Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Spam-blacklist/UnrealRoyal

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

Unrealroyal.com was blacklisted as spam (which it is not) by User:Hu12 who seems to be partisan on the subject as is clear from User_talk:Hu12#unrealroyal.com. The subject was looked at rather perfunctorily at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal in which User:Lazydown participated. He is a sockpuppet of User:Kingofmann who is David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Would an independent admin please have a look. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As to whether it is spamming, I have no idea. But I see no reason to think it would qualify as a reliable source (it appears to be a personal site, even if a well-researched and well-written one), so the point seems to be moot. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The first point is that it is not a spam site. Which is the purpose of that list. WP:RS is not the issue. The second point is that it is not for User:Hu12 to determine the issue as he has been involved throughout. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My past experience with User:Hu12 is that I talked to him, and he fixed the problem. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he would say that, wouldn't he? It should have been closed by an uninvolved admin. More than one person who has looked at this thinks it was improperly resolved by an involved person - namely he who put it on the spam list in the first place. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't blacklisted as "spam"^[1]. Also, an univolved admin (also meta admin) closed the removal request^[2], not I. Repeating the same request 3 days after that close, does not become re-opened by virtue of repetition--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only was Hu12 the person who added the link to be blocked, he was the original creator of the article which the content from the site was criticizing. Hu12 is apparently camping-on the blacklist, any removal requiring personal approval, and ignoring consensus. The blacklist additionally, in my humble opinion, is being used to stifle criticism and suppress dissent. The use of the admin bit, by an involved admin, in content issues, is at-odds with the project goals. Any question of reliable sourcing should be taken to that board to discuss, not pre-emptorily blocked by a blacklist addition. This disruption has already led to one ArbCom case. The issue of community involvement in the blacklist should be taken up somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where. Wjhonson (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The site in question is based on this blacklisting of a attack site. The "Criticism", as claimed about the subject of the BLP's was not the reason for the blacklisting. This site contained an entire page devoted to outing various editors ("Wikipedia.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) in an attempt to identify and harass several Wikipedia users. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment apply to any kind of attack or harassment in any context. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment. Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another or multiple Wikipedians has never been acceptable on wikipedia. Websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter, as evidenced by ArbCom rulings^[3].

Consensus was achieved by multiple admins in the first request for removal, yet in pursuit of a certain point, despite that concensus, Wjhonson re-requested within 3 days of the other request being declined. This type of tendentious re-request is normamaly unusual, however it was uncovered there was something else going on . It was uncovered that Wjhonson was acting in a Meatpuppet^[4] capacity for the purpose of influencing the blacklisting, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits related to the interests of the site owner of unrealroyal.com. See here.

"You solicited to the owner of unrealroyal,(MAR), on groups.google.com, in a thead entiltled Wikipedia is exceeding its own record of stupidity "By the way MAR, if there is something in particular about that article to which you object, let me know. I'm not adverse to battling it out on Wikipedia."^[5][6], which clearly demonstrates your intent to misuse wikipedia. Of course MAR replies to your offer by linking direcly to the article, my userpage and the blacklist^[7]."

