Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive413

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 206.78.117.227 Blanking pages 2 attacked 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School 4 Sockmaster unblocking 5 Absolutely inappropriate edit to WP:TOV by HiDrNick 6 Terrorist threat 6.1 FBI called 7 Possible minor's contact details 8 Disputive edits of 68.5.250.146 9 Vintagekits, part 5 10 Prison IP vandalism or threat? 11 User:Smsarmad 12 Princess Diana Institute of Peace 13 Users taking advantage of Mediation restrictions 14 Template:Elections are historical 15 Questionable Questioning on the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page 16 IP ban requests 17 Off-wiki canvassing at AIDS denialism 18 Edit war 19 "Thousands" of socks? 20 Insight in Dereks1x 21 Huge backlog at WP:AIV 22 Edit warring and incivility related to Jeremiah Wright controversy 23 User:Hubschrauber729 24 re User:Agent007ravi 25 Mccready topic ban 25.1 Requested review 26 Difficult communications with User:BalkanFever 27 Beamathan (talk · contribs)'s topic ban 28 Bomb "threat" 29 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7 30 Strange deletion happening 31 Dorje Shugden and other Buddhism articles 32 Help needed 33 Fairlight (group) , WP:BLP problem 34 Hoaxalicious holocaust denial 35 Account Hijacking 36 User:Tbrittreid/Ted Watson 37 Ongoing harassment by User:Libro0 38 End this silliness 39 User:Treelo - what's happening? 40 Checkuser confirmed 41 Bryan Pisano 42 IP sockpuppetry, edit warring, religious categories and BLP 43 User talk:One Night In Hackney 44 Possible disruptive canvassing? 45 Bomb threat against "Wikipedia Building" 46 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. (2nd) 47 Anonymous Tor user making edits with my real life name 48 Welcome Templating 49 Legal threats on Help Desk Wikipedia:Help desk#Darkstar, the video game. HOAX issue. 50 Talk:Brandt#Gaming_binding_DRV_decisions 51 Drstrangelove57 52 Threat to kill Blueboy by anon IP 75.164.85.217 after making a death threat two days ago 53 Please block this Dereks1x sock 54 User:Nicolaas Smith - archive and talkpage vandalism 55 AIDS Reappraisal 56 Administrator Swatjester actions review

[edit] 206.78.117.227 Blanking pages

This anon IP has either blanked or vandalised pages for the past two days. It looks like they are trying to space the vandalism out so they don't get banned too easily. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's a school ip -- just received a final warning, no reason to block unless they do it again after the warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As a note, it is better to report vandals to WP:AIV. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] attacked

User:190.17.129.41 attacked User:Elipongo using words like F***ER! . This could turn out to be more than a vandal's insult. This is the complete note --Megapen (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Their contributions were all personal attacks in the past 24 hours. Next time feel free to report someone whose comments are blatant personal attacks on WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School

Indy424242 (talk · contribs) listed Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. Calvin 1998 (talk · contribs) speedy tagged the AfD and vandal warned Indy424242. I declined the speedy and fixed the AfD. Not sure what's going on here, but seems odd. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd is right. I'm looking into it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

These are clearly students at the school. Indy424242 (talk · contribs) has edited pranks into the article. The nomination has nothing to do with deletion policy. The AfD should be closed as malformed. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We delete middle schools anyway. One of those times we should just delete it summarily anyway. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Aside from somewhat interesting architecture there's not much to note about it. The two other middle schools in Palo Alto also have articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Middle schools aren't deleted, they are merged with the school district. So, basically same thing as deleted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockmaster unblocking

What's with the current rash of unblocking sockmasters? I mean, there's been, what, five or six threads on unblocking some perma-banned sockmaster or other, and most of them seem to be getting unblocked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Either a great step forward, or a great step back. Which one it is remains to be seen. --Deskana (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A plague is upon Thebes. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Step back imo. Too many people have been reading WP:AGF. Wizardman 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that I have problems unbanning/unblocking long term sock abusers. In the range of conduct violations, I rank socking above even POV-pushing, because with POVers, you know who they are and can revert. With socks you can never be certain who your dealing with. All this rushed embracing of banned sockmasters, some of whom refuse to admit they socked is something that concerns me. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiempo al tiempo, we will soon figure out if these are mistakes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely inappropriate edit to WP:TOV by HiDrNick

This is absolutely inappropriate and really in not humorous in any way. Why disrupt this project page in such a way? Bstone (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While Nick has a valid argument he is presenting it in the wrong way. The purpose of that page is to give evidence as to why you should contact the police in a situation where there is a threat of violence (hence it being a essay), the purpose is not to attempt to disprove the information being offered, and if thats what needs to happen, it needs to happen on the talk page first. Tiptoety ^talk 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I note that Jimbo did say that, it was nearly 2 years ago. He said this a little over one week ago. I think HiDrNick took what Jimbo said nearly 2 years ago, and has tried to misuse it. My 2c here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think I missed the meeting where ANI became the first step in dispute resolution. Anyway, exaclty what gave you the impression that my edit was intended to be humorous? It wasn't. Do those who hold Jimbo's words in such mbox-enshrining high esteem dare to pick and choose which of His proclamations are mbox worthy, and which ones should be relegated to the talk page? Or perhaps it would be more sensible to leave His comments on the talk page, where He made them. I daresay that If Jimbo wanted to plaster His comments in an mbox on the front page of the essay itself, I'm sure He would have done it Himself---and I sure as hell wouldn't be reverting Him about it.  :-P ➪HiDrNick! 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• The reason humor was mentioned was because Gurch made several edits to that page and other pages which were justifiably excused as his way of being humorous. See above. Enigma ^message 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but clearly, I'm not nearly as funny as Gurch. ➪HiDrNick! 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe if you tried harder. ;) Enigma ^message 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, it's no secret that "Jimbo says.." are indeed used at will, and discounted at will. Whatever suits the admin and the moment, I'd presume. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist threat

[edit] Possible minor's contact details

Hi, I hope this is the right place to post this, on the [redacted] page somebody has posted personal details saying that they're a twelve year old girl- I may be cynical but the phrase "I am a hearmless 12yr old" seems odd to me. I haven't clicked on the link because I'm at work and suspicious, but this might need admin attention? Thanks MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It's been sorted now. Good call, indeed! In future, you can always request that these edits be permanently deleted or "oversighted" by clicking on this link and following the instructions there. Thanks again for letting us know - Alison ^❤ 11:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputive edits of 68.5.250.146

Please see the long log of vandals by this user of it's another ID user:Nyisnotbad.
There is long priod of vandals by this man, And too many discussion were had no results.
Now Mazandarani language inaccurately protected and protected to the false version with no proper, honesty none of sources talked about it, And was a copy/paste of references i entered before, Thank you for your care. --Parthava (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vintagekits, part 5

Please note that this move is being bold. This thread was heading towards 100k, and I feel as a result it should be moved to a new location. Please keep all discussion centralized there for consistency. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prison IP vandalism or threat?

{{resolved|Likely vandalism, RBI}}

Okay this is probably just somebody being a nuisance but what makes it moderately scary is that this IP comes from a prison. The diff is vandalism because the David Sobel article is about an "education writer" not the lawyer from Tulsa or his daughter. I checked and yeah there actually is a lawyer from Tulsa called David Sobel - and that's what's worrying.

This IP (User:206.138.130.3) has a litany of final warnings for vandalism - the latest issued by myself at 19:42 (UTC) on Friday (may 2nd)[3]. The edit in question was made about an hour later. This IP also has a previous final warning from April 28th that was ignored by this user and has not been acted upon. I was going to report to AIV but since it may or may not be a threat I thought more eyes would be helpful--Cailil ^talk 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand; what is the problem? Rudget (Help?) 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could be over reacting but this IP belongs to the Federal bureau of Prisons and the person using it made a post about the daughter of a lawyer. I could be putting 1 & 1 together and getting 11 but this looks "ify" to me--Cailil ^talk 13:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that the Federal Bureau of Prisons is a government agency that administers federal prisons, not a prison itself. —Travis^talk 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's likely a prison: Today, the Bureau consists of more than 114 institutions... The Bureau is responsible for the custody and care of approximately 201,000 Federal offenders. Approximately 85 percent of these inmates are confined in Bureau-operated correctional facilities or detention centers[4]. I think oversight is called for here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is highly unlikely that it is a prison. The IP resolves to Washington, DC, the the land of federal agencies. In any case, oversighting the comment by the IP, “David Sobel is also a lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Father of Amanda Sobel. the sweetest girl I've ever know,” seems to be overkill. —Travis^talk 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said I might have over reacted - but if you're sure there's nothing sinister here what about the fact that the IP has ignored two final warnings?--Cailil ^talk 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP winds up at bop.gw.customer.alter.net. Following this, "gw" could be a two letter code for their prison facility in Gilmer, West Virginia. I wouldn't be startled if the billing info for a national network service pointed to Washington DC. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about network naming and addressing, the fact that gw is between bop and customer makes me think that it stands for the BOP gateway from AlterNet. —Travis^talk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could easily mean gateway. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How is a (possible) prisoner vandalising any different to a normal shared IP? Just revert, warn/block and leave it. There was nothing threatening about it...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the worry is WP:BLP. It could be a taunt that someone is aware of the true name of a family member. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Dendodge if I was a lawyer and a "(possible) prisoner" was making strange posts about my daughter I'd be concerned. But as I said I might have watched one too many episodes of the Sopranos and am over reacting. Not sure that we need to go to oversight though--Cailil ^talk 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One last comment then, only for more context, looking at the IP's posts, they seem to be feminist-related. gw could also stand for a "satellite" women's camp at Greenville, Illinois. [5] Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Following WP:RBI, can we again mark this as resolved? —Travis^talk 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking (and for your patience). Since I now think this could easily be someone killing time on a prison Internet connection at a women's prison, yes, I think we can mark it as resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it Travis and sorry if I over-reacted by posting here--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RBI except for the fact that no one did step 2, apparently. Enigma ^message 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given it's a shared IP and has settled down for now, maybe the block won't be needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... I do think it is at least plausible that the edit was made from a prison, and, even if it's not, this would still be something the Bureau of Prisons ought to be notified about. Since no-one participating in this discussion seems to have actually done that, I've just fired off an e-mail to info#bop.gov (munged to avoid spambots). I think it would also be a good idea to notify David Sobel of Tulsa, Oklahoma himself, but I haven't been able to find any contact info beyond the address and phone number(s) on this page, and I'm somewhat reluctant to start making transatlantic phone calls to random attorneys myself. Could someone closer by maybe handle this? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Ilmari Karonen. I too thought it was an "ify" one but I'm unsure whether it is as Travis thinks just a run of the mill nuisance or something more sinister. Like you, I can't be making transatlantic phone-calls so perhaps somebody in that region should look at doing that. Even if it isn't harassment by a prisoner the BOP's Ip is being abused by someone so notifying them was, IMHO, a good idea. I've never notified a server admin about IP abuse so I wasn't sure how to go about doing that.

And BTW I think the fact that this has been a vandal only account for months and has ignored a number of final warnings should be addressed - if not now when it vandalizes another page--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Smsarmad

Despite warnings, User:Smsarmad has been changing the denomination from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam in many articles on Pakistani politicians, and did so a few weeks ago using this anon. He first started removing the "Shi'a" part, then started replacing it with "Sunni". See this, this and the history pages of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Ayub Khan. He has decided to ignore the warnings and continue to impose his POV on these articles. See also WWGB who has been doing the same thing to these articles by removing references to "Shi'a Islam". LahoreKid (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I see a content dispute, and I don't think most admins are familiar enough with the subject to even begin making comment about which reference is more reliable. I suggest that you take the matter to the Pakistan WikiProject for some third party opinion. I would also suggest that people ignore the sectarian rhetoric being bandied about (by ip accounts generally). There is nothing that admins can do in this instance, I fear. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have got nowhere in my efforts to resolve this matter. Again this is a matter of possible sectarian pov editing, and the complainant contends that the majority of persons editing the Pakistan related articles and belonging to the Pakistan WikiProject are both Sunni Moslems and also unreliable in matters relating to the sect of article subjects. While this is a disappointing attitude I regret that I cannot dismiss this possibility out of hand - there unfortunately being precedent elsewhere in Wikipedia - and I am looking for opinions on how to progress this matter. Generally, I am looking for authoritive sources relating to various Moslem/Pakistani subjects in the matter of which sect they belonged to. Can anyone point me to one, or confirm that WikiProject Pakistan is populated with trustworthy editors (no matter their particulars of belief.) Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why I wasn't contacted after a discussion was started on me, even an administrator(a responsible person) is also involved in the discussion here. First thing please do see my edits at the article pages mentioned by the complainant, one can see that I even tried to add neutrality to the articles which was again reverted by the complainant. Secondly it is clearly a racist comment by the complaining editor that WikiProject Pakistan has majority of Sunni Muslims(an OR by complainant and that too a wrong one), can someone ask him that where did he find that majority of members of the project belong to the opposite sect to his. Here are some lists that may be useful for you Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Members, Category:WikiProject Pakistan Members, Category:Pakistani Wikipedians. Other thing is that whenever the disputed articles are vandalized the complainant thinks that it is being done by me and unreasonably put blames on me(like this and this and I can't accept that so please make a Check User case and ask him not to blame me unless check user confirms. --SMS ^Talk 04:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't contact you because I tried to resolve the matter of the basis of the alleged vandalism via the complainant - I was unable to take the accusation of bias at face value (simply because I am not familiar enough with the subjects) and I wanted there to be a definitive answer before I started contacting people and start trying to sort things out. If you believe that WikiProject Pakistan is sufficiently neutral to deal with this matter then I would gladly leave it to the Project. As I said right at the beginning, this is not a matter for admin intervention unless it can be established that there is vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it is clearly a content dispute, resolved at one page after a 3rd Opinion was asked by me but still remaining at the other article. And it will be better if some neutral person contact the project instead of me(being an active member of the project), because WikiProject Pakistan is still not aware of this dispute. Secondly please ask the complaining editor not to put blames on me blindly for sock puppetry, if he is so much strong in his this belief then ask him to make a case against me at WP:SSP or even would be better to do that at WP:RFCU. --SMS ^Talk 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana Institute of Peace

As there is a continuous EditWar and confussion about the formation of the above institute at the article Diana, Princess of Wales, I like to acknowledge the following information.

