if we ignore the final step of dispute resolution--an arbitration ruling.

Regarding reverting quality edits- it is a necessary evil. The same as protecting articles in the wrong version. FloNight 19:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This is only the case if we accept the proposition that Arbcom is always right. Frankly, I think Arbcom fumbled this one badly. Its charter doesn't include content disputes but it ruled as though it did. It isn't a necessary evil. No one disagrees with the quality of the edits–my reinstatement stood, and with good reason. When you ban Dbiv from Peter Tatchell you don't punish him, you punish the article. If Dbiv needs punishing ban him, desysop him, burn his house down, whatever. But if he's still a contributor in good standing, it's nonsensical to ban him outright from an article. What about article probation? One-revert rule? No, Arbcom fumbled and would do us all a service by admitting the mistake and taking the necessary steps to correct it. Mackensen (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I stongly advocate a clue-based approach. Are the edits good? Yes? Then politely remind David that he's not supposed to edit the articles and should suggest on Talk in future, and get on with our lives. In this case, to suggest a list of changes that long on Talk would have taken almost as much space as this discussion... Guy 20:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I rarely feel the need to comment on threads here, but this is inane. An article that needs improving is being improved. To actively disimprove an article in the name of enforcing some rule is overdone bureaucracy and something that should only happen if, say, the Department of Motor Vehicles were running the encyclopedia. Opabinia regalis 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

In the sense of a community decision I propose we try to establish a consensus regarding what we think would be the best solution for the project relative to this issue of User:Dbiv editing the Peter Tatchell article. If a consensus is established that another remedy would be more appropriate for Dbiv then we could present this community consensus to ArbCom and see if it could be adopted. I admit that I don't know if there is any sort of process to allow for this but as I'm seeing a decent number of respectable editors having reservations about the current ArbCom remedy it seems like at least the possibility of another remedy should be entertained. I would start by proposing that Dbiv be put on 1RR revert patrol on the article. (→Netscott) 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A solution has been presented to Dbiv (placing his comments/edits on the talk page). I can't see how sending the message that while all channels have been used and the final, binding decision was that he should not edit the article, he can now come and do that anyway, since he has useful points to make... The solution that he rejects is one that makes it possible for him to contribute and for the encyclopedia to use his contributions, while not ignoring the past and decisions that have been taken becausee of his actions. I can't see how that is unacceptable as a compromise, and if he is not willing to compromise in any way (which is the impression this gives), then I don't see why we (i.e. the community) should just give in and let him have his way. A compromise must come from both sides. If the proposal by Netscott is supported, then the consensus will at least not have my agreement. Fram 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I should have made this clear. So far I've not seen much in the way of disagreement that Dbiv's editing on the article was negative per se (negative in the sense that he contravened ArbCom's ruling, surely). Unless someone disagrees that his edits were done towards improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality then as User:Tony Sidaway mentioned earlier this is a case of "ignore all rules". I admit that despite this truth Dbiv's defiance relative to an ArbCom ruling is not a character in editors that the project wants to cultivate but can anyone honestly disagree that his edits didn't improve Wikipedia's quality? (→Netscott) 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If David had said something along the lines of "look, I have a shedload of citations that need adding, does anyone mind if I just add them?" then I strongly suspect we would not be here now. These are good edits, but there is the issue of his apparent contempt for ArbCom - in as much as we have an authority, they are it. This time, he should be admonished, I think. Next time, if there is a next time, the cluebats should be wielded. Guy 20:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid this is the next time Guy... as Dbiv's already been previously blocked for editing on the article in question. I believe that's why we're having this discussion now. (→Netscott) 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting changes on the talk page can be time consuming and inconvenient. Copying an article to your userspace, editing it to your hearts content, and asking someone to copy it back to the main article when you are done, is not as inconvenient. NoSeptember 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:IAR, in its proper and pure sense - ignore rules that get in the way of improving the encyclopedia (which is why we are here, dammit - or at least should be the reason we are here: Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy, a justice system, a bizarre form of nomic, or a thousand and one other things - it is an project to build an encyclopedia).

Without exploring the reasons why, the active members of the ArbCom (blessings be upon them) have banned him from editing the article. Fair enough. If he edits the article, he could face punitive sanctions. However, so long as he is making bona-fide edits to improve the article (and all observers agree, as far as I can see, that this is the case here) then there is no need to punish him for breaching the ArbCom ruling. It is simply bizarre that positive improvements should be reverted as a result of an ArbCom ruling. If someone - anyone - thinks that his edits cease to be improvements, he should be sanctioned. IMHO, E&OE, YMMV, HTH, HAND.-- ALoan (Talk) 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It is not our place to overrule ArbCom. I think ArbCom and Jimbo are the outer limits of IAR, and we step beyond them at our peril. It's one thing to make suggestions that Arbcom change their decision or appeal to Jimbo, and quite another to ignore their decisions. We have ArbCom and Jimbo, we admit that they may not always be right, but as a basis of editing on the site, we should accept them as having authority on these matters. People who don't like that and won't live with it (or successfully get them to change their mind) can fork. --Improv 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a small reminder here... this isn't about overturning an ArbCom decision but about presenting a community consensus (if one exists) to ArbCom for consideration relative to User:Dbiv editing the Peter Tatchell article. (→Netscott) 22:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not suggesting that we ignore or overrule or overturn a decision of ArbCom. I am suggesting that ArbCom can not seriously have intended that their decisions would have the effect of making the encylopedia worse, and that we should interpret their decisions in a way that does not have that effect. Jimbo is another matter: I leave the interpretation of his often-Delphic comments to our high priests and priestesses. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, if someone fail to live up to restrictions plased on them by the Arbcom then by all means block them temporarily for increasingly long periods. However we should never remove good content as a way to "punish" the user who added it. --Sherool (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, it seems unbelievably petty. We should not confuse the issue of User:Dbiv's actions in respect of ArbCom and the quality of the article. MikeHobday 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone not under ArbCom wants to add good content, nothing's stopping them. If Dbiv wants to add good content, nothing's stopping him from bringing it to the Talk page, as he's explicitly allowed. That he refuses that simple step -- one which requires him to actually work with others, which is at the heart of the ArbCom case -- says that this isn't about content, it's about Dbiv's attempt at control. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That may or may not be true, but should we punish the readers of article for it? MikeHobday 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cgordonbell

Based on their edits and their non-response to my question posed on their talk page, I'd assume this isn't actually C. Gordon Bell, which would make this an inappropriate user name. Reported by: Atlant 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The editor has not made any edits since the question was posted on 7 Sept. It is possible that he is away now, so not having answered yet doesn't mean that there will not be a response. Reviewing the edits, none seem malicious — in fact, all seem well informed. I'm inclined to wait. — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay -- waiting ;-).
Atlant 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the AfD debate for Ousmane Zongo and user Giuliani Time

I know that AfD debates are not the bastion of civility and proper conduct and I tend to accept that. But somehow this particular debate just really got to me. The article concerns Ousmane Zongo an innocent man who was shot and killed by the NYPD. I was not aware of this incident and in fact his story is beyond the point. However user Giuliani Time (talk • contribs • count) nominated him by stating "The only tragedy here is for P.O. Brian Conroy (the officer who shot the man). We don't need articles about every stupid perp who gets killed". The rest of the debate also included outrageous comments by Spring3100 (talk • contribs • count) (who also seems to have a pro-police agenda), Noodles the Clown (talk • contribs • count) and Never forget the 343 (talk • contribs • count). Sockpupettry is also likely, see e.g. Kevlar 42 (talk • contribs • count) and AC Ginger Ale (talk • contribs • count).

Of course, there are bad faith nominations in AfD every day and so the Wikipedia world turns. But there was something in the viciousness of the language which I believe requires action from administrators and this has not been the case so far (for all I know). I'd like to add that I was not alone in my disgust at reading this debate and another editor in fact sent me a sympathy note on my talk page [32] and I would be surprised if we were the only two editors to react in this way. Pascal.Tesson 00:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, which is why I didn't vote in that AfD. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a clear case of bad faith agenda pushing, as well as demonising and skewing the facts to get the result wanted. Even if the article doesn't meet notability, as some of the more coherent delete nominations have said, the problem still lies on the fact that the AFD began in bad faith and should be speedily kept as such. A second AFD can take place after that in good faith, but this current one is based on POV pushing, slander and sock puppets. –– Lid(Talk) 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just filed another request for some sort of action at the bottom of the page, and I've just been pointed to this - and let me re-iterate my upset and disgust at the general tone and conduct employed in this AFD. It's been confirmed at checkuser that Giuliani Time (talk • contribs • count) is a sockpuppet of Spring3100 (talk • contribs • count). Clearly, some severe action must be taken. -No more bongos 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to say that I've blanked the other report I added. What we need now is an admin to close it and to take action against sockpuppeteers and those making personal attacks. I cannot overstate how appalled I am at the behaviour shown in this AFD - this is the kind of thing that really does bring Wikipedia into disrepute. - No more bongos 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add my m3 t00 to the above comments. Tasteless doesn't begin to do the AFD justice, and I'm no shrinking violet. More socks than in my sock drawer. Strange, because it's usually webcomix and gamecruft and websites that bring them out in force. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm watching the AfD and intend to close it after the normal amount of time. I intend to ignore the nastier comments in my decision. JoshuaZ 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ closed the afd, and my edit above was the product of an edit conflict. I still believe action must be taken against some of the editor(s)/sock(s) involved. -No more bongos 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertilvidet and Khoikhoi gang up against contibutions

National Security Council and National Security Council (Turkey)

1. I am filing a complaint against Bertilvidet for reverting contributions to the above article on 9/9/06 without any respect to the content matter or the quality of a contribution by another party on the same day, but only on the basis of his egotistic territorialism. He, as a non-national antagonist, continously practices similar behaviour on a number of Turkey and Turkish related articles, related to Turkish institutions, both military and non-military, enforcing his political opinions with ethnic and cultural bias with the purpose of degradation. Attempts to restore objectivity and fair and valuable knowledge content in the articles that are majorly distorted with his political commentaries have repeatedly been a failure because of his unexplainable obsessive reversals of the content matter as well as his solitacion of performing the same vandalism on his behalf by some other cooperating buddies such as the user Khoikhoi. A smilar and serious prevention on their part of the improvement of the content matter took place on August 18, 2006 at the article National Security Council (Turkey), violating Wikipedia rules enforcing no reversal by the same administrator recurrently, in addition to not allowing any other party to contribute to those article s in a fair way. They did not only fail to recognize the contibutions in good faith but collectively called fair changes 'vandalism' to maintain their hegemony. I sincerely hope you will be able to prevent them continuing with this kind of disruptive behaviour.Thank you for your time and support in advance

2. I am filing a complaint against the administrator / contibutor named Khoikhoi for vandalising links at the article "Turkey" in a recurrent and disruptive manner, ruling out comments and requests given to him as "trolling" and "rant", also deleting them along with the links that he vandalisez. He is assisted in his activities by Bertilvidet. Please see the Turkey article and its talk history for details. The request I make from you is identical to the immediately one above. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rednblu (talk • contribs).

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referred to you by one of the resources you suggest. (pls.see below) I will also post to the others as you recommended.

"Your edits on Requests for arbitration: Hi, I removed your requests because they appear to be malformed. Please ensure that earlier stages of Dispute resolution have been followed and failed. If there is a simple problem of disruptive behavior, consider making a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because this gets a much quicker response in cases that are clear and need immediate action. " --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as it says at the top of the page, this is the right page to place an informal complaint. After reviewing the pages in question my guess is that specifically you are objecting to reversions like this being called 'reversion of vandalism' and this being called 'reversion of commercial link spamming'... complete with accompanying warnings on user talk pages. I would have to agree that both of those instances seem like content / NPOV disputes rather than anything close to vandalism or spamming. The 'vandalism' claim seems to be founded on 'blanking of material', but I do not believe that was ever meant to apply to situations where someone removes some materials and adds others in a clearly 'good faith' attempt to make improvements (from their perspective) to the encyclopedia. I would have some NPOV concerns with the text that was being reverted, but NPOV disputes are explicitly not vandalism and ought to be discussed on the article talk pages... where I see little or no commentary on these issues. However, in like kind their actions are not 'vandalism' either. People on both sides of these disputes should stop reverting and start discussing. Use the article talk pages. Use edit summaries other than blank, 'rv', or the 'rollback' text. Basic communication and good faith efforts to resolve disagreements... rather than edit warring and accusations based on mis-application of policy. I may have missed something, for instance you specifically said to review Talk:Turkey but when I did so I could find nothing on this subject of link removal (though I did notice Bertilvidet calling someone "Crazy boy" and then 'warning' them about civility and personal attacks)... but overall it seems that there have not been any significant efforts to discuss these disagreements. --CBD 12:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here? Dispute resolution is ↔ over there. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To the complaintant: Tony Sideway was right that this is the place to bring allegations of disruptive behavior. Your situation is a content dispute. It belongs in dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Spam

In article Erotic sexual denial, Mskatrina, also as user:66.27.70.252 has repeatedly inserted the link to her commercial web page, "Erotic teasings". Spam site delinked by Ral315; link in history if necessary.

I count at least twenty times between 9 july and 9 sep, each of them reverted by various people.

I also see a few instances where the user removed what appears to be commercial links of "competitors". They probably also did not belong there, but shows that the user clearly knows that commercial links are not allowed.

User:Mdwh made a note on the talk page on 17 August: "See Wikipedia:External_links. In particular, note "blogs and forums should generally not be linked to", and see the note about requiring registration. I'll remove these links for now, please explain why if you disagree. Mdwh 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

A gave her a friendly warning on 6 September, see User_talk:Mskatrina, partial quote:
"Also see [Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided] item #4 "# Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. If you continue to add this kind of commercial link, eventually an administrator will take action, and block you."

The talk page has a note where she responded Talk:Erotic_sexual_denial, a partial quote, "Wikipedia offers a valuable service to me. I would like people to come to my site and Wikipedia is a great way to get people interested in erotic sexual denial to come to it.

My issue with the administrators is if anybody can edit the paper, then anybody can edit the rules. I don't think that by any means am I disabiding by the rules. The page that I have is an erotic denial website. I have people that email me everyday because they are locked up by the lock on my site, and people are generally gracious. I have adwords to get traffic to the site, and I have advertisements to pay for the advertsiing."

Atom 14:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the page and her to my watchlist and will keep an eye out. I think there is also a blacklist for links on mediawiki, but I can't help you there. Yanksox 15:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If the spamming persists, I would talk to Naconkantari, since he maintains the MediaWiki spam blacklist and can add the offending links. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
While she's actually debating with other editors, she still seems to be just spaming articles. --Charlesknight 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've submitted the block request on Meta. Either Naconkantari or MaxSem usually gets to them within a day. Fan-1967 17:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to refer her to Wipipedia, where I suspect she will be much more welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate username?

According to Wikipedia:Username, names "mentioning or referring to illnesses, disabilities, or conditions (e.g. AIDS, Amputation, Asperger syndrome, etc.)" are not allowed. EBOLA rulez (talk • contribs) seems to be a pretty open and shut case. However, this user seems to have been on board for quite some time, without any problems. I'm therefore bringing it up at this noticeboard. Is action needed on this user? Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If they're good-faith, just kindly ask them to change usernames, imo. – Chacor 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I think somone that actually has ebola would be pretty pissed about that username.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If they have ebola, they won't be pissed about it for too long. Raul654 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the advise. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering... Could 'EBOLA' all caps, refer to something else? a music group or club? Given that that's a lithuanian user, what happens if 'EBOLA' is a town name or music group or school club? (No, really. How does wikipolicy handle things where there's clearly two words of the same spelling that mean different things? (good example i learned in spanish class... queso is cheese in spanish, but donkey in italian) ThuranX 16:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but would we allow a user with the name of Fucking, Austria? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know. A user whose IP showed he was a resident thereof, and who contributed to articles about the region, migth be entirely appropriate. really, we could have argued 100 years ago that your name was wrong, because lefthandedness was considered undesirable, if not outright evil in some areas. The level of potential offense out to be wieghed in the situation. ThuranX 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh, good point. But, as most users here speak English as a first or second language, we should probably disallow names that are offensive to English speakers, even if unintentionally. For example, there were a slew of usernames a few weeks ago that were obviously offensive, but the owner claimed that they meant legitimate things in other languages. It was obvious nonsense, but even if it were true, they should still be blocked, because no one wants to see a User:FUCK SHIT POO in the edit history, regardless of what it means in some obscure Asian language. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User seems to have taken this in stride, and has already put in a change-of-name request. Newyorkbrad 18:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think many admins / policymakers around here get way too fussy and prissy with "offensive name" rules (despite the fact that "Wikipedia is not censored for minors"). Does it really matter so much that somebody picks a name that pisses off some easily-offended prude? Even worse is when people who aren't offended themselves still take it onto themselves to be offended on behalf of hypothetical other people for whom the name might arguably be a slur or obscenity. This is speaking as a person so boring I almost always use my first initial and last name as username / handle on practically all sites, including this one... but I still have a "live and let live" attitude over others' handles. *Dan T.* 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed my username. E_rulez 06:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block uncivil user.

I ask yet again to have LGagnon permanently blocked for incivility and a disgraceful failure to assume good faith.

When I correct his teeming logical fallacies, not to mention his appalling grammar, disgraceful typos and related stylistic infelicities, he resorts to accusations of personal attack. The attack is about the low quality of what he has to say, and how he says it, not about him.

He has been just as foul in referring to Admins as "vandal coddling." Yet no action is taken against him.


Most bizarre of all, I am repeatedly told that "under no circumstance does another editor's behavior excuse repeated incivility of your own." Has LGagnon, who repeatedly achieves blocks against me, ever been told -- even once --: "No matter how uncivil AOluwatoyin is to you, under no circumstances does that excuse repeated incivility to AOluwatoyin"?