This ongoing "forum shopping" is continued evidence he is infact following through with his off wiki threat to "battle it out" by using wikipedia as a battleground and foregoing aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests. Reinforcing that Wjhonson states himself that "I don't think the argument of citing your article however will win"^[8] ....the site owner himself states..."I actually *agree* that under the policy, my site should not be used as a citation or reference" ^[9], conclusively there is no valid reason for pursuing this matter except to WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Although the link is no longer on the blacklist (moot), this, does not excuse Wjhonson's behavior in manipulating Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests by acting in a capacity for the purpose of influencing, shows of support and for performing reverts and edits for the site owner of unrealroyal.com. Although his behaviour is clear misuse wikipedia and disruptive, I'll leave it to some other admin to propose sanctions. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So at some point are you going to publicly admit that you created the article that started us down this long trail of tears in the first place? I think that's fairly relevant to your long-winded counter-attack above. As for all the above I'll invoke WP:KETTLE which covers it quite nicely. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com justifies putting unrealroyal.com on the spam blacklist. All the arguments for doing so come from Hu12 who is a wiki spamcop. He should step well back and let someone else sort out this mess. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wjhonson, did you somehow miss that tidbit in the KOM/Rfa? Arbitrators did not express any concerns, nor was there any to express. Interesting manor in which you phrase it, however. Guess you would find it relevant if your defense to my comments above is to mischaracterize that fact, to seem somehow unreasonable or improper. See article history. I'll invoke bothWP:SEI and the Duck test
• CarbonLifeForm, in all your objectiveness, please explain then why was the offending page ("Wikipedia.htm" located at unrealroyal.com/page_1199151805093.html) was deleted from the site? Which, infact, occurred just prior to Wjhonson's removal request, and shortly after his "offer" to the site owner of UnrealRoyal? Perhaps your application of WP:COI is misplaced.--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I have never seen it. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fine. It's not technically a spam site, so it does not technically belong on the spam blacklist. However, it is unacceptable as a source or an external link, as described to you many times. Therefore, there is no pressing need to take it off the blacklist, is there? Because you certainly wouldn't want to get into an edit war by using it as source, would you? Of course not. So, issue closed. Thatcher 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As it is agreed that it is not a spam site, let it be removed from the blacklist of spam sites. Then the issue will be closed CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above its no longer on the MediaWiki blacklist. Agree, the issue is closed --Hu12 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BrownHairedGirl involved in tendentious and disruptive editing

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has just reverted much of my work from December and January, of converting external map service links to the more general geographical coordinates, improving existing coordinate tags, reviewing the quality of the results, and then removing the links from articles. She abused administrative and other tools by blindly reverting 220 edits, restoring all the removed links, and in many cases making the reusable coordinate information unavailable for now. Her tendentious and disruptive reversion spree was a result of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services, where she wasn't capable of thinking the situation in a wider perspective and her personal viewpoint of "any map link in all articles" wasn't supported by other participants, as opposed to clicking on the coordinates and choosing a link from the first page, though the same procedure had already been done with book sources and ISBNs. She was pointed out the Wikipedia policies against the inclusion of such links, but she decided to ignore those fundamental principles and go by her personal preferences. During the heated debate the last couple of days I had stopped all article editing related to this issue until more people voice in, but BrownHairedGirl lost her cool regardless and decided to go solo.

For background on this: My original edits were part of WP:GEO goals to "have a uniform, extensible way of accessing all types of map resources, avoiding having direct external links to maps in articles" by consolidating and standardising coordinate and map link use on Wikipedia. This goal is based on Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia information should be reusable, that external links to general map services are not information about the articles' topics when there exists dozens of other similar services usable with the same geographical coordinates, and that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and it doesn't offer to readers or support any single external advertising supported map service over all the others, but readers will have to choose themselves. More details on these at Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to map services - summary.

What can be done with administrators who disregard Wikipedia policies and revert other editors in a tendentious manner with nothing but their personal opinion behind their actions? Arbitration is probably too drastic as the damage she has done is only temporary and the information is easily recoverable, but there must be something to discourage such admin behaviour? --Para (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl has the same right to edit as any other user, but mass-reverting good-faith edits doesn't seem to me to fit the intended purpose of admin tools, and puts Para at a severe disadvantage. Can we agree to stop these high-speed admin-tool-powered reverts now, and then work something out at WP:GEO, please? -- The Anome (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:GEO would indeed be the right place for the discussion, but whenever users new to a debate join a discussion that has for the most part taken place on a wikiproject page, they are fast to point out that the participants haven't represented the views of the community, and that the discussion should not be continued there. The proposed correct location is often the village pump or other central dumping ground, but all discussions can't be had there, which is why they are separated on pages focused on some very specific topics. Should all wikiprojects that simply enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an organised and centralised way then have the wikiproject connotation removed from their names? --Para (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On review: yes, Para has a point -- this is very much like the links-to-Amazon issue for books. Sure, the ISBN link system is clunkier than a simple link to Amazon, but it gives the reader more choice, and avoids any suspicion of commercial promotion. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First thing: if a complaint is raised about someone at ANI, it is helpful to notify the person complained about so that they can respond, and it's a pity that Para did not to do so. Thanks to Luna Santin for pointing me to this discussion, which I would otherwise have been unaware of.

