Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive315

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Violation of COI by user:Avahram

There is an ongoing mediation about the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initiated by myself hoping to reach a compromise with different parties.

Unfortunately the mediation has not gained any result since its beginning on 20 May. Since then, the article has been fully protected (except for a couple of days in last two weeks).

Today User:Omegatron unprotected the article with this reason "no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement." and then User:Avraham, himself a party of mediation and previous edit-warring, reverted the article then protected it with this reason "Ongoing mediation".

The other problem is that in my opinion the current lead is clear violation of WP:BLP and completely POV for an article about a high ranking official of a state, me and some other users tried to reach a compromise with user:Avraham by adding his own response to the allegation in the lead. But this proposal was rejected by above user with the reasoning that it doesn't belong to the lead (but of course details of the allegation belong).

I would be happy if some third party user invistigate the issues of this article. --Pejman47 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. It's distinctly less than neutral, in my opinion, but I don't think it's a reason that so egregious that it requires some kind of immediate action if there's ongoing mediation. I'm not going to offer an opinion on the utility of long-term protection like this, since I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding it, and the mediation. --Haemo 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI violations require edits "in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am in no way related, either personally or professionally, with any groups whose interests are either pro- or con- the article's subject; unless Pejman is implying that because I am Jewish I am automatically considered incapable of editing the Ahmadinejad article. From my previous interactions with him, I highly doubt he meant something as insulting and ridiculous as that, so I am left to assume that referencing WP:COI was a misunderstanding on his part. Any explanation would be appreciated. -- Avi 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that you are an admin and you must not use your admin's previlage in an article that you edit-warred. I also told you the same thing when you edited this article when it was fully protected. (do you remember it?)--Pejman47 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the article to the stable, protected state, especially after an unauthorized unlock, is maintaining and protecting the project. The unlock should have been discussed with the locking admin, user:Riana, and the mediator user:Daniel. It was not, and was an improper use of admin tools. Restoring the stable and locked version was anything but, and I believe you know better. Omegatron, as an admin, certainly should know better. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean in here: Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_17#Image, I got angry in the previous case nad also in this case (even if it seems illogical to you). But please do not use your admin's privileges' in a debate that some of the users are not admins. I hope your misunderstandings have been solved --Pejman47 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that your use of WP:COI in the title was a mistake, and you meant possible sysop priv abuse, a completely different issue. See above how protecting the project is the responsibility of the sysops and what actually may have been the abuse here, per WP:ANI#Admin edit rights privilege abuse. -- Avi 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also insist that some third party admin investigate the protection level of that article. I don't see any logic for full protection of an article for about six months. --Pejman47 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected since October 2, which is 20 days; a far cry from the six months (182 days) stated. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted too interject that if Plejman (he wasn't, i see) is implying thay your Jeiwhness is a COI, that could be a valid COI issue. (I'm Jewish too.) It would depend on what the article is about. For example, in an article about Jews for Jesus or Holocaust Denial or something Jews tend to be emotional over, I would not feel it inapropriate to site COI. Same with any ethnic or religious group. If COI doesn't mean everybody, it doesn't mean anybody. Basejumper2 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing a point-of-view with a conflict-of-interest. While related, in the context of wikipedia policy and guideline they are two different things. -- Avi 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potentially offensive comments

Resolved. Nothing to see here. Perfectly innocent comments involving the Cleveland Indians.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be reporting this but I recently saw a message from User:Sasha Callahan which could be potentially offensive to users. The message can be seen here. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are you serious? I think everyone with a brain knows she is talking about the baseball teams. JuJube 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Doesn't look to me like anything worth coming to WP:ANI over...unless the comments have been changed since you posted. A "swear word" in an otherwise friendly talk page note isn't something to get worked up about. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Please tell me that this isn't in reference to her disparaging remarks about a baseball team. Please? I'm sure we all have more important things to find "potentially offensive" than that. Somewhere on that page she advocated 'kitten bonfires' and I just missed it... right? --CBD 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not reporting it because somebody may be offended by her references to the team but maybe she meant Indians as in the nationality? That is why I put potentially offensive, because I wasn't sure. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes to a discussion thread about baseball, sees a post saying "!@$# the Indians" and thinks they're insulting the ethnic group, they're probably not worth worrying about. I'd be more concerned about how they manage to tie their shoelaces every day. JuJube 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also really cool how you neglected to tell User:Sasha Callahan about this at all. JuJube 12:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can everyone calm down, this was a post made in good faith by The-G-Unit and he shouldn't be taken as an oppotunity to shoot him down. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The-G-Unit-Boss, I think that in the context of the discussion it is clear she was referring to the baseball team... at least, I don't think the Red Sox lost to a bunch of guys from Kerala. :] --CBD 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it could be interpreted that way, to someone unfamiliar with Baseball. He might not know that the "Red sox" is a baseball team and might think they are some other group of some kind. A lot of militant groups have names that sound like sports teams, such as The Tamil Tigers. It's not a stretch to think that he assumed that she was insulting the ethnic group opposed to the sports team. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the mistake that I made. I am not familiar with Baseball and so didn't realise the context of their discussion. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Tamil Tigers were a baseball team. Neil ☎ 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what Detroit's AAA club was called before they moved to Toledo... Rdfox 76 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JuJube, not everyone on Wikipedia is familiar with the minutiae of "Big Rounders Played by Tobacco Chewers in Pyjama's", possibly because they have the goshdarned cheek to live outside of the USA (and Japan - does any other nation play the game?), but do indeed have brains. As you might guess, I was not bowled over by your comments and think you have found yourself on a particularly sticky wicket. Toodle pip! LessHeard vanU 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A few other countries play, particularly Cuba, who have the best baseball record in the world, winning 3 of the 4 golds at the Olympics. Neil ☎ 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need an administrator

I am having an issue with User:Twsx and it's driving me crazy. We cannot reach a solution. I have taken this issue up before in conflicts of interest but nothing happened. In the music infoboxes for band pages we cannot agree whether the genres should have a line break or comma break. Apparently, no consensus has ever been made on this and we need one. There should be a conversation about it. I believe the line break between genres in the music infoboxes look much more ordered and that the comma break looks sloppy. We must have a consensus on this. He wants the genres in the infoboxes to look like they do in pages such as Linkin Park and I want them to look like they do in articles such as Judas Priest.Navnløs 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's highly trivial and not something that this page needs to be used for. Try requesting for a comment or posting it on some music related projects for more outside input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Line breaks vs Comma breaks. Thats got to be one of the lamest disputes i've heard in a while. You do not need an administrator, you need Request for comment--Jac16888 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to dispute this designation as lamest complaint ever, instead awarding that honor to the complaint about Sasha's baseball comment above. K. Scott Bailey 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you need a life! One of you decide to let the other one win. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... how to say this nicely? Isn't it pretty clear I was joking, and I wasn't really trying to "win" anything against Wikidudeman? I thought it was, but evidently not... K. Scott Bailey 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the indentation might have suggested otherwise, I don't think that message was directed at you. --Onorem♠Dil 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep I was talking tothe OP I indented too much. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will let him "win" eventually, i just enjoy his desperate, incivil reactions on my talk page while they last. For the sake of the argument: I think line break seperated lists only take up much more space while they are not the least bit more informative, or "prettier" (if you will) than comma seperated, non-capitalized lists. However, a discussion about this is was made and ended up in a "useless trainwreck from which no consensus can emerge", so it is indeed trivial. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boyling Over

I happen to have been dragged into the middle of this situation. I initially reverted the blanking of User:Tim.Boyle and protected the page to stop the edit war, and because my initial thought was that there are thousands of Tim Boyle's out there, and I knew of no reason why any one in particular would be implicated. (I went to elementary school with one.) But since there are apparently good faith suggestions of potential liability (not threats), I thought it would be best to have others weigh in as well. It's certainly possible that there's something in the user's contribs that singles out a particular Tim Boyle. I'm amenable to unprotection, blanking, whatever, so don't be afraid of stepping on my toes. Thanks for looking this over! -- But|seriously|folks  19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how this could be libeling anyone as the IP removing the tag states; it's not like this is a unique name. That said, I think a courtesy blanking of the userpage is an option if the IP stops being so demanding.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note, anything tying this name to a specific person has been deleted.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Vegas

Resolved.

We have a persistent-self-confessed anon vandal here. [1] Can we have semi-pp on the page please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And a short block on User:86.130.55.4 since he's also vandalising vandalism warnings and has said he'll come back! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page now being vandalised by User:89.241.157.159 . He's got to get the message --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs blocked. As the IPs keep chaning, I threw a one week protection on the article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webridestv

When this article gets deleted again, can somebody please salt it. See the Deletion Log. It is a non-notable website that has been deleted 3 times already, and about to be 4. The user keeps recreating it though. - Rjd0060 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the editor a specific note with a pointer to the policies that govern these types of articles and invited him to come discuss it further at the drawing board if he needs further assistance. His previous attempt to create that page seems to me to indicate a genuine effort to meet guidelines, but he doesn't seem familiar with them. Hopefully, after reading those policies, he'll either be able to create the article properly or will decide that the subject doesn't qualify per guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that 131.104.219.176 is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt is an admin, he issued that warning, and was made aware of the watchlist User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin which was set up to "Report it to the admins and let them deal with it", yet he did not do "what admins are for" within the last days.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 70.15.116.59 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 70.15.116.59 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy which applies is WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. User:Serafin's comments should be removed and those who seek to obstruct tackling him persistently should be blocked. Sciurinæ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of Finell's suggestion to block or ban users who have removed comments of the banned User:Serafin on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus becomes clear when it is applied to Finell himself. Maybe he forgot that he, too, removed one of Serafin's comments (ie as often as I have) and one could now easily recall Finell's rhetoric about vigilance and the wikipedia community and anarchy; the only difference being that a person can only speak for their own motives and that means a lot given that Finell speaks of bad faith in deleting an opponent's comments and has deleted a then opponent's (otherwise ally) comment although he does not know or care whether it is a banned user or not. Finell also did not report the user as a possible sockpuppet of Serafin, leaving this "chore" to those he now wants to get blocked or banned if they delete Serafin's comments restored again and again by Serafin's sockpuppets that were blocked shortly afterwards. Surely, a victory of Serafin in this issue is further encouragement for him to continue ban evasions. Sciurinæ 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: Please do not misrepresent what I said; that is dishonest. I have no objection to deleting the postings or edits of a blocked or banned user. What I object to is someone deleting posts becasue of an unconfirmed (by an admin) suspicion or accusation of sockpuppetry. Finell (Talk) 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider your entire thread a misrepresentation and there's no honesty when I explain to someone how something might be mistaken and that someone comes to AN/I and tries to convince everybody of that this mistake was the truth. You should make clear in which way you have been misrepresented.

So what is your problem? Most of the time, the comments of the banned User:Serafin have been removed and rightly so. Should you seriously discover anytime in the future unbanned people who remove each others' comments, like you claimed, you might have a reason for a thread like this. It's a real shame that those who share Serafin's POV connive at his block evasions, but one cannot force people to do something against those they agree with. Still, you refuse to participate against (rather than for) the banned user, though I think that might be a fair chance for you to make up for this thread. The indifference of admins towards this thread at least should show you that it's not the admins alone who are going to clean up the mess of banned users. Oh, look - now that he's got his comments back in place, Serafin also wants the sock-tags removed ([2]). Sciurinæ 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't start the thread, but the problem I see is that an admin actually said he was going to block the next person who removed on-topic talk page comments. While I don't think that would be a bad policy it doesn't exist yet. So either this threat should be retracted or somebody should start writing a policy. 70.15.116.59 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

What's the denouement? Are we really forbidden to remove the posts of a banned user under pain of immediate block? I'm asking because User:Raymond arritt still has left the sharp warning on the article's talk page and still does not respond, and admin attention has obviously completely faded away within an hour of the thread's existence. Sciurinæ 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still watching. The goal was to get the disputants to discuss the matter amongst themselves. The basic point has been well stated by others: removing comments by confirmed sockpuppets of banned users is appropriate, but removing comments because someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet is not (much less simply removing comments that one doesn't agree with). Raymond Arritt 22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still watching? What, or whom? Which ones of Serafin's dozens of sockpuppets do you expect to discuss the matter amongst themselves? You issued a First and only warning to good faith editors, and have been courteously asked [3] [4] to have a second look at the matter. You did not respond to these messages within the last days, and made only the statement above. During the last month, myself and others had tried to keep the Copernicus talk page readable, reporting numerous new suspects to User talk:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, but admins are not keeping up, there's a backlog to sort out. You jumped into this and posted your warning five days ago, but apparently you have not done anything about the real problem since. Did you overlook the links? Do you think sockpuppetry and repeated disruption is of low importance? Do you have other priorities as an admin? I ask you to start working on the sockpuppet issue, either confirming the suspects and moving them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin accordingly, or clearing them of someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet accusations. As you issued the warning, you should also put the necessary effort into the issue. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Serafin, there has never been any doubt whether a puppet of him was actually a real user. There may be some cases in which the banned user's comments have been removed before he has been blocked, but the puppet has been later confirmed. There would be no point in undermining one's credibility by accusing a wrong user and jeopardise Serafin's case, who is a long-term disruptive force to be reckoned with (see history of Bureaucracy). Is there any policy saying that banned users' accounts have to be blocked first before their mess is cleaned up? Sounds to me like having to wait until a vandal IP is blocked before being allowed to remove its insertion, say, of some vulgar words in an article, but then again even that is sometimes reasonable when the other person is probably still glaring at his or her computer, ready to undo should anyone revert. Many or most "comments" are simple restorations of his older comments that were removed, which would even allow removing them if genuine users have restored them (see the Everyking case). I can't criticise people for their first impressions and your warning would be suitable in other contexts like in a scenario told by Finell. Here, the warning would just deter from keeping Serafin at bay and be an encouraging victory for his guerilla revert tactic, which needs to be discouraged. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could retract it. Sciurinæ 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP violation protected by an admin boy