Why have I never -- not once -- been upheld in an appeal to block LGagnon? AOluwatoyin 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If as I noticed 3 different admins block you for the same thing, you might want to rethink your behavior. By the way, none of them were LGagnon. If you want to get him blocked, you should provide us with some evidence of the accusations you made using diffs. - Mgm|(talk) 21:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with MacGyverMagic's comments. If you want administrators to review LGagnon's incivility, you need to provide evidence. Ironically, you have provided clear evidence of your incivility in your note above. — ERcheck (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is part of the long running fight over Ayn Rand and related pages. All the editors involved know better and yet keep trying different noticeboards every so often hoping to get one of the others in trouble. Find something productive to do folks. Shell babelfish 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked AOluwatoyin (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) for making legal threats and other incivility, e.g. [33], for three days. This user may warrant an indefinite block as he has only been editing this one article, maybe tendentiously, has been repeatedly incivil, and now immediately after the expiration of his latest block began on an attacking tirade. —Centrx→talk • 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name pages and disambiguation

(originally posted on enwiki mailing list, where it was suggested I place it here)

About a week ago, User:JHunterJ revised Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and then began making sitewide changes to articles on human names based on his revisions:

"People who happen to have the same given name should not be listed on a disambiguation page for that name unless they happen to be very frequently referred to simply by the given name (e.g., Beyoncé, Regis). If the name is uncommon enough for such a list to be maintainable (and if it would otherwise meet the WP:LIST guidelines), consider creating the page List of people named Title instead."

I have found that a few name pages I monitor with lists of people by name are magnets for occasional vanity additions, and more common names will have very long lists. However, such lists seem useful and interesting for causal readers, so I'm wondering what people think about balancing utility (especially for causal readers) and page size? Right now the lists are being removed entirely instead of being moved to List of people named___. This has led to protests by some editors, and he's only part way into the A names (actually, I just checked and he's now into B names).

My concern is that a lot of information is being removed when he implements these changes. Sometimes he's adding {{Lookfrom}}, sometimes not, but many of the articles with lists had explanatory information, not just a list. At the very least, I'd like to see that information moved to another page rather than deleted outright. I have asked him to hold off until a few more people had a chance to weigh in, but he has decided to continue. Thoughts? Jokestress 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand these changes at all... A disambig is more aesthetically desirable, plus just seems to make more sense. Im reverting his MoS changes, but will leave someone else to fix the mess he made with the disambigs. -Mask 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note, my revision to WP:MOSDAB made it less restrictive, not more. My edits since then were indicated by previous guideline as well (most lists of people by given name include more than just those people who are referred to only by that name). The disambigs are much less messy now, particularly when the word refers to more than just a given name, but suspending with the change to MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And a follow-up to my own note. Rather than placing this here, I think it should have been placed on the Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). That's where the changes to the MOSDAB that I was following were discussed already; I don't think administrator intervention is necessary when additional editor discussion could be used instead. -- JHunterJ 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see JHunterJ's changes to MoS:DAB reinstated. These changes are the implementation of a consensus here.
There is a fundamental problem with names and disambiguation pages. A disambiguation page is a navigational aid. Background information on a name's derivation, history, distribution, etc - what Jokestress calls "explanatory information" - does not belong on a disambiguation page.
The solution, IMO, is for a disambiguation page, Title to link to a separate page Title (name). Title (name) could contain information about the name's derivation, etc, and if appropriate, a list of people who have that name. Disambiguation is about distinguishing between articles with the same title. The list of people with a particular name is clearly not a list of articles with the same title. Title (name) pages would be outside the scope of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).
All of the above does not apply where more than two people share both the same surname and given name. A disambiguation page is still appropriate, here. CarolGray 20:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user LewisRanja evading blocks

220.1.234.8 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) is Lewisranja (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)'s IP. After being consistently warned over a long period of time to cease making personal attacks and to stop adding unsourced OR to Transphobia, Lewisranja was blocked. He has continued using his IP address despite numerous warnings, although the personal attacks have continued. The IP appears stable. I did not report this at vandalism because it is effectively a block evade. I ask for whatever intervention administrators feel may be helpful; if none is felt warranted, then I accept that. Captainktainer * Talk 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second this request, being as I am the attacked party, and along with Captainktainer, one of the main contributers to this article since this whole thing started. Just like LewisRanja's account, the IP (which was used alongside the account all along) is pretty much a single purpose account, is being used to evade a block, and continues to be disruptive. --Crimsone 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Since this IP has no contributions other than those articles and talk pages that got the Lewisranja account blocked, I've blocked it as well. Shell babelfish 01:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Shell. Crimsone 02:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vrrayman1988

Could somebody please block this user? He is a suspected sock puppet who has already been blocked once or twice before and is in the middle of constantly vandalizing Nintendo. Indrian 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. JoshuaZ 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rbil10 abusing admin tools yet agian

The Battle of Bint Jbeil article has been protected for about a week now (in part due to a request by rbil10). Today, rbil10 unprotected the page (without any announcement or discussion saying he had done so), proceeded to make a series of edits, then re-protected the page. A bit of context is needed to fully appreciate the severity of these actions. About 2 weeks ago, rbil10, while being involved in an edit war (with me and other editors) on that page, abused his admin priveleges to protect the page after it had been reverted to the version favored by him. I asked him to undo his protection and noted that his actions were a violation of very clear WP policy which forbids admins from protecting pages they have been editing. He refused. I filed a WP:ANI report regarding these actions, and he was warned by at least 2 admins that his actions were inappropriate [34] [35]. he then unprotected the page, declared that he was now an active editor of the page, and promised not to use his admin tools on that page: [36]. Well , today we have the aforementioned abuse. This administrator is out of line and something needs to be done about it. 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits today seem to be mainly style and grammar issues. However, even without prior warnings it would have been better to get an uninvolved admin to make them. Making them after previous warnings is not good. JoshuaZ 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
He did indeed edit the page [37] and it remains protected, but a review of the protection log indicates he did not unprotect it. Perhaps he edited it, while protected, by mistake. In any case, have you asked him about this? I'll bring it to his attention. -- SCZenz 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but isn't the appropriate course of action (as referenced above), to contact the admin first and then post to this page complaining? alphaChimp(talk) 04:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I consolidated a list of bullet points into a paragraph! Nothing major. Check the diffs. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw this, and I don't think ill was intended. But admins really shouldn't do even basic editing on protected articles; since ordinary users can't, it is an implicit use of our powers,... and can result in complaints exactly like the above. -- SCZenz 04:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What SCZenze said is especially true when one has been previously involved. You should have just asked another admin to do it and/or ok it on the talk page first. JoshuaZ 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. -- SCZenz 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan's clarification

I edited quite on purpose. In the "editing protected pages policy," there is an exception made for spelling and typoes. I simply took it a little bit further and turned a list of bullet points into a paragraph, keeping all of the content and references. I didn't think it was worth contacting another admin for what basically amounted to a formatting issue. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal at all, but I think you took it too far. It's easy to understand how other editors of that article—who are locked from making even minor changes, and who presumably disagree with you on the content issues—would be upset by what you did. In the future, I'd recommend getting another admin's help for that kind of change after all—or just solving the content dispute before worrying about reformatting. -- SCZenz 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Honestly, I don't see the page being unprotected anytime soon. Seen as how we are trying to write an encyclopedia, I brushed up the article a little bit since it appears admins will be solely responsible for its content for the foreseeable future, and because the article needed some attention. However, I will ask another admin for any edits to the article as long as it's protected. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems reasonable enough. I don't think there was any real ill will on Ryan's part. Remember, most of the people who view Wikipedia never even bother to edit. Correcting such difficulties is important. alphaChimp(talk) 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Under these circumstances you should avoid editing the article, and leave it to others. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 203.129.192.23

Please consider blocking this I.P. for repeated linkspamming despite several warnings. --apers0n 07:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've blocked for 48 hours and requested the site to be put on the spam blacklist on meta. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

There is a constant restoring of the word "terrorist" to the lead. This is bad practice especialy today. --Cat out 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the article's talk page, and has been discussed in the past. The consensus has been that it's appropriate in this case. The term has been used by Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Again, this is being discussed on the article talk page. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's appropriate for the UN, then it should definitely be for Wikipedia.--MONGO 10:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, NPOV applies. Any concensus not inline with WP:NPOV is void. You can say a list of countries have identified the attack as "terrorist" (peferably place the list on a section rather than lead), you can't label the incident as "terrorist" --Cat out 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be undue weight to a minority claim.--MONGO 10:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I bed to differ. There is a serious community who view the attacks as a part of the campaign against "evil christians". Of course I do not agree with them in any way, but we certainly can't ignore WP:NPOV when it's inconviniant. --Cat out 10:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
NPOV does not require coddling fools. --Golbez 10:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Nomater whatever the circumstances, I dislike to be treated like an idiot. Please see WP:NPA --Cat out 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not call them idiots, I called them fools. If you are one of them, then so be it. I did not mean coddling you; I meant coddling the minority claim that this wasn't terrorism. NPOV does not require they be represented. --Golbez 11:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
... --Cat out 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a content dispute - so not here (although actually I disagree, 'terrorist' is a value judgement not a neutral description, it is thus an inherently unencyclopedic word. No doubt the UN (rightly IMO) would also describe the attacks as 'outrage' 'inhuman' 'offensive' 'criminal' and generally 'a Bad thing' (and who'd disagree) but those aren't words you'd expect to find in an encyclopedic description).--Doc 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Its more of a revert war (which I bailed out) this isnt about content. It's simply a breech of WP:NPOV, a nonnegotible policy requiring intervention. I am outnumbered, but I can't let a mistake continue and I do not see any other option atm. --Cat out 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk page, protection is inappropriate given the link from the Main Page, and so anyone who edit wars will be blocked until 12 September. This has been discussed plenty in the past (there are 21 talk archives) and further discussion is of course welcome. Just don't edit war on a main page linked article. --bainer (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unconcerned with past discussion. Like I said (or tried to say 3 edit conflicts so far) any concensus not inline with WP:NPOV is void. --Cat out 10:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Motivation is irrelevant; no-one should edit war, and no-one with bells on, with fudge and sprinkles on top, should edit war on a main page linked article. --bainer (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's not go here...mainpage or not...sensitive day on a sensitive article. Obviously, I agree about edit warring of course.--MONGO 10:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The difference being that those pages had already been subject to heavy vandalism. This page will of course be protected as needed. --bainer (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I obvioulsy have bailed out of the revert war. But the problem still exists. --Cat out 10:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
First piece of vandalism, and I re-semi the page, period.--MONGO 10:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, with due respect, I think you should not be operating admin functions with regard to this page. Please leave it for someone who is less involved. --Doc 10:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying I might be biased?--MONGO 10:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
We all are. --Cat out 10:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Doc, with similar respect, I think Mongo's judgement is as unbiased as your own. Tom Harrison Talk 12:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, and since I've expressed an opinion on the article's content, I won't be (un)protecting it either. --Doc 12:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was sprotected by Golbez and is now already unprotected by Winhunter. Go figure.--MONGO 12:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the POINT of ANB/I when extremely simple requests such as this, the removal of one word (terrorism) is to be ignored? --Cat out 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno...the point might be for things requiring administrator functions. Dispute resolution is thatta way. Shell babelfish 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate username

User:Tuh Ai Chu Tia has an inappropriate username. This is a sexual slur in Hindi language. He claims he is from Vietnam, but I doubt that from his contributions which are in Hindi and are also sexual slurs -- Lost(talk) 12:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indef block. Saw it also -- Samir धर्म 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Redvers beat me -- Samir धर्म 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 71.122.16.231 continuous spamming

The user 71.122.16.231 continuously advertises his commercial web site http://www.ankylosingspondylitishelp.com for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankylosing_spondylitis. It has been continuosly been warned to stop the spamming, but it still continues.

The advertised site is a commercial eBook, without any scientific relevance whatsoever, without any reference to respected scientific journals.

Sensei 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given a final spam warning and will watch the user. Thanks, Gwernol 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Devout Christian socks confirmed need block.

Socks confirmed by checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Devout Christian#Devout Christian new request

I've put the templates on the user pages, but the actual block is needed. --GunnarRene 16:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocks enacted. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks --GunnarRene 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent occasional vandalism from 216.70.37.171

The IP address 216.70.37.171 is apparently used by a proxy server for a school. The edit history and talk page for that IP address show that it has been a persistent, though infrequent, source of vandalism. I just reverted another vandal edit. If this was a single person, they would have exceeded the "third and final warning" by now. Given the multi-user nature of the IP address, and the time between incidents, I'm not sure that rule should still apply. I couldn't find any Wikipedia page that gave guidance for cases like this. I figured I should bring it to somebody's attention, so I am posting here. If this is considered too minor to worry about, feel free to ignore. Thanks, all. --DragonHawk 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't indef block me

Don't indefinitely block me... that's no fun at all... but I merely wish to suggest that some of the recent edits to Felipe Calderón may be construed as not being in good faith, which is not say that they are in bad faith... I also wish to put forth the idea that page protection and reversion to the last version by Hseldon10 could possibly be a good idea, which is not to say there are more recent, equally acceptable versions of the page.

Hopefully I'm being politically correct enough that no administrator will indefinitely block me. But considering recent actions taken... who knows... freestylefrappe 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Don't block me)

[edit] IP threatening automated vandalism

I'm not sure if this is serious or not (I kind of doubt it) but a recent message on my talk page by a rather angry IP. The whole message is priceless and worth a read in its entirety I'd say, but it says "In my free time, I will vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia as much as possible. I'll make minor technical edits that are inaccurate, that your know-it-all admins won't know enough to correct" and threatens to use a "PHP script that uses proxies to automate the vandalism of Wikipedia pages." I'm guessing now would be a good time to block immediately :). RN 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

the talk page has the history behind this as well.. RN 19:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Given a 48-hour break from editing. Naconkantari 21:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Eh, let him go. The more proxies we identify, the better. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That kind of threat is made all the time. I seriouesley doubt he'll follow through with his little plan.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Lin returns

I think Andrew Lin, aka the anti-soda pov vandal, who is an indefinitely blocked user (see this RFC), is back as User:CME46. For evidence, see this comment on my talk page (particularly the e-mail address). Additional evidence can be found at the user's user page (an odd cocktail of American Idol, "banana wolfing," and the original song "25 Years of Beauty," which is a dead giveaway). · j e r s y k o talk · 13:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged several of the articles created by the user for speedy as well, though there are others. Most of them fit under speedy criteria other than db-banned (as well as db-banned, of course). · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Back again as User:AGLEN. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lehi (group)

Amoruso (talk • contribs) is soliciting the intervention of others [38][39][40] (plus around half a dozen more) in an attempt to remove WP:V-compliant (and in fact extremely well sourced) information and citations from this article whilst also making distasteful personal comments in violation of WP:NPA. I'd appreciate stern intervention to ensure that he desists. --Ian Pitchford 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong bad faith accusation from POV pusher Ian Pitchford. Amoruso 23:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration enforcement needed

We have an outstanding request for arbitration enforcement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Terryeo (2). The users involved appear to be under the impression that I'm the one who will be doing the enforcing (blocking User:Terryeo for 5 days for a serious violation of an arbitration ruling). However, as I was the one who brought the arbitration in the first place, I presume it wouldn't appropriate for me to enforce it. I'd be grateful if someone could step in to resolve this confusion and take the necessary enforcement action. -- ChrisO 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo acknowledged violating his article ban by posting edits to Scientology articles while logged out. A ban of up to 5 days is permitted under the arbitration decision. I have argued for a shorter ban because he admitted it and most of the edits were minor, but there is a good argument that the evasion was deliberate and and he only admitted it when confronted by a checkuser request (which was withdrawn after he admitted it, so there is no record). Maybe one day off for good behavior? Thatcher131 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm no admin, and I'm not on the ArbCom, but after reading it over I think 3 or 4 days would be apropriate.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 22:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Given the evasive behaviour and the repeated violation of the ban over a three week period, I agree that four days would be reasonable. -- ChrisO 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I edit in other areas too. I recently created Bridge Base Inc. that article and linked it appropriately at BBO its disambiguation to include it in Contract Bridge. Terryeo 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
While this is certainly true (and it's commendable that you're trying to widen the range of articles that you're contributing to), it's not relevant to the arbitration violation. -- ChrisO 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Contributing to a wide range of articles won't really keep you from getting blocked. I've made very significant edits to Dragon Ball articles, and I've also done clean up on many articles that were (at the time) largley un-noticed. I also watch WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:AN3. That didn't stop me from being blocked, though.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeted sneak-attempts to introduce vandalism to John Seigenthaler, Sr.

I noticed this edit made by user:RoughNeck2000 that at the top looks like a legit edit, but at the bottom introduces the same old libelous stuff the article is famous for. Upon investigating further I noticed the user had claimed to revert IP-vandalism to the page on several occasions, but had actually been making null-edits, leaving the vandalism intact, as here and here and the previous edits by 24.59.193.92 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) that he left in. I have now blocked user:RoughNeck2000 indefinitely, but there are definitely grounds for an IP-check on user:RoughNeck2000 which more than likely is the same as anon:24.59.193.92 in some form, and maybe take this case further. I'll also urge people to help watch out for this kind of very libelous sneak-vandalism in articles like this. Shanes 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NinjaNubian

I have reported this user to WP:AIV, but they told me to go here. Repeatedly vandalizing both Alpha Phi Alpha article.

Copy of discussion below.

  • NinjaNubian (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) repeatedly damaging FA-Class Alpha Phi Alpha article. Has been warned through edit summary and on talk page repeatedly. Added spam on my discussion page. Also, has been banned before for vandalism. Bearly541 07:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks more like a content dispute, to me. You might consider dispute resolution or 3O instead. Luna Santin 07:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Used SOCKPUPPET 64.131.205.160 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) in previous vandalism. He was reason why Alpha Phi Alpha was in protection status. Bearly541 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • He appears willing to discuss his edits, and it really looks like more of a content dispute, to me. You're welcome to try dispute resolution or a post to WP:AN/I, but I'm of the opinion that this isn't a case of simple vandalism, unless you have something more convincing. Luna Santin 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • No, he is a vandal. Trust me. Please look at IP and his talk page. Also, please protect article to CC's revision, because he deletes timeless efforts without merit. Bearly541 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Bearly541 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, all three users (NinjaNubian, Ccson and Bearly541) have been severely misconducting themselves by constantly edit warring, while they should have gone one step further with a RfC instead. As I am just the one user, I cannot open a user conduct RfC on these guys (which I believe was warranted), but I did open a RfC on the content matter. As I can see, there are several violations of WP:3RR, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Errabee 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Plautus satire

I'm not sure whether this is an AN/I matter, or just something that should be forgotten. This (now-perma)-banned user has spammed a number of Admins (including me) with unblock requests. (Quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&diff=next&oldid=74273379 , although that may technically be a copyright violation.) I didn't participate in the last round, but his (6) edits in this round don't see to me to be a violation of the rules, or even of common sense. On the other hand, it looks as if his actions last time warranted a permanent ban, so I'm not really asking for a review. Could someone point me to the RfAr, so I can see a summary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) .