The above institute is initiated by me on 31st August, 1997, the day Late Diana, Princess of Wales passed away and entered the initiation of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" in her condolence book for Late Diana, Princess of Wales at Westminster House, Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 03rd September, 1997 and informed officially to His Excellency David Tatham, CMG the High Commissioner from the Court of Saint James to Sri Lanka at Westminster House, the same day.

(The above details are mentioned in the Articles of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which is formally incorporated as an association in Sri Lanka on 30th June, 1998.)

(The condolence book is currently kept at Kensington Palace.)

I have sent a copy of the articles of the association to OTRS.Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A question for the above editor. I noticed that you had not edited wikipedia for over a year. What prompted you to check this particular article, at this particular time? It seems to be rather good timing, and I wondered if there was anything behind your return. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam. This could use administrative eyes. The editor was notified of the sock investigation three days ago, but doesn't mention that case here. Either needs guidance or possibly forum shopping. Durova^Charge! 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Further to all the "hoo - haw" arond this article/information let me say here and now. I'm done with the both articles and the surrounding wikidrama. Both the primary contributors in the dispute are at fault here and probably for a number of different reasons. I feel that they both have quite a history with Wiki and this subject before I arrived on seen and at this point can not AGF with either one (or their socks/additional accounts). I'd like some admins to have a good review of the whole thing but, am not willing to get any more deeply involved. Let me say sorry to anybody that I may have caused any aggravation to along the way. As I said at the Sock case please if you are Sennen goroshi or Bermudatriangle or them in any other guise don't bother contacting me in anyway shape or form until such time as I say I'm prepared to AGF again. Thank you everyone. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Feel free to show any form of evidence you wish that I am a sockpuppet, if you cannot back up your accusations, then don't make them. I consider the above to be a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time to cool off. After reading your message elsewhere, I consider any dispute between the both of us to no longer an issue. I think everyone involved (including myself)could have chosen their words a little better. What is important is not some petty argument, but the article and the edits. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users taking advantage of Mediation restrictions

I've noticed a few users taking advantage of the injunction proposed (and agreed to) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender and removing the tags from the articles in controversy, all of which were placed by the Gavin.collins (talk · contribs). I'm in particular concerned with Cozret (talk · contribs); he's removing tags calling them "anti-RPG" when in fact there is no such evidence of them being so. As I'm involved (having reverted tags due to there being no assertations of notability and myself abiding by the restriction), could an admin talk to Cozret? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to hold removing more of Gavin.collins tags until they are done moderating. However, once it is established that he did nothing more then cut and paste a block of tags into every RPG article he could find. I'm going right back to preventing the removal of the hard and honest work people have done. --Cozret (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for your blatant assumption of bad faith towards Gavin? ("[...]Gavin.collins standard issue anti-rpg^[sic] tagbox") -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How is blatant barnstorming every posting about RPGs with a cut and paste box of just about every tag you can think of not bad faith? I'm not sure how someone is suppose to take such an action. If you issue is with my view that it was in bad faith, I'd ask you how such an attack isn't in bad faith. --Cozret (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because he has tagged other (unrelated) articles with such boxes, and in most cases they appear valid. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So, his random tagging process hit a single correct issue . . .and this makes it all good? --Cozret (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read through Wikipedia policies - most of his tags hit correct issues. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So, that's the Wikipedia policy is it. Run through, slap the same block on every page you can find rather then engaging the authors about why you feel the page needs it, see if the page can be improved and help get it up to standards, then move on to the next? No wonder people think that just running through like a biker from hell slapping notices on everything will climb them up the ranks. --Cozret (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read anything below this? Black Kite and Merkinsmum, both of whom are uninvolved, agree that the tags are (for the most part) legitimate. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. The great league of notice box posters thinks it's all just grand. However, your appeal to popularity doesn't make something correct. "Policy" and rule-lawyering, doesn't make something correct. Now why not answer the question I put to you. --Cozret (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the correctness (or not) of all Gavin's taggings, what definitely isn't correct is removing tags that plainly belong there, such as your edit here which removed the primarysources tag from an article that is clearly only referenced by primary sources, or this edit removing the notability tag from an article that clearly asserts no notability at all. Black Kite 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please do stop - I know you're not an involved party and didn't agree to the restrictions that the rest of us agreed to, but nothing's going to kill the mediation process faster than attacking when someone's laid down their weapons to discuss a peace treaty, so to speak. All we are saying, is give peace a chance. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And how are you going to ensure that those articles, that people put a lot of work into, aren't going to get auto-removed while you all try to talk reason to someone who might or might not understand? I will hold until you are done, but I want to know how you are going to keep peoples work from being lost between then and now. --Cozret (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't ensure anything. However, if someone else other than Gavin tries to do something to them (which would also violate the spirit of the voluntary restrictions), then you have every right to grab someone's attention (or report it here), and I hope you do. If Gavin himself were to do something he agreed not to do, then that would show a lack of good faith on his part, but I can't see him doing that and I think we're all going to behave in the meantime. As one of those people who put a lot of work into various D&D articles I'm asking you to trust me for now. BOZ (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A comment- A lot of the RPG articles do have notability issues when it comes to WP:RS such as you would find in a google news search- there are none or about one from an obscure fanzine or something. What is being done to Gavin.collins because of his attempts to remove what he believes (and I often agree with him following WP:RS) non-notable articles from the wiki is a form of bullying IMHO. See where the fans ganged up on him, but uninvolved members of the community saw the valid notability concerns for these articles (and no he hasn't tagged every one- that would be impossible as the fans have written so many) on the RfC which the fans with a disproportionate sense of these subject's importance (IMHO) made Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins.Merkin's mum 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Merkins, I'm a fan/DM, and I still find his tags correct. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I looked through Gavin's most recent taggings. For example Carceri - 5 tags (notability, in-universe, unsourced, OR, plot) - First 3 correct, fourth one correct but unnecessary because of sourcing tag, fifth one probably unnecessary. This seems to be representative of Gavin's taggings - most are correct, but some are unnecessary, and too many tags are ugly and irritate people working on the articles. In most cases, unless there's a pressing other issue, I'd stick to the notability and sourcing tags - if those issues are fixed, most others are too. Black Kite 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Gavin, Jeske, myself, and a few others involved in that case are under voluntary restriction until the case is over, to neither add nor remove tags on D&D articles unless we all agree on them (which, of course, we probably won't all agree) - this is why it is a problem for an uninvolved editor to add or remove possibly controversial tags, because none of us can do anything about it right now. Otherwise, Jeske would probably have reverted the changes himself. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Kite. Although his methods aren't the most endearing to believers in these articles (understandably) he's entitled to his usually valid opinion on notability and sourcing. Fans tend to respond to any questioning of notability with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith etc, not just on these articles but that can happen over any articles, a gang of fans attack someone (not saying all people on an article are like this.) I can understand his dislike of articles he and others uninvolved consider non-notable- but he should try not to let it overwhelm him to the extent that he adds other tags. But he should get some backup in terms of supportive vibes and understanding from the wiki IMHO (and I think he does a bit.) What he's trying to do with the sourcing and notability etc efforts and AfDs etc is good, and I'm impressed at his tirelessness in the face of what leads editors like me to quickly give up trying to do what needs to be done to a lot of these articles.:) Merkin's mum 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I've seen Gavin post on other editors talk pages since he agreed to these restrictions, using the fact that he's involved in a RfM to suggest that anyone removing tags he placed prior to that point are attempting to take advantage of his situation. That in and of itself comes across as a subtle form of bullying, and certainly doesn't assume good faith towards any other editors. That said, the heavy removal of tags by Cozret isn't exactly helpful at the moment, and it risks making Gavin look like the victim here when mediation is attempting to address many editors' concerns towards -his- actions. Many of Gavins tags are correct, if heavy handed and annoying along with the tone he takes towards other editors all too frequently, but I wouldn't remove large numbers of his tags without addressing the issues (if and when they exist). Other articles such as one where he openly admitted knowing nothing of the topic, yet tagged dozens of points at random with OR tags (including some where the source was listed within the very text he tagged as being OR) are a more pointed view of what many of us see as a long-term, systemic problem that hopefully mediation can begin to address.Shemeska (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See, there's a number of people who've reacted very badly to Gavin's mass taggings, partly because they feel they aren't valid (and in my view they're usually wrong about that) and partly because of the hostile feeling there is to it. Gavin has even, sadly, been the target of vandalism seemingly because of this. However, there are a number of us who agree with the majority (or at least a lot) of Gavin's tagging, but take issue with his reaction in the cases where there is reasonable opposition to some of the tags. There are other issues (regarding behaviour both from and towards Gavin) that could be talked about, but they're not major and life's too short. As a final note, the restrictions as I understand them allow Gavin to replace tags that were unilaterally removed; there seems to remain a question on tags removed with general consensus, but not Gavin's agreement. SamBC(talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that the tags are usually valid, downgrading it to frequently valid. On the article Eilistraee, Gavin has placed 5 tags: Notability, In-Universe, Weasel, In-Text Citations, and Context. Of these, only two are valid. The use of the weasel words template reeks of someone simply trying to blanket an article he doesn't like in as many tags as possible. The claim that the introduction of the article has insufficient context is also quite untrue. While the notability is in question, Gavin tagged the article as non notable fictional location, when Eilistraee is a character/diety. To reiterate what many have said before, it is this carelessness and demonstration that Gavin does not read the articles he tags that people have the issue with, not that he tags them in the first place. See also this version [6] of Lady of Pain, noting the same batch of tags placed and the incompleteness of the edit summary. 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Elections are historical

• Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Months ago, Steelbeard and I had a disagreement over candidates listed on election pages. I was of the belief that properly cited speculation (for instance from local newspapers' web sites) regarding potential candidates was noteworthy enough to bear mention in the article (keeping in line with user:Markles template Template:Elections are historical which states that "This (election page) is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet."). Steelbeard felt that such potential candidates shouldn't be mentioned at all. User:Jayvdb proposed a compromise where the names would be mentioned in the text but not in the bullet point lists. Steelbeard agreed but also asked Markles if he could block me to teach me a lesson which Markles of course declined. More recently, we had the same disagreement on Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 after he did the same thing there. I reminded him of the compromise and implemented it myself after which he agreed, that was a little over two weeks ago so I was surprised when Steelbeard removed the cited names from Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008. I do not want to spend the rest of my life cleaning up after him so I put a warning on his talk page and simply reverted his change. He went on to edit war with me. I again reverted his changes on Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 a 2nd time with a more specific message about the compromise, his response to this was to go to Louisiana's 1st congressional district special election, 2008, a different election page, and to remove cited names from that page as well.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my talk (a recent rev), and the Doctor's (a recent rev) I was asked to mediate in this, but i'm not sure it's something to mediate, much less something to bring to AN/I. I think this is a content dispute that needs to find a good place to be talked through to see if the compromise will still work or will no longer work, rather than something that needs admin action. I'm willing to try to keep making suggestions if the parties are willing to listen. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But Steelbeard and I have put this issue up for mediation before (which reulted in Jayvdb's compromise) and he didn't stick to the resolution. He just waited a few months and carried on as though nothing had happened.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ALl the hallmarks of the Civil POV Push we so often discuss but so seldom do anythign about here on AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who has a history of not following consensus. The main problem with his edits is that "potential" and "declined" candidates are not candidates at all. So they do not belong in candidates' lists. They could be included in the body of an article if there are valid journalistic sources with linkable citations. But some of those names in the articles currently in question do not have valid citations or have become dead links. I've posted warnings about citations which have become dead links already for the appropriate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Questioning on the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page

Crass conversationalist has just come back from being inactive, and at last count had added 50+ fact tags to the Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks page. Since it's a 9/11 attacks page, I thought the admins should be notified. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Way too may {{fact}} tags - just think of the people with screen readers trying to wade through all that. I've removed them all and stuck a {{refimprove}} tag at the top of the article. Neıl ☎ 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note informing them of the 9/11 arbcom sanctions, and the perception that the tags were excessive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP ban requests