Please check the last dozen or so edits on this talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonia_Gandhi&action=history No edit war was there, warranting protection. Nishkid a Hindu fanatic supporting ultra rightist politics in India just desires to keep the insinuations on Sonia Gandhi. 59.91.253.175 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed as nothing but personal attacks. Corvus cornix 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there was no edit war - there was a SINGLE edit (as four section edits, uninterrupted) and a SINGLE revert (as a series of undos). I haven't even so much as looked at the content of the section and I can tell the protection isn't warranted yet. I'll note, also, that WP:BLP says These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. (emphasis mine), and one of the edit summaries appears to be asserting this is not the case. —Random832 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how "admin boy" isn't a red flag at all that this is trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how claiming you're just innocently asking if there's any truth to it gives people carte blanche to post unsourced negative speculation. Regardless of who this 59 is, or what his intentions are, that section (and its reinsertion) were blatantly inappropriate. —Random832 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked further and can see that this user is clearly a sockpuppet of a banned troll as was stated by the protecting admin - however, the one section that I linked the diff for should still not be kept on the talk page per WP:BLP (the others that he removed don't seem to be the same sort of thing, and can probably be kept) —Random832 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Unprotection and excision soon, please. Relata refero 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the semi-protection was unwarranted anymore - just that the particular section I linked to should not be kept. —Random832 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Admin Boy wear a cape? What are his powers? Neil ☎ 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He's the sidekick to B'cratman ;^). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Throwing block-erangs, I think. shoy 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric / Éric Cantona

As I am probably now involved, can an uninvolved admin step in and stop two French users changing all the instances of Eric in the Eric Cantona article to Éric? On one side we have prior consensus, Wikipedia policy (WP:UE), and all relevant reliable sources in English and French([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) saying it's "Eric" , on the other we have a French user who insists it should be "Éric" because that's how he spells his name, and the other citing the French Wikipedia (not reliable). It's too lame for RFC and as I've edited now, I shouldn't do anything more about it personally. Neil ☎ 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. In English we spell Montreal thusly, not as Montréal. Raymond Arritt 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting silly. At one point some joker changed the word "maverick" deep in the article to "mavÉrick", which was reverted to "mavErick". It required an uninvolved editor to fix that edit. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone was using "find and replace". Badly. Neil ☎ 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A curious case

User:KXS-KXS has declared that they are a "secret user", and appear to have no intention of ever editing articles. Instead, they seem to be planning some kind of social networking activity called the "brown monster club" (possibly involving giving prizes to editors for treasure-hunting?), and are constructing numerous templates for that purpose.

I've invited them twice to come and join the encyclopedia project, and it's clear from their replies that they have no intention of doing so. What to do now? -- The Anome 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hide him in your pocket for seeecret eeeeating. JuJube 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Surreptitiously slip in a WP:NOT#MYSPACE warning. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. -- The Anome 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, point out to him that every 'sekrit page' of his is available in his Contribs. Poor dear. --Thespian 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but I'd be inclined to block the account (at least until s/he voices some interest in building the encyclopedia) and delete everything seen here without looking back. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it should all be deleted right away, and the user indef blocked. It may seem harsh, it doesn't seem like they plan on doing any real editing, see this edit, [12] totally ignored the message, and showing no sign of stopping.--Jac16888 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and deleting. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, with help from MastCell. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a general subgroup of users creating "secret" pages (which aren't secret to anyone who knows Special:Prefixindex) and "autograph books" (where people can parade around huge signatures that violate WP:SIG). I think some of these people need a serious reminder that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Maybe the autograph books and secret pages aren't intrinsically harmful, but they're a waste of time and database space for those who actually want to use this site as an encyclopedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Autograph books have already tasted the blood of wikibattle. Keegan^talk 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales would disagree with you, Elkman. This is a widely known quote of his about autograph pages (don't believe he made it? Ask him), which is shown below:

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo may feel that way about autographs books, but i doubt he would agree with what User:KXS-KXS was doing, which was taking it way to far. I can see how elkman can not like them as they can open the floodgates for editors like KXS-KXS--Jac16888 10:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wtimrock second notice

Resolved.

Unfortunately this is the second time I am reporting this user User_talk:Wtimrock, as his behavior has not changed since the last time.

Recreated a deleted article, again [13] - this article has been deleted twice and the same user reposted it twice as well as being the original author.

Removed maintenance tags [14] - including the CSD repost tag and a news release tag.

I last reported it here on AN/I but no action was taken then. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted and a stern warning was given...if this continues, let me know. — Scientizzle 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Theresa knott (talk · contribs) has issued a block... — Scientizzle 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually whilst you were doing that I was giving him an attention grabbing block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hope it works! — Scientizzle 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! His refusal to respond has been the most frustrating part of cleaning up after him. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: He contacted me by email. I explaned what he was doing wrong and unblocked him. Hopefully he will now take heed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can an Admin. blank a User Page?

I'm new to wikipedia rules and would like to know if Admins are allowed to blank a user page. I'd like to hear from various people. Thanks. Lookzar42 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what is on the page and whether the user is a regular contributor or a dead account, blanking it may be the right way to deal with inappropriate content. What user page do you have in mind? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at controversial articles for COI and POV, and I followed back to this user user:Shia1. The original page, I restored. Before my restoration, I found the page had been blanked. It's not a lot of blanking, but it seemed suspiscious to me as it was blanked by the same person the user had been in conflict with further down in the edit histories. It didn't seem to me the message on the user page was specific enough to warrant this action. Basejumper2 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked userpages an many occasions and have deleted them too if they are being used innapropriately (not for the good of the encylopedia). However admins do not go around blanking userpages willy nilly. . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this is a tricky one. Normally I'd say people who get banned for sockpuppeteering lose any right to say anthing on a userpage. However on closer inspection I see that the account was not blocked, no sockpuppets were named and no evidence posted. All we have is the admin in question's say so. I'll ask him to comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That admin has been gone since August so you may wish to try email. Asking via a vandalism template ^[15], seems suspect, however. El_C 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked User:IZAK as he was the one to remove the ranting. Agreed that using a vandalism template looks a bit dodgy but will assumr good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty sophomorically provocational. El_C 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When part of the user's goodbye message is that the "harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement," I see nothing wrong with denying them that indefinite soapbox. I'd probably be in favor of removing the sock tag also if no evidence has been presented. --Onorem♠Dil 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need WP:NOT#ESCHATOLOGY? Raymond Arritt 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with departing users soapboxing. No one reads their userpages anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with removing the text from User:Shia1, if that user has actually left WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it worth puting the lightest vandelism template up specifically because the blanking appeared to me to have been done by an individual the user had been in conflict with. Basejumper2 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What made you think it was vandalism? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And then you re-added it after an admin (moi) reverted it as vandalism? It doesn't add up. El_C 03:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It made me think it was vandalism because it appeared needless and personally motivated by the conflict I just mentioned. Frankly the message seems silly to me, and I can’t see why it would NEED to be erased.

If you go to the users talk page, you'll notice he complains about the admin in question banning his friends who use his computer as his sock puppets. There's no evidence or trial for those sock puppets that I could find; but earlier in the user page personal discussions with another user mention user:Shia1 is going to have a friend named Yoeli at his house.

Further down, user:Shia1 is temporarily blocked for using sockpuppets by the admin in question, one of those sockpuppets he’s accused of using if you click on the sockpuppet tag is called Yoel23. No evidence was presented. He rants wildly about the unfairness, but, again, seems to be given no opportunity to defend himself.

The user then left that final message on his user page. Then the admin the message evidently refers to blanks it. That's why I felt it was vandalism. I felt it was most likely motivated by personal conflict and not an administrative necessity. The language of the message just didn't seem harsh enough to warrant a blanking of it.

So I checked to see if the user was banned, thinking that banned users pages are blanked. I saw that he wasn't. That's when I decided it was probably vandelism. So I went and looked for the lightest vandalism tag I could find, and left a message on the admins page asking if he had done it by mistake.

El C, I don’t understand your question. Perhaps use more words. Doesn’t add up to what? When we discussed this, you seemed unaware the reason for the tag, and felt I had added it because of the sockpuppet tag, and were unaware of the blanking. But the reason I added the tag back, after it was removed is because I went to the page to see if there had been a response to my question. Instead both the tag and the question had been erased, so I re-added it hoping to get a responseBasejumper2 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case it appears that I followed the tabs in the history page wron and it was IZAK that balnked the page, so I apologize to the vandelism tag. Basejumper2 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I was asked by User Theresa knott (talk · contribs) on my user page [16] to come to this discussion and tell how I know that the account of User Shia1 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. The short version of my answer is that I looked at the options on the line that reads "See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts" on the {{sockpuppeteer}} template on User:Shia1's user page and clicked on "confirmed accounts" which leads to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shia1 (created by User Jayjg (talk · contribs) on 24 June 2007 [17]) and which lists two more of his sockpuppets, User:TumbleRumble and User:Yoel23. What follows is the longer version of how I got to User:Shia1's user page: I came across his name and comments when I was involved with the problem of another notorious sockpuppeteer Daniel575 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (7th) and in the course of my research I read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) and it is on that latter page that I came across lengthy comments by User:Shia1 matching the vitriol of blocked User Daniel575 (talk · contribs) and his most recent suckpuppet User:Eidah who deployed the most vile curses and slander during Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism (during which it came to light that an admin Y (talk · contribs) was perfectly aware that User:Eidah was in fact a sockpuppet of banned User:Daniel575 and did not take action to stop him.) During September 2007, looking into User:Eidah's violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by his usage of violent cursing and hateful diatribes during the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism and the discovery that it was "widely known" that User:Eidah and User:Daniel575 were one and the same users and by following User:Daniel575's editorial trail leading to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) and coming upon the rants of User:Shia1 there so that when I clicked on his page I found that by then User:Shia1 had already been blocked in June 2007 as a sockpuppet/eer by admin Jayjg (talk · contribs). When I saw the rant on his page consisting as it does of "religious" curses "... the harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement" I deleted only those comments as unbefitting what should be on a sockpuppet's page (they should not be allowed to have the last word and in any case don't belong there or on any user blocked as a sockpuppet) and left only the initial {{sockpuppeteer}} template placed on that page by User:Jayjg, but since then, some anon has reinserted them [18]. I have given my side of the story. I do not know how or why User:Jayjg came to the conclusions he did and took the actions that he did back in June 2007. But knowing his work as an editor, admin, and as a former respected member of ArbCom, I am absolutely certain that he acted appropriately and with all due justification. Thus, the answer to the question that I was asked by User:Theresa knott can only be answered by User:Jayjg as I was neither privy to the initial and ongoing reasons, nor involved with blocking and banning of User:Shia1 as a sockpuppet/eer. Thank you, IZAK 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enlightening comments. (Also, I was the anonymous restorer of his user page. I just hadn't signed in while surfing.) Point of fact, however, User:Shia1 is not banned as a sockpupet or sockpupeteer, so there's no worry about giving a banned user the last word. Also, his statement is silly and jeuvenile, but not particularly offensive, certainly not vulgar, and doesn't name anybody so as to be damaging in that regard. It's his user page, and if he wants to return, it should be left intact as he left it.

I'm very curious as to why he was ever tagged, however, seeing as his explenation that he used a shared computer is evidenced by his discussion page where at least one of the sockpuppets is referenced as a seperate individual in a personal conversation on that page. Also he makes the claim that none of the accounts listed as his sockpuppet are ever used together on pages during a dispute? Is this true? Is there a way to confirm this? Is it normal to block someone as a sockpuppet without a sockpuppetry trial or evidence being presented such as in the link presented above,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th)? If there is no reason to believe he is a sockpupet/eer, I think the tag should be removed. If the same goes for the accounts listed as his sockpuppets, they should be reinstated as its very possible they were legitimate users who got booted out of wikipedia without being able to present evidence. .Basejumper2 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I just spent some time going through the history that user:Shia1 posted on his talk page to defend himself. If he posted it truthfully, he only edited a single article with user:Tumblerumble and user:Yoel23. They seem to argue with each other, and nobody else except the banned sockpuppet of Daniel575 is involved in the discussion. Basejumper2 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Basejumper: As for the broader questions you ask about who, what, when, how and why any pages are or should be tagged or untagged by admins I leave that for the others to decide and I shall not get into that policy debate because I honestly have not given it any significant thought, and I don't intend to. The only reason I removed User:Shia1's silly remark, is that having coming out of a heated set of discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and then bumped into identical comments at a page that seemed to be a "guilt by association" user page with curses such as "... judged in the final Judgement" it deserved to be removed in my view. I still think those hateful comments should go, but if you like them, keep them. I am honestly very puzzled why you even care. It makes no difference to me, honestly as I cannot recall having a single exchange with User:Shia1. However, the fact that banned User:Daniel575 hails him as a buddy that he knows personally (see User talk:Shia1#Hi [19]) was enough to convince me that these are two "birds of feather" that it is best not to allow to "flock together" on Wikipedia for they shall only join up for WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. That's my take on things, and I don't really have much more to add. Sincerely, IZAK 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. To be truthful, I added the vandalism tag only because I thought blanking a page was always vandalism. In the course of our discussion here, however, I think we've uncovered something larger which is a user types that he left due to harassment, we find an accusation of sockpuppetry, no evidence of the accounts having been used as sockpuppets even if they were the same person's account, and evidence that almost certainly one of them wasn't. That's what keeps me interested beyond just saying, "Sorry, I misunderstood what vandalism is." I want to know why this user was tagged without a similar process to this,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th), and I want to know if his rantings and ravings about politically motivated harrassment against him were true, because wikipedia is not the place for that, if there is a place for that. Basejumper2 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: The user has left. The person who tagged him as a sock has left. So there is no what on Earth that you can peronally know anything more about why he was tagged so. End of mate! Move on, this one is in the past and done with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only User Jayjg (talk · contribs) could answer all those questions and as you have been told, he is presently on leave. May I remind you that while you are spouting all sorts of rules here, there is another dimension to Wikipedia governance, such as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules whereby even an admin who is confronted by a complex situation and has been privy to all sorts of matters decides in good conscience that he may take action as he sees fit. This action is further reinforced by the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding" and finally see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "... Until the beginning of 2004, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee. Wales wrote: 'The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004. To request Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The Arbitration policy details the rules and procedures involved." May I also draw your attention to my critiques and warnings at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet? and at User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke. Thank you for your close attention to these matters. IZAK 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ashtoman3333