You can see the completed requests here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests. (I got one of those e-mails too.) What a lovely thing to read on a Monday morning. Antandrus (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's clear that PS is beyond rehabilitation. After waiting out his last 1-year ban, he immediately launched into baiting Raul, and even his unblock request includes attacks against Raul. This has been going on literally for years, and it's been mostly forgotten. Let the issue rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been spammed. Support indef ban. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that he's indeed (as Arthur Rubin relates) been indef blocked and posted here, seeking consensus for community ban. There were no dissenting voices, IIRC. yes... see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive134#Plautus_Satire ... hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on the contents of the email I just got, I don't think an indef ban is long enough. --Carnildo 20:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It might not make a difference, but it might send a message if we blocked him for a defined period of time, say, 1,000,000,000,000 years :) . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has been badgering me through email, starting with the same spam from above. Apparently unsatisfied with my well thought out responses, he's resorted to threatening me 'when the revolution comes'. I have copied the email thread to my server right here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Me as well: ALKIVAR™ 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 and Phil Sandifer have blocked me indefinitely after two one-year bans, I have not even edited a single article since the previous ban expired, and already Raul654 has instigated his personal vendetta against me. He is a menace to wikipedia and an overinflated fat toad with way too much free time on his hands. If you are able to, help me reverse this ban, I have done absolutely nothing to deserve it except defend my edits as vigorously as Raul654 and his pals and alts have done. Help make wikipedia a better place by not only reinstating my editing priveleges but also by helping me get Raul654 removed from wikipedia. He is a destructive influence who lets his personal feelings about people cloud his reason and close his eyes. He is a spiteful, wretched man, let's clear him and his kind off wikipedia. Any reply is deeply appreciated. For two years this bonehead has been harassing me on wikipedia and hiding behind his admin status. I know for a fact not every admin on wikipedia is his friend. Be my friend, help me fight back against this fool. Plautus Satire

[edit] Celebrity impersonator

I think Emma-rose-roberts (talk • contribs) should be blocked for having an inappropriate username (as per Wikipedia's username policy you are not supposed to use "names of well-known living or recently deceased people"). See Emma Roberts. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to give the user notice and a time frame to change their username as well as pointing them where to do it instead of just blocking? This way they are not so razzled by a forceful block. --User:Zer0faults 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It's quite common for fans of a celebrity who is not-so-familiar with Wikipedia policies (and who commonly skip disclaimer messages) to adopt the name of said celebrity as their user name. A gentle nudge is better than a big stick in this case. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought about that, but the according template message for such blocks says that users are encouraged to simply create a new account after the block (which is much easier than changing a username). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose with a mere two contributions, creating a new account is better, but I wouldn't call this account an impersonator. Most likely, it's just a fan. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't indef block me (2)

Just a suggestion, but reverting the last few edits on Andrés Manuel López Obrador, which might be seen as vandalism, and sincere, but fractured attempts by other anonymous users to revert these possibly-vandal edits, might be a good idea.

Another possibly good idea would be to protect the page. Or, then again, you could randomly accuse long time editors with over 10,000 edits of sockpuppetry and indefinitely block them for suggesting that WP:BLP is, indeed, a policy. No doubt you'll go for the latter with no evidence to support your position. Cheers, freestylefrappe 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is starting to get a little obnoxious. Why are you bringing this here instead of to the article's talk page? For that matter, none of the injunctions passed against you recorded in the RFArs you're involved in appear to restrict you from reverting vandalism. You're just required to maintain one identity given a history of bouncing from username to username, and you were desysopped a long time ago. Seriously... this is starting to smack of disrupting Wikipedia's normal function to make a point. Captainktainer * Talk 00:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were an administrator.. why the hell would I bring up concerns about vandalism on the talkpage? I was blocked for: a. Reverting vandalism, and b. Adding references. My history of "bouncing" is necessary because incompetent admins who abused their power, violating various policies, tried to enforce their own POV on less powerful users. My desysopping is completely irrelevant, and you know it... or you dont know it, and you shouldnt pretend to. This is not at all a WP:POINT violation. I'm allowed to be as sarcastic as I want. You don't like it? Then quit Wikipedia or establish WP:SARCASTIC to prevent such editing. Cheers, freestylefrappe 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if you had been blocked for what you claimed you had been blocked for, that wouldn't prevent you from pointing out the relevant matters on the relevant talk pages. JoshuaZ 02:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read most of it, but [41] is at least sarcastically annoying and totally unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP (Static): Personal attacks against several users, POV editing etc.

OK Before you all jump on me "OMG!!!ONE!!11 USE DISPUTE RESOLUTION" there is already a RFC open on this user. I was content to leave it at that. However, the IP is STILL inserting uncited, blatantly POV edits to several pages despite repeat warning. See talk page User talk:68.35.182.234 for an example.

BTW before I proceed further: apparently the IP is User:Devin79.

Now look at the talk page: The IP is ranting on and on about the users he's edit warring with, (and I'm not one of them, for the matter), threatening them, attacking them, etc. It's incredibly uncivil, and I'm sick of reverting his edits. I issued him Test4, but I think due to the severity of his talk page a block is needed.

See RFC for the user

The IP has been blocked multiple times for 3rr rule, and is the first user I've ever seen to get a Defamation template posted on their page.

Now the conversation on that talk page is not particularly civil from both Jdorney's or Devin79 end, but here are some of the highlights:

"Not to worry...jdorney will not be with Wikipedia much longer." "I have informed Wikipedia staff about his biased and unprofessional behavior, and have recieved back that Wikipedia will look into it. It is sad that Wikipedia has to be hampered by a few biased, purposely innacurate Editors, who ignore facts and make up their own...just to support their own one sided views." "I will file another complaint with Wikipedia about you, and I will continue to edit this article to ensure that it is professional and not the work of some biased little editor, who is more interested in pushing his own views then he is in the facts." "Either you don't bother to read them, or you read them but ignore them because you are so biased in your beliefs that you only include facts that support them, and in some cases you lie altogether. How in god's name you are allowed to continue to be a Wikipedia editor is beyond me" "Get a hobby And stop wasting people's time with things you know nothing about Jdorney 12:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)" "This is just plain sad. This guy is so biased and pathetic, that he has to immediately revert ANY facts that he decides are "Not in keeping" with his own, highly biased and anti-Republican point of view."

Note: The page is hard to read but it appears the indented conversations are Jdorney and the left aligned ones are Devin79's.

Now, I think some sort of blocking on the IP is in order, as he's been repeatedly asked not to make POV edits without citing sources, or discussing in talk. I'm specifically referring to Special Activities Division, but I haven't really looked into Jdorney's side of the RFC a whole lot. If it were me, I'd suggest 1 week, and if he continues, increase the length by a week each time. Thoughts? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Further, I should note that the Devin79 account was blocked for reverting Bot Image removals repeatedly, and warned about the legal implications of doing so, and then warned against using sockpuppets. There are currently allegations against Devin79 that he is using his IP address to get around the 3RR rule on some page: I don't remember which one since I'm only concerned with the SAD page, but its listed in the RFC I believe. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I took a long look through the contribs and what I see is scary - persistant, intentional, subtle vandalism designed to undermine or defame the articles subjects. They've had more than enough warning - that defame template was from April. I've indef blocked the account and blocked the ip for 6 months. Feel free to adjust as necessary. Shell babelfish 03:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanna nuke some linkspam?

I found an article Internet Marketing Services which looks like blatant advert/linkspam. Doing a special:linksearch I find a bunch of talk pages and user pages with more link spam belonging to users with no edits other than to their own talk and user pages. Some admin needs to track back the links and delete them.

Other links involved include:

Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject Spam would love to hear about linkspam you've found. We clear out lots of simple spam through there. Also check out the {{linksearch}} template for linking to the linksearch specialpage. Kevin_b_er 04:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial spammer User:Rdplindia

This user's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to add links to a commercial website. Everytime the links are added, they are removed by editors citing spam. User continues to add them back, regardless of reverts, now citing them as references rather than external links. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 06:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick update: Even after a warning from User:El C, User:Rdplindia has added the link to 2 additional articles. [42] and [43]. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I blocked the user indefinitely; all contributions have been spam. Grandmasterka 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 209.78.217.6: Requesting action

209.78.217.6 has repeatedly vandalized several articles over the course of the last few months. (A random sampling of his edits according to his contributions page shows that his edits are typically destructive and vandalizing.) I do not believe it is a dynamic IP (or if it is, it may be like my ISP and have a very long DNS lease, which results in keeping the same IP for months on end), so I recommend he be blocked in accordance with the WP static IP blocking policy. cluth 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

209.78.217.6 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) is a school IP and has been a source of vandalism (and nothing else I can find) for some considerable time. I have indef-blocked for anonymous users only, and allowed account creation. I have left a meassage on Talk saying this, and cleared out the dozens of old warnings and block messages. Hopefully this will do the trick. Guy 11:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David L. Cunningham bio

David Loren Cunningham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is a section called "The Path to 9/11 controversy which references several articles that should be filed under the film and not under David Cunningham's bio. The writers are using sources that are not verified by David Cunningham, and have many factual errors, such as information from David's The Film Institute. The article leads to others that are also personal opinion rather that objective fact-based journalism. I've corrected it three times, and it reverts back each time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keiko234 (talk • contribs) 08:57, September 12, 2006.

The writers are using sources that are not verified by David Cunningham... Being the subject of the article does not imply veto power over its content. If sources are reliable ones, whether Cunningham approves of them is immaterial. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify from my perspective...Keiko234 has been deleting huge swaths of the David Loren Cunningham bio with no rationale given in the edit summary and despite reverts by other users. Kukini 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda

On the article Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, editors repeatedly insist on categorizing this individual a "Cult leader" when there is no information within the text of the article to back this up, and there are no sources quoted to back this up. These are serious and potentially defamatory accusations about a living person, clearly in violation of WP:LIVING. I have warned the offending editors multiple times, and reverted the article multiple times, but they keep making the change back to "Cult leader." Dr U 09:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is part of Dr. U's uniilateral campaign against the Category:Cults and Category:Cult leaders. He's already tried this stunt with other articles, including Scientology and Lyndon Larouche, to opposition from different editors. Now he's looking for official cover for his work, it looks like. See [44] to see what he's been up to. --Calton | Talk 10:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now sourced the claim, which was trivially easy. I hear the sound of a heavy barrow being pushed here. I have left a warning on Dr U's Talk page, which he recently whitewashed. This is clearly one to watch, friends. Guy 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bazzajf

Bazzajf (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked several times, most recently for a month, for incivility. He has come back, and thus far has made precisely two edits, both of which are incivil. I am wondering whether to (a) warn him, (b) block him again for a week or (c) give up and indef. Guy 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for indef. Right now all he's doing is being incivil towards people, nothing he's doing seems to be even remotely benefiting the encyclopedia, either directly or indirectly. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. I have indef-blocked, unprotected his Talk and asked him if he has any intention of actually contributing to the encyclopaedia. Let's see what he has to say for himself. I hope he does not use this length of metaphorical rope to his own detriment... Guy 11:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Good call. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well he didn't seem terribly happy about it. Guy 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ice cream

Dear admins,

I noticed that ice cream has a picture of a man with a sign saying "ninjas killed my family - need money for kung-fu lessons": thumb|I fail to see the Ice cream connection... Quite funny, but perhaps inappropriate? PER9000 13:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say I've never seen Dairy Queen offer that flavor... However, just for reference, vandalism can be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead of here. Still, thanks for the heads up. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've reverted it and given the user responsible User:=Ben a final vandalism warning. As Ryan says, reporting to WP:AIV will probably get you a more prompt response in future. Demiurge 14:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add your link to some userpage of mine for future use, keep up the good work :) PER9000 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OMG! Someone thanking admins insted of yelling at them, this is unprecedented! Thank you very much for the kind smiley face. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
AN/I will now promptly self-destruct. --W.marsh 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We better give the user a long block so they don't make the mistake of being nice again. JoshuaZ 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. ju66l3r 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just kidding...I'm not an admin. :) ju66l3r 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack and improper language in image copyright status dispute.

After some dispute on the source and copyright status of an image, User:MrGater used very strong words to ask for an end to the dispute, explaining, among other points, that "Nobody gives a f... anyways". --Abu Badali 14:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 48 hours. —freak(talk) 14:34, Sep. 12, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is collecting links to contributions harrasment?

On top of User_talk:FunkyFly there is a series of links to Special:Contributions page. Is this considered harrasment (because it gives a "I'm watching you" message) or is it just fine? --Dijxtra 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I could understand a list of dynamic/shared IPs given to vandalism etc. to help someone periodically review the contribs and take appropriate action. But offhand this seems like a list of people who edit largely Macedonia-related topics, not a list of vandals or anything. Nevertheless I think precident that keeping lists of people, even if your intent is mostly to antagonize by keeping those lists, is not actually against any particular policy. --W.marsh 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Dijxtra, you should assume good faith, but you know that dont you? It is merely a shortcut to avoid constantly typing usernames. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweetest Day

Could I get a temporary protect on Sweetest Day on the version here? User:Miracleimpulse is engaging in a POV edit war (you can see the spirited discussion about this article on the talk page or at User:Miracleimpulse's usertalk, complete with claims of "spindoctoring" against myself and other editors). Currently User:Miracleimpulse is appending his disputed version of the page onto the existing page. I don't want to break 3RR and I think a temp protection for a few days will allow the more NPOV version (with disputed tag) to be viewable while a RfC or RfM is pursued, where it appears this seems to be headed.--Isotope23 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Isotope continues to delete sourced information from the Sweetest Day article. My edits delete nothing from the article. Please protect this version 1 which contains all the facts. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 15:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Admins always protect the wrong version. Seems that there is some evidence that you are the one pushing a barrow, Miracleimpulse (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax). You have also violated the three revert rule. Guy 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samir Bhadva (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

This is a sock puppet account of User:Lazy Bhadva, User:Crazy Bhadva etc etc used only for vandalism. Someone kindly block -- Lost(talk) 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Aakash Mehta - another sockpuppet, same vandalism, this time to my talk page. Thanks -- Lost(talk) 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also blocked. --InShaneee 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with repeated hoax article creator

I submitted the following for checkuser and result was Declined: "obvious, block away". Can someone help out with this? Thanks.

L.G. is a frequent hoax article creator for fake radio stations (particularly urban-format in the San Diego area). See examples: KFYT FM (AfD discussion), KMBS FM (AfD discussion), KBIT FM (AfD discussion), and KWLD (AfD discussion). That account has not been active since July 20, 2006. At the same time that L.G. was creating and editing hoax articles, they were also constantly edit cycling station descriptors in the List of urban-format radio stations in the United States article as L.G. and as IP 68.8.29.40. A few days ago, Shany2006 arrived and has also acted in exact same manner creating KYMY (a fake station ID) which is now up for AfD as well. Some of their most recent edits to the article attempted to change it to "KWWD" (another non-existent station ID) but without moving the page. Tellingly, the 68.8.29.40 IP just showed up to blank the article (the same thing that occurred last time L.G. got slapped down with the 4 AfDs) as you can see in this diff. I'm including 287radio because of identical edit and content style (even though this time it was creation of an actual radio station in FL and has not gotten involved in hoaxing yet). I believe these sockpuppets (all originating from 68.8.29.40) need to be dealt with so as not to have their constant hoax radio station articles poisoning the site. Thanks. ju66l3r 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Usernames blocked indefinitely, the IP for 24 hours... Adjust as needed. Grandmasterka 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:F.O.E.

A while ago before I went on a semi-long wikibreak, I started an WP:RFC against User:F.O.E. located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/F.O.E. F.O.E. had shown time and time again that his trolling, diffs at the RFC, has got him quite the reputation. After I posted this RFC, he left Wikipedia and hasn't came back. He also failed to respond at the RFC completely. Since this RFC has been running through for 2 and a half months, and a unanimous 23-0 result of my claims at the RFC was supported and no objections at all, I was wondering if it would be worth it to block this account from furthur editing. He has been inactive since I filed the RFC, so I am pondering if he started a new account or was range blocked from editing, and if he did, I see no reason not to indefblock this account for trolling, but I was wondering what others thought. — Moe Epsilon 20:44 September 12 '06

There did not seem to be a consensus to indef block the user before and since the user isn't editing at present it isn't clear to me what benefit there would be. JoshuaZ 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No set "straw poll" or discussion was brought upon to see if an indefblock was in order. Many users though, have stated on my talk page or through relevant comments, that an indefblock was probably best. The user has similar edits as the indefblocked user - Friend of Ed (which has a string of vandalism regarding some topics similar with F.O.E.). Not really sure if there would be a benefit to blocking the account since he has left, it was just a thought that occured to me since it was suggested before. Personally, I would prefer if the account was active before blocking, but I wanted others opinions. — Moe Epsilon 21:01 September 12 '06

[edit] Howard Moscoe

  • User:Bonito e Gostoso recently appeared out of nowhere in the middle of the ongoing content dispute at Howard Moscoe. His first edit (and all subsequent edits) have been simply to revert the page to the version preferred by User:GoldDragon which no one else involved agrees with. When I asked the user repeatedly to explain the reasoning behind his edits, his response was "I agree". I'd say there's a pretty good reason to suspect that this user is a Sock or Meatpuppet of GoldDragon. I bring this here either for action on the Sock issue, or simply because I'm at the 3RR limit, so I can't continue removing his nonsense, if anyone could jump in, that'd be great. -- Chabuk 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 70.137.80.121

Request that you block 70.137.80.121 for excessive link spam, despite warnings to Talk page. I can't keep up with the reverts. =P -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Madeleine Albright Article

Some idiot has added a paragraph pretending to quote Madeleine as slaughtering Serbs to cover for Clinton, it is at the bottom of her article and should be removed immediately and the content provider censured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Post-2001_career —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.161.224.10 (talk • contribs).