216.19.47.4 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and 12.159.135.4 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) for repeated vandalism. Chris M. (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, but this is more properly handled at WP:AIV. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki canvassing at AIDS denialism

Along the lines of the ongoing ArbCom case on off-wiki canvassing, there has been a recent influx of editors at AIDS denialism and related topics. This thread on an AIDS-denialist message board may be a factor. Since this is not a heavily traveled area, a relatively small number of recruited agenda accounts can be quite disruptive. I'd like to request some admins to watchlist the article and keep an eye out or be a resource for dealing with issues that might arise in connection with the off-wiki canvassing. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Users attempting to abuse, game, or mis-use Wikipedia via this message board can be sanctioned per the precedent at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign#Sanctions, can they not? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so (and have acted along those lines in the past), but as I am involved with this article, I'd like outside admins to be aware. To be clear, I don't see anything particularly disruptive yet - just the usual soapboxing on the talk page. It's a request to shine a bit of light in this corner and just have people keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

User:Imad marie is busy with POV-pushing in this article. I've tried to neutralize the article (with proper sources), but Imad marie reverted my edits, considering that Internet Infidels site is not reliable source. I've tried to discuss with him, but he's ignoring me so far. Abdullais4u (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So far this looks like a content sourcing dispute over a religious article. You might try looking into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't see anything an admin can do for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia enforce its policies regarding behavior, but not content? The problem with dispute resolution (regarding content) is there is not a single step that is binding. People can just ignore dispute resolution regarding content. All that matters is being in the majority. Life.temp (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean if a decision is made regarding an article's content, that decision should be enforced in the future, and any deviation from it should be reverted? I dunno. Probably something to bring up at VP policy. Would make for a very interesting and controversial argument, I can tell you that. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Not to the point of specifying what an article should say. An example of what I mean would be a decision--with authority--that something violates a content policy. An editor repeatedly going against that decision would be blocked from the article. Now, no step in the dispute resolution process involves a ruling on violation of content policies. Obviously, there are many rulings on violations of conduct policies. Life.temp (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a user repeatedly acts against decisions resulting from mediation requests etc, that is a conduct issue, and can be handled here. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no obligation to participate in mediation, and the results are described as non-binding. There is simply no enforcement of policies about content. Life.temp (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Thousands" of socks?

This user [7] claims to be following up on a previous item, now archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive411 - look under "Implied_threat_of_bodily_harm" - and is issuing threats of a sort. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Thousands?" - nahh - Alison ^❤ 11:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't talk to it directly, but I will report it if it posts on my talk page again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like trolling, and the user has been blocked. I think this can be marked resolved. Hut 8.5 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insight in Dereks1x

I happen to be watching the saga of Dereks1x and have some insight on the real facts. I think people are going about it the wrong way.

Even I have been labelled as a Dereks1x sock but I can swear in court and by lie detector that I am not Derek. I do think I know who the real Derek is.

What happened was that the original Derek was not just one person but possibly three people. The original ban and early blocks could have been done with more tact. Some wrong conclusions were made. So one person could truthfully say "I am not Derek and I'm being blocked because of Derek, that's not right". So when you look at things as black and white (we are all good, he is all bad), it's not accurate. That's why the battle has continued for over a year. You can do what you want but given that length of the saga and that more than one person is affected, I think that it is a potential battle of years.

Adding to that is some of the anti-Derek people have POV agendas of their own. I am not too familiar with all the day to day events, but one sticks in my mind. Barack Obama is actually a junior since his father was senior. This is fact, nothing negative or to be ashamed about. However, the POV pushers, like Tvoz, attacked the user just because of that and would have none of this "junior" thing in the article (eventually he was overruled). That kind of behavior should have been noted by the administrators and would have calmed some tensions and put Tvoz in his place but administrators just ignored it and always take Tvoz' side.

Recently, some very different kinds of personalities have been accused of being Derek. (The POV pushers like Tvoz often use made up similarities to prove their point!) This could mean that the checkusers are siding with Tvoz and including anyone with the same ISP in this region as good enough evidence. Even the checkuser said that the ISP is very large with many users. If so, the battle could continue to decades.

A better idea might be to use the idea of HailFire (or was it Italiavivi) who suggested that Derek come back with ONE name.

Another idea would be for mediation and separation into who is Derek and who is not. Then you could get the person(s) who are not Derek to start cooperative editing. I think this is the best way but is unlikely to happen because some administrators are bent on killing others. I think there is already restraint on Derek's part because Derek socks have ALWAYS edited consecutively, never as several people at once.

I've asked my friend who's an administrator to help but he won't, too scared. That's telling.

What needs to happen is a very mature and fair administrator who can be a moderator. That's if Wikipedia wants to solve the problem or just likes to continue to play the whack/ban/block game. It's like the Palestinian issue. As long as they have some legitimate grievance, the issue will continue. If you ban, block, kill all Palestinians, or say they are all one sock, you will not solve the problem. As for me, I don't care if I'm blocked as I just edit occasionally (but always very good edits). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend of NrDg (talk • contribs)

It seems like you're asking for a chronic sockmaster to be unbanned and allowed, what, several accounts? I dunno. Perhaps if there were some good contributions to justify an attempt at rehabilitation?

My introduction to the wonderful world of Dereks1x socks was User:watchingobama, who created a coatrack article and was tendentious and disruptive during its AfD, before being identified as a sock of Dereks1x. I can see no reason why that account could not have quietly made good contributions to Wikipedia. So what would be the benefit of unbanning Derek? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the creator of this thread has also been blocked as a sock of Dereks1x. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't, he added it himself. Rudget (Help?) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, just looking at the page and not the block log :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 :) Does that count as self-admitted sock? Not that you would want to of course! Rudget (Help?) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some laundry I think that needs washing.... Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with SheffieldSteel - the issue isn't so much the use of socks, but the fact that many of the socks identified as Derek's are engaged in unacceptable editing practices well before being tagged as socks. Watchingobama is a good example, where every reasonable attempt to discuss the issue at hand was met with accusations of bias and racism, followed by disruption and a block. If Derek had picked an account and edited reasonably, yes he would be evading a ban - but no one probably would notice. And there's a report of disruption every day, literally - Derek must be reasonably intelligent, surely he is aware of the results of trying the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The way to get Derek unbanned is for an account with, say, 3 months of quiet article building behind it, to post saying "I am Derek and I hereby demonstrate that I can be a good contributor". I would support an unban, I think, in that case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really work... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not, if the user's identity is discovered by someone else, if the contribs are not good (for example, people complaining about civility issues, stalking, etc.), and if people are angrily debating whether or not they are only sorry for getting caught. I don't want this to turn into another Jack Merridew thread though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[out]This individual has shown himself to be a bad faith editor who is determined to disrupt, no matter how many identities he needs to assume. This thread is just another example - one of his perennial favorites, being a "friend/wife/husband/coworker" of a blocked user who comes here to help us sort it all out. This username was blocked as well - look again. I appreciate the desire to assume good faith, but it is misplaced here - the history is long and very clear. Tvoz/talk 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm getting spam email from ...uh... someone who was alerted to my post by his secretary (that's novel). It seems the author of the mail VK35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is blocked as a ... anyone? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked with email disabled. Nakon 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge backlog at WP:AIV

I need some help over at WP:AIV - there's been a flood of activity.-Wafulz (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a really big backlog at WP:AIV. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've merged both warnings here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a third: AIV is hovering around 12 reports at this time, a severe backlog. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks all. Black Kite 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was really bad and as I mentioned at WT:AIV, for some reason the bot didn't add a backlog tag. I manually added and removed it. Mentioned it on AIVHelperbot's page. Enigma ^message 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and incivility related to Jeremiah Wright controversy

I've been editing Jeremiah Wright controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) recently and trying to keep the lid on some edit warring, but I've gotten too involved in the dispute to make a neutral judgement. There was some edit warring there a few days ago; I reviewed the edits, and found that three users (CyberAnth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Ewenss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Trilemma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) had violated 3RR, and blocked them accordingly. More recently, Cryptographic hash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been editing rather tendentiously. He's been uncivil ([8], [9], [10] and has violated 3RR. Since I had been arguing with Cryptographic on the talk page, I thought it would be inappropriate for me to block him, so I filed a 3RR report; there's been no action so far. Other editors are complaining about Cryptographic's behavior ([11] [12] — note that the latter is by Trilemma, whom I previously blocked for 3RR violation). I've tried repeatedly to engage Cryptographic on his user talk page, with no productive result. I'd appreciate any feedback and/or action by uninvolved admins. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: EdJohnston blocked Cryptographic hash for 48 hours, which takes care of the most immediate concern. I'd still appreciate any feedback on the state of the article and how to encourage the parties to discuss rather than revert and insult each other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cryptographic hash has made subsequent additional reverts to the ones noted above by Josiah Rowe on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. In the following revert, he violated WP:CIVIL in the edit summary. [13] He has also violated WP:CIVIL on the article and user talk pages and has been very rude and disruptive in general. Josiah Rowe has made every possible effort to reasion with and educate the editor, but he refuses to change his behavior. It has been very difficult to work on this article and I am making a formal request that Cryptographic hash be blocked from any further participation on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. Thank You,75.31.210.156 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hubschrauber729

I'm having slight problems with this user. Recently I've removed the French Muslims category from the Franck Ribéry article as it was in clear violation of WP:BLP. The user reverted my edit and called me a vandal in the edit summary. I responded by leaving the user a warning and reverting his edit, pointing to WP:BLP in the edit summary. The user, however, reverted me again and left a copy of my warning on my user page.

According to WP:BLP: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.",

so the category has to go, but I'm afraid I'm just gonna get yet another revert if I remove the category (might be worth mentioning that the user has received a 3RR warning before and is also, apparently, a suspected sockpuppet), so I'd appreciate a little bit of help here. Cheers! BanRay 19:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm game for a quick read, with a possible revert and I daresay a Talk page message to the user in question... ETA Done. Let's see what happens. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hope this helps BanRay 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re User:Agent007ravi

I have noted my concern regarding the detail posted on this editors userpage here. I should like some opinion on whether publishing this detail is appropriate for a minor, or whether I am fussing over nothing. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A 10-year old publishing e-mail, AIM, etc? I'd say that not too smart to do. I do think your suggestion to his on the talk page was a good way to start though, hopefully he will remove it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a father of three, I would probably freak out if my kids posted that much info on themselves on the internet. Listing his email address does not bother me, but giving his exact birth date, weight, and town he lives in is just asking for trouble. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And it appears the page has been deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

East718 got it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready topic ban

[edit] Difficult communications with User:BalkanFever

He was asked to use English language with this kind request but he used a Slavic language to answer, as usual. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In case it matters, this is the translation of the message: If you'd like to know what I said, just ask me. Don't bother me with template messages. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What admin intervention does this require? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that deliberately working to exclude editors who don't speak your language is contrary to the idea of community based editing. It's disruptive, in that it interrupts the normal editing patterns we have here. Further, it's a sure set up for problems down the line. Imagine four editors all talking in a non-english language here, deciding they have 'consensus', then implementing major changes on the page, citing their foreign language discussion as proof to any who question them. that's disruptive, plain and simple. he should be advised that all non-user talk page conversations should be in the native Wikilanguage, to facilitate the widest access to other editors. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Day to day talk page posts in Slavic text on en.wikipedia are wholly uncommunicative and exclusionary and I must say, these seem meant to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A certain amount of non-English talk is pretty common in these areas. As long as it's on user talk pages, in conversations that really only affect the users participating, as long as it's not done conspirationally (like, for coordinating edit wars or for venting against opponents of other nationalities), and as long as people are prepared to explain or translate when asked, I personally have no problem with it, and I do it myself from time to time. Of course B.F.'s reaction in this case, as a sarkastic POINT violation, using it deliberately to someone who he knows does not understand it, is rather on the incivil side – but then, he also did have a point in protesting agains the unnecessary "templating the regulars". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, (and I disagree with the 'templating the regs', as do the peopel who continue to template me at times), hes' still wrong to use it anywhere a larger group might converse, or when asked to use a language that's more accessible. ThuranX (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, why would a larger group converse on my (or another Macedonian user's) talk page, much less in the specific section? And I am not conspiring or insulting anyone, but The Cat and the Owl can think what he wants. I don't believe I've actually had a conversation with him though. He's probably more pissed off that I use the Macedonian language, which is some form of personal attack against him in his mind (look at his userpage). If anybody needs a translation of anything they can ask me, instead of starting useless AN/I threads. BalkanFever 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, wrong conclusion. An admin kindly asked me the same and since then I just use English. I don’t see why I cant’ apply the same request to other contributors, since it’s a wikipedia rule. As simple as that. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also in the past asked for translations of User:BalkanFever's more colourful edit summaries, but these have not always been forthcoming. I know enough Slavonic to know that kur means cock, gaz means arse and budal means idiot, so I assumed the edit summaries were intended as insults. Admittedly, there have been instances where he didn't understand my Greek, but his close associate User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was always there to help him out. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You don't know much at all. Gazda means boss (patrón), and "kur me boli" means "I don't care" (literally: my dick hurts). Complete translation:

This should be deleted as a POV fork (lit. "mirror") but really I don't care. Maybe some thick-head will rape the page and the boss will delete it. (The boss being my "close associate" Fut. Perf.)