• User:Ashtoman3333 has been engaged in some fairly inexplicable behavior since mid-September, including overwriting articles like Cheers and Me, Myself, and I and creating quite a list of articles without context or sourcing (see his deleted contributions in particular at Special:Contributions/Ashtoman3333). His userpage, deleted on October 21st by User:Pascal.Tesson, was itself an elaborate musician bio that was apparently fictitious. On the 20th of October, I asked him to explain his purpose in creating these articles and that biography, but he did not respond to my question any more than he has responded to the warnings he has received on his talk page. He was blocked on October 21st and immediately upon return recreated his most recently deleted article, JAMM Band, which still sources to a non-existent Myspace page. It does not seem that this editor is interested in seriously contributing to the encyclopedia. Given my long history of addressing his behavior, I would appreciate other evaluation here. I have informed the editor of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's a long term pattern of vandalism / creating inappropriate pages. Maybe a final warning that the next time he steps over the line he'll be blocked? --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in. I hope he'll listen to your warning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastren07 deleting material

Eastren07 (talk · contribs) has been deleting material from the article on British government minister Jim Murphy, and deleting related discussions from the talk page. Eastren07 uses no edit summaries and has not responded to warnings or to requests to discuss any concerns about the article.

• The revision history Talk:Jim Murphy is littered with edits by Esatren07 deleting material, and none in which any material is added about perceived problems with the article
• The revision history Jim Murphy is similarly littered with content deletions by Eastren07: [20], [21], [22] and [23].
• Eastren07's only contribution to his/her user:talk page was this deletion of requests to stop deleting

Two other points:

• Eastren07's only other edits have been similar deletions from the article Kenneth Macintosh
• Jim Murphy is the Labour Party Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the East Renfrewshire in Scotland. Kenneth Macintosh is the Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament for Eastwood, a constituency with the same boundaries (i.e. covering exactly the same area). I suspect that the username Eastren07 indicates an editor supportive of the Labour party in that area, who simply wants to delete any material, however well-sourced, which is considered unhelpful. (Note, BTW, that the discussion at Talk:Jim Murphy has been in favour of the eventual removal by me of some well-sourced but grossly unbalanced material on Murphy's current ministerial role).

So far as I can see, Eastren07 is a SPA with a possible COI, who has refused all requests to discuss concerns. Please can someone either block this user now, or issue a further warning and monitor for further misconduct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The editor appears to have stopped (for now). If this behavior keeps up, report it on WP:AIV and reference this discussion. Thanks, Caknuck 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The editor's pattern of contributions has consistently been to perform a batch of content deletions within minutes of each other, and then to do nothing until the another day. So it doesn't seem quite right describe him/her as having "stopped", just as having finished that day's deletions.
  But you're right, I should have taken to this to WP:AIV, and I'll take there if/when the deletions resume. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Onideus - blatant troll violating WP:BLP

Resolved.

User:Onideus has just left a nasty little note for me on my Talk Page because I speedy deleted the Onideus Mad Hatter article as an attack article. The little gift on my Talk Page doesn't bother me much except that he seems to be a single purpose account whose purpose is clearly trolling and violating WP:BLP.

I'm torn between trying to explain Wikipedia policy to him and just asking someone to block him as a SPA.

Since I'm now the target of his attack, I think it's best that I just report him here and let a neutral, uninvolved admin deal with him.

Thanx.

--Richard 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a review of his contribs will indicate that blocking is clearly called for here. --Richard 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Gogo Dodo. Hut 8.5 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood

The Torchwood Institute does not exist. Lots of Wikipedia articles write as though it should exist. It is a fantasy. So why write it does? When I tried to fix it they said I was being a vandal. I'm not. I put the template {{bad}} on it, but they took it off and deleted it. Why is everyone out to get me? There's a conspiracy! I am not commiting acts of vandalism, I am correcting errors in an otherwise rather useful encyclopedia. your information on Torchwood-related articles is rather rubbishy and could do with a good cleanup. I say, don't you know? Der loewe schlaft nie!

--Blickmaestro 07:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[24] - You remove just the Torchwood point.

[25] - You remove Torchwood, but leave the very similar Doctor Who point.

[26] - Again, just Torchwood

[27] - Again, leaving Torchwood, but keeping the two Doctor Who points

[28] - Just Torchwood

[29] - Just Torchwood.

Now, here's the kicker - Torchwood is made up. It is just the fantasy of Russell T. Davies on a 15-32 inch screen once every week. So you're not doing a service to the Institute, it's fictional. Either remove all the trivia or none at all. Because they way it looks right now, it seems you're on a systematic campaign to suppress any mention of them. Will ^(talk) 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, Blick, then I think you are suggesting that the articles are written in an in-universe fashion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) may be of interest. Typically, articles or sections you feel are written in an in-universe manner should be tagged with {{in-universe}}. Neil ☎ 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is plain from the very first line of the Torchwood Institute article that it's a fictional organisationor is it?. Anyone reading other articles referring to it, if not aware of this, can follow the link to the main article. That is, assuming Wikipedia readers are not so gullible as to believe everything they read. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also many of the examples removed such as this one are explicitly fictional. This looks to me more like someone who isn't a fan of Torchwood than anythign else. To be clear, Blick whether or not one likes a given spin-off or fictional organization is not connected to whether or not it should be mentioned anywhere. If that sort of thing did matter, I'd probably delete all the articles related to Powerpuff girls. JoshuaZ 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Rudd

Revert war going on at this page, the image in question is being removed with claims of BLP breaches. The image contains Labor Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh, 23-year old Nicholas Rudd, federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and Grace Grace, Labor MP for Brisbane Central, at Labour Day 2007. I believe it to be completely relevant to the article of Kevin Rudd. I would appreciate assistance and clarification of why this user should be able to remove this fully legitimate image added in good faith? Timeshift 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's in 3RR territory now, it looks to me that the issue is fundamentally a content dispute - you want to keep the picture, and Brendan doesn't. Have you considered starting an RfC?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how common sense and community consensus goes first. The Australian political editors and admins are all more or less aware of this issue. Timeshift 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Brendan is clearing his talk page including the AN/I and 3RR tags. Timeshift 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Point being? As admin User:Sarah told you here, "Brendan can remove messages from his talk page if he wants to. They remain in the history as a record, so there really isn't a problem with him removing them from his page. In fact, removing messages confirms that you have received them, so the editor cannot claim later that they never saw the warning. If you guys want to continue ... discussing this, I advise you take it to your own pages." --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Per talk page. Timeshift 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Macdonald/User:77.101.77.131

Resolved.

77.101.77.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is consistently vandalising the Ken Macdonald article, often cliaming to be the subject's son, or writing about the supposed son e.g. [30][31]. Some of this vandalism has been quite sneaky, e.g. [32], changing the article subject's middlename, which took quite a bit of checking to determinethat the original was actually correct. However, it tends to be hit and run vandalism, with a few days between each attack, so despite 2 reports by me to WP:AIAV, the IP has not been blocked. The contribution pattern convices me that only one user is contributing from this address (no useful contributions have been made), the address is assigned to blueyonder, so is probably at least semi-static. One previous 24hr block has been made at the start of the month, but the block was probably over before the user attempted to edit again. In addition to Ken Macdonald, the user has also made repeat attacks on Impetigo and Alan Dicks. Is there any chance of a block of 5 days to a week, which should actually prevent the next attempt, and maybe make the user get bored? David Underdown 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually since it's been going on for a month at least I put a month long block on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa, I seemed to be the only one watching the Ken macdonald article so it was getting a little frustrating. David Underdown 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration

FYI, a user has been waiting for approval on this list for more than 24 hours. The list appears to be only sporadically monitored. Will somebody please add it to their watchlist? Thank you. The Transhumanist    10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks question

I asked a question recently about User:Cyborg Ninja's personal attacks and stalking of me. As a result, she was issued a warning by an admin:

• [33]

Cyborg Ninja disputted the warning, so the admin issued a further explanation:

• [34]

However, Cyborg Ninja continues her personal attacks on me on her talk page. In response to an editor's suggestion that she have a "Fresh start", she replies by repeating the personal attacks on me.

• [35]

Is this allowed? It is her talk page, but she is continuing the stalking for which she was given a warning. Thanks, --Mattisse 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't read like personal attacks to me. Neil ☎ 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More like sour grapes on the part of the complainer here, imo. --Martin Wisse 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean me. Sour grapes for what? Yesterday she was warned by admin for stalking me and posting personal attacks on me on others talk pages and discussion pages, but the links above indicate she is still stalking me. Maybe you are saying that I am being oversensitive. It is just that she already did a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 over one incident that received no support whatsoever. I do wish she would stop stalking me. However, the talk page complaints indicate she still is stalking me. That is my problem. But I will try to be less sensitive. Thanks! Mattisse 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should be happy that I am so darn interesting to someone that they bother to stalk me! In my real life, I do not command such interest! Mattisse 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone take a look at this please

I am supposed to be writing my thesis so I dont have time to keep any eye on him: [36]. Thanks. Viridae^Talk 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thats unusal, perhaps a username block is necessary, name matching what they added suggests a role account.--Jac16888 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it unsual that there was only one post, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming they though fys may have been interested...? Viridae^Talk 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, i din't mean they should be blocked straight away, it was just a suggestion for if they continued, could some form of soapboxing. Now get back to your thesis--Jac16888 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visca el Barca's userpage

Resolved.

Can someone please pay attention to the userpage of Visca el barca (talk · contribs); there are several statements which are outright derrogatory, and several which are pure trolling, and explain him what Wikipedia is about. As I was involved in several disputes with him, I would rather not leave an impression of impropriety. Duja► 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is all that junk on that page? I think this could actually be a violation of home-land security laws in the United States as the message clearly supports a well known terrorist. Plus, it's extremely inflammatory, and trust me, I'm very hard to inflame. That rubbish doesn't need to be in any respectable encyclopedia and I encourage it be deleted due to obvious trolling. 68.143.88.2 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with above, that is not something we want on Wikipedia. I think we should do a checkuser (just to be safe and see where this person is, be it some kid at a school or an adult) and delete the userpage outright. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Very blatant trolling, IMHO. I support the page-blanking.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User's been blocked indef, obviously (not by me, I got beaten to the block). Apart from the junk on his userpage his edits consisted almost entirely of POV-pushing via edit-warring on Bosnia-related articles, and goodness knows we don't need more disruptive, tendentious editors in that corner of the encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this, I was about to do the same, but it would have been kinda lame 7 days after; thanks to the rouge colleagues for stepping in anyway. Duja► 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The slogan goes like "Visca el Barça!! Visca Catalunya!!. I thought the user was a Catalan nationalist until i realized it was not the case. So from the username you can understand that this is a troll. At least if i were a Catalan i'd have protested against my favorite rite being used as a trolling tool. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State Flags on Radio Market Templates

Resolved.

User:Rfc1394 is adding animated state flags to radio market templates in several states. These appear to be good faith edits, but they flags are against rules. I will do my best to revert, but if someone could, please, give me a hand, I would greatly appericate it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness - he's been busy. Yeah, I can help out.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban IP 216.56.26.2

Resolved.