  • Reverted and warned them on their talk page. Thanks for pointing this out; in future feel free to revert it yourself (here's how). Demiurge 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Already reverted. Newyorkbrad 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fireitup, and 24.147.18.43

I hate to bother you with something this stupid, but if it makes you feel any better, you won't be the only one to have been bothered by it.

User:Fireitup has an article on a local radio show that just got an AfD. No big deal, happens every day. Fireitup proceeds to spam the living daylights out of the AfD discussion, and then suddenly User:24.147.18.43 shows up and begins making edits such as this but otherwise most of this user's edits are very much in the style of Fireitup. Suggest that handing out blocks will reduce the wildly absurd amount of spam in this trivial discussion. Thanks for your time. My Alt Account 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Oops, the IP has already been blocked. I would also like to point at this example of Fireitup's meatpuppetry attempt, which quite possibly is the original cause of all the spamming. My Alt Account 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism spree

User:165.228.58.83 seems to be on a vandalism spree (not for the first time either it seems) and has had more than his share of warnings. I think a block is in order at this point. -Elmer Clark 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That should go on WP:AIV.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User: Jersyko

  • Jersyko is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense of entitlement, as Vary, and a sense of invulnerability and untouchability in Wikipedia.
  • Jersyko has a deep-seated contempt of other users, especially new users, in contrast to his or her professed compassion for Wikipedia.
  • Jersyko is a control freak, as user Vary, and has a compulsive need to control everyone and everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an immediate attack attempting to restrict what you are permitted to say if you start editing knowledgeably about a topic they oppose - but aggressively maintain the right to edit (usually unknowledgeably) about anything they choose if it becomes a personal issue against the new user.
  • Jersyko and user Vary despise anyone, especially a new user, who enables another to see through their deception or mask of sanity, such as new user Boodro has done. Jersyko has falsely accused this user of Sockpuppetry.
  • Jersyko displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence.
  • Jersyko shows a lack of joined-up thinking with textual conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water.
  • Jersyko flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you can't get through to him.
  • Jersyko is, perhaps, a loner with few friends and needs a forum like this to bully others as an anon. Reneec made that option more attractive to him as he's removed anything that might clue the new user to his identity. See SCZenz page Official Songs of Memphis Tennessee.
  • Jersyko is beguiling and is always plausible and convincing when peers, cronies, superiors or others are present allowing him to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy.
  • Jersyko is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine text and lots of form - but no substance.
  • Jersyko will attempt to outmanoeuvre new users in verbal textual interaction, especially at times of conflict, giving him the opportunity to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone who calls, attempts to call, or might call him to account on a matter.
  • Jersyko is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all.
  • Jersyko appears to gain gratification from denying new users what they are entitled to upon verifiable entry.
  • Jersyko often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic attention-seeking need to portray himself as a wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate person in his user talk, in contrast to his behaviour and treatment of new users; Jersyko sees nothing wrong with his behavior and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how he likes to be seen and how he is seen by new users.
  • Jersko is mean-spirited to new users, officious, and often unbelievably petty.
  • Jersyko often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic or general negative nature apply to him, as Reneec had attempted to demonstrate with an isolated fact separated from the whole in the song matter.
  • Jersyko has imposed a false reality considering new users Reneec and Boodro made up of distortion and fabrication.
  • Jersyko is embittered when challenged, seething with resentment, irritated by others' failure to fulfill his superior sense of entitlement, and fuelled by anger resulting from rejection. Jersyko displays an obsessive, compulsive and self-gratifying urge to displace his uncontrolled textual aggression onto new users whilst exhibiting an apparent lack of insight into his behavior, the issues at hand, and its effect. Is it possible that jealousy and envy motivate Jersyko to identify a competent and popular individual David Saks, and a verifiable issue Official Songs of Memphis, which is then controlled and subjugated through projection of Jersyko's own inadequacy and incompetence in this forum ?
  • Jersyko distorts, twists, concocts and fabricates criticisms and allegations, and abuses the disciplinary procedures - again, for control and subjugation, not for performance enhancement, and uses gossip and back-stabbing to spread rumours that undermine, discredit and isolate the truth.
  • Jersyko wraps himself in a flag of Wiki-cronyism and usurps others' objectives, thereby nurturing compliance, reverence, deference, endorsement and obeisance; however, such veneration and allegiance is divisive, being a corruption for personal power which exhibits itself through the establishment of a clique, coterie, cabal, faction, or gang of bullies that intimidate new users with verifiable and conclusive objectives. Wikipedia is an assembly of plagiarists that steal other people's work - and the credit for it as well.
  • Jersyko tends to regurgitate what others (especially superiors) say.
  • Jersyko, as Vary, is adept at appropriating rules, regulations, procedures and Wiki-law to manipulate, control and punish new users regardless of relevance, logic, facts, consequences or verifiable matter when it threatens his need to control, manipulate and punish as it develops into an obsession with the hallmarks of an addiction.
  • *Jersyko exploits new users allowing him to excel at talentless mediocrity and favours, protects and promotes non-threatening sycophants whilst marginalizing and hindering the advancement of those who challenge him.
  • I've examined user Jersyko, carefully, and warn newcomers. This individual is insecure and sees others as a threat; the threat seems to comprise a fear of exposure, and borders on paranoia; the individual has a paranoid personality and is a lurker.

66.239.212.10 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for middle/elementary schools

I have modified Template:Schools in jurisdiction to remove categories for middle and elementary schools because they encourage articles on nonencyclopedic topics. I am inviting broader review of this, and ideally help speedying (via CSD A7) articles on middle and elementary schools (but not school districts), via currently accepted practice. I don't believe we should have categories that encourage articles that should not be created. --Improv 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Schools are inherently controversial on Wikipedia, so only obvious speedy candidates (like attack pages, no-content pages, or patent nonsense) are speediable. Any school entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion will attest to that. Schools aren't organizations or individuals, and don't fall under A7. --Coredesat talk! 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If the template is harmful, nominate it for deletion. Do not modify it so that its useless to the end-user (a navigational template with only one link is rather pointless). That's similiar to page blanking, and is bad. If you oppose the existance of any category, then go to CFD. If you oppose the existance of articles, go to AFD. But, disabling navigational template, is incomprehensible. Also, a7 does not apply to schools, and is designed for articles where there's a clear consensus they shouldn't exist. Please do not try to bypass community discussion and consensus, to remove that which you personally dislike. --Rob 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not do that Improv, there is not a consensus to do so and your assertion that these topics are non-encyclopedic is incorrect. Silensor 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Lets' not get off track. Which/what schools are notable is irrelevant to what User:Improv did (see here). The template, is designed to navigate between the different categories in any given jurisdiction. Improv removed all but one of the links to the categories, essentially disabling the entire purpose of the template. Improv's actions are similiar to page blanking, only worse, as it leaves behind something visible and useless, that our readers see (e.g. if I'm in a high school category, a link back to the high school category, with no other links, makes little sense). Discussions for the template, can proceed at TFD, but dont' belong here. Category inclusion goes to CFD, and school inclusion goes to AFD. General school inclusion issues might go to places like Wikipedia:Schools. But Improv's actions in this case, are quite unacceptable, and so far, there's no proper explanation for them. --Rob 02:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pussy Galore (talk • contribs) behaviour

diffs and behaviour synopsis here:

  1. [45]. Removes speedy on article with claim he was right in the middle of improving it.
  2. After speedy is put back, He goes to several pages and areas looking for support for removing it even though the individual clearly lacks any remote notability.
  3. After being told when a user could remove a speedy [46], he ignores that and removes it with a vague assertion. [47]. No evidence to support it, even though its already been shown on the talk page there is no notability to this person.
  4. [48] Makes claims of huge google results and blames it on "data centers", then continues to make circular arguments and dodge the issue of his claim to evidence of the notability of this individual. His claim to improving the article consists of adding vague claims and unverifiable information to the article in question and not producing anything to support his claim here.

Clearly something off here if you follow his pattern here, and comes across to be trolling to me.--Crossmr 04:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this person around and observed a certain quality to the general pattern of edits that, in the interests of civility, I will describe as often having a certain "under the bridge" quality about them. Metamagician3000 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As you can see on my and Pussy Galore's talk pages, I share Metamagician's concern about the user's attitude. But is there anything wrong with removing the speedy tag? The notice box says to remove it if you intend to fix it. We should probably change that if it's not the behavior we want. Also, the user did edit the article minutes before the speedy tag, so the claim of being in the middle is plausible. I agree the vague claims and general behavior are an issue, but an actual magazine (albeit an unsavory one) published an article on the guy, so I don't think opposing the speedy is in itself unreasonable. William Pietri 06:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Metamagician here. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've indef blocked this user for egregious trolling. I won't reverse anyone who undoes the block, but you should make sure to look at his or her contributions before you do. In nearly every edit he is simply stirring up, dare I say it, drama. Nandesuka 11:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if Chairboy did not visit this users page and accuse them of being a sockpuppet, then misquote policy stating that having alternate accounts is against the rules, the drama would have never began. Oddly I predicted this would happen right after they voiced their support for CB, what an odd series of events. So where can I go to ask a user be unblocked and have the decision reviewed? --User:Zer0faults 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just in case people are unaware Raymond Lemme had an article written about him in Hustler on his apparent suicide [49] Featured story: Orlando Weekly [50] Indymedia [51] Examiner [52] --User:Zer0faults 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate issue: why should this user not be blocked for inappropriate user name? --Nlu (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cause that would allow the user to just make a new name. As you can see by their talk page, Chairboy instead was looking at Sockpuppetry accusations instead. I find this odd that Chairboy and Nan both were involved in the CB discussion and Chairboy picks a fight with Galore and then Nan lays the block for "trolling", even though Chairboy appeared on Galore's page first with accusations, nice vice versa. Shh.. there is no cabal. What did Cyde say, we have to stick together? --User:Zer0faults 13:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While in principal there is nothing wrong with removing the speedy tag, it started to strike me as odd when this person spent an hour on various talk pages and discussion pages trying to establish he could remove the speedy tag, but after being told he should provide evidence of notability, he dodged the issue and made a vague assertion about the individual and removed it. I had no idea about this other dispute thats going on, but his behaviour here came across to me as someone who was trolling or playing games as I repeatedly requested that he provide this information, and his only response for a long time was to make up some false claim about how he was getting entirely different search results for the same term.--Crossmr 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MaxContent (talk • contribs)may be a sock, see his comments on the AfD[53]. Only edits to that article and the AfD.--Crossmr 13:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So you think an idef block is ok for a user who was having trouble bringing up information on google to refute the speedy tag? I had trouble as well until I stumbled on the hustler article and found out that its best to leave his middle initial out to help get results, as you see I posted 4 articles on him, that doesnt include the numerous blogs that are not WP:RS or sources I was not really familiar with or I knew were bais like DailyKOS. --User:Zer0faults 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There are methods to proving if someone is a sock, An/I is not one of them. If you have an accusations it should have been brought to the appropriate forum, especially if that affected your judgement. --User:Zer0faults 13:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hang on - was it an accusation Chairboy made? It doesn't look like one, it looks like a valid request - If a user has sockpuppets that they used to use, maybe they should make an appreciable effort to be friendly, and declare them. I find it hard to believe she forgot the account names, and even if she has, surely it's not tricky to look at an article's history and note them down? It's only polite. HawkerTyphoon 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes it was, Chairboy misquoted WP:SOCK in stating the user was a "malicious sock" because they had edited under multiple accounts before, accounts the users states have always been abandoned before starting a new one. [54] [55]. --User:Zer0faults 13:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Where did I call PG a malicious sock? Care to provide a diff? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"I'm guessing that despite the language in the beginning of your please that you're actually wanting people to stop accusing you of being a malicious sock, but you don't argue the fact that you are, in fact, a sock puppet." This would be on par with me stating "Copperchair wants people stop calling him a foolish admin, but he does not artugue that he is, in fact, an admin" If this phrasing is permitted please let me know, I will put it to good use. --User:Zer0faults 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you please rephrase that in the form of... english? I'm afraid I don't see the accusation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I can, its your quote, if you feel your writing is not understandable as english, that is really your own problem and hurdles you must overcome in your personal life. There are classes available that will help you write better, I can do some research just let me know if you want me to find some for you. --User:Zer0faults 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
(sigh) Once again, I'll ask you to provide a diff of where I accused PG of being a malicious sock. Your english comprehension joke is quite clever, (golf clap), but it still doesn't provide an example of what I'm looking for. You may wish to re-read the excerpt you posted above with this in mind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm we already covered its your own comprehension, hence why you do not understand your own quote ... I am not sure the joke nor the problem. "If you want people stop thinking you cant read english perhaps you should stop admitting your own quotes arent understandable in english." See the jump from a major to be based off a minor. You stated if he didnt want people thinking he was a malicious sock, then he shouldnt have admitted to having been a sock, though actually he admitted no such thing. He admitted to having other accounts in the past. Again let me know if you need me to do that research for you. See you said he admitted to something he in fact did not, see editing under more then onename is different then having edited in the past under a different name, reading comprehension indeed. You can reference WP:SOCK on instances where its ok to edit under multiple accounts at the same time, which was not the case this time. So the user clearly does not fall under the sockpuppet label. --User:Zer0faults 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see the nature of your misunderstanding. In the quote above, I said merely that he had admitted to being a sock puppet. You appear to have misread the sentence and interpreted it as me calling him a malicious sock. That's not correct. I've said that there were things he could do to prevent folks from assuming that he's a malsock, but that's certainly not the same as accusing him, no more than telling a teenager "Remember to obey traffic lights" is accusing him of being a criminal. Glad I could be of assistance. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are as much of help today as you have been ever. I am glad this is all cleared up and we can both tackle the issues in real life we need to handle. --User:Zer0faults 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To Zer0faults: It wasn't so much that he was having trouble finding it, it was his mannerism indicated that he supposedly had the material but wouldn't share it.He didn't really state why he felt the individual was notable, just that he was notable. After another user grew impatient with his constant dodging, he was again asked to provide this supposed evidence of the individual being notable, and instead he said "You guys can argue, I'm going to go improve the article". Which consisted of a bunch of unverified and highly contested claims. He claimed to have gotten huge amounts of hits on google and blamed the discrepency on "data centers" and wouldn't provide a link to his search on which he got huge amounts of hits even though he was asked for it. If someone puts an article up for deletion and does a search and gets a low amount of hits, yet I do a search and get a huge amount, I'm going to link to it to show the difference. This individual failed to do so, and I see this as just another part of his behaviour where he was playing games.--Crossmr 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as an indef block goes, that might have been extensive, I was simply posting it here because I viewed his behaviour as suspicious and it truly came across as trolling to me. I never asked for a block, though its possible one might have been in order, as I said I wasn't aware of this individual or his behaviour outside of this incident. I thought it might be appropriate to have an admin or two to see if they saw trolling behaviour there as well, and if so, perhaps look at an appropriate action then (whether it was a block, a warning, etc).--Crossmr 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not mean to come off as railing against you. If you view the users talk page there have been admins harrassing him since he came out in favor of CB in an admin to admin dispute. The quick jump to an indef ban over this minor situation is illustrated by that. What I am quite annoyed with is a perfectly valid article got deleted in the process, one that I have provided here 4 sources for, one being a hustler article. You can almost argue that a non porn related article in Hustler is worth more then an article in the newspaper, since a newspaper runs thousands of articles and hustler runs only 2-3 non porn ones a month. The worst part of it all is the article will probably remain deleted because if it was undeleted it would show the user had merit in the first place. I cannot attest to "data center" issues. However if you search for this person with the middle initial included, then without it, you will get a larger result list, then there is the peple who simply called him Ray Lemme. Then there is the few that have the middle initial spelled out. So using quotation marks is quite a problem in this case. --User:Zer0faults 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
To which he could of stated, but if you go back and read you will see he didn't. Even when asked. It would have solved the issue to simply provide a link to the search. If I ask someone a question several times, and instead of replying, they dodge the question, make vague claims, or otherwise to muddy the waters, I lose all assumption of good faith, especially when the behaviour continues over a long period of time as it did in this situation. I'm not commenting on the article itself here, but the behaviour of the editor. Also when the only other person around to defend the article was a brand new user who'd made no other edits, you'll forgive me if that doesn't scream sock/meat puppet off the rooftops. If there is a valid article to be had here per WP:BIO, I won't oppose its recreation, however it certainly can't be left in an unreferenced and weasel state that it was in before.--Crossmr 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Pussy Galore requested a checkuser on himself ostensibly to prove that his other sockpuppets were not used out of policy. He is now an indefinitely banned user so now his use of those sockpuppets would be to evade a permanent ban. I have requested that the checkuser admins use the information they already obtained to indefinitely ban the sockpuppets as well. --Tbeatty 06:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there are dozens of these sock accounts floating around. I have expressed this concern here on a recent AfD. I do not want to falsely accuse these “people” of being a sock, but I could compile a list of them if that is not against any rules. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black billionaires

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but can an administrator please review the deletion debate for Black billionaires and make a judgement call one way or the other? RFerreira 05:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I closed it as a decided keep, though if I had to opine in it, I might have said "delete". Grandmasterka 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reposting request for removal of indefinite block ofKeepthefactsinwikiplease (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Hello, AMA advocates Amerique (talk • contribs • logs) and Addhoc (talk • contribs • logs) acting on behalf of Keepthefactsinwikiplease (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) have been unable to determine the supposed violations of WP policies that have merited an indefinite block. The blocking admin Nlu (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has indicated s/he would not contest someone else reducing the block, however s/he is not personally inclined to reduce this block. In this context, we would be very grateful, if there was a further review of this block. Thank you,--Amerique 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Addhoc 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced this block from indef to 1 month, and it is almost over. I'd remind the editor that continued entry of POV material may be considered vandalism, and the perhaps some of our other million articles may be more interesting to edit than StormPay. — xaosflux Talk 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Addhoc 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee." tag from their userpage accordingly. Maybe a csd to hide the incorrect tag would be beneficial. Daniel.Bryant 09:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 75.3.50.41: Requesting Action

In the 25 hours he has been active on Wikipedia, 75.3.50.41 has caused widespread disruption throughout WikiProject Abortion, including inflammatory and anti-consensus edits/edit warring in pro-choice, Category:Same-sex marriage, Planned Parenthood, Talk:George W. Bush, pro-life, Guttmacher Institute, John Edwards, Marty Meehan and abortion (possibly more), as well as several violations of WP:NPA on various user and article Talk pages. This is my first time at the noticeboard, but I believe a block is in order. Thank you. --BCSWowbagger 05:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I had to step in to stop this IP making edits which amounted to vandalism, and even after that once I went to bed he seems to have continued blatant tendentious editing, which appears to have ended last night with him one revert away from a 3RR violation on pro-choice. He's stopped editing now, but I suspect this isn't the last of him. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
He's back at it as I type this, making the exact same edits as before. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The user has shown no attempt to compromise and reasons out that his/her view has to be said or no views must be said. The user disagrees that NPOV exists and his hypocrisy between labeling pro-choice not a social justice category while pro-life is shows the user's obvious bias. Gdo01 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, anon only block. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility warning

Should an editor receive a warning for this [56] edit summary? Anchoress 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. There's no prohibition on four-letter words, if they aren't aimed to hurt, which I couldn't discern there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
An exhaustive and exhausting discussion of this matter from late 2005 is to be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris and not least its talkpage. (Note especially these interesting stats for the use of the word "fuck" in edit summaries.) Is it time we had another one? Bishonen | talk 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
Whatever else it is, it doesn't seem to be uncivil to anyone. Metamagician3000 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't know what to do here, if anything...