On the substance of this, there has been a lengthy discussion at WT:EL about Para's mass removal of all direct links to external map services. The discussion was an exceptionally difficult one, because of Para's repeated refusal to take seriously the deep concerns about the usability of the GeoHack system which were expressed by every other contributor to the discussion other than Para — everything was repeatedly and arrogantly brushed off as "resistance to change" or as "nonsense".

Para's summary above the discussion at WP:EL is a gross misrepresentation of that discussion, and in particular Para's attempt to conflate a series of policies into a ban on any direct links to map services is highly misleading. Para is acting as if there is a clear policy supporting his actions, when there is not, and refuses to listen to any objections.

It is quite clear from that discussion that there is no consensus for this mass removal until the usability of the GeoHack system is improved. (I believe that the discussion shows a consensus against, but Para disagrees on that point),

For now, the relevant guideline is at WP:EL, whose nutshell says "Adding external links can be helpful to everyone, but they should be restricted to those that are most meritable, accessible and relevant to the article." One or two direct links to a relevant map at an appropriate resolution are entirely in keeping with that guidance.

There is no objection from me (nor, so far as I can see from anyone else) to the addition of GeoHack links to articles which do not have them, and I would welcome that addition. The issue in dispute is solely Para's unilateral mass removal of all other links contrary to the existing guideline at WP:EL, before usability issues have been resolved.

Unfortunately, Para is engaged in a one-man exercise of mass-removal of direct map links, before usability problems have been resolved, and has adamantly refused requests from several editors to desist until the usability problems have been fixed, decrying the consensus against him as "resistance to change", which is a bizarrely arrogant description of widespread concerns about poor usability.

The folks at WP:GEO are doing good work in developing the GeoHack system, and I wish them well in developing the system further to improve its usability to the point where it is welcomed by other users as a satisfactory replacement for all map links. However, it's not there yet, and there was a very sensible proposal last night by User:Wikidemo, who wrote "The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots."

Unfortunately, that wise proposal was immedaiately rejected by Para, who wrote "The best solution is to just go for it and then see about the comments.".

In response to that, I warned Para that any mass removal of direct links without consenus would amount to disruptive and tendentious editing ... and when I later checked Paras' contribs and found the extent to which this had already been done, I reverted those edits of Para's which were described in the edit summary as the removal of map links. (Note, I did not revert edits which described the addition of geohack links, or even of those which replaced map links with geohacks — in those cases, the map links should be restored but the GeoHack should stay, and simple reversion would be inappropriate).

As to a solution, it is not for the WP:GEO project to impose its system on the whole of wikipedia. I wish them luck in improving the GeoHack system, but for now the guidance at WP:EL permits a limited number of relevant links to external sources, and there is no consenus to ban any direct links to map services. If, as Wikidemo suggest, the folks at WP:GEO improve the usability of their system to the point where "everybody loves it", I'm sure that there will be consensus to change the guideline. However, we are not there yet, and Para's mass-removal should stop.

(BTW, in reply to The Anome, this is not the same issue as links to Amazon. Amazon exists to sell books, but Google Maps or Line Search Maps or Yahoo Maps are not trying to sell a product. Like online newspapers to which there are squillions of links, they are advertising-supported information services, which is a very different matter to a sales site.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl continues to ignore fundamental Wikipedia principles, doesn't even try justifying why they could just be brushed aside with her personal opinion, and seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that what she has done is not appropriate for someone who supposedly has the trust of the community and is expected to know Wikipedia policies. The book source system was taken into use and Amazon links removed, and the map sources system works exactly the same way, except that more attention has been given to usability. Both types of services benefit from incoming links, and with such services that have dozens of alternatives usable with a known identifier, Wikipedia should not promote any single one over the others. Even if the usability was on the same level for both, we could already move to using the centralised map sources page as there's the precedent and supporting policies, but BrownHairedGirl insists on imposing her personal preferences on all Wikipedia readers.