This IP (Special:Contributions/216.56.26.2)has a long history of vandalism according to his contibutions page. Can he be banned, we had to revert his changes several times yesterday on the Woody Guthrie page. Dannygutters 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shared IP belonging to a school so the vandalism is highly unlikely to be by the same user. I'll put an anon block on it for 6 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Callmebc frivolous 3RR warnings

[edit] Ombudsman banned

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), an editor of two years plus, with thousands of edits and no prior blocks, was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales, who noted in the block log that the name suggests a "role account". I doubt an editor of such long standing can be considered a "role account" and I don't believe Jimbo realizes this; in any case an indefinite block for such a tenured editor is not the only means of preventing the person from posting inappropriate links. I've posted a note on Jimbo's talk but he's rarely online so I doubt he'll even see it. Obviously no one should be wheel warring with Jimbo but maybe if anyone agrees with me they can mention something on User talk:Jimbo to increase the visibility? Milto LOL pia 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Jimbo's side on this one. The name could easily confuse new users into thinking the user had some special status. Is there some reason why the name can't be changed to something less confusing? Ronnotel 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

? What? That wasn't the meat of the block, just an indication that Jimbo didn't realize the guy has made a career here. But if the guy's been editing for over two years and the username is a problem, then why don't you point out where it has caused a problem int he two years+ the guy's been editing. Surely such a problematic username has caused such problems given the long time of his activity. Milto LOL pia 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the confusion about the name, perma-blocking the guy seems more than a bit harsh. Couldn't he just have Ombudsman's name changed? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is also the harassment block, not just the username. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in the BADSITES nonsense (no opinion implied either way there, BTW) but Ombudsman has been a massively tendentious editor for years on vaccine and psychiatry-related articles. His behavior resulted in an RFC and an arbcom hearing, and he was almost certainly editing in violation of his arbcom-imposed restrictions. I also think the name issue was raised in the past, though I haven't dug enough to find it. I'm amazed his block log remained clean until now. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this issue. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it is, because you are promoting him as a good editor, when he was far from it. Skinwalker 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was some previous discussion of possible problems with this username. Concerns were also raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman. See also m:Ombudsman commission --JWSchmidt 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but there's also the issue of the harassment and whether or not an indef block is the best way to deal with it. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the account. Is that possible, or does he have to create another one? -- ChrisO 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking closely at Ombudsman's contributions rather than solely the length of his tenure. He's a highly tendentious soapbox-style editor, and recognized as such and sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then he's edited less frequently but no less tendentiously, generally throwing around charges of vandalism, whitewashing, etc. Here are some recent (and entirely typical) highlights:

• "Restore unscrupulously vandalized article" (for an article PRODDED and deleted without comment)
• [37] (not even sure how to describe this)
• More of the same

It would appear that Jimbo's block was based on repetitive insertion of a particular link, but before anyone agitates too strongly that this guy be unblocked because he's been here awhile, I would strongly encourage a more detailed review of his tenure and impact here. The username thing has been done to death and deemed not to be a violation in the past, but there is more than enough reason for this editor to be banned. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block has been reduced to a week. I suggest those of you with other problems pursue dispute resolution, but my involvement here is done. Thanks everyone for your comments. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Milto LOL pia. A permaban out of the blue did not seem right, at least I could not find a reason for it. Guido den Broeder 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The one week block seems reasonable. The attempted link placement seemed like a clear cut-case of trolling/harassment. JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Righteous block. Restoring links to harassment has zero tolerance. This is a very direct and clear message. Don't link to harassment. Especially don't restore links to harassment or revert those who are deleting them. It's unfortunate that editors want to soften written policy on this when in practice it is not soft and should not be tolerated. --DHeyward 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's no consensus for WP:BADSITES or anything similar. This is at this point well-established. The reason this was a good block was because it was linking to the site to harass, not because it was a link to an OH-NOS BADSITE. JoshuaZ 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] StevenBlack repeatedly removing AfD template

Could someone else please talk to this user? I tried explaining the policy to him but he says I'm bullying him. It's my AfD nom and he's called me a whole bunch of names, so I don't feel right blocking him myself. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed he's now moved it to the bottom of the page. Less problematic but still not where it belongs. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by StevenBlack: My view: It is simply not proper, nor fair to volunteer contributors, to be strafing a topics within the first few minutes or hours of a topic's appearance. I live, work, and play on Lake Ontario, and I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area. If you look at my contributions I've given a lot to Wikipedia about Eastern Ontario. I've also been a Wikipedian for many years, and I've been operating a very successful technical wiki since 1999. I must tell you: I have NEVER been bullied like I have been bullied today, firstly by the arbitrary deletion of the L.O.W. topic by Butseriouslyfolks (with no backup available!) then the slobbering of that AfD box on the topic within the first hour, well that's too much! Please knock it off, and show due respect for nascent topics. - StevenBlack 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content and/or context should be left alone to "cook"? JuJube 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: C'mon, that's disingenuous. Wikipedia is, by definition, a work in process. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what's disingenuous is you bypassing my question. I repeat, show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content/context get a pass because you think other people will expand on them someday. JuJube 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're very pleased for your contributions — however, if there are concerns about the notability of a group you've written about, the correct procedure is to address them calmly and carefully at the proper venue. In this case, AfD. It is inappropriate to attack other editors, and to unilaterally remove tags. The first deletion was not "arbitrary" — the text was a copyright violation. --Haemo 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Please show how the text was a copyright violation. Also, the notability of the group in question cannot be ascertained in the first hour of a topic's appearance in an outline form. No? Thank you. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The original article consisted of four sentences. One was copied verbatim from this page. Another was taken from part of a sentence but had two words changed. The remaining sentences were copied verbatim from a single sentence in the source, but split into two sentences with a few words added to one of them. That's a copyvio. -- But|seriously|folks  05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the discussion page before you deleted it, the description of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was NOT taken from the website you cite. The website you site is a DIRECTORY full of such summary descriptions of related and allied groups. The text I posted was taken directly from the source: the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper website itself and was modified for NPOV and in other ways I deemed appropriate at the time for the very early stages, the first stages, of fleshing a completely new topic. I was only a few minutes into my work when you, sir, deleted my work in progress, with no explanation, no warning, and apparently, without ANY wider community oversight. You have been repeatedly accused of heavy handedness. I find your behavior boorish and not quite in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Do you know what I did this morning? I had to completely re-trace and redo my work because of YOUR BOORISH and ARBITRARY and INSTANTANEOUS application of power. There was no historical record of my work that I could find, and I have little recourse other than, in my utter frustration, to face a plethora of roused admins that you summoned from this very page. Please, STOP THE BULLYING. I have spent far more time defending this article's right to exist than I have spent actually contributing. Does anyone else find that warped? StevenBlack 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ALSO: One of the so-called "copyright infringements" was (I assume -- I have access to no records) the line "Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is led by President and environmental lawyer, Mark Mattson and vice president, Krystyn Tully." That is a simple statement of fact in an article that was, at the time, barely minutes old. Can you please explain to me how this justifies your unilateral actions, Butseriouslyfolks? StevenBlack 09:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(link, since none has been provided before now.) Any particular reason not to take Chunk Rice's advice from 6.5 hours ago and userfy? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? --barneca (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

People: If you have problems with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper at this stage, less than a day old, then why not the same flak for San Francisco Baykeeper?? What about Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper?? What about most of those listed under "United States" in List of environmental organizations?? Is this, in fact, Wikipedia.us  ?? What's really going on here?? StevenBlack 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that should not be here. We're working on it. Feel free to help out and tag them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. Please stay on topic. The acid test here is, sir: does Butseriouslyfolks have the rectitude, and the courage of his convictions, to fight for the deletion of the San Francisco Baykeeper article, or is Butseriouslyfolks a wiki admin "bully" who is picking on a new article for petty reasons? See, in Wikepedia we have corporations documented down to the minutest detail in some cases. We have consumer-society products and excesses documented in minute detail. But is there no place in Wikipedia to document established, registered and active groups of people who speak for waterfront and the environment? I argue that there is PLENTY of scope for this in Wikipedia. Clearly you disagree. Butseriouslyfolks, plain and simple, put up, or knock it off. I wager that if you were to apply your logic to San Francisco Baykeeper, you would be soundly defeated and, in my view, rightfully so. StevenBlack 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly relevant to the topic. The existence or non-existence of other similar articles doesn't give any article the right to make an end-run around policy. (Also, this is wiki.en, as in English. We have plenty of articles about things outside of the United States, as indeed we should.) shoy 12:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steven, AFD'd articles must remain up for discussion for at least five days - this gives you at least five days to ensure the article becomes suitable for Wikipedia. It's not doomed as soon as it is tagged. Many of our best articles are ones which were rescued from the AFD process. Neil ☎ 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the article is deleted that you ask any one of many admins willing to recreate material in userspace to do just that, and work on the article in your userspace until you are certain it will pass an AfD. That's what I've learned to do with my drafts, many of which are just random collections of links and notes... users with long positive contribution histories are given wide latitude to draft articles in their userspace, free of worry about whether the item already shows notability or not, as it's clear that the article is a work in progress. Just don't add it to articlespace categories or use articlespace specific templates that do that, till you are ready. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting tired of the personal attacks here

This diff is way over the top.--SarekOfVulcan 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given Steven a final warning. Neil ☎ 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How much abuse do I have to take before I'm allowed to reciprocate in kind? -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it. [38]. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to respond in kind to inappropriate comments. It is appropriate to seek third party intervention. Since I don't know either of you from Adam, let me take a look... GRBerry 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked for 24 hours by Neil. GRBerry 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irresponsible editing on Archimedes Plutonium

[edit] Later Addition

Although the page in question has been deleted, against the vote of the AfD, the discussion here is more relevant than ever.Likebox 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has just dawned on me that the discussion here is not relevant at all. I apologize to Artie-poo, for falsely accusing him of smearing Mr. Archimedes Plutonium. He was not doing any such thing, and his comments were not libelous in any way. He was just politically well aware, through discussions with other administrators and as part of the Wikipedia aristocracy, that it was a foregone conclusion that the page was to disappear. As such, he was just trying to dissuade me from writing the page, by providing antagonistic pressure. I suggest that he could have done it in a way which was less liable to misinterpretation on my part.

I am very sorry that I misunderstood the situation. I am writing this here so that it is clear that I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. I only regret that I cannot erase my numerous contributions to date.Likebox 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to apologize to Ed Johnston, who also was in on the game.Likebox 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of the old discussion

I have been involved in editing the page Archimedes Plutonium, and I would like to bring a matter of some concern. The case involves unfortunate editing of the page, which I tried repeatedly to correct.

The editor in question is User:Arthur Rubin. Similar additions were made by User:EdJohnston.

The subject of the page was questioned about a murder, and I didn't know very much about the case then. I wrote that the accusations were groundless (specious was the word I used), and the next thing I know, it reads (specious^{[original research?][dubious – discuss]}). While I accept that in any other circumstances this is a legitemate and supportable tag, in this case the effect of the tag on an unsuspecting reader is to sew suspicion. It would have been more responsible to rephrase this section directly, instead of putting tags which have the effect of casting shadows on the subject's character.

Just to be clear about the known facts: Archimedes Plutonium was living in another state for two years at the time of the murder, and he was at home online at the time of the murder. The murderers were two teenagers who confessed to the crime, and fingerprints, boottracks, purchases, matched the scene. Nobody considers the case in the least bit open, and the chance that anyone else was involved is zero.

Further, I was writing about this as an example of the way in which this eccentric character has been harassed because of his notability.

I changed the tags, and tried different wordings, but each time the wording changed back to again be ambiguous about his culpability. No matter what wording I chose, I could not edit this page to make it unambiguous, despite bringing up the comments on the talk page of the two users. EdJohnston placed an incriminating link on the talk page of Archimedes Plutonium, and I had to place a link to a later page on the same site, where the whole thing is solved in order to (hopefully) correct the misleading impression that the previous comments made.

After many days of back and forth, the wording eventually settled down to an acceptably unambiguous phrase, the intermediate stages were so fraught with libel, that I was on edge for many days. I tried to explain my concerns to Arthur Rubin, because at first I thought this was done out of ignorance. But his responses were so bureaucratic and unhelpful, and did not alleveate the dangerous ambiguity. Then I came to the conclusion that this was happening as a result of either gross irresponsibility or of malice.

A representative sample of the edits in question are contained in these links::[39] [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. The relevant comments made on the talk page Talk:Archimedes Plutonium under the section heading "Harrasment, Specious, etc.", although I later added a link and a bolded statement to remove insinuations of culpability. The comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page were made during the same period of time, and the briefer comments on EdJohnston page also.

I would like to point out that the amount of insinuation was so large, that I personally began to think that the two users had some extra incriminating information about Archimedes Plutonium. They never made a single mention of the fact that this case is closed, either on the talk page or in the main page. I had to actively read about the case in great detail to convince myself that indeed he wasn't involved, and then fight with them to get this wording into the page, again and again.

I believe these actions are a blight on wikipedia, and reflect gross abuses by the editors in question, whether they were done out of irresponsibility or malice. I hope that something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.Likebox 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but LB is using "specious" to imply "unjustified", but the sources only imply "inaccurate" (and not considered credible by the local police chief, who may not have involved in the actual investigation.) As for "harassment", you would need a source other than AP that he was unjustly harassed.

For what it's worth, that AP was home online at the time of the murder was not known at the time, and would have been difficult to verify even if it had been suspected. (If I had reason to believe I would be suspected of the murder, I could easily set up an anonymizer at my home PC, and connect through it.) The parenthetical remark is WP:OR, but can easily be seen to discredit the unsourced assertion that the police knew that he was home online at the time of the murder.

The "blight" on wikipedia is the recreation of an article deleted under authority of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be perfectly legalall-right to speculate if the case weren't solved and you were speculating in your own home. To speculate that AP used an anonymizer to go out to another state, put on some teenagers boots, steal a knife from their home, stab a professor and his associate, put the bloody boots back in the teenager's home, and then go back to his home state is Original Research, and more fanciful than anything that Archimedes Plutonium has ever written.

The fact that sources do not say explicitly that he wasn't involved is because it is so bloody obvious that he wasn't involved that they don't feel the need to say it. The only reason the books mention him at all is because he is so interesting and notable. After the obligatory Fun Archimedes Plutonium facts, they go back to talking about the actual case, which goes on and on, and is eventually solved. If you were actually ignorant of the facts of the case, that would have been ok. It should only take a small discussion to explain that he wasn't involved, and the page would be reasonable. But I am not completely sure that you were ignorant of the facts of the case, when you persisted in making ambiguous edits despite pleading and begging on my part. All I was asking was to find some way, any way, to state unambiguously that he was not involved. Eventually, such a way was found, by me, after many, many attempts, but it cost me a few gray hairs.

In my opinion, this is the definition of irresponsibility.Likebox 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But, AfD4 has closed with a delete outcome, so it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree or not, the talk page needs to be kept as evidence for other editors to take a look at, and determine if indeed you acted irresponsibly, and if so, if any other actions need to be taken. The fact that the page has been deleted does not matter, because AP is notable enough and brilliant enough for his page to be recreated along largely the same lines in the future. Your possible wrongdoing, though, is evidenced in the talk page and discussion page. The evidence is overwhelming. The talk page needs to be looked at, as also the edits.