The other one:

100 denars says this (the move) will be reverted by some idiot.

Well, the page is still there, but my move was reverted by a sock (user:Marc KJH) of user:Bonaparte. BalkanFever 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. Balkan's use of English substitute languages is less wide spread than The Cat and the Owl's marking of most of his edits as minor (even when they're clearly not) and his lack of use of edit summaries. This report is an overreaction to an issue with a fairly simple solution: if you have an issue with foreign languages being used in edit summaries or on talk pages, talk to the editor in question like a reasonable person and express your concerns in a way that won't be seen as patronizing, such as templating a regular. In my opinion, telling a regular "Oh hey, did you know about this rule" will not usually yield productive results. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BalkansFever is a good editor. In the instance of this kind request his response in that language was obviously made because it's pretty rude to use a template. His response, while not exactly diplomatic, was made in good humor imo. At any rate, this didn't need to be brought here, as SWik points out. Beam 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beamathan (talk · contribs)'s topic ban

Dear Community, I am here to ask for a review of a topic ban which I implemented within the rules laid about in the Macedonian (Balkan) Arbitration case on Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I initially received word of this user as part of a role as an uninvolved administrator reviewing each case brought to my attention, in this particular case, by Husond (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). I have reviewed other cases before, and further discussed that with the user in question.

As far as I was made aware (and in co-operation with a further investigation that I conducted into Beamathan's contributions and block log), he looked like the regular at the log of blocks of bans at the ArbCase: relatively limited contributions in terms of broadness, creation of account around the time of Kosovo's independence and fitted the troll criteria (i.e. removal of content, telling others what to do, dismissive and exaggerated reactions, edit warring etc.) He had made some reasonable attempts otherwise within the article and the talk page, but with the broadness and severity of trolling (which is norm for those at Talk:Kosovo nowadays) I felt there was no other choice but to restrict editing in that for 14 days. With respect to the most recent comments that he has made, he implies that Husond may have exacerbated the 'wounds' if you like, and they both now have personal grudges one another. So, was I right to act upon the comments by Husond, even though that he was personally involved with the user in question? Should this topic ban be extended to the Husond also? This has been proposed by Dbachmann (talk · contribs) on my talk page. Rudget (Help?) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good this was brought here, it's naturally useful to have my conduct perused by the community. When the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence was imminent back in January I decided to start monitoring that topic in order to help protect it against predictable disruption and edit wars, and maintain neutrality. Many times I had to intervene at talk pages and remind users to be civil, refrain from warring, and cooperate constructively with each other. But eventually some users will ignore calls for mutual respect and instead turn against me. This is precisely one of those cases. Beamathan had been warned against incivility and trolling, persisted with such behavior, thus meriting the topic ban, and is now insisting that I'm on a "crusade" against him. I have no grudges whatsoever against Beamathan. For me he's just another user whose participation in the Kosovo topic I was monitoring and deemed inadequate. Beamathan has now requested the help of administrator Dbachmann, whose participation in the Kosovo topic has also been rather confrontational. Dbachmann even questioned my adminship following a disagreement over an article merger [25], a reaction that I must say I had never experienced on Wikipedia before, and which naturally determines my entire judgment of Dbachmann's ability to communicate with other users (if not of his own character). I am therefore not surprised with his request for me to be topic banned as well. I'm okay with that, my conduct is transparent and easily investigated. If an uninvolved admin finds my participation disruptive then I'll naturally accept a topic ban. Monitoring Kosovo-related articles is not an easy task, so I was expecting occasional opposition to my job, and complaints. If my work there is deemed inadequate, then by all means I should and will step aside. But until then, I'll continue to strive for the enforcement of civil and constructive cooperation on the Kosovo topic. Húsönd 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sort of prepared to assume Husond is being serious here, but I must say if he is, his take on the situation is rather ... subjective (to put it politely). What he calls "monitoring" and "help protect" to my eye has been extremely unhelpful and biased. The 2 April diff expresses my surprise at Husond being an admin (I have actually been surprised several times over, since in the face of his completely irresponsible behaviour I had forgotten he was one several times over, and I tended to class him as just another pov-pusher based on his contributions). I have not called for his de-adminning or anything. This isn't about "admin abuse". Neither Husond nor I have made use of any admin buttons in this. Nor am I calling for any sort of ban against Husond. The issue here is that Husond managed to talk another admin into issuing a topic ban against User:Beamathan, who is a somewhat exciteable fellow, but who has evidently done his best to improve the article, tackle the ethnic pov-pushing and defend the consensus version. I am asking for review of the 14 days topic ban imposed by Rudget in good faith, but upon instigation on the part of Husond. If you review the talkpage, there are about half a dozen accounts just screaming to be topic-banned, and it is patently unfair to just slap a single user because some involved user knows a few admins. Any takers? --dab (𒁳) 08:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to put anything politely if you're so willing to demonstrate that you'd rather not be polite. As for the "biased and unhelpful", anyone can go diff-hunt your past couple of months and check who's been biased and unhelpful. Won't be me, I'm really not fond of ANI drama. As for all the accounts "screaming to be topic-banned", if there's so many of them, how come you haven't taken any procedure to have them effectively banned? Perhaps you prefer them running amok? Or perhaps you prefer to attack someone who's trying to have them curbed? Beamathan was neither slapped nor was the single user to be banned. He was the second in a series that will naturally keep growing. Yes, I know a few admins, everyone does. Your point? Húsönd 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I could say something: I consider Beamathan to be a worthwhile contributor to the page/discussion, and this topic ban seems a bit long. He has done a bit of shouting lately, but that would be from the frustration that comes from the whole environment of that talk page. I have seen many trolls there, and I wouldn't group Beam with them. (Nor would I group Husond with them, btw). Maybe he broke WP:COOL, but I don't think he did much else to warrant WP:ARBMAC sanctioning. BalkanFever 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan is not a totally unproductive user, he's been helpful to the discussions many times. But lately he's been too carried away with the frustration you mentioned, and he had been warned several times about his behavior. By not refraining to moderate his speech towards users he disagrees with, Beam was causing more damage than benefit. The article is under Arbcom probation, thus a ban was in order. Again, warned several times. Húsönd 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that this topic ban comment above by myself does of course recognise the good work he may have done. However, as part of the discretionary sanctions formed by the Macedonian Arbitration case. As it says there "the sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". Beamathan's contributions were, I am afraid, on a downward spiral (shown in the diffs provided above and the actual topic ban thread). As far as I am aware, he had received sufficient warnings beforehand, including a caution about recent editing patterns and their potential consequences (i.e. topic ban) here. Rudget (Help?) 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to agree with you saying "recent editing patterns" show a "downward spiral." Care to be specific? I have never harmed the article of Kosvo. Not once. I don't care about being allowed to edit the article for personal reasons. And in fact I don't care at all. As long as users like Balkans and Dab and others are there than I trust that article will be there when I get back.

What I don't agree with is that Husond, who has exhibited bias in the past, bitched and moaned to you personally to get me banned. It's disgusting. As Dab points out, i believe he had goaded me into making comments that, when taken out of context, make me look like an ***hole. Husond is in blatant violation of WP:BITE, I have been bitten. I also dislike the fact that the reason for this ban is "Disruption to the Kosovo Article."

That's lies. This ban, if for anything, is over WP:COOL. I have never harmed the article or disrupted the article's slow, but steady, progress towards Featured Quality. That is my issue. Did I lose my cool? Maybe. But I was only possibly uncool in defense of NPOV and Consensus. And honestly, in the arena that is that article, WP:COOL isn't followed and my actions, sadly, were not able to rise above the environment there.

14 days isn't fair. And putting the reason as "constant and sustained disruption of the Kosovo Article" is not only wrong, but it's insulting to me. Sadly this was perpetrated by Husond. Ask any contributor to that article... any one of them that isn't a POV Pusher. They will tell you that I'm a good editor, and that I've never done anything to harm that article. That's all I'll say in my defense. Beam 00:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'd say I felt let down by the system, but I'd just be repeating myself. Beam 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bomb "threat"

[26] - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

non credible venting, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple vandalism should be reverted and the user warned. A new thread here for every "bomb microsoft" or "kill bill gates" edit is overkill. Nakon 00:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7

As a follow up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion, I alert all interested that I have created a new DRV at the link above.

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange deletion happening

BJBot removed the picture of an image on my user page, saying it was invalid, but it left all other links untouched. The picture is located at Image:NGC_2608.jpg...I'm not sure what happened.

--Starstriker7 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to use fair use images on your talk page, you can list it by using Image:NGC_2608.jpg [[:Image:NGC_2608.jpg]]. This will link to the image without displaying it. Jeepday (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorje Shugden and other Buddhism articles

• Article links:
  • Dorje Shugden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Kelsang Gyatso (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • New Kadampa Tradition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Users:
  • Wisdombuddha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
  • Wikilama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Helen37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Helen38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Trudy21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Truthsayer62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • BaldyBoris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Geoffduggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Strettolicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Act72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AN3 Report
• Previous ANI discussion

On April 17, six new users joined Wikipedia and started editing a group of Buddhism articles Dorje Shugden, among other Buddhism articles. They are all six obviously sock puppets or meat puppets. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wisdombuddha confirmed that Wisdombuddha = Wikilama and Helen37=Trudy21, but found no other relationship between them. Whether they are the same person or meat puppets, they are all single-purpose POV-pushing accounts. I came across this issue when examining the AN3 report and saw that they have driven Kt66 (talk · contribs) from the project. Their only talk page edits have been to complain that the article is not favorable to their denomination (or whatever it is called in Buddhism) and to make accusations against Kt66. I don't know a thing in this world about Buddhism, but I do know about meat puppetry and the disruption here seems obvious. Unless I hear any serious objections, my intention is to indefblock all six of them. WP:MEAT says that meat puppets may be treated like sock puppets. As such, I believe an indefinite block/community ban is warranted. Comments? --B (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the earlier discussion and confirmation of sockpuppetry (and near-certain metapuppetry), I thought the users were already blocked. If not, I'd definitely support it. I'm not familiar with the topic or specific edits, but it certainly seems they're purposefully disrupting topics and tag-teaming a responsible editor. Support. Redrocket (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this down as it has gotten lost in the WR drama above. Could some people take a look at this? As of right now, that article has been turned into utter nonsense (see these edits). --B (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a ban, given that they're tag-teaming and using socks to push their POV on a subject. --Haemo (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They are getting active on Dalai Lama and Tenzin Gyatso too. Yunfeng (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more names, as these editors appear to be multiplying, but all pushing the same POV and owning the articles. Again, seems to be purposeful disruption. Redrocket (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Confirmed Helen38 (talk · contribs), Geoffduggan (talk · contribs), Wisdomsword (talk · contribs) and Helen37 (talk · contribs). Thatcher 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I support B's proposal for the indef block of these accounts as meatpuppets. I had seen the cases go by at AN3, and I was disturbed by the actions of Wisdombuddha. I did block him 24 hours for removing other editors' comments from Talk pages, but have not yet taken other action. It is clear that highly partisan editing has been going on at Dorje Shugden. Without access to any expertise, it is an open problem how to restore a good version of that article. Blocking some of the accounts mentioned above might increase the enthusiasm for knowledgable editors to make a new effort. Wisdombuddha created his own account on 17 April, and was filing his first report at 3RR on 21 April. Possibly not a new user. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded to a message at the fringe theories noticeboard and made a few edits, but they have been overtaken by a flood of further badly-worded POV. It needs firm intervention now. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

I'm having problems with a user on the Ann Scott article (french writer). He undoes everything I change, even though my changes are relevant (such as correcting errors in translation of citations in french, adding new elements found in the french press recently, etc). His name is Olaf150 (he just created a account with a name close to mine) and also makes changes not logged in with different UK ip's. Each time he's not saying why he's undoing what I've done. There is no dialogue and he's getting obnoxious, as on his own page for example, when creating his name, near Olaf he wrote oh-laugh. Can you help at all ? Thank you very much in advance. Olaf750 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The username and area of activity indicate an intent to duplicate the contributions of an established user - you - so I've blocked 0laf15O (talk · contribs) indef and asked that they register a new username. I also asked them to discuss changes before making or reverting them. I've watchlisted the Ann Scott article, so we'll see what happens. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is good news, Thank you very much for your help. Olaf750 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairlight (group) , WP:BLP problem

Someone keeps trying to insert a smear-job and definitely non-WP:RS "source" claiming Strider, of the Fairlight group, is a high-ranking member of a political party in California (trying to keep it neutral/vague to avoid repeating BLP-violation here). Situation needs administrator help. DEFINITIVE WP:BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.75.222 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Issued 4im warning to editor who added info implicating a politician in illegal activity with an un-reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There was absolutely no attempt made by the complaining editor to discuss or arrive at consensus regarding the quality of the source prior to the intervention initiated here. Looking at the article's history, it looks like one other editor originally referenced the same story, and both times that the story was removed, it was done by anons. Toddst1's reaction was to place a level 4 warning on my page, also with zero discussion, a move I find rather WP:UNCIVIL. The addition of the story has been characterized as a "smear-job" and otherwise defamatory content; in fact, the way that it was presented on the page was stated as a simple association between the group and the person in question. Now if it is the case that the source is not considered sufficiently reliable, that should have been brought up as an editorial issue, not administrator action prompted from what is likely a single person's objection to it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Raw Story is a reliable source? LMAO!!! WP:BLP is not negotiable, you reverted back BLP violation material after it was removed. WP:BLP says that it has to be removed IMMEDIATELY, you were committing libel, get the fuck over yourself.

the way that it was presented on the page was stated as a simple association between the group and the person - anyone for Guilt by association? The piece is clearly an attempt to smear a politician by trying to accuse him of a nefarious past.