I just ran across this in my page beat, and thought someone here could know how to respond. 68.39.174.238 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore it, or revert it, but certainly don't act on it, we don't indef ban ip's. — xaosflux Talk 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
we don't ban IPs at all; we block them. Terminology. :P ~crazytales56297.chasing cars//e 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The wannabe IP spoofing username was blocked, which was my main concern. 68.39.174.238 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user evading block

It would appear that sockpuppeteer Pnatt (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is back on a new user account called Footyfan. He's pushing his POV-style edits, etc. in the MySpace and Cranbourne, Victoria articles again (same exact edits that have been refused by consensus over and over again when Myspaceaddictaust was pushing them, even causing a RfC to be started. Need help blocking the new account before it starts to take off. Thanks. ju66l3r 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't help with blocking, but I can help keep an eye on him. Sadly, Pnatt is one where we dropped the ball. He had every prospect of becoming a dedicated and detailed editor, despite (or perhaps because of) his OCD, but we didn't find any good ways of communicating with him and steering himtowards the right way of doing things. Instead he got an escalating series of blocks. I came in late and tried to help, but by that stage he was convinced we were all a pack of bastards. In the end, I gave up on him because he won't make any effort to work with others. He's done things like this before, but he's fairly easy to spot because a series of differently named new editors appear to make the same edits on the same articles. --Jumbo 22:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a new one. ju66l3r 16:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with some trolling

Hi, can someone please block Jakov123 (talk • contribs)? He most likely created it to impersonate Jakov.miljak (talk • contribs), and now is leaving comments like theseThis edit has been oversighted. — Werdna talk criticism 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC). Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this guy needs to get blocked. Nothing but talk page vandalism and clumsy attempts at revealing personal info. —Nate Scheffey 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Dealt with. JoshuaZ 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The edit you point to has been oversighted. — Werdna talk criticism 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A page which keeps getting created

Patrick Buri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The page Patrick Buri has been deleted several times, see [57], originally following a discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Buri. The page has now been created again but nothing seems to have changed to make it keep-worthy. I have put up speedy deletion templates but they keep getting removed. I request that an administrator take a look at it. Regards, Stefán 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it and protected it from recreation. This latest version wasn't exactly the same as the AfDed version... That version was better than this one. Still unsourced and not notable. Grandmasterka 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need some more help...

This time with the banned user Mywayyy. Currently he is disrupting Greek island articles as 88.218.69.147 (talk • contribs). —Khoikhoi 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic IP. Just revert on sight. Sasquatch t|c 03:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
We've all been reverting...can someone please block 88.218.69.147 (talk • contribs) and 88.218.44.154 (talk • contribs)? —Khoikhoi 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope all those places have a significant Turkish population as I just reverted all of em. El_C 04:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, not all, but as we know, having a Turkish population today doesn't have to be the only factor. These islands were part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Also, even if Mywayyy is right, the user is banned anyways. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Even Crete? Don't we go by currently living population? The Ottoman Empire hasn't been around for nearly a century. El_C 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware a present-day population is the only factor. See Cretan Turks. —Khoikhoi 05:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
All of these places dont have ANY Turkish population. I dont think that beeing part once of the Ottoman Empire justifies to have the Turkish name at the opening line. It is unacceptable and users such as Khoikhoi just dont get it. Mywayyy
I concur with El_C. A Greek island should not have a Turkish name unless it has a significant Turkish population, and vice versa. --physicq210 05:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to discuss this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places), if you want... —Khoikhoi 05:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, note that the Greek names are at İznik, Edirne, Bursa, İzmir, Trabzon, Kırklareli, Sinop, Mersin, Bergama, Bodrum, Muğla, Kastamonu, Eskişehir, and Konya. I'm not saying we should be "fair", but we both have the Greek names at Turkish city articles and the Turkish names at Greek islands (and some cities) for the same reason - history. —Khoikhoi 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there is general agreement on this and it is implemented in an even-handed way, I have no objection. El_C 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Fascism - Complicated issues - could use help

One editor restored Islamic Fascism, as a text page. It had been a redirect page pointing to Islamofascism. The restoration included much duplicated text. The editor then proposed a merger from Islamofascism. There were only a few comments in the current discussion, and no consensus for a merger. Another editor proposed making the page a dismabiguation page. I agreed. We could have just restored it to the original redirect, this seemed like an actual compromise. Now the unhappy editor continues to recreate the Islamic Fascism, page as a text entry, demands another merger vote, and inserts into Neofascism and religion the false claim that the "Main Page" on discussing Islam and fascism is Islamic Fascism. This needs to be cooled out. I am open to being told I am reading this all wrong, but it is a mess that is being caused by one user, when there are several options open, including discussions at Islamofascism and Neofascism and religion, which I have suggested repeatedly.--Cberlet 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are wrong; we've been through this before and have already gone to exhaustive lengths to reach the current comrpomise. El_C 05:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree here (as editor not as admin, obviously). There are, as far as I can see, two separate and distinct concepts here: the history of fascist overtures to Islamic countries pre 1945, and the modern concept of "islamofascism". To disambiguate the two seems the logical course of action, especially when a third usage, in neofascism and religion, also presents itself. Guy 10:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

@JzG/Guy, tx for letting me know about this topic being talked about on this page.

The problem is that someone had been removing all references to "Islamic fascism" from the "Islamofascism" page, even in contexts where the expression "Islamic fascism" had clearly been used as a synonym of (or at least interchangeable with) what you called on my talk page "the recent concept of islamofascism" (definitely not the pre-1945 stuff).

That is a NPOV problem, which, as far as I can see can not be solved by the technical surgery of declaring that the Islamofascism page is only about a word disconnected from its meaning. As far as I understand guidance on the matter (WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Content forking,...) Wikipedia does not allow to make two separate pages, with differring content, about a same *concept* even if there are two synonyms referring to that same concept.

If there would be agreement to treat 21st century synonyms to "Islamofascism" on the Islamofascism page that page would no longer be a POV fork. There is currently a POV fork in this sense while the page doesn't clarify that if a post-9/11 speaker/author uses both the expressions "Islamofascism" and "Islamic fascism" there is generally no reason to assume these expressions are used to signify something different - or is there any reason to assume that?

As far as I know there's only one Wikipedian opposing to clarify that on the Islamofascism page. Could we join to try and convince user:Netscott that it is not a good idea to remove all references to "Islamic fascism" from the Islamofascism page, like this user has been doing in the past, e.g. [58]? --Francis Schonken 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But this type of content question should be decided on Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion, and if editors there agree to a page name change or text content changes, then that is what collaborative editing has produced. The issue on this Administrator notice page is that Francis Schonken is not willing to carry out this discussion on the pages where all the other editors are editing, and instead keeps recreating a redundant (and POV fork) page, Islamic Fascism, where 80% of the text is already on the other pages, and declaring all of us have to move over to that page for the discussion. But this page was a redirect, and most of the text had already been moved to Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. These text move and the turning of Islamic Fascism into a redirect was a compromise produced after a huge, contentious, and lenghty dispute. Even so, these decisions can all be changed through editor discussion and constructive consensus, but that is not what is happening.
This is not a merger issue, it is either a page name change issue (which has been repeatedly rejected) or a text content issue (in which Francis Schonken so far has been unable to convince other editors that certain edits should be retained). So I asked for the page Islamic Fascism be locked as a disambiguation page, and came here to seek help in getting Francis Schonken to discuss these issues on Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. This is a question of increasingly disruptive activity that I think is in part due to the fact that, in this case, a page merger mechanism about a redirect page (now a disambiguation page) is not a constructive way to find a consensus among editors for possible changes--and in any case, the merger idea never received any clear support. --Cberlet 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Islamic fascism is best as a disambiguation page, or a redirect of that's not needed. If someone wants to rename Islamofascism to Islamic Fascism, there is a mechanism to do that, though I don't think it would be a good idea. Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Stone me! VoA protected the right version! Better head over to meta... Guy 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

Please warn NazireneMystic about incivility and personal attacks directed against the other editors on the Talk: Ebionites pages. We are going through Peer Review of the article. All of the religious commentary and personal insults are making it difficult to work effectively. --Ovadyah 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no blatant personal attacks (not to say there isn't, just maybe a lack of knowledge of the history of this dispute may impede this judgement), and the civility is six up, half a dozen down. I'm not sure whether it warrants a warning or not, so I'm not going to place it. Any diffs would be great to this alleged behaviour. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I offer as evidence this post about me to another editor's user page: Good Faith. This occurred immediately after being reminded of the guidelines posted on the Talk:Ebionites page - to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks against me. The argument NazireneMystic makes here is that I am not deserving of such consideration because I am unethical. I consider this gentle reminder by Loremaster to be an npa1 warning. I am requesting an npa2 warning be placed on this user's page because the character attacks have not ceased. Ovadyah 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
See also this second version Good faith? where Loremaster implores this editor to not use the article to wage a campaign to expose my sins. I have been dealing with this kind of behavior since mid-July and it needs to stop. Ovadyah 19:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio problem, not sure how large

I found two geographic articles on South America (Purunllacta and Cerro Olán) that had been copied from travel sites. I then found another from the same author (Gran Vilaya) that showed signs of having been run through a machine translator, turning Spanish pages into bad English, but I was able to find the Spanish source page for that one. Although the author (Priscilla D (talk • contribs)) denies this is a pattern, I have to wonder about the sources for her other contributions, all of which are short geographical articles. In scanning through them, most show the bad English of a machine translation, which makes locating any original source difficult. Author's English seems somewhat limited. Not sure if someone needs to go back through them. Fan-1967 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and check them, and report back to us what pages are copyvios and we will deal with them and the user who wrote the articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Sock

Please refer to #Samir Bhadva (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and block the latest sock User:Akrazy Bhadva -- Lost(talk) 10:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more: User:Olaf Tommason and User:Alost Bhadva. Same vandalism -- Lost(talk) 10:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
All blocked -- Samir धर्म 12:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism problem

I'm having a problem with a user, Deucalionite, who has a long history of problem articles (unsourced edits, original research, copyvios, for some background see here). One copyvio article of his ([59]) was now found out by the plagiarised author, who yesterday joined Wikipedia and rightly complained about her PhD dissertation having been plagiarised from ( [60]). I contacted both the complainant ([61]) and the offending user ([62]). Unfortunately, I have a somewhat troubled history with this user (I was heavily monitoring what I considered highly problematic work of his back in June, and he feels I'm stalking him), so his reaction was defiant and, let's say, less than constructive, not really showing any understanding of what the problem is. Maybe my own wording was also a bit more tense than it would have been otherwise. Could someone review the ensuing exchange here [63] and consider if this needs intervention? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing ifd warning

User:Deathrocker is contantly ([64], [65], [66])removing the "Image for deletion" warning from Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg. --Abu Badali 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him. If he reverts again, I'll block for 3RR, anyway. --InShaneee 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it for a reason; the image has no free alternative, and Abu Badali persits in covering up the rational gave for it. [67] He claims "a free image for the purpose of showing this person can be easly produced." in place of the rational, yet refuses to prove this, provide a free alternative, or discuss his sabotage attemps on the image's rational here on its talkpage. - Deathrocker 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if you disagree, the correct way is to post a comment on the IFD page, NOT remove the tag. Removing the tag does nothing but piss people off. Hbdragon88 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UE

Luwalhati repeatedly replaces the current content of Template:UE with an infobox he/she has created. Not only is this disruptive (as this the warning template for the translation team), but I've explained to him/her on his talk page that this is disruptive, and left instructions on how he/she can create the template appropriately. The user refuses to communicate with me, and continues to void the template and insert entirely different content.--Esprit15d 18:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You warned her after first time, she did it again. I think you have to wait until the second incursion to get WP:AIV going. Hbdragon88 20:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dining philosopher

Back in July, Dining philosopher (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) vandalized the Andhra Pradesh page [68], [69], [70], [71]. He was given a warning at that time by Ganeshk about this. Dining Philosopher also cut-pasted whole paragraphs off websites.

He was absent for two months, but apparently resurfaced today, to launch personal attacks on Ganeshk [72], [73], calling him Bloody idiot, dimwit. He also went ahead and re-inserted the copyvio text [74], [75], [76]. Also, he blanked citations given in the article. Upon given advice on Wikipedia's relevant policies, he demanded to know why people from other nations want to edit the article in question. He also launched personal attacks referring to my nationality.


Since I'm involved, I do not want to take any administrative actions, but based on his behavior, I request some other admin to look into the diffs provided above, and take appropriate actions. Thanks. --Ragib 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given him a 24 hour 'time out', and deleted his userpage (a racist rant). --InShaneee 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Ragib 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 202.129.135.43

Please consider blocking/ banning this user - he has made several edits, none of them legitimate.

In the future please take such reports to WP:AIV. I have given 202.124* a warning. JoshuaZ 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] malicious editing from user:Shawcorss

Shawcorss has been systematically changing articles regarding civil rights issues (he inserts attacks on Democrats as racists--and adds true info like JFK voted against the civil rights law when he was a senator. Editors catch him quickly, and he has been warned, but this sort of systematic vandalism should be blocked. Rjensen 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that confirms that Shawcorss is not engaged in malicious editing but rather, has presented suppressed truth as is public record and historically accurate.

[edit] http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

Actually ------Before you bad mouth someone ------maybe you should research and discover the truth as recorded in history--not opinion. According to Wikepedia employees,the following fact must remain buried: "As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed...Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act...When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act." The following link is just one of many archives where truth does confirm the truth about Civil Rights leading up to and after 1964.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Why would you not say that truth in a true Encyclopedia? Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Why would you not tell the world that the man who wrote the 1964 civil Rights bill was a REPUBLICAN named Dirksen and after the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

THIS IS FACT. THIS IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. Research it before you delete the truth or are you just a bunch of Propagandists.

This is just one link that confirms these truths--- Click Here > [77]

[REV. RS] Rjensen 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

Actually ------Before you bad mouth someone ------maybe you should research and discover the truth as recorded in history--not opinion. According to Wikepedia employees,the following fact must remain buried: "As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed...Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act...When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act." The following link is just one of many archives where truth does confirm the truth about Civil Rights leading up to and after 1964.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Why would you not say that truth in a true Encyclopedia? Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Why would you not tell the world that the man who wrote the 1964 civil Rights bill was a REPUBLICAN named Dirksen and after the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

THIS IS FACT. THIS IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. Research it before you delete the truth or are you just a bunch of Propagandists.

This is just one link that confirms these truths--- Click Here > [78] [REV. RS] Rjensen 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From ArthasMan

The City Chart High School page has a vandal who constantly changes the name of the founders to goofy names such as pie, NONEXISTANT, etc

[edit] From SledDogAC

The information I have added to the webpages is all correct and verifiable. I have provided documentation for what I write, in sharp contrast to AKMask's edits. AKMask doesn't want wikipedia to be neutral. This person has an a pro-Iditarod, pro-musher agenda that he or she only wants the public to know. If wikipedia wants to be held in high regard, it will ban administrators and editors like AKMask who act like dictators to keep facts from being told. I certainly don't deserve to be banned. Here's an example of what I've added and what has been repeatedly deleted by AKMask: (removed due to enormity)

[edit] The Rockets

Hello,

I don't know all the rules or procedures of Wikipedia, for that I apologize. However I have attempted to edit the page for "The Rockets" with some but not total satisfaction. One of the definitions you have posted reads as follows:

"Crazy Horse (band) — An American rock and roll band which was originally named "The Rockets".

In fact the Crazy Horse band was only one of at least two bands that have used the name the rockets The Detroit band mentioned was probably more well known as "The Rockets" than The crazy horse band was. While Crazy Horse is certainly notable, They used that name for a year or so, The Detroit Rockets used the name for 10+ years. and can still be heard frequently on Detroit FM stations.