The only people to ever have complained of my removal of map links are Sarah777 (talk · contribs) [10][11][12], who then alerted[13] BrownHairedGirl to speak for her, and we all know now how she delt with that. All comments of her disruptive actions have been negative, and people have already started reverting her reversions independently [14][15]. I am not alone at all in converting map links to coordinates, see for example the entirely independent edits from these users during the couple of days I was monitoring external link changes:

• 201.38.195.168 [16]
• Americasroof [17]
• New World Man [18][19][20]
• Blinadrange [21]
• Asn [22]
• Majoreditor [23]
• Nyttend [24]

See also the WP:GEO discussion on getting rid of all external map service templates, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord, where there was a clear consensus to remove the links. The people opposing the change there only had concerns that have been taken care of since.

In addition to the direct map links BrownHairedGirl restored, she also restored a WikiMapia link to 900 articles through a template [25], though the links had been gone for almost a month already without a single complaint. WikiMapia in particular is an ad infested website that, despite the name, only has the community editing part of the site common with Wikipedia, but keeps the results of the work for themselves. Such a site shouldn't be supported in any Wikipedia article except the one about the site itself. People who really want to use it can choose it from the list of all other Google Maps mashups.

I expect BrownHairedGirl herself to have to revert her own reversions. Meanwhile, as there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links, how do we get that in the guidelines so that other opinionated revert warriors ignorant of Wikipedia's goals won't go on the same path? Guidelines are after all just extensions and longer explanations of the existing policies, but obviously a direct note about this is needed in WP:EL. Generally it has been very difficult to get people comment on a minor issue such as map links or coordinates. Should everyone identified in editing map links or coordinates be contacted directly, or can we just act based on the existing fundamental policies? --Para (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Just as an aside, isn't the rollback tool only allowed for "obvious" vandalism? Lawrence § t/e 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback, and I will not revert my rollbacks. Despite Para's long posting above, the fact remains that in the discussion at WT:EL, I can see no-one else supporting Para's purge of all direct map links.

Para points us to a discussion at WP:GEO, but a wikiproject does not make policy or guidedline for wikipedia as a whole. And it's very depressing to see that despite a clear consensus at WT:EL not to support the amendment of the guideline, Para claims that "there is obviously a majority supporting the removal of external map links". That's a transparent falsehood, and it's very disappointing to see Para trying to make all these false assertions. In two years of editing wikipedia, I have never before encountered any editor so utterly unwilling to listen, and so determined to ignore consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion on WP:EL makes you think there is consensus in any way? Perhaps I'll summarize: I support removing map links, Wikidemo supports removing map links, SEWilco supports removing map links, DanBealeCocks prefers the list of map services over single links, Sarah777 likes Yahoo and WikiMapia and would have liked to have been notified of changes, BrownHairedGirl likes any map link as long as it's directly on the page, some anonymous user dislikes the WikiMiniAtlas, and EdJohnston seems yet to have decided on an opinion. No matter how many ways I try to count this in or weigh the arguments, I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the discussion is finished or is showing any consensus at all. Above I provided diffs of edits where 9 different people have removed map links from articles. What kind of inverted view of consensus do you have?? --Para (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Para, I don't know why you persist in repeating so many untruths, but I have never before come across a wikipedia editor who will so blatantly claim that black is white.