Have you guys been living with your heads in a hole in the ground? The guy admitted it himself and was part of the group under his real name. This has been documented in several cases. Frankly, I think it's something to be proud of, not something bad. :) Jtrainor (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxalicious holocaust denial

This http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust.asp hoax is doing the rounds by email at the moment. May be worth pointing any clueless n00bs that way, if they make the obvious edits. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought the whole "UK = University of Kentucky" thing was a bad joke... but then, my mother-in-law graduated from there, and they mis-spelled the word Kentucky - on her diploma - with an R. As they say, you couldn't make it up.

Watchlisting Holocaust now.... joy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I remembered when that crap went down, and they sent a campus-wide e-mail informing us that it really was a hoax. seicer | talk | contribs 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Account Hijacking

Judging by the latest contributions, this account seems to be hijacked. Oore (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He's just strange like that. The hijacking came after. Avruch ^T 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it appears User:Gurch was just playing around, I have confirmed it though an off wiki source. Tiptoety ^talk 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL WUT? Gurch (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I just thought it was strange that he would redirect a user's page like that. Oore (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is exactly like him to do something like that. :D Tiptoety ^talk 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just Gurch being..uh..uh...Gurch, anyway the annual Account Hijacking day is on May 8th, so its safe for now :) ..--Comet styles 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gurch's assessment on this situation. Al Tally (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could someone please tell me WTFBBQ is going on? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gurch==Gurch. And all is right with the world for those who have somewhat warped (but mostly harmless) senses of humor. The rest of us are bemused. As per usual. No harm done though I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me if I made the situation worse or confused anyone. It appears that someone was concerned that Gurch's account had become compromised. I made contact with him on a external source and confirmed it was in fact Gurch making those edits, hence Gurch = Gurch. Tiptoety ^talk 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting someone's userpage to "Failure" is okay because that's typical behaviour? -- Naerii 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was play. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's Gurch :) - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gurch is not doing well. He vandalized WP:TOV just a few minutes ago. I think he needs a wikibreak. Bstone (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason behind that edit is all the way up here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Comments like this [27] as the first comment on a newbies RfA are fine just because it's Gurch? Why? What's so special about Gurch that makes this OK? -- Naerii 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

...yyyyyeah. I don't know about anyone else here, but that one sure seems WP:BITEy to me. I admittedly don't know much about Gurch, but seriously, I'd say he needs, at the least, to stop and think for a few seconds before hitting the "save page" button. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tbrittreid/Ted Watson

I wanted to bring a growing problem to the attention of the folk here regarding an issue I am encountering on Doctor Fate. The user Tbrittreid (talk · contribs) (who signs his posts as "Ted Watson") is seeking to add ([28], [29], [30], [31]) synthesized material to the article, and is highly abrasive when our synthesis policy is pointed out. I also attempted to address this problem on his talk page([32]) after two specific attempts to readdress the problem after Tbrittreid's demeanor and comments seemed to take on a more offensive and abrasive tone. This does not appear to have assisted the user in being more polite, and in fact, the user has grown more uncivil.
I am unsure how to proceed without seeking to have the user blocked, and I was wondering if I could get some feedback and maybe some extra eyes on the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not the first time this editor has been reported to AN/I for exactly these sorts of issues. I left a warning on his user page regarding the edit warring [33]. As to the abrasive tone, messages like this appear to fly in the face of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience with this editor where I tried to encourage him to be civil as gently as I could, but my efforts were rebuffed. The good news is that although he overtly rejected my advice, he did seem to edit a little less tendentiously for a while, so perhaps it has some effect. Bovlb (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your gentle encouragement to lighten up on the rhetoric resulted in the now archived Requesting update re: "Problem with Doctor (Doctor Who), where the editor in question demanded "disciplinary action" for the "extremely unethical misconduct" "as admins should know better, or they shouldn't be admins." --Kralizec! (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. He does seem to be convinced that admins meting out punishment is the only possible form of dispute resolution, doesn't he? Where do we go wrong with editors like this? Bovlb (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the eyes on the article, and the background on the user. Is further action required with the user, as Bovlb's past experiences seem to indicate that these civility issues are recurring. As I know from personal experience, most editors find it difficult to edit civilly and politely when facing this sort of abrasiveness. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I also left a note on the article's talk page [34] regarding the edit warring. The abrasiveness issue is a tricky one, and I would be interested in hearing the opinions of other admins. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing harassment by User:Libro0

User:Libro0 has been accusing me of being another user (often in a passive-aggressive way), engaging in generally uncivil activity and put this little gem on my talk page I did the pages as a scholarly pursuit. It was enjoyable. I have further content to submit from doing a great deal of research. I need your word that you will not revert my edits. Furthermore, if I correct something I would also appreciate it if you did not revert it, I consider that harassment. [35] I have only made additions here and he/she seems to be taking deliberate action to harass me. He/she needs to be dealt with. Is there some sort of ignore user feature? --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that he considers his passive aggressive digs to be constructive dialog. It makes me think he is trying to play the system. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. In all honesty I felt we were having some pretty good dialogue. And then you came here?! I am trying very hard to work with you not against you. When you do this it looks like you don't want friends instead it looks like you just want to get rid of me. Libro0 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Need we say more? --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

'passive-aggressive', 'uncivil activity', 'harrassement'. These are extremely inaccurate and as I am quite calm and collected and as I said above makes your intent look malicious. Coming here puts your behavior under the microscope. It would be better to discuss things between ourselves instead of implicating yourself further. Libro0 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• He/She said he/she would leave, but then proceeded to engage in more of the same behavior in an obvious trolling attempt. He/She needs to be dealt with! --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• I suspect that he may be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tecmobowl. The editing pattern is similar. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested to both users that they should cut it out and seek mediation or to settle off-wiki. Which I see has not happened. Admin intervention probably not needed but would be welcomed. Rgoodermote  12:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End this silliness

I just saw that User:Gurch closed an RfD about his redirection of this userpage, making a farce of it. I have no personal involvement with Gurch, but this is clearly not appropriate.

Since it's generally considered that redirecting one's userpage is disruptive, and he continues to do it, I ask that someone redirect it to his talk and protect it. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFD discussion was going to snowball as a keep anyway. This isn't a big deal, unless people keep bringing it up. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently he is not redirecting his user page, he has a picture and an external link. This hardly seems disruptive enough to require administrator intervention. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I just ended up on YouTube when I thought I was going to his meta page. It seems I was the victim of a practical joke. I'm not that upset about it, but it seems a bit silly, no, and this trick could be used maliciously by others to send people to malicious external sites? Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See rickroll for more info. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the meme, thank-you. Would you like to address my point that practical jokes of this sort that mislead people by imitating the mediawiki interface are deprecated last time I checked? I for one am glad the fake orange bars are gone (well, I hope they are), and I don't want them coming back any time soon. This sort of practical joke falls in the same category. As I said, because I fell for the joke, I can't be that objective about it, but I would like to see some serious opinion on this, not just a link to a Wikipedia page about a currently popular meme. Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowing Gurch, it'll probably be gone in a few days anyway. In the meantime, I don't think it's worth making a song and dance (not even a Rick Astey song...) over. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone's concerned about WP:Beans why give it even more eyeballs here? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that beany. I went to his user page expecting to see "a picture and an external link". I saw what I thought was a soft (cross-project) redirect, and was fooled into clicking on it. In my opinion, the pictures used in the Mediawiki namespace, or template such as Template:Softredirect, shouldn't be abused like this. Because Image:Redirectltr.png is a Commons image, it is difficult to see which are the genuine uses of the image and which aren't. There are a fair number of user pages soft redirecting to meta user pages (see here). If Gurch really wants his user page to point at m:User:Gurch (a circular reference, but still), then he should do so. Otherwise, he should grow up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed he shouldn't be doing this stuff. The question is whether admin action is needed. I don't think it is, but that's only me. Meanwhile if Gurch grew up, he wouldn't be gurch :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?! There's an ANI thread about this? C'mon, Gurch is Gurch. Relax a little — Alex.Muller 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I got rid of it. Satisfied? Gurch (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. I'm sure you can apply your creativity to more productive ends than using your Wikipedia user page to promote YouTube and perpetuate an internet meme. Marking as resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Treelo - what's happening?

Hope someone here can help... An edit of mine was, in my belief, reverted in error by Treelo. I asked Treelo for an explanation as per this diff, but Treelo reverted that request, now suggesting I was a vandal. I made a further request to Treelo for a further explanation, but was reverted again with a higher level vandalism warning. Can someone either explain what I'm doing wrong, or else have a word in Treelo's ear? Ta.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The diff's provided were not obvious vandalism, nor were they unconstructive. I'm leaving a message on Treelo's talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder actually if Treelo's been influenced by a past record of vandalism from my IP address which is a shared one. For the record, past vandalism was nothing to with me.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Treelo also reverted this IP on SynergeticMaggot's talk page, here. While a request for a 15 minute block of Treelo from the IP obviously wouldn't be granted (we don't do cool-down blocks here), I'm a little concerned. I'd love to hear Treelo's analysis of what's going on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So would I. I'm under the impression that there is a decline to comment. 85.158.139.99, you should mark your talk page with {{subst:sharedip}}, or consider registering your account. Just advice, if you do not want to have all of this linked to you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks people for your assistance and suggestions. I actually prefer editing as an anon, so I no longer use my account. I do notice that Treelo's carried on reverting/warning regardless. Furthermore, I noticed that Treelo's reversion of my edit on User talk:SynergeticMaggot) was pretty well instant (less than 10 seconds). So all this makes me wonder whether he/she/(it?) has got some sort of home-grown rogue vandal-whacker running amok.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Treelo has had a number of complaints about reverts. He's been speed-reverting using Huggle. I think most of it is inadvertent, but he really needs to slow down and be more careful. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It looked more like Rollback, and Treelo is a rollbacker - and, I'll note with some concern that similar edits and reverts have resulted in users having the rollback tool removed in the past. I really, really, would like to hear Treelo's take on this. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Huggle does perform reverts using rollback if the user has that privilege. So this could still be a "Huggle issue" even if rollback was used. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Complaint_against_user_.22Treelo.22. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, everyone requirea an explanation so here goes. People have got hit by my ant-vandalism rampage over the last two days and the reason behind that is that I'm using a semi-automated tool called Huggle and through that seem to have created all sorts of bad-faith issues in error. I am not trying to be all out malicious or being too fast to click but it's creating that sort of image as I don't usually notice what sort of damage I do until long after I stop and look back at what I've done. You get a lot of vandalism to your page during using it and you get this mindset of ignoring everything as it's most likely going to be some vandal getting you back, obviously some good edits end up in the revert firing line. For that and a lot more, I have to say sorry and try to limit what I'm doing with it even further as I'm creating problems through trying to solve them and might just have to stop using the tool if it continues to create problems for people who are just trying to do the right thing, including myself. I'll re-assess the bad edits I've done to those who didn't deserve warnings or reverts and undo whatever reverts I did by accident or by making the wrong assumptions. I am very saddened by this and don't want to be blocked or have rights removed for being blind to others. treelo _talk 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've used Huggle before without creating these problems, and many other people continue to use it, also without said problems. I'm not sure how you reverted so many non-vandalism edits without realizing it, but I think that with all the complaints you've gotten, and the number of times this has been brought to the noticeboards, that it might be time you gave up on Huggle. It's creating more problems for you, and for everyone else, than good. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It may help reduce errors if you'd slow down a bit. Looks like you averaged about one revert every 7 seconds over the last 2 1/2 hours. --Onorem ♠ Dil 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ecx3) One piece of advice, slow down just a bit. :) You don't have to be first to revert vandalism, and it's a lot smarter to make sure what you're seeing is vandalism, rather than quickly reverting pages. Just because an edit doesn't have an edit summary, doesn't mean it's a bad edit. You're doing a good job, just ease up on the throttle a bit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to disagree with all the "slow down" comments, because you've been told that before, to no avail (by me, among other people). Now I'm thinking it's time you said goodbye to Huggle. That's just my two cents. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Equazcion; avoiding Huggle, at least for a week or so, might be better than slowing down. Go back, take a breath, and without rushing thru, figure out what was going wrong, fix any mistakes you made, and figure out how to avoid doing that in the future. Then, when it's all settled, you can ease back into Huggle again. --barneca (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I respect the fact that Treelo has recognized his mistakes and would like to request that this be a last warning and not a removal. Treelo, check out User:Until(1 == 2)/Mea culpa and take your time. Echo Barneca:I'd advise that you not use huggle for a few days, and just observe others who revert edits you might wish to. Observe and learn from your mistakes. Best wishes. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave Huggle alone for a while, it's actually making me a bit frazzled simply using it! Of all the bad that's come from it, a lot more has been good in stopping genuine vandals and it's good to actually be doing something for the benefit of Wikipedia even though sometimes it feels like the opposite. As such, I'll take a week or so out from using it and see how things go when only reacting to serious vandalism attempts. treelo _talk 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