The second, as one of your own admins pointed out, was a well known Band from Detroit. They put out 6 albums total, had several songs that charted and were formed by two of the former members of the "Detroit Wheels" Their singer sang for a period with Ted Nugent. They were the opening act for major bands of the period such as Kiss, ZZ Top, amungst many others. They had some but primarily local Detroit sucess with such hits as "Turn Up The Radio", "OH Well", "Takin it back" and others. They deserve more than a "See also, Detroit Wheels" I would be happy to attempt to do them better justice but I'm not sure I would be the best person to do so given my inexperience of WIKI and all the ins and outs, formatting ect. I will probably never find a reply so it may be better to send replies to crider.john@comcast.net

Thanks


See the following links:

http://www.johnny-bee.com/ http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Street/2818/ http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=3550 http://madrabbit.net/rockets/

[edit] Suggest community ban of User:Mccready from editing Pseudoscience articles for one month

Mccready (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has exhausted the patience of many editors of many pseudoscience articles. I suggest a one month ban from editing any pseudoscience article. The ban can be enforced by any administrator with a 31 hour block. Mccready is encouraged to use the talk pages of these articles to make suggestions about ways to improve the article. Many editors of these articles recognize his knowledge on the topics but can not deal with his insistence on editing the article precisely his way. This includes many editors that share his skeptical view about these topics. The other alternatives are a longer block to try and make him understand the need for consensus editing or an arbitration case. The community needs to act now because these articles are losing good editors out of frustration with having to deal with Mccready. [79] I'm encouraging Mccready and the editors of these articles to comment here. Thoughts and other suggestions welcome? FloNight 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some backstory if I am not mistaken between FloNight and this user and with SlimVirgin[80]. Seems FloNight supported a block that Mccready was unhappy with at one point. --User:Zer0faults 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify; Flo's proposal here followed a request from me on her Talk page that she review Mccready's edits on one particular day; I approached her because I judged that she would be cool and knowledgeable in this matter.Gleng 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been somewhat involved in the article and while I agree with a fair bit of Mccready is trying to do he has been stubborn and uncivil. However the article that is the focus of this (Pseudoscience) as a whole is such a complete mess with so much edit warring that I'm not sure Mccready is any worse than many others. No strong attitude either way. JoshuaZ 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please ask him, if no penalty is laid out, to stop using popups for reverting. Its creating a page where it looks like he is just reverting to revert, there are no edit summaries in most cases stating what he is objecting to, that kind of reverting may bother other users. --User:Zer0faults 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There has been a lot of reverting on all the pseudoscience and related articles for a long time now. Lots of disputed tagging of Category:Psudoscience on various articles, see for example Category:Alternative medicine. This is one of those simmering disputes and I don't think a block of one editor will resolve it. If anything is to be done it should go through RfC at least. --Salix alba (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Using popup for revering non-vandalism isn't a good idea. But this hint is even missing from Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. --Pjacobi 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Reversion is clearly warned against in WP:DR, however, which Mccready has been made aware of repeatedly. --Jim Butler(talk) 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point. It's the question, whether popups reverting should be restricted to vandalism reverts, as are admin button reverts. --Pjacobi 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. My point is that reverting is generally discouraged except in the case of vandalism (see also Help:Reverting), so the specific case of popups is no different. WP:ES talks about the need for leaving some sort of edit summary that's helpful to other editors. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups describes an option that lets the user be prompted to add an edit summary under popupRevertSummaryPrompt. Mccready's edit history for 11 Sept. 2006 does show a number of reverts using popups, some (not all) of which closely follow discussion on the talk page; edit summaries in such cases would help casual readers understand that you are indeed discusssing. Mccready, if you adjust your monobook.js file you should be able to use popups and leave an informative edit summary, which will improve others' assumption of your good faith. --Jim Butler(talk) 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this ban - I have tried to reason with Mccready in the past over pseudoscience categorisation and it is not easy to do, but since his previous ban he has not caused any conflict over this particular issue. I hope such a ban will help him to change his attitude to other editors. --apers0n 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the ban too. I had a similar problem with McCready some months ago, and I'm disappointed to see it has continued with other editors. People have been very patient with McCready, and FloNight and Friday have both tried to help him, so I feel we should trust their judgment about how to proceed. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I reviewed a sample of recent edits and found a mix of good and indifferent. For example, removing "Reflexology Works - Case Studies As To Why It Works" from reflexology is perfectly acceptable by me. Perhaps we should instead ban all the fans of these pseudosciences who keep inserting special pleading? Guy 17:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
He's exhausted the patience of many there. I support it as well. FeloniousMonk 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Support, though a "community ban" of one month in a specific subject matter isn't really a community ban, IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't recall any personal run-in with McCready... I only know of him based on his edits, his comments and other people's comments about him. I just took the time to read through all of McCready's talk pages (including the archived ones). I see a lot of complaints lodged against him by a great deal of frustrated editors. I also took a look at his recent edits and took note of when he was recently blocked. In each recent instance of being blocked, McCready was warned against using pop-ups to do mass reverts. Despite these warnings, he went right back to doing mass reverts with the pop-up tool. He was also warned about making personal attacks or as we call them here ad hominem. Yet, McCready ignores these pleadings and continues to insult other editors and push his POV at the expense of civility. There have been many attempts to see if he would change his ways, but each time he disappoints us. I think we are done testing him to see if he will learn. It's time for the rest of us to learn. We can try this 10-day ban, but personally I don't think it's enough. TheDoctorIsIn 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I still perceive some uncivility and uncollaborativeness. He's trending positive lately, using Talk pages to discuss more popup reverts than in the past, but still not all. (He says he uses popups to compensate for a slow dialup connection, but as I noted above, Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups shows how to leave an edit summary when using popups). Smart editor, underestimates others' intelligence and good faith, needs to work on collaborating. --Jim Butler(talk) 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with the chance for mediation. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and he has repeatedly decided not to collaborate. You can tell by his edit history that he trolls for places to tag his opinions, mostly by deletions or adding pseudoscience to the category section. I can’t recall anytime he has added to the quality of a topic. The way he uses WP is not constructive and is disruptive to the whole process. I don’t care what he adds or detracts from the topic pseudoscience. That page is nonsense and full of unneeded negativity. A ban from that page by itself would be counterproductive. If he isn’t willing to change his editing, by contributing instead of “trolling and tagging” than I suppose a ban from the site, and not just a topic, would be in order. The admin needs to also make sure there aren’t any sock puppets coming from his IP address. Thanks for asking for my input. --Travisthurston 20:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm inlined to support as well, although not all of Mccready's edits have been bad. However, he is quite disruptive, so a ban of some length is warranted. •Jim62sch• 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Uncivil. No Discussion. However I agree with the general argument that it would be useful to come to a categorisation of many of the articles selected by Mccready. Sholto Maud 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support One month. Is that all? His long history of polarizing articles and editors has wasted the time of many good editors. He has used heavy-handed edits and reverts with no discussion resorting to uncivil edit summaries. I have personal history with this editor and he already has been blocked several times. This list would be shorter if instead we listed those editors who haven't had problems with him. Steth 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Mccready is always spot on with his targeted edits and I appreciate the heads-up for a weak spot, but his correction edit is usually just as POV in the opposite direction. His POV is important as it keeps everythng honest, but having to continually revert is disruptive and we can spend days on one sentence to get consensus then Mccready will come back and start it all over again with the same edit. Again the process comes to a stop. As long as his talk page comments remain civil and he is able to avoid ad hominem language, I would apprectiate his help. Maybe this way he can actually develop a rapport with editors that will be constructive. --Dematt 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I find him to be stubborn, uncivil, uncooperative and a bully. Aside from attacking and stalking editors, he also makes wild claims such as he is the only one in all of Wikipedia who is responsible enough to decide what constitutes a good edit. Another editor frustrated with him said he has an intractable sense of Know-It-All-ism. I can't speak for all of his edits, but on the topics which I edit, I can certainly affirm that he doesn't know it all. None of us do. What he is good at is "wikilawyering" his way out of the many blocks and warnings which he has received in his short time here. I believe that he has insulted and bullied several Wikipedians and Admins to the point where they give up on WP entirely. I have pointed out to him that there are a great deal of editors who are annoyed with him... hoping that realizing this would cause him to reform his ways. It has not. I have gone through the trouble of listing out all of the pop up reverts that he did in one 24-hour period, hoping that laying it out for him would help he realize the havoc he creates. That didn't work apparently. I had also hoped that his 1, 3, and 5 day blocks would help him see the light. Clearly these haven't had any effect on him either. It's high time we send a much stronger message by way of much stonger penalty. A one month block from WP across the board seems entirely warranted here. Call me a bleeding-heart, but I think McCready is still capable of reform. Levine2112 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Okay Levine2112, you're "a bleeding-heart" .....;-) I am not as optimistic. -- Fyslee 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support And if issues keep going make it longer. This editor has exhausted the community patience. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Make the ban effective now Why hasn't the ban been effected yet, and why not make it total, since he does it on many articles? I see no ban yet. Isn't there some way to remove or block the privilege of using pop-ups? -- Fyslee 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this silliness; Mccready is a little forthright but he is fighting with editors who are trying to whitewash articles on quackery (aka "alternative medicine") in contravention WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shell Kinney's block of ScienceApologist

I would like to question the block of ScienceApologist (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). The block reason was "POV pishing, removal of sourced information", neither of which are objective or valid block reasons. As far as I can ascertain ScienceApologist was simply editing an article on one of those fringe scientists to be more in line with mainstream scientific thought; rather than being "POV-pushing", this appears to me to be more "NPOV-pushing". As for "removal of sourced information", just because something is sourced doesn't automatically mean that it indefinitely merits inclusion in an article. Articles grow too long, they need to be trimmed, or maybe better information can be found ... regardless, removing some information is a natural part of the editing process, and does not appear to me to be a reason why someone should be blocked. Unless there are some objections I would like to go ahead and unblock ScienceApologist, as it appears to me that this block was inappropriate. I would also caution Shell Kinney to use more care in the future with her admin tools rather than simply blocking someone because she disagrees with him. [apparently there's more to this than it first appears] Your thoughts? --Cyde Weys 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#ScienceApologist_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 came through the personal attack intervention noticeboard - it wasn't really in the right place, but after a day of looking into the issue it appeared there was a real problem with ScienceApologist pushing a POV on the article, up to and including removed sourced info and even replacing it with negative information from a dubious source. He's continued to edit war insisting on these changes and talk page discussion hasn't done much to help - in addition to incivil edit summaries, gems like Just because something is verifiable does not mean that we must include it [81] when presented with information verifying the subject is a working "visting astronomer" at an observatory as opposed to his preferred "went on a visit to" said observatory. Unfortunately, the pattern outlined at the report, noted in the RfC and evident on the discussion page is that ScienceApologist is after the truth and discarding verifiability in the process. I left a note asking him to stop the behavior - he responded with a straw man on my talk and promptly continued his crusade.
So, in short, I've blocked him for 24 hours for tendentious editing, disrupting the article to push a POV and consistently violating WP:V on the article. His response was a fairly typical "heavy-handed" admin "ignorant" of the situation.... In any case, block here for review/adjustment/comment. Thanks. Shell babelfish 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You should have put that in the block reason then. As I currently see it, we have some people with strong beliefs on either side of this issue, and they need to meet somewhere in the middle through discussion and consensus. That can't be done if we simply block one side. However, if ScienceApologist is repeatedly reverting back to his preferred version and refuses to discuss, that obviously is an issue, and that should have been in the block reason and if it continues it should go to arbitration. --Cyde Weys 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely screwed the pooch on the blocking summary - I'll be more careful with it in the future. In my defense, I was writing this up here before the block was questioned, but that doens't excuse a sloppy summary. For the record, I'm not involved in the dispute and these folks seriously need to be using dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. I'm not going to unblock now ... it does sound like it was deserved. Glad I decided to discuss first rather than revert another admin's actions :-D Cyde Weys 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Which specific edits does shell consider POV here? Considering that the filing was made by an established pseudoscience POV pusher, I have to question it's validity. I've reviewed SA's recent edits presented there and though he's been blunt, I see no evidence of "blantant" POV pushing or personal attacks. I consider this block questionable and too late (over 24 hrs after reported at WP:) to be anything other than punitive (blocking is not meant as punishment) and therefore am unblocking him. Please look a little deeper into those making the filings first next time. FeloniousMonk 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, the removal of sourced content he disagrees with and the addition of criticism based on a highly dubious comment on a blog entry - note that one of the statements he removed was from the Chicago Tribune of which he says "Chicago Tribune not a decent critical source." [82]; you might also note the heading change. If this is pseudoscience, it should be easy to come up with reliable sources to dispute the theories; there shouldn't be any need for underhanded tactics. Or despite two references to the contrary, continuing to insist "visiting astrologer" (connotation priviledges at the observatory) be replaced with "was asked to visit"[83]? Or maybe removing background information calling it "cruft"? [84].
Basically, there's a wealth of things to choose from and attacking the character of the person reporting the problem isn't solving anything. The block was for his most recent complete reversion to his preferred version, not about the report on the noticeboard - please read the ongoing discussion linked above. If you disagree with the block, that's fine, but please, don't pretend this is acceptable behavior.Shell babelfish 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In science, avoid citing the popular press (from WP:RS). SA stating that Chicago Tribune not a decent critical source is totally in line with policy and precedents. --Pjacobi 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Wouldn't this also make a comment on a blog a similarly poor source? Shell babelfish 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Lerner doesn't look to be a mainstream scientist, I don't see the issue with saying as much. That the person who filed the report has a long history of promoting pseudoscience at the expense of actual science is relevant, particularly when WP processes are misused to gain the upper hand over his opponents in simple content disputes, as his subsequent comments indicate [85] [86]. FeloniousMonk 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You're skirting the issue - this isn't about whether or not someone is a mainstream scientist. Again, I ask that you read the information provided. I reviewed the dispute for 24 hours before issuing a warning on the situation - my response had nothing to do with who initiated the report and everything to do with the actual behavior involved. Both parties should be involved in more dispute resolution. Its worth noting that the RfC I pointed out earlier had several people coming to the same conclusion about ScienceApologist's edits that I did. He pushes a mainstream POV and actively seeks to discredit those he considers fringe - in and of itself, not so much of a problem, but when it leads to constant reverting, removing verified information and being forced to support your opinion with some random comment on a blog, then it becomes an issue. Hopefully everyone involved can work on developing a consensus and remember that verifiability doens't equal truth. Shell babelfish 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Learner's work is viewed as pseudoscience. Thus SA when "He pushes a mainstream POV" is simply applying WP:NPOV. Again, where's the blockable offense? That SA "actively seeks to discredit those he considers fringe" is an assumption on your part. Much of the debate on fringe science takes place on blogs, as with intelligent design. FeloniousMonk 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As FeloniousMonk and this additional caveat:
Whereas we are guided by WP:BLP to stay on the safe side in biographies, at Eric Lerner (and rather typical for not-so-mainstream-scientists) there is not only biography proper to be found, but also his scientific views and theories. I'd say that such sections have to take as much (of course sourced) criticisms by as a sepaarte article would do.
Pjacobi 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll add that I'm totally surprised that ScienceApologist has been blocked. I know him as probably the best editor of articles on physics we have on Wikipedia. It's possible that he went too far fighting over scientific truth (but even here I can understand his zeal as a scientist myself) but after looking into the article, I can confirm that he was as right as one can be. Whatever Eric Lerner does, it's not mainstream science. Friendly Neighbour 19:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Iantresman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) has a history of POV pushing bizarre pseudophysics unsupported by research, and is not above wikilawyering or sailing close to WP:NPA himsef. Mr Apologist, who I know is a proper physicist and should be congratulated for remaining relatively calm in the face of such nonsense. — Dunc|☺ 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can not believe some of the comments here. ScienceApologist consistently removed positive verifiable information from the article, as I described, and has done so before [87].
  • If the Chicago Tribune comment was removed because it is "not a decent critical source", why did ScienceApologist insist on including (a) information in another article sourced from Creationist Web sites (self published) [88] (b) Add the "David Spergel" criticism,[89], whose only source appears to be a comment on someone's blog [90] which fails Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources.
  • It is irrelevent whether Lerner is a mainstream scientists or not, he still deserves respect and an NPOV write-up.
  • I do not have "a history of POV pushing bizarre pseudophysics". Just because a subject is not mainstream does not make it pseudophysics, and nor is mentioning such subjects POV pushing as described therein.
  • And what do you mean that "Mr Apologist, who I know is a proper physicist". ScienceApologist is an anonymous, unaccountable editor. Eric Lerner has about 50 peer reviwed papers to his credit.
So we have one Admin (FeloniousMonk) calling me a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher",[91] and someone else (above) accusing me of "a history of POV pushing bizarre pseudophysics unsupported by research". Surely not discrediting comments? Thank goodness I didn't contribute to the ariticles on Gay/Black rights or Communism. --Iantresman 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A few points. First, Iantresman's history is not intrinsically relevant to the matter at hand. If there is a general problem with Ian's behavior an RfC should be filed or some similar behavior attempted. That said, from reading the above, the only thing I can see from SA's behavior that is at all problematic is including a blog entry. Note that in some cases we have considered blogs to be acceptable when they are written by people in the relevant field whose names and associations are clear and publically acknowledge the blogs as their's. While, I don't think the blog in question obviously meets that standard the attempted citation of a source which does not meet WP:RS hardly seems block worthy. Now as a separate matter-Ian's report- I don't see any strong issues of personal attack problems. Ian should bear in mind that WP:NPA applies against Wikipedia editors. Calling the subject of an article a "woo-woo" does not as far as I can see even lead to a WP:BLP problem. The only other issue here might therefore be some minor civility concerns. None of this however is block worthy. Furthermore, the only remaining matter of concern-the blog entry-is not a matter for a personal attack report. If FM is correct that Iantres has a history of these sorts of erroneous reports then I would strongly caution him not to do so again. JoshuaZ 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2. (If I remember everything right) in relation to that issue, SA got blocked by User:Ed Poor and User:Jossi, nearly left the project and stopped contributing under his real name. RfAr result completely cleared SA. --Pjacobi 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to come back from very far afield and all the attempts to twist this around, the block was about completely discarding WP:V and sustained edit warring over a ridiculously long period of time. I asked very, very nicely for him to stop with the edit warring and was on my way to ask the same of the other major party (who, by the way, I would have blocked too if he wholesale reverted again). To clarify, there's no concern about mainstream POV being the prominent POV in the article. I can't see why ScienceApologist is insisting on a crap source just to get one more criticism in there (at 7, the article is hardly bankrupt of mainstream opinions). I don't understand why he's falling back on original research (his opinion of what a log means) to get a certain turn of phrase he wants. Above all, I'm not sure why this is worth constant edit warring instead of using the dispute resolution process. The aim, admirable - the methods, sloppy. If someone felt it wasn't block worthy, that's fine and why I offered other admins to change it at will but can we please stop pretending there's some moral high ground just because he has good intentions? Shell babelfish 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, and I wouldn't - because I agree with it. --Crimsone 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • JoshuaZ, I would humbly like to note the context. I agree that a blog-sourced entry by itself is no reason to block a user. This is about bias. To claim that a positive comment sourced to the Chicago Times is "not descent", AND, then to replace it with a negative comment which is either unsourced, or sourced to a blog, is surely more than just an issue of reliable sources.
  • In this context, of removing positive information (other examples [92] [93] [94]), to further remove the NASA-verifiable statement that Lerner was a "visiting astronomer" [95] should be taken how? Where is the ambiguity, where is the contention? --Iantresman 21:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ and FeloniousMonk. Nothing warranting a block. Also I suggest that in the future when you plan to block well established editors that you note it on AN/I for review before you block. This gives the community a chance to provide background information and context before the block. FloNight 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Flo, I did talk to other administrators about the issue - in fact, it came up twice in the past 24 hours. Even though other's felt that SAs behavior was getting a bit over the top, I still posted it here for even more opinions. You can look back through this board and see there's only been one other time I've blocked for disruption -- I don't use the tools lightly. I checked and cross-checked; people obviously disagree. It happens sometimes and its why I invite people to recind/change the block if they feel strongly different. Not once have I suggested SA should be reblocked or that FM can't view the situation differently, all I've said is that this was about breaking policies, not some arbitrary reasoning I pulled out of thing air. Shell babelfish 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shell, blocking a well established editor with many good edits should be a very last resort. There needs to be wide community support. I'm suggesting that a full discussion with the community that includes the editor needs to occur before the block. Editors decide to leave the project or take prolonged breaks due to controversial blocks. If that happens in this case it will be a great loss to the project. FloNight 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Several editors have pointed out a misunderstanding of my comments here, so I wanted to clear it up. I am not defending the block - other administrators felt it wasn't warranted and it was reversed - done deal. The only thing I have a problem with is being accused of blocking because of bias, to gain the upperhand in a content dispute or out of some kind of malice. I also disagree with some editor's interpretation of SA's edits - I don't believe that unsourced edits or original research should be used for the "good" of any article. But again, other administrators felt this wasn't block worthy and reversed it and I have absolutely no problem with that. Shell babelfish 10:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This dispute is created by the self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV in lacking clear and useable definitions for "bias," POV, and NPOV. And in the absence of clear definitions of "bias," POV, and NPOV, packs of editors roam, ripping from Wikipedia whatever cited NPOV their dogma does not like. No administrator should have to justify blocking someone for deleting cited NPOV from a Wikipedia page. The explicit policy text of WP:NPOV should state that deleting cited NPOV from a page is wrong without replacing that scholar's POV with some clearer, cited, and published statement of another similarly partial scholar. After all, our job here is to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" against any significant view. The murky and self-contradictory text of WP:NPOV must be rewritten to support NPOV--which is to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias." --Rednblu 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point to this trolling, Rednblu? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you cut the above ad hominem and this response to my TalkPage where I would be glad to discuss that topic with you when I have time, my friend. And the question remains: What shall we do to rewrite the WP:NPOV page to have clear and useful definitions for "bias," POV, and NPOV? --Rednblu 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So there is no point to your trolling? Trying to avoid the question by accusing me of a personal attack where there was none is not an answer. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The self-contradictory text of the WP:NPOV page supports both of the opposing actions of Shell and SA.
  • On the one hand, the WP:NPOV page requires that: To be NPOV, the Eric Lerner page "must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." Shell supported this wording by preventing the bias against the POV of the cited NASA announcement that SA deleted. SA violated this wording by biasing the page by removing the significant POV of the cited NASA announcement and inserting in its place the differing POV of the ESO list of visiting parties and inviters.
  • On the other hand, the WP:NPOV page also contains the wrongly worded statement that "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." SA supported this wording by removing the bias he detected in the NASA announcement and fixing it with the citation to the ESO visitor list. Shell violated this wording by preventing the fix that suited SA's detection of bias.
The underlying difficulty is that no significant portion of the Wikipedia community wants to clarify the definitions for "bias," POV, and NPOV in the WP:NPOV page. This is like a community not wanting clear and self-consistent definitions for what red, yellow, and green mean on the traffic lights at the intersections; they would rather enforce their own definitions at their own favorite intersections. Consequently in the absence of clear and self-consistent definitions, at any intersection and Wikipedia page where there are extreme POV biases among the editors, there is an on-going power struggle among whoever is there at the time over what red, yellow, green, "bias," POV, and NPOV mean. In the ensuing mêlée, rather than good and clear encyclopedia pages, the results are pages in the unclear, mangled, and POV state of New anti-semitism, ..., .... In these early days, the Eric Lerner page has not grown to the New anti-semitism length yet. But all the necessary power-struggles over the unclear and self-contradictory text in the WP:NPOV page are there already with enough energy to make it blossom into another sorry page if every POV and bias does its duty under "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed," which is the duty to fix the bias that bias detects. For all of the above, reasons, we need to work together to develop clear and self-consistent definitions for "bias," POV, and NPOV in the text of the WP:NPOV page. What do you think would be a good first step? --Rednblu 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ScienceApologist responds