I'm not going to waste time summarising how you have misrepresented several editors, but I'll just repost wikidemo's latest comment in full, highlighting in bold the points where wikidemo specifically opposes the mass removal of links at this stage:

"Maybe everyone should take a little chill. This issue isn't new and it's not getting resolved soon, so no emergency worth getting personal over. I don't think it's a good idea to link directly to map services, and I would probably remove such a link if it appeared for no good reason in an article I was working on. At the same time we have 300,000 and it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place. The best, I think, is for anybody who feels strongly about this and/or wants to do a lot of good to develop our technology a little further, and maybe the usability of the way geocodes are displayed in articles. Once it's so good that everybody loves it, we can set about converting external map links to geocodes using bots. We could even give people some notice and warning time so they can put a "do not convert" flag somewhere for the bots, if they strongly feel that a particular external link to a mapping service should remain. Of course they could always just revert the bot too"

If you really think that "it's premature to delete them en masse from articles without having a really good system in place" should be read as meaning "I support Para's zealous insistence on immediate mass removal of all direct links to maps", then you need to do some urgent remedial work on your reading comprehension skills.

Anyone else concerned about this issue should read the thread for themselves rather than relying on the bizarre misrepresentations posted here and elsewhere by Para. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining usability issue that has been reported is the interpretation of the title "Global", on whether it indicates map sources with data on a global scale, or if it means services that only show a globe. Nobody has confirmed the issue or suggested other alternatives, but it is of course listed in the appropriate place for further comments. Absent any other issues, we can say that the system is good or at least as good as the book sources list, and the quoted comment from Wikidemo is therefore unrelated. To further quote the same editor [26]:

"for the sake of consistency and fairness, where we have essentially the same need on 300,000 articles we shouldn't be linking to external web services on an ad-hoc basis. Best to have a standardized, predictable way of doing it so that all the users know what to expect and we're not in the position of favoring one advertising-supported commercial service over another. I like the system where the coordinates bring up the template, and the template gives users a choice of which mapping service to use for a display. We should then discourage people from including their own maps"