<--- I concur with everyone above; That's probably a good option, Treelo. I'd also ask, if you could, that you have a look at 85.158.139.99's talk page and note that the three final warnings weren't accurate, either by striking them or removing them with a note. Given that that complaint was what started the discussion, engaging them in discussion would be great. You might also check your userpage history and see if any other questions were reverted, as those users might also be deserving of a direct explaination. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! treelo _talk 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser confirmed

First of all, I apologize to everyone if I'm going about this incorrectly.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it has confirmed that Girl Get it (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). Is this the right place to suggest a block of Girl Get it?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Pisano

I seem to have stepped in a sock drawer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pisano (2nd nomination). It has gotten tetchy, but now deletion of comments including WP:SPA notices has taken place. Note history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Hayes and the associated DRV. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some advice or direction here. If I undo the deleted comments and warn the users, I'm escalating further, when I clearly should instead be disengaging. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll just sleep on it. The shenanigans of this crew deserve calling out, but doing so is just stirring a hornet's nest. If anyone has some advice on how not to do that next time, my e-mail works. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a nest that stirs easily. There are 4 accounts that are very obviously the same...I wouldn't take anything they say to heart, they don't argue very rationally...see your linked DRV when me saying that the article wasn't kept at AfD meant that I was insulting a Vietnam vet...and when I pointed out that they had invoked Godwin's Law...they argued the notability of Godwin's Law. Anywho...my opinion is that this calls for some sock blocks. --Smashville ^BONK! 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the same notion. This cadre is very quick to scream insult while freely levying their own, and they've repeatedly ignored any suggestion of the things they would need to do to save their article. The more vehement they get, the more they dig their own grave.  RGTraynor  15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the lack of response on ANI by uninvolved parties in the 12+ hours this has been up here, I made an SSP report. --Smashville ^BONK! 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I was overtired and frustrated and beginning to doubt my own judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When they tell you on your talk page that you are "clearly lying", you're usually not dealing with the rational ones. --Smashville ^BONK! 17:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• We had one admit that he knew the others here. I still think they are all one and the same, but I believe that's an admission of meatpuppetry. Can we please have a 3rd party look at all this? --Smashville ^BONK! 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• And they all work at the same university. --Smashville ^BONK! 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I've said on the AfD. It may be a good idea to do a courtesy blanking when it's over. This is a public place, more public than we sometimes realise, and a real career might be affected by someone's misguided actions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary on the picture upload, I think he's friends with Sgt. bender. I'm sure if he requested it, we would... However, it's been over 36 hours and we still haven't had an admin check this out... --Smashville ^BONK! 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP sockpuppetry, edit warring, religious categories and BLP

Previously some of this was discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive41, yet continues largely unabated so bringing here for wider attention and hopefully some action. For some considerable time FaithChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (who also edits using a substantial number of IP sockpuppets) has consistently flouted the biographies of living people. From that policy:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

This is completely ignored on a wide variety of articles, in particular footballers. Haven't got the time or energy to make up a complete list, but these should give you an idea of the scale of it, although there's plenty more in addition to these if you check the contribs of the IPs listed.

Abou Diaby‎ Alex Curran Andrew Neil‎ Andy Griffin‎ Andy O'Brien (footballer) Anne Diamond‎ Anthony Quinlan‎ Armand Traoré‎ Bacary Sagna Brahim Hemdani‎ Brian Conley Cat Deeley Coleen McLoughlin‎ Coleen Nolan David Connolly David Kelly (footballer) David Morrissey

David Nugent Declan Donnelly Des Kelly‎ Eduardo da Silva‎ Éric Abidal‎ Erin O'Connor Gary Breen Gary O'Neil‎ Habib Mohamed Hamza Mohammed‎ Hatem Ben Arfa‎ Karim Benzema Kelvin MacKenzie Kevin Foley (footballer) Khalid Boulahrouz‎ James McEveley Jamie Carragher

Joe Pasquale John Welsh (footballer) Jon Macken Lassana Diarra Lewis Hamilton Lisa Butcher Martin Keown Matthew Wright Mohamed Sissoko‎ Natalie Cassidy‎ Neil Morrissey Nick Park Paddy Kenny‎ Paolo Vernazza‎ Patrick McGuinness Patsy Palmer Paul McKenna (footballer)‎

Paul O'Grady Peter Kilfoyle Phil Redmond‎ Robert Earnshaw‎ Rob McCaffrey Rupert Everett Sharon Maughan Steve McMahon Steve McManaman Sulley Muntari Terry McDermott Tess Daly Tom O'Connor Wayne Hennessey‎ Wayne Rooney Yahaya Mohamed Younes Kaboul‎

Across these and more, it's a seemingly never ending edit war by the editor anon IPs, reverting anyone who reverts his edits. Main account and IPs listed below:

• FaithChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 62.64.208.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 62.64.212.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 81.129.224.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 81.158.83.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 81.158.84.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 81.158.84.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 81.158.84.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 81.158.85.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.66.204.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.40.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.41.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.41.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.41.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.42.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.225.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.226.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.228.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.229.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.230.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.235.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.236.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.237.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.237.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.237.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.238.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.238.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.128.239.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.136.155.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.136.157.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.143.95.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.144.16.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.154.220.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.164.147.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.164.148.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.168.50.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.168.51.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 217.42.5.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 217.42.5.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 217.42.5.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 217.42.6.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 217.42.6.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This editor is well aware the cats are BLP violations, yet keeps adding them anyway, and edit warring to retain them. BLP violations, edit warring, sockpuppetry, yadda, yadda, yadda, they have seemingly no intention of complying with policy whatsoever. What's to be done about it - over to you as I'm heading off into the sunset again till my next sockpuppetry report...... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filing such a comprehensive report. I saw it and thought I would let someone who doesn't know you deal with it. As that hasn't happened, I'll be happy to take it on. I agree that this person is editing against our goals and I will warn them. I'll post any block that may become necessary here for review. I suggest a checkuser on the IPs; I can file that for you if you like. --John (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer; I've been involved in cleaning up some of the related ethnic categories in the last weeks. Some of them are in an awful mess. See also here, here and here; it is maybe also worth flagging up to a wider audience the awfulness of some of these categories. In one recent run I removed over 500 instances of an ethnic category. I'd say 90% did not even assert in the body of the article that the person was of this ethnicity, and the other 10% it was an unreferenced assertion. Ethnicity and religion need to be referenced, especially on articles about living people, and removed if challenged and unreferenced, and categories are not exempt from this. Given my recent involvement in this area, it might therefore be better if an uninvolved admin did any block necessary. --John (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good John, these kind of categories should indeed be removed boldly and coldly, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the list, to be honest I'd get rid these categories altogether, they cause nothing but trouble. Ban Ray 08:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, at John's request I did some digging with Checkuser. Although I did not exhaustively check every IP reported, all the ones I checked pretty strongly correlate to the user. I think blocking IPs whose sole or main contribution is reverting justified category removals (and it's justified to remove a category that is not sourced and is not relevant to the BLP's career or history) for a week or two seems prudent to me and I'd say the bad hand FaithChecker account needs blocking as well. That user can edit with their good hand account if they like, which I will not publicly name at this time. When I have more time I will carry out a more extensive investigation.++Lar: t/c 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lar. I've indefinitely blocked the bad hand account following your advice. --John (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now reviewed all the articles named above and trimmed out any unverifiable categories. I now regard the situation as resolved. Thanks again for making such a comprehensive report. --John (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:One Night In Hackney

I believe that the following title of a new talk page section breeches the civility rules. Before the usual suspects open their racist mouths I do not particulally care that this user claims to have retired these kinds of accusation should not and cannot be tolerated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. Does that make me dumb? Bearian (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The language used is inflammatory and contains a serious accusation in the title. These kinds of accusations cannot be made without significant evidence and here the accusation only appears to be inflammatory.--Lucy-marie (talk)

(ec) Yes, it's a bit astray of assuming good faith and I wouldn't put it that way, but this established user has been using very strong means of expression lately and I don't see it as being all that disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This may not appear to be disrutpive,but if the user uses strong means of expresing themself which are inflamaory and directed towards other users, then that is disruptive as it removes any form of constructive communication and the user is not assuming good faith.

I wouls also like to add that the user has added inflammatory pictures their user page with the edit summary "Hello to all the stalkers with this watchlisted". The user has IMO been allowed to get away with their 'strong expressions' for too long and now IMO appears to believe they have carte blanche to be as inflammatory as they like.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a user page. Not my way of doing things but I don't see any personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an indirect attack on the people with the page watchlisted and the people the user thinks are 'racist'. No user should be allowed to espouse these kinds of comments anywhere on Wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What user does ONiH say is racist? I see you've had disputes with this editor in the past. Are you being fair about this? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am being fair about this, I have bought to the attention of the community a user who is making accusations of racism. The users which are being claimed to be racist are users who have a different political POV to the user. I was branded a racist once by the user over the removal of calling a political party faschist. These wild and unfounded claims by any user anywhere should not be allowed. If any other user had made the same kinds of statemens I would have acted in an identical fashion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, ONiH isn't calling you a racist or a stalker on those user pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel so trongly you should refactor the comments on the talk page. That would be better than posting here, which would have been more appropriate when, as you say, he called you a rascist int eh past. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The user deletes any comments I post on their talk page and refuses to communicate with me. This one of the few ways to express concern regarding this user, as the user reuses to communicate with me.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ONiH doesn't have to talk to you. I'd let it go. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you, simply take the page off your watch list. I wouldn't do things the way ONiH does, but I don't see any actual harm in what he is doing. --John (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the editor concerned is going through a process of wiki-angst and am tempted to let them work thru' it. I'd unwatch the page and ignore it. There are no personally directed attacks and what I get is a strong sense of irony and self deprecation. If it goes too far, there are plenty of admins who will provide advice/blocking. Can you identify the users who possess a different POV to OneNightIn? ... (I won't say Hackney, since some of us have to spend all our nights there). Kbthompson (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say you are the last person who I would have thought ONIH was referring to Lucy-marie; I assumed it was to the aristocratic sympathisers of David Lauder but I could be wrong. If he does attack you personally that would be the time to take action. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen Gale that the user violated AGF, but it's his user page, and he has some more flexibility there. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not happy that ONiH has decided to undo my refactoring, I think it should be noted that A) This report by Lucy-Marie is motivated by past BLP scuffles between the two (I thought, and am pretty sure that consensus was that ONiH was in the right in that scuffle), and B) this has to do with another BLP issue above, regarding a wide range of BLP issues and POV material. (see the section above) SirFozzie (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow my lead Lucy; simply ignore ONIH & his personal page. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible disruptive canvassing?