For future reference, the vote on the AfD was a definite keep, and the person who brought it up voted to keep, with no hesitation, and once he understood who AP was, wrote "I am withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET".Likebox 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion has no relation to the page. I will only close it after the issue of irresponsibility is settled by a review by other administrators.23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specious and inaccurate mean different things, especially in context. If you say specious, and another user says the sources say inaccurate, then a request for souring was valid. --Haemo 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. He didn't say "inaccurate", he just put ^{[original research?][dubious – discuss]} tags on the "specious" (although, to be fair, he later took out the ^{[dubious – discuss]}). Please go through the records. Then I changed it to something else. I didn't know what he wanted. I was completely at a loss.Likebox 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I know it follows the letter of the law. But I later changed the phrase to "Nobody suspects him of any involvement" using the present tense, and it got reverted. I tried "but he was never under serious suspicion" or words to that effect, and it got deleted, later it got ^{[original research?][dubious – discuss]} to work the opposite effect of my intention. I racked my brain on this each time to come up with something new that would be OK with Rubin et al, but I couldn't think of anything they liked, and they wouldn't help. This was really jarring, because, I understand disagreements on dubious mathematical content. I also understand disagreements about notability. I understand the controversy about this page, and I sympathize. Even if the whole page is deleted, I understand. But this is an accusation of murder for God's sake. Where is the humanity? This is a human being here, and a human being that I respect very much. I thought I would get an apology at some point, or at least an acknowledgement of error. But all I got was more bureaucratese. This is not decent human behavior in my book, no matter what the disagreements on content.Likebox 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at 3RR, so could only tag, rather than revert and modify to a correct statement. I'd consider the suggested change a revert. Perhaps I chose the wrong tag. Do we have a NPOV-word tag? Thinking back over it, that would have been better than {{or}}, and {{dubious}} was inappropriate because the word "specious" doesn't have a clear meaning. I don't recall the "nobody suspects him of any involvement", but that seems biased in context, as it appears he really was a suspect at the time (at least, we have no evidence to the contrary). That one, I probably should have just corrected to: "the case is closed and he is not considered to have been involved." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your 3RR explanation is honest ^{[original research?][dubious – discuss]} and convincing^{[original research?][dubious – discuss]}. I think that other adminstrators should take your ^{[dubious – discuss]} word here and not do the ^{[original research?]} to check the deleted history logs and see for themselves.02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It also pains me that you can't bring yourself to say "The case is closed and he was not involved", even after all this.Likebox 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive Suggestions

I have had some time to calm down, I am sorry I lost my temper. But I didn't sleep because I was worried those tags would show up again, and Plutonium would lose his job again or God knows what. I am still not going to contribute to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, but I thought that it leaves everyone with a bad feeling if there is no resolution to disputes, and if all the comments are of a destructive nature.

So here are my editing suggestions, you administrative folks can do what you will:

1. The tags ^{[original research?][dubious – discuss]} have got to go. They are tools of lazy editing, used in place of a thoughtful rewrite. I think there is a (very slight) possibility it just didn't occur to Rubin that tags can change meaning so drastically, even after I repeatedly tried to explain. If somebody wants to edit the page, let them edit the page by thinking and writing a sentence.
2. Recognize that any description, even a neutral encyclopedic one, involves some original reinterpretation in order to be coherent. It is ridiculous to assume that Wikipedia will be cobbled together from sentences and sentence fragments in scattered sources. Recognize that the editing process is political, and choose the political tools carefully. I think this is already recognized, and the policies in place are by and large sensible ones. But be careful to not whip out "original research" for something which does not involve a radically new idea, or a radically new synthesis of ideas. Be careful with the OR accusation, and use it for idea-units (paragraphs) and not individual sentences or words. The individual sentences or words should just be rewritten back and forth until they settle down.
3. Require edits to be made using a username. This will also cut down on vandalism. There is no reason that someone can't log in to make an edit, and there is no reason that someone can't make a new username if they want to edit anonymously. This is just to cut down on the chance of someone inserting tag-libel or other subtle vandalism.

And here are my political suggestions:

1. Get rid of the tools of brownnosing, those stupid (but well intentioned) barnstars that anyone can give to themselves and friends.
2. Do not select administrators by a vote of previous administrators. That's how aristocracies are made and perpetuated. It creates tiers of administrators and lackeys, who are vying for power. Recognize that wikipedia administration is a political office, and expand it slowly by some sort of vote restricted to non-administrators. Create separation of power, and make sure there are ombudsmen to control abuses of power.
3. In order to attract mathematical talent, it is essential that the people who contribute do not feel exploited. Writing a mathematical argument requires about ten times the effort of writing a usual exposition, and the work is underappreciated. You have to check and double check and yes, horrors of horrors, do original research. Otherwise your mathematical discussion will be shitty. In order to encourage mathematical contributors, you must assure them that their work will not get tagged into oblivion, and will be evaluated carefully. Fortunately for wikipedia, for the time being none of the current contributors can understand any math so the stuff all stays no matter how original and how good it is.
4. Do not allow academics to serve in any administrative capacity. They have an interest in perpetuating certain ideas and marginalizing others because that's how they eat. They should only contribute content. I do not have a PhD nor a serious academic position, so I can be fair to everybody. There is no reason that a layperson can't decide what is a competent exposition and what is not. But an academic administrator can just punish his academic competitors on a whim.
5. Be expansive in the topics you cover. I know there is a debate between the "restrictionists" and the "expansionists", but the debate is dumb. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (as you say) and there should be no debate. All the "restrictionists" are people who want to keep something marginalized.

End of comments. I will know that someone is listening when the Archimedes Plutonium page is back up. I think that will happen when hell freezes over.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon rereading this I realized that point 3 could be misread as a bid for administratorship on my part. It's not. I would like to have an academic position in the future.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libellous material on AFD

An AFD has been started on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) by User:SpigotMap and User:EvanCarroll (possibly a sockpuppet since they're both from Houston) to get the article PlaneShift (computer game) deleted, but the nominators have been using the AFD as a way to defame the director, Luca Pancallo, and his open source project [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Not much of what they say here in the above diffs can be backed up, and I don't appreciate their defamatory personal attacks against Luca—who has also edited Wikipedia [55]—or his project. A closer look into SpigotMap's very first edits on Wikipedia will reveal his conflict of interest: He has played the game under the pseudonym Link and has been banned from the game for quite a while [56] [57] [58] (for over five years to my knowledge), and he only registered a Wikipedia account to make sure this article gets deleted. SpigotMap aka Link is also the only reason Freenode staffer SportChick is in your IRC channel. Tuxide 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: Removing Christel since that person is no longer on the channel Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the diffs you link appear to be innocuous. Statements like "the license is authoritarian", "It is a luke warm game", "proprietary junk", "I hope this project dies", are clearly not libelous or defamatory under United States law. Any suit based on those statements would be dismissed instantly. The first diff, with reference to "normal Luca lying about the project", is the closest thing, and it is obviously an expression of opinion (ie, protected) - not to mention that it's difficult to see how Mr. Pancallo could prove that it materially damaged his reputation! IANAL, but this kind of silliness is wasting everyone's time. Admins are not going to block anyone for saying mean things about your favorite person or project. <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Luca Pancallo has made it quite clear that this can be sued over, since he has no way to back up his statements, and the only reason such a case would not be accepted is that his project is not-for-profit. I have no reason to assume good faith in SpigotMap due to his first edits on Wikipedia and because I know him well enough. Furthermore, there really is no point to blocking anyone—he is already well known for ban evasion among Freenode staff, so it would be impossible to ban him here. My reason for bringing this up on AN/I is to address this to the closing admin. Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mr. Pantallo is incorrect. Libel is defined as a defamatory falsehood - that is, a knowingly untrue statement of fact which places the subject in a negative light. Statements of opinion, on the other hand, are protected speech under the First Amendment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements you refer to are statements of opinion and thus are not actionable libel. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but I've studied media law extensively.) FCYTravis 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: He can sue; he just doesn't have any chance of winning, for the reasons that Travis states. I'd also advise Mr. Pantallo to stop talking about suing people for on-Wikipedia statements, or else the IP from which he's making those edits could end up being blocked per WP:NLT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, to clarify, Luca Pancallo has never made a legal threat on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I've seen him make claims of libel elsewhere for remarks like these made outside of Wikipedia, however. Second, my issue is not whether this can be sued over, but that you wouldn't see claims like the ones SpigotMap and EvanCarroll have made in the article namespace—such claims would just get reverted as libel unless they really can be cited appropriately. Thus, I don't see why they should be present in the project namespace either. Furthermore, if Mr. Pancallo does have a reason to sue—and I highly doubt he will—it would probably be to find out who these people are and move on. Which really makes it no different than the Skutt Catholic lawsuit (which I clearly know all about). Tuxide 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham and Birmingham, United Kingdom

A rename and revert by a new user has left the Birmingham article without an edit history. The edit history is now at Birmingham, United Kingdom. Could someone do the appropriate delete and moves to fix it please? Ta. Mr Stephen 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BrumBoy1234 moved Birmingham to Birmingham, United Kingdom, did a cut and paste move of the content of the article to Birmingham, then blanked Birmingham, United Kingdom and put a speedy delete tag on it. I have reverted the speedy delete tag, would somebody please move it back? Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be done. – Steel 23:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mr Stephen 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear - looks like Birmingham redirects to itself, and Birmingham, UK redirects to Birmingham. And the content is nowhere to be found. Am I missing something here? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just getting redirects to each other and i can't find the article history anywhere. Did you edit conf with Maxim, Steel? Woodym555 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit history was in Birmingham, United Kingdom, but it now seems to have gotten lost. Corvus cornix 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim went and re-broke everything after I fixed it. Joy. – Steel 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[thousand edit conflicts] And now a third admin has fixed it. – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to Birmingham. I doubt if I'm alone in rejoicing its disappearance, even for a few minutes. Only in Wikipedia! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can empathise with that :P – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back.  :) Corvus cornix 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in Birmingham!. Brummies will unite ;) It has been fixed now. The logs look a mess though! Woodym555 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately only 6 people attended to this meet-up. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of thousand people set off - but they ended up in Alabama ;-) B1atv 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There were seven at this one, the trend is heading upwards. If and when we have one in Chester, I may finally have no exuse for not coming. Neil ☎ 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could he have been trying to get the history deleted? See also this vandalism from earlier: [59] —Random832 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisting Website

The editor Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been adding ref links to the article Ahwaz territory that link to www.al-moharer.net. See diff, [60]. [Note added by Sarah: Guys, please be careful with these links. Admin Gnangarra said his antivirus and firewall went off when he followed one of the links. Sarah 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

This website is particularly disturbing and promotes terrorist activity against the US government and the Iraqi government: "The organization basically represents Iraq and comprises all the Iraqi people and its legitimate and bona fide resistance forces which the occupation wants to destroy, with the Iraqi national armed forces as a high-priority target." www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

Again, "Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/abu_assur262.htm

Among other things, this website contends that there are "more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses." The author of that articles is, supposedly, a US military officer. www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/guenther262.htm

Another quote from a different article, "October 2nd, 2007, will be a milestone date in the history of the Movement for the Liberation of Iraq from American and Iranian Imperialism. On that day, the Supreme leadership of the Jihad liberation struggle, which is comprised of 22 fighting factions of the Armed Iraqi National Resistance, was founded." www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

There are more, you can find them for yourself. I don't find any mention of Ahwaz anything on the site. I suggest that this site should be blacklisted, but I don't know who to take that to. I do not know if this individual is dangerous or where he is editing from. Note, I am unsure as to how secure this website is regarding viruses, etc. --Strothra 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of transparency, this article was the subject of this AFD and is currently under this DRV. Sarah 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would just suggest removing the link as an unreliable source. If that doesn't work, then you could considered listing it at WP:BLACKLIST as a spam web-site. Not sure it exactly fits what that was set up for, but it certainly seems like it might do the trick. Ronnotel 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the editor adding the links? I think that simply his addition of them is disturbing - should an admin not review that behavior? Is this vandalism - should I add vandal tags when he does this? --Strothra 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly the message that the governments in London and Washington would want conveyed, and I personally deplore calls to arms from any side; but leaving aside the flowery rhetoric, this is a website for or by those engaged in armed insurrection against the current Iraqi regime (or armed resistance, depending on PoV). Depending on POV, that may be seen as a wonderful thing or something to be expected or something terrible, but I see nothing wrong in referencing or linking to that site where such links are relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" seems to be directed at the whole Iraqi population and put into context promotes violence against US and Iraqi forces - it doesn't matter your POV, unless you're for violence you're not going to find this a reliable source. --Strothra 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 ecs)I've already removed it and I do not believe it is an appropriate site for us to link to. And I do think there is a problem here with this website, the editor, the various sockpuppets and this article. Sarah 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the socks, but I do not think they are the same as Hisham since the socks seem to have a far superior command of English.--Strothra 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The latest sock has been blocked by Ryulong Sarah 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The website is clearly anti-American and anti-Iranian. But guys, you showed no evidence so far that it promotes terrorism yet you label it as a "terrorist" website. The link added by that user relates directly to the subject of the article. It is not a call tp violance but an article from a different POV about the Iraq-Iran conflict and its relation w/ Ahwaz. Please read it and do not fear about your firewall and anti-virus going off as if it was the case neither Strothra nor me would have read it while still having them on. You could argue using WP:RS and biased source as an argument instead as Ronnotel said but it is clearly not a "terrorist site". Most of the terms used are limited to "resistance" and "liberation". There is no bombing or mass killing mentioned. Please let me know if you got some clear mention to that. I have no particular interest on the issue (or in politics in general) but you guys have participated at the AfD so the idea of a content dispute comes to mind. I hope i was fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Note: This is also used as a source for a statement on Mujahideen Shura Council#Insurgency in Iraq (external link #12). It is also used as an external link in it:Michel Aflaq and is used on 3 pages in ar.wikipedia: ar:العرب وإيران, ar:يهود أشكناز, and an image ar:صورة:Khaled abdelmajid.jpg. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I understand the content dispute issue, that's why when Strothra raised this with me, I advised him/her to bring it here and why I noted at the top there the AFD and DRV links. Thank you for your comments. Sarah 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of the use in question is another issue but i am going have some sleep in a while. Someone else can please have a gentle word w/ him. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. It's clear, however, that it's Ba'athist and supports violence against the Iraqi and US government forces which I think still strongly goes toward the WP:RS and NPOV arguments. I'd hardly call the site a call to peaceful resistance. To be fair to Sarah, the terrorist label was my own - I point that out because you wrote "guys." Please note that I added a level 2 linkspam warning - I'll add a note that the website above is what I'm specifically referring to by it. --Strothra 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i read it in English because it wouldn't make sense if i have read it in Arabic (basing my arguments on a version different than the one you used -the english version). Well, as i said, i am not involved much in politics and i'll leave that to the community though i'd have used WP:RS and biased source to end the story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. No worries Strothra. I know you and i know Sarah and i know you are acting in good faith as always. It is not personal and i know of course that it was you who used the title but that wasn't my focus. I was more responding to both of your comments in general. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized I copied only part of the website address when putting it into my browser and so I kept getting the Arabic main site. I apologize for the confusion.--Strothra 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the article itself should be up for deletion, but any severly biased content that was there before should be kept out. Some of the rhetoric you're describing is the same garbage that you'll find in a lot of far-left propaganda(the false parallels between the Third Reich and post-9/11 America), but it's still easy to see why this is more of a Ba'athist site. I assumed it might've been a Sunni jihadist propaganda site as well, until FayssalF pointed out that it was Ba'athist. I added a biased source tag on a site about some far-left political party in Bangladesh a month or so ago. ----DanTD 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:butseriouslyfolks - Harassment

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper?

Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics?

See, with this premature AfD that he instigated, completely disrupting article development, he's evidently not a disinterested party and I see no NPV at all here. Can this topic be confided to watchers in the Environment Project, perhaps? I don't know if User:butseriouslyfolks is qualified to deal with the article's subject matter, or me for that matter.

Please consider this a formal request. StevenBlack 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BSF is an administrator, and even if he weren't, anyone on Wikipedia is "qualified" to deal with anyone else. I don't see how someone can be unqualified to deal with another editor. BSF may have AfD'd the article prematurely, and he has certainly been open to discussion. He has done nothing, as far as I can tell, to harass, attack, or undermine you. On the other hand, you (repeatedly) removed the AfD notice, which is strictly prohibited. He nominated an article for deletion, in good faith. Bad timing, yes, but in good faith, which you're supposed to assume he did. To others, please note the ongoing at the Wikiquette alerts board here, regarding Steven Black's noncompliance with AfD procedures, his comments on BSF's talk page, at the WQA, in his edit summaries, and from the article in question. --Cheeser1 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, BSF's five posts to the thread vs. your 17. Who's harassing who here? JuJube 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything, my early AfD accelerated development of the article. It was an A7able stub before it was listed for AfD. The author's getting a crash course, but I think he's starting to understand what the deficiencies are and how to go about correcting them. I only wish he would be more civil, but with the volume of stuff I delete, I'm developing quite a thick skin. (Really, it's all skin and no fat. And if you believe that . . . ) -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment; even if the AfD was premature, it did spur people (involved and not yet involved) to jump in and start making sure that the article established if/how the subject met notability policy. I do wonder why Steven Black requires a "crash course" (not to mention why his behavior seems to reflect an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia) - he's been contributing for years. --Cheeser1 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is troublesome. Also, I assumed from all of the procedural difficulties that he was new here. -- But|seriously|folks  08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor seriously needs to cool down. Hostility, incivility, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints against others. Perhaps an uninvolved admin would like to assess the situation and take appropriate action, if necessary? --Cheeser1 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with butseriouslyfolks stepping back, as I have been requesting for a while now? SarekofVulcan definitely should step back, in my view. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper? / Try reading about "WP:RFAr" if you're really interested. ¶ Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics? / It's possible for any user to be so removed. ¶ See, with this premature AfD that he instigated... / Er, which "premature AfD"? ¶ Please consider this a formal request. / I don't understand how a series of questions, comments and musings can be a "formal request". Anyway, you make a formal request on some page designed for formal requests. -- Hoary 11:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary. I have left a mediation request with Daniel, the mediation chair. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you have to be civil with other editors, during mediation? You'll need to improve in this area if you're going to get anything out of mediation. --Haemo 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Regiment

Resolved.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been causing a disruption on Template:Racism topics. He insists upon adding three articles to the template even though he has been asked multiple times by multiple editors for documentation which he has yet to provide. He has stated that the articles list the groups/ideologies as racist but the articles only state that some small groups which are at best polar opposites consider them racist if anything at all. He has been reported at the 3RR noticeboard once for a violation in spirit if not in letter of the 3RR rule and he recieved a 3 hour block. Since his block has expired he has made three more reverts on the page. Most concerning about this individual is his use of abusive language in accusing editors and Wikipedia in general of racism. CJ 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After I made this post, I checked the page again. And Regiment is now in violation of 3RR. CJ 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, see here. Also, check the talk page. His "posse" has tried to practice apologetics, before getting me blocked, then asking for sources afterwards, then disagreeing with the nature of the source I MIGHT provide, even though Mexica Movement already describes the racial supremacism inherent within their agenda, even though some editors have refused to include statements from critical sources which use the term itself, "racist", in their criticism of Mexica. Who says that articles like that have to be sanitized? Who says that White people can't complain when Mexica treats them like shit? Its all edit warring now, since he has refused to accept sources from people he doesn't like. CNN isn't a good enough source? What about YouTube recordings of Mexica demonstrations and hate marches? That's plainly wrong right there. He doesn't really want to hear the other side, but he wants you to bully me. He set up the revert war just so I'd bite the bait and break the 3RR, but he's a vandal in my eyes and Wikipedia deserves to be an NPOV community. Regiment 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur CJ 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have chosen to not be NPOV and freely admitted it several times. Regiment 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: From a look at the related talk page section, editors asked for sources to indicate that the additions to the template were proper, were told they were being politically correct, and then declared to be "ideologically aligned" with the groups in question. YouTube videos are not considered a reliable source, as was pointed out on the talk page. Regiment appears to need to review Assume Good Faith and WP:CIVIL at the least, provide reliable sources for his/her argument, and really consider that coming off a block for disruption only to go on and do the thing he was blocked for (violating 3RR in the process) once again is probably not a good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view: both have broken 3RR. I think the page needs bit of protection to let the war cool off a bit. Spryde 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I've inadvertently broken 3RR, although I don't think I have because all I've done is remove unsourced content, then I'll take whatever comes. All I've asked for from the very beginning is a source and some civility. CJ 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regiment is engaging in revisionist history. With the very first removal of his additions to the template (at 5:40 on 22 October), Crownjewel82 left a message on the Talk page (at 5:46) asking for "some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda". Another message before Regiment's 3-hour block asked for WP:RS and explained that adding articles to the template without them was WP:OR. After his block, I left another such message at Template talk:Racism topics and a longer message at User talk:Regiment#Template:Racism topics. In the message at his Talk page, I again explained WP:RS and WP:OR; I also wrote about WP:AGF and the proper approach to getting his articles into the template if, in fact, they belong there. His claim that nobody told him he needed sources until after he was blocked is pure nonsense, and his behavior today is unacceptable after several editors have gone to such lengths to explain appropriate WP process to him. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• This user has now been blocked for a week following a report at AN3. The reasons for the block given [61] were deliberately breaking the 3RR having just come off a block for a previous 3RR violation, POV pushing and personal attacks concerning other editor's motives. I also noted that he did not constructively engage in discussion of the disputed edits. In short, we don't do it like this (well we shouldn't anyway) and I chose a length of block designed to clearly signal that the behaviour isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated. As with all my admin actions, this is open to comment, review and adjustment by others. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 75.162.105.19 (talk · contribs) on Andrew J. Moonen

Hi, Merope asked me to post this here after a WP:AIV report. This IP has advocated "vigilante" action against a BLP article subject here, and is making other incendiary edits with this summary. I'm not sure if any action should be taken but wanted to bring it up here just in case. • Lawrence Cohen 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Snocrates on Laie Hawaii Temple

User:Snocrates is unilaterally deleting historically relevant content from Laie Hawaii Temple without discussion. He refused to discuss his reverts on the talk page, instead referring to me as a "dimwit" when I contacted him on his talk page,[62] claiming that I'm the one who needs to discuss his deletions.[63] Now that he has finally arrived on the talk page, he is insisting that structure-related articles cannot have history sections. —Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. It's mostly a content dispute where (IMO), Snocrates has appropriately explained his removal of the history section. Unless I missed something, he's not saying that history doesn't belong in architectural articles, just that the history in this article doesn't belong. He was uncivil in that edit summary and I'll leave a comment for him on his talk page about that. Hopefully this helps. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Snocrates didn't "appropriately explain his removal of the history section" until 21:33 on October 24. Prior to that, between 21:24, 23 October and 20:02 and 21:31 24 October, he failed to use the talk page. User:Snocrates deleted your message[64] claiming that he had "civilly asked" me not to edit his talk page. You will not be able to find any such message because he never made such a request. I watch the Hawaii recent changes watchlist very closely for vandalism, and after seeing Snocrates delete content from Laie Hawaii Temple without explanation on the talk page several times, I contacted him at 21:38, 24 October 2007.[65]. Apparently, during the time I was writing this message, he added a comment to the talk page at 21:33, approximately five minutes previous to my posted comment.[66] Nothing was said about editing his talk page. At 21:39, 24 October 2007 he deleted my message with the comment "Undid revision 166840410 by Viriditas (talk) already placed discussion on talk page, dimwit". After you warned him about civility, he replied, "what is my alternative when people choose to edit this page when I have civilly asked them not to? "pretty please"?[67] Contrary to Snocrates's claim, no such action by Snocrates ever occurred or was recorded in any edit history or summary. It is also important to point out that Snocrates's first edit to Wikipedia was to declare himself an "exopedian" who is "extrememly uninterested in trying to talk with other users here or on other talk pages".[68] This seems to go against the basic, fundamental Wikipedia idea of collaboration and is not conducive to editing. Further, looking at Snocrates (talk · contribs) in depth, I see a continuing pattern of deletion without discussion related to LDS articles. This needs to be looked into by other administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it possible to do a range block?

Ras Kass is being hit by really offensive vandalism. It started with 142.29.133.72 (talk · contribs) who has had multiple warnings, and is now switched to 142.29.133.47 (talk · contribs), and then back to the original vandal again. I don't know how range blocks work, but would it be possible to range block the IPs in their range for an hour or two? Corvus cornix 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nasty stuff. Blocked the /24 for a few hours. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Conservative321

Conservative321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly changing BCE to BC and CE to AD in articles, is blanking articles about gay topics, is repeatedly removing references to global warning and greenhouse gases, all without discussion (even going so far as to changing references to BCE in Talk pages that were put there by other users). I'm on uw-v3 on him/her, I tried to point them to the MoS discussion on dates, but they are either not reading their Talk page, or are ignoring it. With a User name like this, it looks like they've come here with an agenda, does somebody want to be less brusque with them than I usually am? I do try to be helpful, but sometimes I come across as more incivil than I intend to be... Corvus cornix 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, other people have reverted their edits over the last couple of days, but nobody made any comments on Conservative321's Talk page explaining the problem with their edits. Better communication, hm, people? Corvus cornix 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this [69] can be taken as a response to Corvos' notifications and clear explanation of policy regarding ... what do I call it? ... year labelling conventions?ThuranX 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that's a meaningful response. Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to continue with a uw-v4 next time, followed up by a WP:AIV report, if they continue. Corvus cornix 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you file reports at AIV or elsewhere you should point out that this likely is the same person as Conservative765 (talk · contribs). Raymond Arritt 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, the username isn't that big of a hint towards their objective? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked both accounts. Besides the obvious issue with sockpuppetry and single-purpose vandalism/trolling accounts, BC/BCE trolling is kind of a red flag. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales

Unresolved. Blocked, as were subsequent socks

Would somebody kindly block 28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales (talk · contribs)? Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If This account was only created today, why are they able to do page moves already? Is it because the pages being moved are in User space? Corvus cornix 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's no autoconfirm requirement for general page moves... — Scientizzle 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[70] :*Cough* Gah! 3 edit conflicts Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything with "Bimbo Wales" in the name can be hardblocked on sight as User:Connell66 socks, according to the response to an IP check I filed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "Bimbo Wales" to the blacklist for that username-watching bot thingy yesterday, so they should generally get taken out pretty quickly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also adding the sockpuppet notes as per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Bimbo Wales. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, i thought you were already an admin! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. :). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah.  :) I don't really want to be, either. Thanks. Corvus cornix 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling and vandalism

This troll who is posting here at the ANI has been very active at WP:RFCN. This is one of the cases reported before withdrawing it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:78.146.211.125

Resolved.

Already in violation of 3RR & has recently vandalised my warning on Talk:Blizzard Entertainment. Could we have a block please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.142.155.71

Resolved.

History of vandalism this evening. Just blanked IP report from his talk page. Already warned. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for reporting standard vandalism, you're supposed to give the full set of warnings, then, if the vandalism continues, report them at WP:AIV--Jac16888 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-time infobox disrupter

Resolved.