Making Wikipedia's external linking neutral is an ideological issue, and BrownHairedGirl's personal opinions are irrelevant when keeping Wikipedia's principles in mind. Book sources have already been centralised, and so will map sources. BrownHairedGirl is acting from a minority viewpoint mostly represented by herself alone, and any of her attempts to keep Wikipedia biased should be reverted. --Para (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• cough* Alone? I have not been silent in my opposition to it, nor have other users. Orderinchaos 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I participated briefly in this discussion and overall, it's pretty clear that the way to go in the long run to remove links to specific mapping services in favor of a universal geocoding system promoted by the appropriate wikiproject. It seems that 282,000 of 300,000 articles already take this approach but that there's some objection to mopping up the last 18,000, on account of the geolinking service on Wikipedia is clunky and takes extra clicks to use. That's a fair criticism, and if the community really thinks so, it's valid request to ask the geo people to go back to the design lab and come back when the feature is perfected. I don't know what it even means to talk about consensus in such a context, but in any event the bickering between BrownHairedGirl and Para at the village pump has gotten so intense that it's very hard to tell what's going on, and unpleasant to participate in the discussion. Perhaps a full review would reveal that one or the other started it or is being unreasonable, but I'm just an editor and it's not worth the frustration to wade into someone else's flame war. In any event I don't see any chance of a new consensus emerging as long as the discussion is so hot (which leaves open the question of what the current consensus really is about these articles). Perhaps they both need to take a short or long-term break from this issue, or invoke some kind of mediation. In any event it would seem inappropriate for any party to such a dispute to use administrative tools or privileges to have their way - even if administrative action is called for it would be a lot better if it could come from a disinterested party. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed Wikipedia:Rollback policy does not seem to me to countenance rollback for "the mass removal of valid links which are not deprecated by policy or guideline seems to me like a very appropriate use of rollback" as suggested by BHG above. Can those in favour of rollback for such purposes please get consensus on that page either for changing the rollback policy/guideline or for correcting that document's mis-statement of WP policy? Thincat (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Allowing the use of mass-rollback over content disputes in this manner, sets a chilling precedent for editors without this tool. It is not an appropriate manner for dealing with the issue. The previous versions should be mass-rollbacked and dispute resolution should be entered. This is a content issue. Admin tools were not given for the purpose of engaging in content wars. Wjhonson (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So far we have four people who feel that this was an inappropriate use of rollback. Anybody else care to weigh in, or is this "chilling precedent" going to stand? Pairadox (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally (and I'll admit a past involvement with this matter) my perception of this situation is that Para and SEWilco have been quite difficult to deal with with regards to this. They seem to have decided in absence of any community consensus on what they are going to do, are mid-way through implementing it, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. It's an approach that flies completely in the face of consensus-building. Developers of the map link templates such as myself are getting occasional bouts of criticism for doing nothing about these incursions. It seems like WP:OWN on a grand scale where a small wikiproject has decided to take ownership of a particular attribute on thousands of articles. While there have been some minor improvements, a quick inspection of the WP:GEO talk page will put paid to any notion that there is a consensus or that they take criticism on board. As far as they are concerned, this is going to happen whether we like it or not. As such, I support the actions taken by BrownHairedGirl to date. When we become admins, we are expected to protect the encyclopaedia from vandalism and disruption. This is very much a behaviour issue, not a content issue. Orderinchaos 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add with regards to "inappropriate use of rollback" that rollback is a tool. It's a technical mechanism that works as a fast undo. Any editor who can make a snap decision that a particular edit should be reverted (either because of the nature of the editor or the nature of the edit) is going to do so, rollback or no. I don't think the method of reverting is relevant. • Anakin ^(talk) 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is for controversial edits. During December and January when map links were removed from those 220+900 articles (and others), only a single editor protested the removal from her 3 articles. This is not a sign of the kind of community wide controversy that would give reason to a massive retroactive rollback by one deeply involved administrator. Using rollback in this manner is abuse of a tool which is restricted to the use of people who have been trusted not to do anything controversial with it. Orderinchaos seems to be disgruntled for having been left in a minority when trying to oppose the removal of another more organised linkspamming. I cannot fathom how people can even think that promoting some specific external service over all its alternatives would be following WP:NPOV, when it in most cases isn't even the "most popular" and therefore not the most relevant or the most useful for the article. --Para (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely object to the above characterisation of my actions. As a user and admin with 26,000 edits and a two-year history including getting one of the geographical articles to FA status in a project which has thousands of articles which are affected by these arbitrary decisions, and getting asked by others in my project why I had not stood up for common sense in the face of such blatant hostility, I finally decided a month or two ago that enough was enough and something needed to be done. As Para will recall, we had previously been on cooperative terms when another now-Arbcom banned editor was causing all manner of havoc at a Geo-related page, and I supported the introduction of Coord on just terms. There seems to be two disputes here, one of which relates to the direct placement of links in articles, which I have always opposed (apart from being messy, it's also impossible to manage from any point of view), the other relates to the indirect placement of links via Mapit/Geolinks templates, which I have always supported. This is not "linkspamming", and to use such language towards a long-standing user is, in anyone's language, inflammatory. My genuine concern, and I've seen evidence of it, is that since WP:GEO started trying to force change on the latter issue in November last year, users (not including myself) have been fighting back by removing the templates entirely and resorting to manual links. This moves us from a situation which we can manage, to a permanent battleground. Orderinchaos 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is not, and has never been, any kind of policy, nor consensus, that restricts the usage of rollback to "only vandalism", nor anything similar. Rollback is a tool, not a big deal, and does absolutely nothing that cannot be reproduced by many script tools, as well as the default edit button. All these allusions to a non-existent policy must stop, just like we weed out the equally misleading non-policy idea that "you may not remove warnings from your talk page". >Radiant< 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Comment from previously uninvolved editor/admin Rollback is for non-controversial reverts; vandalism, countering 3RR violations, etc. Notwithstanding its possible inappropriate use in the context of the above content dispute, the attempt to have BrownHairedGirl sanctioned for using it in that dispute has not gained traction. It is not "abuse" of the tools since it only replicates the effect of the undo option or choosing the previous edit in the article history - it confers no special or unique power to a sysop.