There's been a debate about which fields to include in Template:Infobox_automobile. In particular, a couple users very strongly wish to add fuel economy. I recently noticed that one of these users (Skyemoor) has notified several other users about the debate which have similar views. See [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41]. Skyemoor has been blocked previously for editing warring on the global warming article. There is also another anon user (198.151.13.8) which followed up on several of these notifications to post links and notified one additional user. I'm not sure if this anon is the same person as Skyemoor, but they have very similar interests. See [42], [43], [44]/[45], and [46]. I'm not sure what to do about this, if anything. Thanks. swaq 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now the anon is posting on all the energy/fuel efficiency talk pages. This definitely seems like campaigning to me... See [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], and [53]. swaq 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes on talk pages are not only ok, they're helpful (although some editors tend to like seeing users (and not IPs) do this kind of thing. I don't think this has strayed from the limits set forth in WP:CANVAS yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me that they are rallying people they expect to support their cause. swaq 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The messages on the talk pages are neutral enough and as yet, I don't think there are enough user talk page messages to call this canvassing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bomb threat against "Wikipedia Building"

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. (2nd)

Would an admin please review the evidence and issue appropriate blocks? Also, in general, WP:SSP has a three-week backlog, and has had one for some time. Help is appreciated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Tor user making edits with my real life name

As can be seen from the edit history of the page an anonymous Tor IP user has started making edits with comments that include my real life name. Please can someone semi-protect the archive to stop the IP users from removing content and also remove the edits history comments that show my real life name? Blocking the IP may help as it's obvious the user is using it to make personal attacks. Fnag aton 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic. I see the IP was blocked as an open proxy. Might I suggest WP:OVERSIGHT for those diffs? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast block and advice, I will go to oversight. Fnag aton 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting the diffs now pending oversight later (they'd have to be deleted anyway to do the oversight). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Templating

I've indefblocked Ilikecheeseallday (talk · contribs) as a vandalism-only account, as its only contributions were welcoming new users with "Welcome to Wikipedia, but you might want to leave because YOU JUST GOT PWNED". What a peach. Unfortunately, the edits can't be rolledback, since they created new pages for each user. Anyone feel like replacing some of these with a stock {{welcome}} template? The list can be found here. Thanks in advance for the assist. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Well, I got a couple, and it looks the rest of them have been done - should we mark resolved? --Umrguy42 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup - You guys are fast. Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed resolved template for now...I was actually just on my way here to report Ilikecheeseallday, as well as another user, Nman649 (talk · contribs). His contribs consist almost entirely of biting other newbies and creating mazes and stories in both the mainspace and his userspace. I'd support an indef block on this one too, to be honest. GlassCobra 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All of his bitey welcomes were from a month ago, but I fixed them all anyway; better late than never. The welcomes weren't in the same league as Ilikecheese's, his mazes have been deleted, and his story is about to be deleted (at MfD now). Not sure an indef block is needed, so much as some advice, which I will attempt to give now. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threats on Help Desk Wikipedia:Help desk#Darkstar, the video game. HOAX issue.

Somebody's threatening to sue because of the use of the word "hoax" by an editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket number: 2008050710018801. Revert block and ignore the threat issuer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know there was an OTRS number (no mention of it on the help desk), so I blundered into this already. I courtesy blanked the AfD, and removed a link to the non-article from Darkstar. I don't think that was really a "legal threat", and I don't see the need for reverting, blocking, or ignoring them. They have a point, even if they got a little excited making it. I can't find the essay right now, but there's one about not blocking people for legal threats if the "threat" is vague and they might have a legit beef; if somebofy wants to link to that, cool. --barneca (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. Unhelpful usually, but might be useful for once here. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks. --barneca (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Brandt#Gaming_binding_DRV_decisions

Please review Talk:Brandt#Gaming_binding_DRV_decisions. There may be confusion by some parties about the previous set consensus and whether DRV is binding or not. Since the last Daniel Brandt DRV there have been attempts by editors to game and bypass the DRV, first at Redirects for Discussion, and now on Talk:Brandt. More administrative eyes are needed, please, on this hot-button BLP issue that has has negatively affected both Wikipedia, BLP subjects, and administrators here who have been harassed in real life into leaving Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute essentially unrelated to the DRV, with little relevancy to ANI but more eyes on it couldn't hurt. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is much worse, as the Daniel Brandt text was removed in August 2007 and stayed out until Newyorkbrad's sudden retirement, when it was re-added and various users have edit-warred since then to keep it in. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is trying to use this debate to get revenge, it would be strongly ill-advised. Brad has indicated his retirement was not due to specific issues, and to act otherwise would be plain wrong. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely; I encourage every passing admin to watchlist Brandt. This matter will be settled by precedent, DRV, and consensus alone, not any fealty to Brandt's war or in opposition to it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In that Lawrence I suggest you stop making comments about how if we do this Brandt will harass more people. Let's discuss this on the talk page like rational adults. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I have been doing on the Brandt talk page; you're the one who keeps bringing up harassment now. I simply pointed out that Brandt had NO reference to Daniel Brandt from August 2007 until it was magically re-added--why?--right when Newyorkbrad retired, on April 30 this year. Was that just a pure coincidence? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify this edit then? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I quote myself from directly above: "you're the one who keeps bringing up harassment now"

Your bias (sockpuppetting to affect Brandt deletion issues, losing your adminship over it, etc.) is known, and you have no business being involved on this topic matter, hence my unpleasant reaction to seeing you continue to harass a BLP subject. Since that edit, I've argued 101% based on policy and consensus, and you keep bringing up that we shouldn't appeal to Bradnt in this matter. He was removed from Brandt in August 2007. What was such a pressing notability change that he coincidentally just had to be re-added immediately after what happened to Newyorkbrad in April 2008? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence. Develop a mind that can make new arguments please. We've been over the sockpuppeting accusations before and a variety of prominent editors who have looked at the evidence for that agree concluded that I hadn't sockpuppeted. Thank you however for bringing up an accusation which has no bearing on content. I could be Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson and it wouldn't alter what the best content would be here at all. So ignoring your ad hominem attacks are you saying that you did in fact made arguments that we shouldn't keep this based on threats from Brandt and then lied about it directly above? Because that's certainly what it looks like. As to "pressing notability change"- I already explained that there didn't need to be one and that I didn't see one- that events cause people to pay more attention to pages isn't a new thing and since I didn't start this discussion you'll have to talk to Kendrick and the others about the underlying logic. Indeed, I came in you'll notice trying to propose a compromise which you still haven't explained your objection to. I'd appreciate if you could kindly do so in a form that didn't involve "oh no! Brandt will harass us!" or "JoshuaZ supported a compromise position! And he's evil!". In the meantime I suggest we restrict this to the relevant talk page and stop cluttering ANI. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"In response to a finding by the Arbitration Committee that he engaged in abusive use of multiple user accounts, JoshuaZ voluntarily resigned his administrator tools on February 5, 2008." -- please, do mistruths. You did this on Brandt-related matters. If this RFAR is incorrect, please edit that closed RFAR page. I explained my objection very clearly on the talk page, but you have not addressed any objections there. In fact, we have yourself, and two other editors warring across multiple articles to reactivate Daniel Brandt links in the wake of late April 2008. Why? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that things got heated enough to result in protection for the Brandt DAB page. More eyes are probably a good idea, as Lawrence requests. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note also that the same weirdness and hell-bent determination to add Mr Brandt to Wikipedia is also happening on Public Information Research [54], Google Watch [55] and NameBase [56] - all related articles. This petty vendetta against Brandt needs to stop and folks need to move on. Wikipedia is not a tool for vengeance. I'm no fan of Brandt myself, having been Hiveminded before with bad consequences, but this is just wrong - Alison ^❤ 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all over the place, even on other DAB pages, see here. Perhaps we should revisit the idea of topic bans for obsessive editors as I had previously proposed for JoshuaZ. Some editors go so far as to outright lie like here, claiming Daniel Brandt was never deleted by AFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If this continues, there will be blocks for disruption. MBisanz ^talk 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(This is, I recognize, not wholly on topic, but it is a point worth restating, persistently missed, as it happens to be, by those who claim that any further discussion of the issue is properly for(e)stalled upon by common sense and is necessarily disruptive.) By "lying", you mean stating correctly that AfD never sanctioned the red-linking (deleting fully, that is, in contrast with redirecting and protecting) of Daniel Brandt? Whatever may be the continued dispute over under what standard of review we ought to evaluate the most recent deletion of the redirect, over what our presumption should be with respect to summary deletions in situations like this, and over whether we ought simply to drop this issue and adjudge any further efforts to revive it, whether at Brandt or elsewhere, as disruptive, no one seriously contends that the deletion of the redirect followed in any way from the most recent AfD (even if subsequent discussions have borne out a consensus for that deletion — as, IMHO, they surely haven't, and almost certainly won't — or if deletion was appropriate on other grounds even as it might have been inconsistent with, or at least surely not compelled by, the AfD), which is, after all, why so many are irked by the suggestion that those who are unwilling to let everything rest in its present form act with either malign motive or total indifference to common sense (in the latter case, essentially that they are editing disruptively, irrespective of their intentions) and would prefer that some clarity, if not finality, be brought to the issue by a proper community discussion (one that recognizes, of course, that the community counseled the preservation of the redirect at the most recent AfD and therefore that, erroneous constructions of BLP and the Bdj RfAr as having reversed, for BLPs or BLP-related pages [as the Daniel Brandt redirect or DB's being listed at Brandt], our practice of defaulting to "keep" in those XfD discussions that do not produce a consensus for deletion notwithstanding, that the failure to reach a consensus about the redirect [and, one supposes, about the listing on the dab page] should result in its restoration). Joe 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy wonkery and over analysis based on 1,001 interpretations will be the death of us all, and it's a waste of time. DRV #5 was a massive outpouring of consensus in a variety of ways, and the most linear, up and down discussion I've seen in my time of the Brandt Problem. Does he stay, or does he go? The consensus, unchallenged as no one has DRV'd the DRV, is that he go. Policy is worth the value of the paper our money is printed on: nothing. The ideas behind the policy, and the authority that money carries gives it power. We voiced what we wanted at DRV #5, Prodego weighed it, and it's stood. Is this never going to be accepted until someone remakes the article, theres ANOTHER AFD, a clear Delete emerges, and THEN another DRV endorses the Delete close of the AFD? Is it going to only be valid if we do it in proper goose-stepping 1-2-3 order? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it comes to a point where common sense has to kick in somewhere, and it did with the removal of the article. If this was any other BLP subject that didn't meet our various article criteria, we wouldn't even be here. "Is teh enemy" doesn't really provide a sound (or mature) basis for exceptionalism. Orderinchaos 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear Hear! This is asinine. It's clearly become a matter of personal feelings for some editors, who can't accept that there really is no good reason to report on him, beyond not liking a guy whose name is found on the net a couple times. Bet they couldn't find half a dozen notable print references for the guy, they hadn't last time i read that article pre-delete. It's antagonism for fun for a select few editors and dmins, and it needs to stop. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you want to assume then you're being blind to most of the discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've been reading this ongoing saga for a couple years now. It's clear that there aren't sources, that Consensus has been found ad nauseum, and that some editors insist that any deletion is actually a deletion to assuage Brandt, and thus resist it. There hasn't been a real 'keep/restore' argument of merit in a long long time. ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What's process wankery is insisting that those DRVs meant anything, considering we only had them because we had admins abuse their tools and blatantly violate the previous community consensus on the issue. And am I the only one who doesn't blame Brandt for NYB's leaving? Brandt might be a troll/"bad man"/whatever, but I don't think even he wanted that to happen. It surprised us all how sensitive NYB was about that info. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Brandt's goal has always been to destroy this project, he's been clear about that. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it was an outcome that didn't help Brandt, so I doubt he wanted it to play out that way. As much as I'd like to, I can't blame him for NYB leaving. What he did was still wrong, just for other reasons. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So you admit he did wrong, but can't blame him for doing wrong. Which makes it 'right'... but you say it was 'wrong'. And Brandt's been pretty open about his goal of shutting down the project, so I think you should go track down his comments. ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone slapped me I wouldn't act as if he shot me with a gun. My point is that Brandt wanted NYB to enforce his view of how to deal with BLPs. Instead NYB left completely, which doesn't help Brandt out in that respect. Brandt isn't so stupid to think that he could actually out every single Wikipedian editor one by one till there's no one left. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said he had a one at a time agenda; but his goal is to destroy this project. It wouldn't take EVERY user. All he has to do is continuously focus on the Admins, Arbcommers, and the top end till they all walk off, and the risk to one's personal life and safety is widely known enough that no one will step willingly into the positions. Cauterize enough heads, and the Hydra dies. ThuranX (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As a two cents, I don't think dabbing Daniel would be suitable on the disambiguation page - there's no page to link to, and the PIR redirect was strongly discouraged at DRV #5. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the redirect remains protected (thankfully) and it appears various editors were warned that further disruption would lead to blocks... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption is not the same as disagreement. You seem to have trouble understanding that, Lawrence. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drstrangelove57

• Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

After submitting this ANI report this morning, Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs) was warned (multiple times) regarding continued personal attacks. After receiving the warning, the editor has continued disruption, namely:

• <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">Talk:A_Simple_Plan&diff=prev&oldid=210762558 Statement that he will edit war ad infinitum
• Severe violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA
• Attack of an otherwise uninvolved admin
• Personal attacks
• More personal attacks (apparently we're all thugs)
• colossal scumbag
• Anyone disagreeing is part of a "vile bunch"

Though he claims that he is "done", his edit history, continued personal attacks, and stated intent to make a POINT says otherwise. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what's going on. For some reason, User:Happy-melon deleted his talk page (and fully protected it!), so all the warnings have been removed. I'm going to ask him about that right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was right to vanish. Blaxthos, he's gone so this is pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Threat to kill Blueboy by anon IP 75.164.85.217 after making a death threat two days ago

After 75.164.85.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made this death threat against anyone who blocked him, I suggested that the IP retract the death threat. Now today, the IP has made a threat aimed right at Blueboy. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And since this is the second death threat, perhaps contacting the authorities is in order? I'd do it myself, if I could. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm about to email Qwest ... and also, I'd think some calls to the Tucson Police Department and to Mike Godwin are in order. Blueboy 96 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page (I couldn't get the {{subst:uw-anonblock}} template to work...) until this matter is resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call ... but given this guy's history, I see no reason that the page should be unprotected even after this "dispute" is resolved. I changed the block to the duration of the softblock (one year). Trying to figure out how to get hold of the Tucson police ... Blueboy 96 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It being a death threat, maybe a 911 call could be in order? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious that the IP threatens to kill Blueboy96 over being blocked ... yet this IP has only been blocked by me (twice now) and Ryulong (once). Is that sort of like saying "if you are so bad, then eat this kitten," but Blue is the kitten rather than me? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an "emergency call" is needed; it is extemely unlikely that the ip knows Blueboy96's RL identity and location, and the police will need to trace the ip through the provider anyway which makes it an investigation matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