74.12.148.85 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) has for months (under other anonymous IPs as well) disrupted infoboxes. The pattern of edits is always the same. S/he removes captions in the infobox, removes references in the infobox, removes the country name in the place of birth/death, replaces birthdate/deathdate templates with sole dates, or adds a fair use picture in the infobox when a fair use photo cannot be used. Could some admins warn the user about their behavior? It's been going on for far too long. 140.247.131.86 01:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Blocked by Riana (talk · contribs) for vandalism. ( arky ) 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race warrior

The Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom has been a contentious entry, to say the least. Things have been relatively calm lately, until this edit. Its obviously inappropriate and has since been removed by another editor. I threw a final warning down on his talk page, but is this kind of edit ever acceptable. There's race baiting, clear WP:CIVIL violations, and a vague threat (which he did remove). His other contributions for the most part seem to be linking various celebrities to various ethnic groups, and he tried to do something on the page for Nazism (red flag)... but isn't this the kind of editor who should be banned on sight? AniMate 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, this report is about Mortifer. AniMate 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, these edits aren't acceptable, ever. I removed it earlier, along with some identical anon speech, which attacked another editor. I hope this is the end of it — not optimistic, though. --Haemo 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Throwaway account blocked

I've indeffed Scion87 (talk · contribs), as it seems to be an obvious throwaway account and likely sock, as it came in and immediately started edit warring over the name of the Mexican-American War (breaking links on the page in the process). It also seemed to have a remarkable knowledge of our sockpuppet tagging procedures [71]. In case I'm missing something, I'm posting here so others can check on this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I seem to recall other socks targeting the particular editor targeted by Scion87, but can't remember the details. Anyway, this was a good block of an obvious, disruptive throwaway sock account. MastCell ^Talk 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an absolute ream of them. I've personally blocked more than thirty. There's been a checkuser request in since the 6th, in a vain attempt to smoke out the sleeper accounts but there's been no action — something which has really frustrated both myself, and another editor whose been working on the article, and subsequently been the subject of a lot of abuse from these sockpuppets. I don't know what else to do but keep playing whack-a-mole. --Haemo 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin edit rights privilege abuse

• Omegatron (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A while back, the above admin made a content edit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a page protected due to edit warring and currently under mediation. Furthermore, that edit was to a section under specific discussion on the mediation page. The admin was notified both on his talk page, and here on WP:ANI, that his actions were improper. The mediator, chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel, agreed that edits to those sections should not occur until the mediation was completed.

Today the admin deliberately unlocks the page in order to continue his editing, even though the mediation is ongoing, although thankfully, progress is being made.

This article is a most tendentious and difficult one to keep appropriate. There has been discussions, debates, and mediation attempts on this article for years now. Recently, we have actually been having success hammering out some of the issues. Keeping the article stable during this discussion is of great importance in allowing all sides to discuss what should and should not be there. Omegatron has been informed of this AND has been invited to join the discussion and mediation process, which he has not done in earnest before using his admin rights to unlock the article. At this point, one can no longer assume good faith as the admin has been informed, and warned, about this activity before. I believe some action needs to be taken. -- Avi 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all interested parties *have* to agree to mediation. :S —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i don't think protecting an article for months at a time is the right way to go. Why can't parties have the mediation without the protection?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop, but I'll let others have fun with that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having a page protected for months on end is not good. There are several minor edits that could be done. For example, on my display the references section is messed up by the sister links box protruding in from above. A simple {{clear}} would sort that. I also note that while one of Omegatron's edits was to do with neutrality, the other (here) was a simple formatting edit, and that should be reinstated. I also note that although Omegatron unprotected the article, he didn't continue editing. See here: "Unprotected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement.". I'm going to add an {{editprotected}} request to the talk page to see if minor edits are being accepted or not. Carcharoth 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that among the edits he wishes to make is one that is at the heart of the current mediation, please read the mediation page Carcharoth. Yes, it is frustrating; it is frustrating for all of us involved, but making changes to the very portions that are under discussion is not the way to do it, especially when after being invited to partake in the discussion, Omegatron demurred. -- Avi 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the mediation page, Avraham. If you re-read my comment, you will see that I link to the edit by Omegatron that I think is non-controversial. It is this one. Have a close look. It is only a formatting change - no content has changed. Note the edit summary: "trying to make long list of refs easier to navigate around". I completely agree that the other edit, seen here, should have been discussed at the mediation page first. My concern was whether minor edits were being ignored. I left an edit protected request, and you only partially fulfilled it. Possibly you misread what I wrote, but it wastes your time and my time if minor edits have to be done in this back-and-forth manner. If editors of the article can't control themselves, and engage in edit wars, then the conduct of the editors should be looked at, rather than protecting the page. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since general editing to that section, which being in the lead is under scrutiny and mediation now, should be curtailed, changing the structure to facilitate editing-only ease, which is invisible when reading the article, can wait. Regarding editor conduct, sometimes, certain articles require patience by all involved. Yes using {{editprotected}} to suggest changes is a pain, but having articles in edit wars is worse. This article, obviously, is among our most tendentious. So if it requires a bit more understanding and patience than most people in today's "instant gratification" world find bearable, that is a small price to pay for working out a firm consensus. As important, it is part of the dispute resolution process here; which will only work if respected. -- Avi 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I read this wrong, I don't think there is any admin misconduct here, at least not of the egregious sort. I think we could debate for a while whether or not full protection for months is a good thing or not, but I don't think this admin has done anything horribly wrong. I could be mistaken, but best to wait for him to comment I think ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been ongoing since May. Biased editors cannot use this as justification to lock down an article in their preferred version, and then stall in mediation to prevent others from making changes indefinitely.

Please unprotect the article. There's a lot more work to be done, and Avi cannot be allowed to assert ownership of the article in this way. — Omegatron 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is an integral part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Showing disrespect and disregard for the process will in no way shape or form help the project. Wikipedia will be around for a long time; sometimes, patience is required for the community to come to a reasonable consensus and compromise. Making edits to sections that are at the direct heart of the ongoing mediation shows a complete lack of respect for the process, the project, and the editors involved. Those of us actively involved in the mediation have been editing this article for years, and we do know what the "hot-buttons" are. Join us in working to fix the article on a long-term basis instead of ignoring all of us, wikpedia process, and the project's integrity by making unilateral decisions and edits despite ongoing dispute resolution. You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to? -- Avi 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can request edits by posting them on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. This might be the best way to proceed with noncontroversial edits and after demonstrating consensus among different editors for more substantial changes. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, does the same "edit by committee and keep protected while discussion takes place over months" process apply to articles where editing behaviour is being examined by the Arbitration Committee? Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would recommend unprotection. Ahmadinejad is a controversial public figure and is in the news often. It is quite likely a high-traffic page. Leaving such a page protected for long periods of time is extremely undesirable. If people involved in the dispute ignore the mediation discussion and continue to edit the disputed statements, take it up with them. Mr.Z-man 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That has been tried. This started when Omegatron, perhaps initially unknowingly, edited one of the major parts of the article under mediation, ignoring said mediation. -- Avi 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Locking a high-traffic and uncomplimentary article about a national leader like this one for long periods is bound to appear to be partisan. I (misleadingly) advertise a likely POV - and did so in the full expectation that even this suspicion of partisanship would exclude me from ever wielding admin powers. PR^talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Avi: And did you bring it up on his talk page before coming here? What's wrong with just reverting and warning? Why does the article have to be protected so that almost no one can edit it just because a few people should not be editing a couple statements? Mr.Z-man 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding previous communication see User talk:Omegatron#Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Regarding protection, please realize that there are 18 archives stretching back over two years that have been trying to hash this out. We are in the last phase of Dispute Resolution that does not require ArbCom. Getting ArbCom involved would be to no ones benefit, as that certainly will last months. If protection helps us solve the issues here, as having a stable article undergoing mediation does, then that is a good thing. -- Avi 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article.

So Avi's allowed to protect the entire article in his preferred version because it's "under mediation", while simultaneously keeping it "under mediation" for months at a time by refusing to reach agreement with other editors? (See smb's mediation comment from Sept 25, a month ago.) How is this not wikilawyering and an abuse of admin privileges?

This undermines the entire editing process. Wikipedia is edited by people working cooperatively to achieve a neutral point of view. If someone makes an edit that is not neutral for some reason, someone else can fix it. If there's a long drawn-out dispute about a specific part of the article, then you can go to dispute resolution, but that doesn't mean the entire article should be locked down indefinitely. In this case, the dispute is only about one particular sentence in the intro. When mediation has reached an agreement, the sentence can be updated accordingly, and people who make further changes can be referred to that decision.

But if that mediation process is going to take many more months (as it already has) then the article should remain editable in the meantime. Even if there's a moratorium on editing that particular disputed statement (and there shouldn't be), during such a large amount of time, the article's topic is sure to change drastically. — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we have {{editprotected}} tags and admins are supposed to use their judgment if the requested edit will create more or less disruption. The edit you want to make to the lead is at the heart of the mediation and will only add to the disruption. If you want to make a completely innocuous edit, you can still post it on the talk page, wait some time for responses, and perform it. You were using your ability to edit and unprotect protected pages to make an edit that would directly add to the articles instability. -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop

...because the only reason I would have unprotected it is so that I could make a number of controversial edits immediately afterwards without getting tattled on?

And what if someone is "unprotecting so they can edit the page" because it was wrongly protected in the first place? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to?

Whatever are you talking about? I've left many comments on the article's talk page and the mediation page, and am not "unprotecting the page in order to edit war" or any of the other things you've made up about me. The page should not have been protected in the first place.

There are plenty of other admins, editors, and mediators who apparently disagree. -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See the comments on my talk page, Riana's talk page, and the previous AN/I (which includes a list of my "unilateral" edits) for further information.

Will someone else please deal with this behavior and unprotect the article? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which behavior, the one trying to acheive a resolution to this article, or the one that wishes to ignore everyone else and make changes that are likely to further destabilize the article? -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is this, the page be unprotected, and a notice be placed at the top of the page stating the page is under mediation. This way new folks get fair warning that this is controversial, and you best make sure your edit won't cause a shitstorm, while allowing for others to edit. Also it might be wise to engage in the mediation. If parties in the mediation want to edit the page disruptively, there is arbcom. Put simply the parties in the mediation, if they agree to not edit the article and one of them chooses to edit the article to advance a POV, then we have problems with editors. A suggestion would be to place the whole article under 1RR if editing gets really nasty. (Admins can warn parties on the talk page that reverts past 1 revert a day will be viewed as disruptive). Just my two cents here... protection for 4+ months because people can't agree is just problematic and is getting in the way of others improving the encyclopedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been in place since October 2. Where do you get 4 months from? -- Avi 07:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:DreamGuy is back