There's a few things I'd like to get straight:

  1. Shell Kinney came into this situation very dictatorially and did not discuss her actions civilly with the other editors.
  2. She did not try to ascertain what the conflict was and did no research into the history of the conflict.
  3. She unilaterally blocked me for what she now admits was a different offense than the one in her blocking summary.
  4. She did not follow the procedures outlined on the Wikipedia page that describes what to do if a block is controversial.
  5. She did not get any input from any other editors or administrators before unilaterally blocking.
  6. She did not warn me specifically that I was going to be blocked on my talkpage before she blocked me, despite my explanation on her talkpage regarding the matter.
  7. She has made up false accusations about me (such as that I've been a consistent edit warrior in this article for a year)
  8. Right now it seems that the entire issue is based on anger over a single sourced blog as a poor source? I'm not sure what blog in question we are dealing with, but if it is the preposterous universe blog, this is a well-respected blog by a rather prominent astronomer at the University of Chicago.

Furthermore:

  1. There is no indication that she looked at talkpage/archives of the affected article.
  2. There is no indication that she looked at the links I made on her talkpage about this conflict.
  3. There is no indication that she considered whether or not this was a content dispute and whether it was appropriate to block over such a dispute.

As such, I think that Shell Kinney needs to take a good hard look at her shoot-first-ask-questions-later administration tactics. This does not look to me like the actions of an administrator who is working to defuse conflicts. Right now I'm just about as upset as I was back in the Ed Poor days, and we're still dealing with the fallout of that nonsense nearly one year later. I feel very disrepsected by this Wikipedian.

I would like an apology from Shell Kinney for executing this action without doing the proper legwork or research to justify it. Or at the very least an explanation of the points I outlined above. I hope she understands the gravity of these issues.

--ScienceApologist 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


  1. I left a very civil message in which I explicitly stated that you might be blocked and pointed you to a list of the exact edits that were a concern.[96]
  2. There were more than 12 hours from the initial report [97] erroneously filed on WP:PAIN and my note on your talk page during which time I researched the dispute.
  3. My fault on the block summary; I was trying to write a better explanation here and should have done better in the block summary. It was not different, just horribly unclear.
  4. I'd like to know which of the points about controversial blocks I failed to follow.
  5. Yes, actually, I talked to administrators about it last night and again this morning.
  6. See answer to #1
  7. You said it had been a year [98]. If you were referring to the extended dispute on other articles and not just this one, I apologize for misunderstanding the remark.
  8. This is about the blog, the original research and the edit warring.

You did leave me a note and yet 10 minutes later, you blanketly reverted yet again which forced the issue. You rightly pointed out that you were not guilty of personal attacks; I had already made this point when the report was originally made and the note I left you certainly wasn't about personal attacks but the policy problems in some of your changes. I understand where you're trying to get with the article and its an admirable goal. I've mentioned elsewhere that your work keeping junk from becoming respectable by virtue of being listed here is remarkable. However, all the good work in the world doesn't entitle you to take shortcuts - you shouldn't use poor sources, you shouldn't use original research to justify wording changings and edit warring never gets anyone anywhere. If it wasn't block worthy, then it wasn't - that's preceisly why I posted here with the request for other admins to review and change at will.

Sadly, it seems that people are assuming an incredible amount of bad faith on my part. Shell babelfish 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You left a "very civil message"?! Sorry, you come across as incredibly condescending. You may not think that you are, but that's how you come across.
One wishes you would consider this
  • Us scientists, we have put a fair amount of work into our degrees. Please respect the dedication
  • Most everyone who has edited any science article will have come across a kook and his theory. The kook hasn't done got half the clue the bona-fide scientist has. We all have a very very short fuse as a result. Note: this isn't advocating against NPOV; this is saying that only with appropiate training one can put the kooky theory into proper context.
  • Next time you bump into such a conflict do get help from someone familiar with this issus. None of us are paid to edit here. Dr Zak 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dr Zak, then perhaps you'd appreciate more than most, that having put in a fair amount of work into degrees and research, that to have one specific editor (ScienceApologiest) remove your status as a physicist removed [99], to have your awards removed [100], to have your positive criticisms removed AND replaced with negative ones [101], taken TOGETHER, at the very least appear to be biased, if not bordering on an attempt to discredit certain individuals.
  • These particular edits do not require any knowledge as a scientists, just the ability to read sources. --Iantresman 09:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't respond to my points in turn, I'll bullet the list with my response:

  • Your "civil message" was responded by me in turn on your talkpage offering my opinion on the matter. The next correspondence I received from you was a block. No discussion, no attempt to figure out what my editting was about, you just simply blocked me. Warning that a user might be blocked should be accompanied by a reason. The reason you provided was incorrect as you later admitted and it is still nebulous yet as you will say on other points on this list.
  • Your actions leading up to the block amounted to you making a unilateral decision based on a list of links User:Iantresman provided. If you had asked around about this user, you would have found a number of administrators who would have cautioned you against taking him at face-value. I even referred you to a mediation cabal case to illustrate the point. As far as I can ascertain you did not research this user at all, nor did you look for the context of the edits he wrote down on the wrong page.
  • You did not engage in discussion with me, nor, it seems, did you do your homework in regards to this conflict. You simply preached and made pronouncements. This is not conduct becoming of an administrator.
  • Please show me where you talked to administrators about this before the block and where another administrator looked at the controversy and recommended you block me.
  • The dispute with Iantresman was ongoing for more than a year, but it was not about the Eric Lerner article. Check the links I made on your talkpage for more. This is illustrative of the problems I have with your advocacy. You are not careful in your characterizations of history. It's very easy to check because everything at Wikipedia is logged.
  • I reiterate that the blog in question is a perfectly legitimate source which you could have read about on the talkpage. The Preposterous Universe is written by a well-respected research astronomer at the University of Chicago. It is not an inappropriate inclusion especially because the scientific community basically ignores Eric otherwise (by his own admission according to a letter he signed).
  • There is no original research on Eric Lerner's page. Absolutely none. I challenge you to point to some.
  • If you wanted, I would have gladly provided you with the context for the links that Ian made. With context, none of the edits are evidence of POV-pushing, original research (I have no idea where that came from), nor edit-warring beyond the scope of this particular content dispute (see next bullet point).
  • For edit warring, there is a strict 3RR policy meant to address it as well as dispute resolution processes. You did not refer the conflict to any of these before blocking. I take this to be a punative action then targetted specifically against me.
  • I believe that "Edit warring" is in this case, strongly in the eye of the beholder. The conflict between myself, User:Iantresman and User:Elerner to me is a content dispute and I regard the edits by User:Elerner to be in conflict with WP:AUTO (an issue totally ignored by you). You'll also note that Iantresman hasn't offered an edit to the article since 19 July.
  • I see no attempt by you to discuss what the dispute was about on the talkpage of the article in question.

I am saddened that you will not offer an apology. This is beginning to remind me a lot of the Ed Poor case.

--ScienceApologist 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On the surface, this block appears questionable; I would'nt have imposed it myself. That said, I am concerned by SA's seeming mission to discredit Plasma cosmology (in general) in favour of the Hot Big Bang Model. Last I've heard, Hannes Alfvén was not a psuedoscientist, and HBB Modelers are still struggling to account for Dark Matter. Perhaps I missed crucial new findings that would work toward diminishing from the criticisms waged by many PCs that it remains yet another convinient HBBM deus ex machina, one ostensibly in service of deus... El_C 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hannes Alfvén is most certainly not the issue. Eric Lerner is the issue. I don't know where exactly El C is getting his sources from, but dark matter is a feature, not a problem to account for in the Big Bang. Most of the PC criticisms stem from the early 1990s (as outlined in the non-standard cosmology page) before precision measurements, redshift surveys, and supernovae observations honed us in on ΛCDM. But this is hardly the point. Discrediting PC is only done using verifiable, well-cited, and reliable sources. It isn't done by myself or any other editor. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
DM (cold or otherwise) appears to remain a pretty convinient presuppository feature of the Model, a feature which, since it dosen't interact with anything in the material universe, cannot (yet?) be conclusively proven to exist, but just happens to fit perfectly with HBBM, accounting for the vast majority of mass in the universe. Criticisms of theistic-driven agenda have no basis, you're saying? El_C 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
El C, you're out of contact with the workings of science. Physics will setup models giving formula which are in agreement with current observations and hopefully predict future observerations. ΛCDM has an excellent score in this disciplines. The question of "why" is left to theists, kooks and popular science journalists. Newton started this trend, you know? --06:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That dosen't really respond to anything that I say. Regardless, I do think that it is too early stage of human development to speak so confidently about the history/origin of the universe, as gospel truth. El_C 07:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
No scientific theory is gospel truth, that's your misunderstanding. But it has to be usefull. That's the difference between successfull theories and the trash heap of refuted oned. --Pjacobi 07:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You confuse how I nuance the manner in which the model is pushed (i.e. you won't get any grant money if you don't pledge to it) to a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific models work. That is a misunderstanding. Many models can have useful applications but that does not mean that the theory should override all other attempts at explanation. Discounting the ideological impetus behind the HBBM strikes me as rather naive. El_C 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting back to the point

Why is this thread about content? This is supposed to be about administrator actions on the basis of the information available at the time. Shell's actions were entirely reasonable when s/he had an editor (who it turns out is experienced enough to have known better) casting aside his/her express concerns and plunging on regardless.

As it happens, I entirely agree with ScienceApologist's arguments about why the blogger is worth listening to and why a generalist book review is not a guide to good science. And I can understand that he was heavily engaged in the article and annoyed by being asked to justify his actions. None of which makes it OK to blow off an admin trying to deal with a legitimate concern. If SA had paused in his editing while explaining to Shell: or, better, elucidated the arguments in the article for the benefit of Jo Reader (I follow the blog link and see "Posted by Sean". Great, who he?), we'd all be winners. In fact, maybe the article can still have such an elucidation. So can we all stop yelling and go home now? And have the content dispute on the article talk page? Y'all drive safely, now :-) JackyR | Talk 15:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law of unintended consequences

User:Elerner is back rewriting his biography here at Wikipedia. I tried to illustrate the conundrum here. The actions of this administrator has definitely made the conflict more complicated and protracted, in my opinion. --ScienceApologist 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by Eric Lerner

As the subject of this attack by Science Apologist(Joshua Schroeder), I think I need to comment. I am also requesting that SA not only be blocked from my article, but that the article is again protected in the same version that it was formerly protected...
The issue here is that SA is accusing me of lying and using false information to do it. I was a Visiting Astronomer at ESO in February 2006. I have so stated in several places. Not a big deal, but a fact.
SA has repeatedly reverted this fact on my wiki entry to state that I was invited by a friend to visit ESO, a completely different thing. If that were true, which someone relying on Wikipedia would believe, then my claiming that I was a Visiting Astronomer is a lie. In science, faking credentials is a particularly bad thing to do. But that is what anyone using Wikipedia will conclude about me, if SA’s edits are allowed to stand.
Of course this is just the most glaring example. As Shell points out, a lot of SA’s edits are extremely biased and, as on many, many other entries, he defends them by having seemingly unlimited time to revert continuously. This includes eliminating the views of James Van Allen, who I assume you all are familiar with.
SA’s behavior toward me is not exceptional. If you look at his user page he has been involved in a vast number of revert wars, all with the aim of purging Wikipedia of anything he deems unorthodox, including the views of scientists as distinguished as Halton Arp. (If you don’t know who he is, just consult any galactic atlas and see all the galaxies named Arp220 or Arp- some- other- number).
Here is just one random example:
'Comment by User:DavidRussell'

ScienceApologist consistently deletes any passages that refer to alternative interpretations of redshift. He then falsely claims that the redshift articles which already exist cover concepts that he has in fact deleted in previous attempts.

"Another critique of cosmological redshift also came from Halton C. Arp, who continues to find empirical support in the existence of apparently connected objects with very different redshifts. Arp has interpreted these connections to mean that these objects are in fact physically connected. He has further hypothesized that the higher redshift objects are ejected from the lower redshift objects - which are usually active galactic nuclei (AGN)- and that the large observed redshifts of these "ejected" objects is dominated by a non-cosmological (intrinsic) component. Conventional cosmological models regard these as chance alignments and Arp's hypothesis has very few supporters within the research community."
ScienceApologist (as Joshua Schroeder) saw fit to delete this passage claiming that it was not NPOV.
Comment by Jon
The infuriatingly stubborn and irrational behaviour of Joshua Schroeder is pretty much the principal reason I can't be bothered participating in Wikipedia much these days.
A random example from SA’s talk page
Uncivil
This edit: "People who parade about pseudoscience in place of actual science are irrational" is insulting and degrading. Please have some civility and stop reverting this article in contrast to the talk page. Bastique▼parler voir 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, SA’s behavior is a disgrace to Wikipedia .Elerner 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
And in Wikipedia's opinion, you should not be editing/edit-warring an article about you. See WP:AUTO. Guettarda 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he was not aware of WP:AUTO. Clearly, it's best that he restricts himself to the talk page (though he could appeal to Office, I suppose). The "visiting astronomer" issue does seem to merit a closer look. El_C 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Good grief, a member of Arbcom thinks blocking Giano for mild incivility to a major troll is a good idea last month, and now SA has been blocked for his usual diligent thankless work on science articles, on the word of a known POV pusher and this is supported by someone violating AUTO, and we're supposed to think this makes it legit? No wonder good editors are sometimes scarce around here. Minor apologies for the ascerbic tone... One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Lar a "major troll"? Metamagician3000 10:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Truth be known, I'm a science apologist, triumphalist, erm, supporter, too! Go science! Still, this dosen't seem so clear-cut yet. El_C 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite agree, El_C, but this was surely not a case for blocking. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Shell appears to have had some reservations and offered other admins to unblock if they so choose. FM felt it warranted unblocking and I take no issue with his decision as I trust his judgment. The blocking is in the past, I hope. El_C 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected until dispute resolved. Note, protection was emplaced prior to (my reading of) User:Elerner's reply above. There seems to be a definite WP:AUTO problem involved. Vsmith 00:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of small edits have since been made by admins. I made one of them, on the basis that it was agreed by SA immediately prior to the protection and it helps Elerner's concerns slightly (even though he thinks it doesn't go far enough). I've been trying to help but am feeling my way here - too much admin interference could just inflame the situation. I think they need to find a way forward, whether it's mediation or something else.
I must support SA to this extent: the only thing he seems to have done that could merit any criticism was to describe the controversial appointment without using the words "visiting astronomer". However, he was prepared to compromise about that. I don't really think a block was justified here, but nor is criticism of the admin who did it - this is a volatile situation and we're all just trying our best. Metamagician3000 09:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Other criticism is described below. --Iantresman 10:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • FeloniousMonk, you implied that I was a "well-known pseudoscience POV pusher."[102]. Pehaps you would be so kind as to explain (a) what you mean by this phrase, (b) where I am guilty of the description (c) How this perception influences your Admin decisions.
  • You suggested that my "gloating posts in this section [are] trying to discredit a fellow editor".[103] Can you explain (a) Which words are "gloating" rather than statements of fact (b) How this discredits.
  • And how would you think ScienceApologist's combined edits would affect a persons's credibility, when he (a) Removed Lerner's writing awards [104] (b) Replaced positive reviews with negative ones [105] (c) Removed the verifiable information that Lerner was a "visiting astronomer" [106] (d) Removed the credentials from another scientist [107]

--Iantresman 10:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for arbcom? We may want to have Eric, Ian, and myself in the case and resolve this business once and for all on nonstandard cosmology related topics. --ScienceApologist 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to that. --Iantresman 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ian, I would propose it, but I'm kind of exhausted from dealing with the last block. If you want to suggest an arbcom referencing this discussion here I imagine it will be accepted. You can note that we went through mediation, at least three RfCs, and these discussions here before coming to arbcom. That should silence arguments that we haven't exhasuted all other possibilities. --ScienceApologist 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libel issue?