<-Time for this little prick to have his collar felt by Jennifer Justice. An interesting difference I've noticed between legal and death threats: legal threats have an immediate chilling effect, driving away editors, whilst death threats are cumulative - you shrug them off one at a time, but after a certain number (3, 5, 10, 20 - it depends on the person) you give it up and go away unhappy for a very long time. And we act immediately on legal threats, but tend to arse about on death threats. Zero tolerance, I say. Let Lilly Law have her way with the scrote. (after ec: no, not 911, obviously, but yes, local law enforcement or FBI tip line). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Already shot off an email to Qwest. I specifically mentioned in the subject line that it was a death threat ... now it's in their hands. Blueboy 96 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOV, this explicit threat should be reported to authorities. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV is not policy. Must you try to seek publicity from every single minor threat on Wikipedia? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, this is a very inappropriate place to begin a personal and civil attack against me. I suggest people report things because it's the right thing to do. I am not seeking nor do I want publicity. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personally attacking about it. It's a question, based off of evidence of your past behavior. Fact is, WP:TOV is not policy, despite your blatantly disingenuous attempts to pretend it is so, and convince others that it is. It's disruptive to the project, and it will stop right now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, this is simply false. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and the easiest way to promote something to policy is to have people treat it like its policy. It's unclear to me whether this really should be reported to the FBI, but your above comment was out of line. WilyD 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. That's why in big letters on the page it says "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." and "An earlier version of this page was proposed as a policy or guideline but did not gain consensus". Essays do not become policy because people treat them like policy. Essays become policy when a consensus of editors want it to become policy. That's how it works, and how it has always worked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And the most appropriate place for this discussion is on WP:TOV. Not here. Ok? Bstone (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bstone on this. Despite what Dr. Johnny Fever says, the phone company doesn't have "phone cops". 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

O RLY ? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean cops don't have phone companies. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish they did, they'd probably have better service than the telcoms. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please block this Dereks1x sock

HappyFarmerShoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) per their User page (featuring the indef blocked box, standard Derek MO) and my Talk. Thanks in advance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. --barneca (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, belated thanks :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nicolaas Smith - archive and talkpage vandalism

See the following edits:

archive removal talk page deletion more talk page deletion

Mr. Smith has been blocked under various names in the past for sockpuppetry under the name User:Herbou and related, long record of personal attacks, etc. Single-issue editor as well attested by this comment on my talk page: "You and no-one else can stop or remove Real Value Accounting from the economic scene. Real Value Accounting will prevail. It will one day be contributed here on Wikipedia by some-one other than me. I know and every-one here knows that you will fight them off as much as you can. But, in the end Real Value Accounting will appear on Wikipedia. 704 people have already downloaded the book on their own free will. I am not ashamed that I developed Real Value Accounting by chance as a result of my experience with hyperinflation. I am not ashamed that I identified that inflation has a monetary and non-monetary component. I am not ashamed that I identified that the stable measuring unit assumption destroys real value on a massive scale world wide. I am not ashamed to be who I am and to sign my real name to what I write here."

In short, a very long history of pushing - despite repeated reminders about conflict of interest and other matters - Real Value Accounting at the expense of all else, and little willingness to pay attention to any wikipedia community rules, guidelines, etc.

Note that Mr. Smith also frequently states that he is leaving wikipedia, asks to have his usernames deleted, only to return and begin again. A long history of similar behaviour when not logged in from a series of easily-identifiable IP addresses.

Grateful some other editors look into this, as I'm tired of the attacks on me.--Gregalton (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton congratulated me, on 18 March 2008, on Wikipedia for being published here: [57]

Here it is: "........the situation has evidently changed now that your work has actually been published - congratulations................ "--Gregalton (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears in the current Inflation talk page under the Plain English section. [58]

Real Value Accounting is thus not original research any more but facts published and verified in a peer reviewed leading accountancy journal in September 2007 [59] When you click on [Download Issue] you see the date. Despite knowing this for a long time (since 8 March 2008) Gregalton stated on his talk page on 6 May 2008: "I have stated that Wikipedia may not be the appropriate venue for you to promote your research, and that the way you have done so has not been constructive. It would help to acquaint yourself better with WP policies."--Gregalton (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [60]

This was my reply to him: " Research: diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications: Dictionary.com.

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Dictionary.com

Peer reviewed publication in leading accountancy journal: [3]

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "The combination of the Historical Cost Accounting model and low inflation is thus indirectly responsible for the destruction of the real value of Retained Income equal to the annual average value of Retained Income times the average annual rate of inflation."

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "Everybody suddenly then agrees to destroy hundreds of billions of Dollars in real value in all companies´ Retained Income balances all around the world."

Obviously of little importance to you.

Obviously of great importance for you are the following; why, I do not know and I do not care. Just sad, really. Especially when this is done on Wikipedia:

Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive" : Dictionary.com.

My work is not research any more. What I state are facts as verified by the peer reviewed article. Please, do not lie about my work, that is, make a false statement with the deliberate intent to deceive.

No incivility intended towards you. I am only quoting and stating facts.

You are very uncivil to me. As I have stated repeatedly in the past: Gregalton, I am sick and tired of your insults here on Wikipedia.

Obviously, you do not get banned for continuously insulting a good faith editor."

I state again: Gregalton made the false statement that my work is research with the deliberate intent to deceive. The deliberate intent to deceive is proven by the fact that Gregalton leaves out the word "original" in his statement that my work is research. That clearly demonstrates the deliberate intent to deceive. He knows it is not original research. So he thinks he can get away with his false statement by saying simply my work is "research".

He knows people will take it to mean "original research" in terms of Wikipedia policy. That is exactly what happened. See his talk page: "This sounds like an open and shut case of WP:OR. ......... Skyemoor (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and

"If Mr. Smith's 'research' becomes published in a notable economic journal, then perhaps this can be re-examined at that time. Until then, WP:OR is quite clear. Thanks again Greg for holding the line on appropriate content. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)"

The deception worked perfectly:[61]

I know you will not accept my explanation. You cannot accept my explanation. How can you accept that Gregalton deliberately made a false statement about my work with the deliberate intent to deceive - even though my work has been published in a peer reviewed leading accountancy journal? You have to protect your Wikipedia editors to the detriment of good faith editors.

You will also ignore the fact that when work is published in a peer reviewed leading accountancy journal it is not original research any more. You have to - to protect Gregalton: to prove that he had no deliberate intent to deceive Wikipedia users about the fact that my work is not original research anymore.

You will just brush aside the fact that he lied about my work. You have to do it that way. You will also not see that as an insult to me and what my work is about. An insult to the fact that my work is about preventing situations like the destruction of a whole economy like Zimbabwe´s by the application of the stable measuring unit assumption. The fact that what I proved as a fact in my work, not original research trying to discover something, is about the prevention of the destruction of hunderds of Billions of Euros each and every year in the world economy by the application of the stable measuring unit assumption will also be regarded as of little concern to you.

So, go ahead. Ban me and my work from Wikipedia. Approve Gregalton´s lie and his deception of Wikipedia users.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently free downloads of the book stands at 710 [62]

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comments & contributions of Mr Nicolaas Smith, I find it undeniable that this is a Single Purpose Account engaged in Tendentious Editting -- as well as undeniable incivility. In plain English, Mr Nicolaas Smith is the sort of problem user who drives good ones away from Wikipedia. He could be blocked for a limited time -- or indefinitely -- for any of these reasons. However, in several places, besides the response above, he has asked to be banned & although I cannot ban other users I can put an indefinite block on their account -- so I have at his request. In the future, take more care about what you ask for. Notice left on his Talk page with an explanation of how to appeal. Review invited. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A block for disruption is likely called for but this is not the way. As you said, you can't ban anyone and you can't block someone because they've requested it (even if it's your good faith interpretation of what the user wants). My take is that this block should be immediately lifted. One reason for this policy is the user could later ask to be unblocked and this would put things back where they are now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about the policy, but let me respond with this. The point of all of our policy, guidelines & rules is make collaborative editing a positive experience. After examining all of his contributions, would you want to collaborate with him on an article? If you would, then I invite you to unblock him & take him under mentorship, because he's going to need a lot of help. As for me, I'd rather spend eight hours with a salesman motivated to sell me a vacation timeshare in Des Moines than work with this person.

I've been part of Wikipedia for quite a few years, & I've not only seen a lot of would-be editors like him, but have interacted with a few: I can assure you that Mr Nicolaas Smith is not about to change his ways. He's here for only one reason -- to push his version of the truth into Wikipedia. Anyone who he encounters while he is doing this -- no matter whether they are trying to stop him, or simply help him be more effective -- are spewed with his sarcastic venom. This will cause many of them to quit Wikipedia. And besides, although it may seem glib, blocking him because he asked for it, not because he is disruptive, keeps him from claiming he was made a martyr for his beliefs. If he claims that, we can simply point to the fact that he repeatedly threatened to leave, & he was helped to do this. And it puts an interesting consideration when he argues that his account should be unblocked -- if nothing else, he would need to explain why he has changed his mind, & perhaps explain how he will change his behavior if he is allowed back in. -- llywrch (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I agree with the outcome and do understand what led you to handle it this way. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS Reappraisal

Please provide input about do-undo edits between User:Orangemarlin and me [63] since 7 May 2:08 to 7 May 8:38 Randroide (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary of yours was not helpful. You might want to read up on what is called vandalism on Wikipedia (and what isn't). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First, thank you for taking this issue up here and not mindlessly reverting. Secondly, your edit summary here was rather uncivil. He removed a link that he says is not a reliable source; these links should not be included in refs, but looking at it, it is a New York Observer link, and these are reliable in my opinion. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 09:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The source looks ok but a bit too narrow for the sweeping statement it's meant to support. Also, the reference isn't in an accepted format, obscuring the name of the source and the article, but showing a quotation from it. Taken altogether, this will not help convince Orangemarlin the source is reliable and supports the assertion. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Could you please be more specific about the removal of the external links?.Randroide (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The links Orangemarlin rm'd do look unreliable to me. One is a collection of videos, the other two both look bloggy (and one looks new and rather incomplete). You might want to have a look at the external links policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Those links are produced by the very same groups the article is about. It is like the canonical example about the perfect validity of linking sormfront.com at Stormfront (website).Randroide (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So it really depends on how they are used. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That´s the point. Triying to use those sources to source anything at AIDS would be totally improper. But AIDS denialism is the exact page to link those websites, just as in the stormfront example. Randroide (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about the groups, it's about the general topic, so your example doesn't hold true. Meanwhile, calling good faith edits vandalism, not being familiar with Wikipedia policies on citation formats and external links, along with using Stormfront in a (mistaken) reasoning as to why external links might be included in the article, will not get you very far. I suggest you try editing some uncontroversial articles and approach this again after you've gotten some experience as an editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I apologized for my breach of civility [64]. 2. I have "some" (+8000 edits, +40 articles created) experience as an editor (vid. my user page). 3. I can not understand the rationale for deleting external links created by the very same groups the article is about. Anyway, administrators have the last word about what´s right and wrong here, at Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback, sir. Randroide (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that for the last few weeks, you had mostly edited only this article (along with what look like related user pages). With 8000 edits stretching back to 2006 I think it would be very helpful to you if you'd read up a bit more on things like article sourcing, external links and dispute resolution. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About me reading a bit more about dispute resolution: Excuse me, but after two years It´s the first time I come at this venue with this kind of grievances. I was impelled to do so by the summary of this edit Any further accusations of my being a vandal will be taken up on an ANI Randroide (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

I was trying to help you see how you might generally be able to make stronger, longer lasting edits. Orangemarlin's edits were not vandalistic and I still don't understand how his assertion that they weren't could have made you think you had to bring this here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin´s reference to the AIN made me bring the issue here, sir. Thank you for your well intentioned recommendations to me. This incident has taught several things to me Randroide (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at it this way. Stormfront can link to stormfront.org. In general, article X can link to X.org. But there is no aidsdenialism.org; there are many groups with no official central organisation. Wikipedia is not a link directory - we do not and should not link to every group A, B, C, etc that says it is interested in X. Of course, if one of those groups B is notable enough to have its own article, that article can link to B.org. Does that help at all? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, indeed. I disagree with your POV on this issue, but you help me to understand that my own POV is not the consensus, and that settles the issue here, at Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and attention. Randroide (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that's not my POV. That's my interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines on external links. My POV is that AIDS denialists are fostering ignorance and superstition over education and prevention, and contributing to millions of preventable deaths. I try to keep it well away from the article contents. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator Swatjester actions review