DreamGuy is back, for barely 24 hours, and is already getting into a dust-up with another user over on the Jack the Ripper page and on his talk page. DreamGuy is subject to an arbcom ruling from a case during which he was absent. IMHO he is in violation of the case's rulings, specifically the AGF requirements (especially this edit comment), but as I had a (IMHO minor) editing conflict with him a while back, I do not feel comfortable taking admin action against him myself. So could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the arbcom ruling and his latest escalating dispute, and decide if enforcement of the arbcom ruling is required, or at least a warning that he's across the line. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask him what's it abut before coming here? El_C 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Seems straightforward. [72] is incivil and assumes bad faith, therefore blocked for 24 hours. Neil ☎ 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my question, why is that, Neil? El_C 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I thought you were asking TexasAndroid. And I do apologise for failing to respond to your question for a whole 4 minutes. It doesn't matter what it's about. The case was closed just 8 days ago and is abundantly clear - any incivility or bad faith from Dreamguy = block. Neil ☎ 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no further comment at this time. El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your question was directed at me, not Neil, but I've been trying to parse just what it is you wanted me to ask DreamGuy about before I came here. I'm really not sure what there is to ask. What the dispute on the JtR page is about? I'm not really certain that matters. The arbcom restrictions are about his behaviour, and are not mitigated by the subject or even whether he is right or wrong in his debates. - TexasAndroid 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're just not a very curious person... El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Off to WP:AE with this thread, please. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You're right. While I generally followed this case, I try to avoid ArbCom drama as a general rule, and forgot that there was a specific board for these reports. I think that this one is pretty much done for today, and if I have further reports in the future I will be sure to send them to the correct place. - TexasAndroid 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this have just been a warning instead of a block? Given that there is history between them, and he put it fairly civilly given how he sees it? AGF is fine, but it gets tricky when there has been bad blood in the past. There was still room for admin discretion here - you could have talked about it with him without threatening to block or blocking. If he was being difficult/disruptive enough to warrant a block, I doubt one of the people he was disagreeing with would have followed him back to his talkpage to discuss the mattter. Petenotrepeat 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the blocking admin failed to address the administrative rollback that DG reverted (which does not appear evenhanded) or any of his other claims, I deem the current duration to be sufficient and I have granted DreamGuy's unblock request. Thx. El_C 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with El_C's unblocking. DreamGuy needs to realise reverting good faith edits with incivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful, and was pretty much mandated against in his Arbitration finding, and hopefully he has now done so. Neil ☎ 07:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I do have a problem with Arthur Rubin showing up, seemingly out of the blue, to click the rollback button. Out of respect for his on and off wiki work, I wouldn't call his action baiting, but seeing his past dispute with DG, greater sensitivity was due. El_C 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Is it worth asking Arthur Rubin not to revert DreamGuy's edits? If they are poor edits, someone else can revert them. Neil ☎ 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As Neil says, reverting good faith edits with uncivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful... unfortunately I think Neil failed to look into the incident and chose to interpret a legitimate complaint of inappropriate behavior as mere namecalling. I believe that anyone who would take the time to look into Arthur Rubin's history of conflict with me -- by going to articles he had never edited in the past solely to blind revert my work without giving any rationale -- should honestly question whether there could be any good faith explanation for this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&diff=166375433&oldid=166349952 His edit that I reverted] removed several footnotes I added to give scholarly references to sections that were tagged as requiring cites, removed a correction to an author's name that had been misspelled, added in old versions of the article so that whole sections were duplicated unnecessarily (the victims section ednded up being sections on their own as well as subsections of the main one), and otherwise cannot in any way be considered an improvement to the article. Seriously, can anyone look at the content of that edit and give an encyclopedic rationale for that behavior? Based upon the content and his long history of similar actions in the past, it seems safe to say that it was a blind revert for no other reason than to undo a series of edits I had done recently. While ArbCom ruled that I need to be more polite and more civil, the interpretation of the admin that was made here functionally means that anyone can take any action against me they want and if I make mention of it *I* will get blocked for it. If I say someone is harassing me, especially when the action in question was so blatant and in line with his past methods of the same abuse, admins must accept the possibility that such a claim is not mere insults but an accurate reporting of what's going on. It's a question of good faith and civil behavior on the part of admins enforcing rules, and the admin who blocked me did not entertain that possibility and chose to interpret it in the most unflattering light. Certainly if someone vandalized pages over and over and I revert another edit with the comment that it is vandalism I would hope nobody would block me for making mention of that. But who really knows, as there's no rhyme or reason to these things and no attempt to give a reasoned explanation for them after they happen. The mere presumption of wrongdoing without discussing it anywhere is all that some people need to try to justify their actions, which certainly has turned the whole Assume Good Faith and Civility policies on their ears. It seems to me that there needs to be more structure to these kinds of actions. As it stands the people who have a history of conflict with me can now do what they want and just shop around for any admin willing to interpret things to their side of the dispute.DreamGuy 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, DreamGuy, it was User:TexasAndroid, not Arthur Rubin, that made the complaint here. And from what I read, Neil did give a reasonable explanation for your short block. It seems to me that it might be advisable to just take a step back for a bit - your own comments here aren't really complying with WP:AGF either. After all, you are subject to the ruling of the ArbCom, and as such, you are going to be held to a stricter standard.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who made the complaint doesn't change the nature of User:Arthur Rubin's edits. You may disagree with my opinion of Neil's edit, but the admin who unblocked me agreed that there was no reasonable explanation, and other admins have also said via email the same thing.DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to split semantic hairs here, but if you're referring to El_C's comment about unblocking you, I think you might be reading a bit too much between the lines. Of course, I can't speak for El_C, but then again, nobody can except him. If he has an issue with Neil's block, I'll them handle that between themselves. As for what others have said via email - I can't really comment on that either, since nobody you and they have seen those. In any case, I'd just offer my friendly $.02 - given that the ArbCom has ruled on your need for civilty, I'd take that ruling seriously and take an extra moment or two prior to posting, even when you feel like you're being baited or needled. Better to handle things calmly via the proper channels than to say something that might be regretted later. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DreamGuy's edit seems to have added material that should be somewhere in the article, but it broke sections which were already there and should remain. What are my choices: Revert to the pre-DreamGuy version, which is at least consistent, if incomplete; leave DreamGuy's version, which is not at all consistent, and had a few broken references; or spend 4 hours verifying sources, even if they were all available online? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, while that sounds like a nice explanation after the fact to the people who don't check the content of the revert you made, your edit comment on your own talk page shows an entirely different motivation for your action. Your characterization of my version of the article as "not at all consistent" and "broken references" is not accurate. Simply put, I am not sure how you intend to prove that you are not harassing me when you have today twice edited my own talk page despite the fact that I and a number of admins in the past have specifically told you that doing so comes across as harassing, you have argued with me about the block in edit comments on my talk page, and you are clearly watching my contribution history (as you showed up out of the blue to edit Jack the Ripper in the incident in question here and today have commented on an edit I made to false memory on your talk page). Honestly, if you want to show good faith, stop editing my talk page, stop watching my edits, stop blind reverting me with no rationale offered, and go on about editing Wikipedia on your own without worrying what I am up to. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then I think my case has been made for me. Good faith does not entail following me around after admins have warned you off. DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I decline further comment, unless invited, except to say that El C frequently used "unjustified" for any action that he considers incorrect, whether or not "justified" or required by Wikipedia policy. As for false memory, I've been watching the article for some time, but didn't have the time to do research as to which of the edits you reverted were justified, although I think very few of them were. I'm afraid that "most" is not supported by those references, even though it's almost certainly accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the block I made, and the revert Arthur Rubin made ([73]), I think I owe DreamGuy an apology, which I shall now go and make. Neil ☎ 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very sincerely appreciated. DreamGuy 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User calls me a WP:DICK for linking to policy

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum

Serious sockpuppet or meatpuppet problems here. Or WP:COI. Or WP:CIVIL. Take your pick! -- But|seriously|folks  09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go with regular sockpuppetry and COI, with a side order of CIVIL.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Report it to WP:SSP and note it on the AFD so the closing admin is definitely aware. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yabbadabbawho

This user repeatedly makes the same POV edit to Mary I of Scotland. I have given him a welcome, and later a warning, and he deleted the latter from his talk page with an offensive comment. I don't want to be the one to block him - any thoughts on how best to deal with this? Deb 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added another (hopefully friendly) NPOV warning to his talk page. I'd say that if he keeps it up, maybe a sterner warning about NPOV, then perhaps a short block to drive the point home. The account is a little suspicious, though - either he's a quick learner about the intricacies and culture of Wikipedia (account was created on 7 October), or it could be a sock account.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. Thanks, anyway. Deb 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary is problematic. Corvus cornix 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just warned them for it, and for the edit-warring. --John 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked them for 24 hours for this. This user may need more eyes on them; they may also need an indefinite block as they have really not made any positive contributions. Thoughts? --John 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment doesn't really suggest that they'll be productive. That plus the other random disruption looks like persistent vandal behavior to me. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs)

We all know "Hagger?????????????????" is constantly used by vandal Grawp. This account was UAA'd but declined. He has not responded to my comments and has not made any edits since he registed. Anyone think sleeper account? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would watch the account. I though "Haggerd" was the correct spelling ("Haggard" is I have since found out). I have heard of a lot of people call themselves similar things so I would merely watch and wait. If they contribute positively, super! If not, the +10 sword of blocking, dicing and julienning can be used. Spryde 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm suspicious. Most people with any self-esteem wouldn't describe themselves as "haggard". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to watch Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), created on 10/8. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey bull, you're not a Merle Haggard fan? I think he's great! --SGT Tex 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined the UAA report as there have been zero contributions and they could easily be good-faith accounts created by someone who doesn't spell well. I am watching for contributions from the first account and the second now, too. There have been HAGGER socks active since Haggerdoldman was created (Oct 8) which I hope means that it has nothing to do with HAGGER. But these socks are extremely disruptive. We could block the accounts and use a personal message explaining why (rather than {{subst:unb}}. I'd like more input here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see if the account becomes a problem. I also think people are starting to jump at shadows here. --Carnildo 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do ya? Well, what if I told you that checking up on this report indicated that the following were all the same person?

1. Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
2. Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
3. Saidpenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
4. Untilwhen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
5. Darkranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
6. Givesnaked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
7. Givesnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
8. Iamzlookinatyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
9. Poetboats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
10. Giantgrawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Oops, look at that last one. Quick, get the spray gun! (I've not blocked 'em yet). However, that being said...HaggerdlyOldMan isn't a 100% certain match as the rest of these are, but is indeed highly suspicious. So yeah, keep a close eye on him. And leave me a note if he starts acting up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So HaggerdlyOldMan is not related? –Crazytales talk/desk 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's suspicious, but he isn's as much of a slam dunk as everyone else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked all of the above, with the exception of HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). However, If someone wanted to block that account, too, I'd be ok with that. I have tagged them as socks of User:Grawp.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've blocked User:HaggerdlyOldMan. According to the above, User:Haggerdoldman is almost definitely a sock, for HaggerdlyOldMan to not be a sock given all the above and Grawp's extensive use of sleepers, it would have to be the biggest coincidence I have seen in a while. Mr.Z-man 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could somebody please block User:207.197.77.194 and delete all of their edits from the history?

User:207.197.77.194 has been adding somebody else's phone number to a large number of articles, that needs to get out of the history of the articles. Corvus cornix 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked one month. Did not find ph numbers, did that already get done too? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I sent an OVERSIGHT request in. Corvus cornix 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:Sarvagnya's deletion of Talk:India page content

• Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
• Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
• user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

• He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
• He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
• This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
• However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
• I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. Some one needs to warn him in no uncertain terms that this can't go on. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, this was also posted on WQA here, which seems a reasonable place for it. (And there's a response there). In the future, please don't cross-post. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posting is not forum-shopping. One is simultaneous, the other successive. Relata refero 06:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reign of Terror

Resolved.

Please lock the Reign of Terror. Its being repeatedly vandalized by non-users. AllStarZ 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Please refer to WP:RFPP next time. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure AllStarZ meant to say anon users, not non-users.  :) Corvus cornix 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppetry at deletion review

Can someone possibly have a look at this. Open the Jamie Schzanyr (sp?) section. The only person to oppose the deletion is ShyGuy69. Looking at the contributions, it looks like he is a sock of someone. Click this and open the Jamie Schzanyr section. ThisDude62 wants it unsalted, and only ShyGuy69 wants it unsalting too. Almost certain sockpuppetry, given that ShyGuy69 has made only three edits. Davnel03 09:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you got any other evidence? (it could speed this up) Rudget _{Contributions} 10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but it seems like the ShyGuy69 account is only been used for that only purpose. Davnel03 11:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, highly suspicious he'd open an account and go straight to a DRV. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking me!

Resolved.

Hi. For personnal reasons, I'd like to be blocked during 130 days (so to be unblocked in the middle of March 2008). If it's possible, I'd just like to keep my user talk undblocked. Thanks for your help and comprehension. --Two Wings (jraf ) 10:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean have your user page protected? This is doable only if vandalism is very likely to occur or has occurred. If you mean blocking, you could just leave for 130 days and change your password if there's any risk of anyone else using it. This would not require any admin intervention (admins broadly speaking are rather busy). Orderinchaos 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't want to have any temptation to use any Wikimedia project for a while because it's a personal drug and I have some exams to prepare! I don't contribute that much to the English WP but since I asked to be blocked on the French one, I might be tempted to come here instead! It's very weak but I have to do that if I want to be kind of cured (and succeed in my exams!). So I just want to be unable to contribute to WP English for 130 days. Isn't that possible? It's possible on WP French so I guess it is here also. --Two Wings (jraf ) 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stare at some paint dry, that should distract you while you fall asleep... Rudget _{Contributions} 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)In that case you can enforce a wikibreak on your account for an amount of time you specify. This will prevent you from being able to log in during this period. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer for instructions on how to do this. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 10:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec2) Different rules apply here though. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Self-requested blocks and Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is that impossible? I see no logical reason to forbid that! Anyway, I'll use that Wikibreak enforcer then... --Two Wings (jraf ) 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because people change their minds, and it creates a lot of work and hassle for the admins. If you say "Block me for 130 days", and then come back on day 60 and say "Wait unblock me", then what's the point? Admins are not your guardian angels, and they're not going to deny an unblock, which makes the whole situation useless. --Haemo 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic page move vandalism using multiple accounts

Resolved.

User:Pussy bait seems to be a single-purpose page-move-vandalism account, clearly created by an experienced Wikipedia vandal (e.g. the use of non-Latin homograph characters in page names). I've indefblocked it: can someone more experienced at undoing page-move vandalism please clean up the mess they've created? -- The Anome 11:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Internet Connection 1, same MO as above. -- The Anome 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about page move vandalism by Internet_Connection_1 as he has moved the User talk page archives of Daniel to different numbers. My concern is that undoing his vandalism will lead to more disruption - ie, if I revert "new page 8" to "old page 6"; before moving "new page 6" back to "old page 5" (etc) then I will end up deleting archive pages unintentionally. Can an experienced administrator please do the necessary. Thanks. B1atv 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly the vandal's intention. Strange how some people get their jollies. -- The Anome 11:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the archives back to their correct titles and speedied the resulting redirects. Looks like its all fixed. WjBscribe 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TVM B1atv 11:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexander.Keays - page move vandal

Resolved.

• Alexander.Keays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

It would appear that everything (recently) done by this user needs to be undone, starting with moving That's So recurring characters. (note trailing '.') back to List of recurring characters from That's So Raven. Many other edits then need to be undone: for example: [76]. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be all back the way it was now.--Isotope23 ^talk 11:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Jack Merridew 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AutoWikiBrowser

1.1 Names

. . . If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:ANI, and an admin should be by shortly to process the requests. . . .

1.1.1 Users

Cambrant . . . 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Greer 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Balotelli and alleged privacy issues

Mario Balotelli is an Italian footballer born to Ghanaian parents in Palermo, but then entrusted to a Northern Italy family. According to the Italian law and several sources, his full name is currently "Mario Balotelli Barwuah". All these facts were extensively deleted by User:Simonefrassanito, who claims to do this "for privacy and with mandate from Mario Balotelli" and feels he has the "right" not to have his full name published here. I continuously reverted all of his edits, but he keeps on removing all the facts I described earlier, lately asking me which law allows me to keep this information on the article. I would like to have some opinion from all of you; personally, I think all the information above should be kept on the article, because it is verifiable and sourceable. Thank you. --Angelo 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually see the claim for the Barwuah name sourced in the article, but if you can find a source then there shouldn't be an issue with it (google seems to show many possible sources). However, note that you should not have protected the article since you were an involved editor. JoshuaZ 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple of reliable sources about the Barwuah name, and unprotected the article. --Angelo 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POINTy revert warring by MONGO