Eric Lerner has been the subject of numerous disputes over the last few days. In particular, the subject of the article edits Wikipedia. The page was under protection for a month in a version he liked. Conversation stalled. When the page was unprotected and editting resumed, the conflict reemerged and the page was protected again, this time in a version Eric didn't approve of. He has called for the old version to be reinstated and has insinuated (falsely, in my estimation) that the current version amounts to libel. See Talk:Eric Lerner. --ScienceApologist 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Without being familiar with the subject, a quick glance at the diff for all changes since the page was last unprotected indicates that the substance of the changes has been to excise a couple of paragraphs about where his work has been published, and to greatly expand a criticism section, which essentially consists of large slabs quoted from elsewhere. The criticism section is now longer than the rest of the article, and about 2.5 times as long as the section on his work.
The end result is that a section which was previously a balanced summary of the critical response (positive and negative) to his work is now exclusively negative, all of the positive response having been removed. While it all seems verifiable, there are some undue weight problems. The old version is better from a NPOV standpoint, in my opinion.
I'm not going to express any opinion on libel. --bainer (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Correction, most of the criticism appears cited, except for one paragraph which is not, and probably unlikely to be, which I've removed: [108]. --bainer (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Balance and NPOV are not necessarily the same thing especially when someone is an extreme minority viewpoint according to WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That section is far too quote-intensive. They all essentially appear to recite the HBBM theistic line, but regretfuly, with little qualitative distinction or much elaboration that isn't limited to offhand rejection: "simply wrong," "presumptuous," "badly flawed," "you shouldn't open your mouth," "rests upon, rather than contradicts the Big Bang model." Perhaps, but in any case: Amen. El_C 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's quote intensive because many editors were not satisfied with prose summaries written using the sources. This is probably not the best course of action. --ScienceApologist 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

El_C, you have commented on this article earlier on this page as well, and on the value of the Plasma Model as compared to the Big Bang. You don't come across as having a NPOV here at all, since it is the second time that you feel the need to include references to the supposed "theistic", religious reason the BB is supported. This is a false argument used by opponents of the BB and has nothing to do with its scientific value. While there may be religious people that support the BB because it fits in some interpretation of a creation myth, you can't just use the reverse idea (that the BB is the mainstream theory among scientists because it supposedly supports a creation myth) to put it in a negative light. BB is supported by most scientists because it fits the observations best and beacuse it permits to make the best predictions. The plasma model, on the other hand, is mostly unquantified speculation with some anecdotical evidence. Fram 09:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'you don't come across as NPOV' is too reminiscent of the general believe-what-we-do HBBM line. Simply because a model has scientific applications does not mean it is correct. Speaking so confidently about the origin of the universe is scientifically un-humble at this stage of human development. Now, I find it unfortunate that I need to make reminders that the notion of cosmic origin, HBBM or Plasma, should not be treated as a mere casual observation. Sorry to throw a healthy dose of skepticism on both theories, but these "criticisms" (in the article) are potentially quite revealing: So if I get to decide whether to allocate money or jobs to one of the bright graduate students working on some of the many fruitful issues raised by the Big Bang cosmology, or divert it to a crackpot who claims that the Big Bang has no empirical successes, it's an easy choice. Not censorship, just sensible allocation of resources in a finite world. She, herself, would not get her grant money if her position would be any different, is the undeniable reality. I wonder what Nobel Prize recepient, Hannes Alfvén, would say to that. Denying funds may not be the inquisition, but it does seem to be a form of censorship. Now, if significant funds were to be allocated and nothing came of it, that is another matter. But this dosen't seem to be the case. To have powerful forces in society, such as the Catholic Church, officially support the HBBM, that is not a mere aside, nor is the false impression of would-be superhuman, wholly dispassionate and NPOV pro-HBBM scientists. Regardless, that section is remains far too quote-intensive. El_C 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but that was not my point. It would help the discussion if you would leave out the constant linking of the BB to some theistic purpose or support, and try to discuss and compare the scientific value of both. Otherwise you give the impression of taking sides because of irrelevant side issues, and to make the BB "guilty by association". The claim that BB wins because it gets all the funds is very tired, and the conspiracy theory that it gets all the funds because it is supportive of a creation myth is even worse. Fram 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to cospiracy theories, I adhere to institutional analysis. The fact is that HBBM proponents express far too much certainty that the model correctly depicts the origin of the universe, which is scientifically un-humble. I, on the other hand, adopt a more cautious but nonetheless critical position, whereby in the future, the HBBM may be deemed a correct basis, or PC will, or some synthesis between the two that will result in a new theory. In pure scientific terms, I'm not taking sides, but it also appears fairly clear to me that the HBBM's upper hand in the debate is not a product of entirely legitimate and purely scientific reasons. El_C 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the "wrong version", while common and normally to be expected, is completely unacceptable on wikipedia articles on living persons. In case of a genuine dispute concerning negative information, stubifying is prefered over a wrong version. Stubifying also fixes the problem of someone causing problems just so positive unchallenged information sits there for long lengths of time. This should not need to go to the living persons bio patrol, as the people involved here should be able to make sure relevant policy is adhered to. WAS 4.250 10:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. All the criticism of Lerner is definitely sourced; looking at the talk page, the issue seems to be that Lerner wishes for there to be more praise of him in the article detailing exactly which prestigious institutions he's once spoken at/visited/praised him somehow/etc. I don't think this is reason enough to change the version protected. I'm certain an article on the Piltdown man can be made "balanced" by reciting an equal number of praises of the discovery as well as debunkings of it, but this would not be a true balance since it is recognized as a hoax now. I am not a physicist, so I can't say if plasma physics is true or false. However, if it is generally the consensus among academics that plasma physics, while a reasonable hypothesis in the 60's, is unlikely to be true in light of modern knowledge, it is entirely reasonable to have an "unbalanced" review of his theories. SnowFire 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note of clarification. While User:SnowFire wrote plasma physics, I believe plasma cosmology is what was meant. --ScienceApologist 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, plasma physics is not an issue at all. Plasma cosmology is both an issue (is it protoscience or merely formerly protoscience and now better descibed as psuedoscience?) and the general background for the wiki-conflict between ScienceApologist and a few others. But my comments referred specifically to the libel issue raised by Eric Lerner concerning the living person bio article Eric Lerner at Talk:Eric Lerner as brought up in the initial comment in this subsection. For the future, for all living person bio articles, it should be clear to everyone that stubifying is preferred to freezing a version with significant issues. A threat to one's career expressed by the person defamed, such as for example "the way it is worded makes me out to be a liar in a field where credibility is everything" is a significant issue. In some cases a person might blow a small thing out of proportion to try to get a more positive bio frozen. Freezing a stub instead can create motivation to work towards a compromise in some cases. In this particular case, it looks like a compromise has already been worked out to everyone's satisfaction. WAS 4.250 07:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for block

Please block Freelanceresearch (talk • contribs) for continued abuse and insults towards other editors on Talk: Sathya_Sai_Baba. User is a single purpose account and has been misbehaving and using the talk page as a soapbox, and has been warned by other editors and Wikipedia admin to stop. (Ref). Admin also warned user twice on their talk page (Ref). User threatens to file complaint against Admin for supposed "harassment". Please block to prevent further disruption and personal attacks from user. -- Ekantik 03:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A browse thru the recent contribs of the user finds this, and not much else - only pretty abrupt comments, maybe verging on WP:CIVIL, but not much else in the form of a PA. Admittedly, this was only a brief check, so some more examples would be helpful if Freelanceresearch is to be blocked. I'll ask the applicant of this request-for-block to do this. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I told him some days ago to tone down the rhetoric or be blocked. He has not edited much since, other than the normal "rouge admin abuse" nonsense about my obvious bias towards the anti-Sais on his Talk. Guy 09:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly any examples are old by now. Ref 1, Ref 2, Ref 3, and Ref 4 are some good examples of User's abrasive behaviour. Perhaps the main point is that the Sathya_Sai_Baba[ article is highly controversial and tensions are ever-present on all sides. It is also a sensitive time with the dispute recently having been taken to ArbCom. Freelanceresearch (talk • contribs) has contributed very little (almost nothing) by way of discussion on the talk-page; her contribution to insulting and launching personal attacks on other editors was noted by another Admin Ref, asked to step aside by another editor Ref, and continued misbehaviour brought a warning from Guy. Admittedly she has quietened down since her warning except for haranguing Guy on her talk page. User is a single purpose account with an overwhelming bias in favour of Sathya Sai Baba; User's behaviour at the least precludes her (abusive) interaction with other editors and editing the article at hand. Request is for an emergency/temporary measure while the article undergoes a very sensitive stage in development as a result of ArbCom decision. Thank you. -- Ekantik 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate username

User:Daniel.Bryant must die recently vandalised User:Daniel.Bryant. I think he should be indef blocked because of an inappropriate username -- Lost(talk) 10:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Glen just indeffed, so it's done. Thanks for the vandalism revert Lost! Daniel.Bryant 11:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to delete the userpage and talkpage while leaving the username blocked? Pages headed "User:Foo Must Die" should not exist on Wikipedia for any value of Foo. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to have been done. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Should a check user be done on this guy? It might be another vandal or contributor that has a grudge against Daniel, or something.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody obviously misspelled John Tucker. Hbdragon88 06:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GoBots vandalism

GGGB (talk • contribs) has been making the same (minor-marked) edits to Challenge of the GoBots (see [109], [110], [111]) with usually the same edit summary, "rvv", as the indef blocked user GoGoGobots (talk • contribs) ([112], [113], [114]). I'm not sure whether to complain about GGGB on the grounds of vandalism-only account, accuse GGGB of being a sock, keep reverting the changes, or ignore it. Could someone take a look and see if anything should be done? BigNate37(T) 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy isn't even attempting to cover up being a sock. On the off-chance that he's a different person, he should still be blocked as a vandalism account. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Indef blocked. -- SCZenz 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just reverted GoBots vandal again. This time, it's GobotsGo (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) — only one edit so far [115], exact same M.O. By the way, is this the right place to report this? BigNate37(T) 01:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My block of User:ZenVortex

I just indefinitely blocked User:ZenVortex, as it seemed to be used only to make rants at The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If someone thinks that this user could one day be a valuable contributor to an encyclopedia project, and wants to mentor them towards that, they should feel free to unblock. I mention this here as the blocking reason is entirely subjective, but I don't think that we need this kind of editing. Jkelly 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, someone who makes edits like these obviously just needs a quick 1 hour block to calm down and maybe a mentor or an RfC or two and he'll be writing featured articles in no time. (What? It's late, sarcasm is the best you're going to get from me at this hour.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
(That was pretty good, actually). El_C 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears the user was given absolutely no warnings. In the future maybe give such users one warning before blocking completely? This was makes it look too much like the Jews do actually control Wikipedia and if anyone realizes that the word cabal is from hebrew...JoshuaZ 23:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We should not attempt to humor racist provocateurs. I fully support Jkelly's block. El_C 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We'll never convince them otherwise because we'll never accept their view of history. Block away. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user Alienus using sockpuppets

The banned User:Alienus is again using anon sockpuppets, this time on articles like list of ethicists, the Category:Books by Ayn Rand and list of major philosophers. Legitimate anon users also edit these pages. LaszloWalrus 23:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User continues to revert, after agreeing to RfC

In article Criticism of the clothes free movement I removed an external link to a web site because I felt that it did not meet wikipedia standards (WP:EL) and was not a reliable source (It is a one person POV attack site). Another editor, user:Michaelbluejay, disagreed, and reverted. After discussion, we did not come to agreement. I submitted a request at wp:RfC, and so far there have been no responss to that. I've asked user:Michaelbluejay several times, very civilly, to please wait for an response to the RfC, or admin action, but he continues to re-insert that innapropriate link. If someone could give me some guidance, or a better method to follow than waiting at RfC, I would appreciate it. Atom 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

From Here Any Muslim who supports Osama or terrorism or states that 911 was a US conspiracy IS a terrorist and should be treated accordingly. It is not POV it is terrorism. I hope the FBI carefully checks out every person who posts pro-terrorist statements. A cell awaits them at gitmo.Cestusdei 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do feel bad after reading his post. You have to read the whole thread to know the contaxt. Can someone give User:Cestusdei a warning please so that he do not use such threats again? Thanks --- ابراهيم 23:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I stressed (on your talk page) to the user that s/he must tone down the rhetoric, or face sanctions. El_C 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at all of this user's contributions, I don't think this user will ever contribute productively to the encyclopedia -- everywhere they've been they're doing their best to stir up trouble and pushing POV. I'm taking the liberty of indefinitely blocking this user. If you disagree, feel free to unblock, but I encourage you to carefully review the user's edits first. --Improv 02:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Good call Improv. I believe that someone else would have indef blocked him. A total breach of many Wiki policies. People comming from discussion forums and blogs to this place w/o prior knowledge of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. It's becoming a hard currency. I appreciate the way everybody dealt w/ the situation. Cheers.-- Szvest 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

[edit] Andrew Cuomo

I'm about to sign off for the day, and am hoping an admin can keep an eye on the Andrew Cuomo article which has been vandalized twice today by those wanting to wage a political campaign on Wikipedia. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been a range of IPs inserting the same unsourced, POV material (but finally stopped adding their all CAPS message at the top). They include: :*4.167.245.176 (talk • contribs)
At what point do we consider a range block? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] semi-protection lift request

can i please have the semi-protection lifted? thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LedZeppelin499 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2006.

On what page? BTW, the correct place to go for this is WP:RPP. —Khoikhoi 02:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The U.S.A.A. vandal

At first I thought this was just a new user, but nope it's a vandal. I first spotted him as Usaa indexer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and all the account did was create articles with the initials U.S.A.A. After every article was speedily deleted, as its contents were just the title again, I thought after a few warnings on the talk page he'd stopped. He was later blocked for personal attacks in addition to the spamming. Instead of adhering to the block the user has reappeared as Usaa editor (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) doing the exact same thing. The change of accounts is clear vandal behaviour to try to hide that he's been warned in the past and the fact it's the same M.O. shows that this is going to become a problem. –– Lid(Talk) 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The user appears to be this IP 84.58.198.81 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). –– Lid(Talk) 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Already indefblocked abakharev 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request for unblock

Moved notice to WP:AN. El_C 08:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent vandalism at Talk:Steve Irwin

I've just done an IP check on the IPs vandalising Talk:Steve Irwin with obscene edit summaries, and they all seem to be coming from Korean IPs.

They're in the 211* and 218* range of the Korean ISP Dacom - maybe a range block is warranted, or anon-editing prevented?? --LiverpoolCommander 10:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Crisis 4

There has been some "silly edits" that either can't be verified by reliable sources, or just simple hoax information just keeps on coming. Is there a possibility to protect the page for about 3 days to prevent hoax information from coming in? Look at the history, because I was forced to revert due to hoax information being placed—I've also made public warnings that the content must be verifiable, apparently the editors who put hoax info isn't listening. Can someone help me on this? Thanks. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 11:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

May I interest Sir in this delightful requests for page proitection system? I think Sir will find it suits his purposes admirably. Guy 11:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat censorship deletion of contents

A group of Iranians collectively enforces a policy of censorship and ethnic cleansing, repeatedly removing under nefarious pretexts historical facts, classical citations, and important information from Wikipedia pages. My attempts to resolve the dispute and find a compromize did not succeed see, for example, Talk:Ossetic language. As a result, whole sections of articles were decimated, for example from Scythia were removed published data on C14 tests, section "Kurgans", section "Tamgas", pertinent citations of classical authors, etc. From the Ossetic language were removed section on "Lexicon", as though the analysis of lexicon is not related to the language, section "Genetics", as though language does not reflect the composition of the people, etc. This agenda editing is designed to deprive the users of WP from ever knowing alternate views and counter-corroborative facts. In the course of this agenda editing were deleted articles "Scytho-Iranian theory" and "Masguts", voted out of existance by the same group, as conflicting with their racial concepts. Most of the accompaniing "discussions" focus on denigrating the contributors and the sources, many in the most vulgar form, and defamatory proclamations serve as justifications for removing contents and replacing them with proclamations of suppositions. The dispute involves both the wikiquette, contents and blanketing vandalism. Barefact 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest dispute resolution and avoiding words like "censorship" which is very often a sign of tendentious editing. Guy 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive135_14c3.html"