WP:ANI is not the venue to continue the content dispute. There are other places to pursue resolution; please use them. I am marking this resolved since there is nothing that any admin can or will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an appropriate discussion to have here. Any use of administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is abuse. The argument that they simply achieve the same thing as a non-adminstrative tool is spurious. If the administrative tool were no better than what we non-administrators have, then why use it? Administrative privileges aren't granted to allow some people to be super-editors. Wikidemo (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you were a week or so ago, but there was quite a few discussions relating to the fact that Rollback had been made available to all editors of "good standing" via Twinkle (not that I had remembered this when I wrote the above a few hours ago). Also, the point stands that Rollback achieves nothing that Undo or choosing the previous edit in the article history doesn't means that this tool gives a sysop any extended power in a content dispute. Therefore the argument should not be about the tool but why it was used; and that is a content dispute, and this is not the right place for such matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Perhaps I misunderstood the first above. It appeared that the objection was that admins have some sort of special tool for mass-rollback, not one-by-one rollback. I'm sure we can all agree that blind-reverts of 220 edits in one long spree is tendentious editing. I actually respect BrownHairedGirl, I've seen some of her comments and they seem spot-on in many situations. But this shouldn't be simply igored as a typical editor reaction. This isn't the way we want to approach consensus editing. Instead, if Brownhaired Girl felt this was highly inappropriate, that is why we have dispute resolution. An RfC, Mediation, etc would have handled it quite properly.Wjhonson (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• (resolved label removed - an important point has yet to be made). I've reviewed the edits that were of concern, and I agree that rollback was being used inappropriately here because, and this is important, the edit summaries were not informative enough and the edits were being marked as minor. Three styles of edit summaries were used:

• (1) "Reverted 1 edit by Para. using TW"
• (2) "Reverted 1 edit by Para; Rv, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links, there is no consensus for this mass removal of links. using TW"
• (3) "Reverted edits by Para (talk) to last version by Raymond Cruise"

The third one is the rollback summary, the first and second are TWINKLE summaries. The second edit summary is good, and (except for the use of "minor") should have been used for all the other edits as well. Please, please, please, do not use rollback for mass non-vandalism reversions like this without using a custom edit summary (pointing to where there was consensus to use rollback in this way) and removing the "minor edit" label. Rollback is very bad at leaving a paper trail to help editors reviewing the edits to work out why the reversion was done - unless, of course, it is obvious vandalism! There are several scripts available that enable people to modify rollback to output custom edit summaries. One is User:Gracenotes/rollback.js, described at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 5#Rollback summary. Another is User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js, described at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Vandalism only?. I am going to update WP:ROLLBACK to include this, and I will notify BHG, Radiant!, Wjhonson and other people in the above thread. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Carcharoth for a productive and pro-active approach to a sticky situation!Wjhonson (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems! :-) Those who are interested, please see here for a discussion on how best to phrase all this in the documentation. I've left various other notes around, so hopefully people will realise the sense in using custom edit summaries for non-vandalism reverts (regardless of what tool is used to do the reverts, be it rollback, undo, or some combination using scripts). Ideally, people on a dedicated run of rollbacking vandalism (eg. RC patrolling) would also have a custom edit summary enabled (eg. "rollback of vandalism reviewed during recent changes patrolling"). People spotting the ocassional instances of vandalism during normal editing will still find it quicker to hit rollback, and I am aware (before someone says this) that there is no requirement to use edit summaries at all, but it makes a great deal of sense to use informative edit summaries where possible. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre behaviour of User:Dbmoodb

Frankly, I'm not certain if this is appropriate for this forum. But anyway I'm puzzled and frankly rather irritated by the sub-troll behaviour of User:Dbmoodb. He mostly confines himself to user page stuff which he defines as "silly" but makes an occasional foray into article editing. All very teenage. No big deal - many of us have kids.

Most of his edits are reverted but (and here's the troll thing) he comes back much later and either re-does the edits or makes stupid comments on talk pages. It's parasitic on the goodwill of other editors and the openness of WP. The example that's prompted this is a series of "silly" edits to one paragraph in a boring little article called Moriah College, Sydney.

Here's my question: do you leave this sort of thing alone (i.e. Don't Feed The Trolls) and accept a minor level of corruption to WP, or do you tackle it head on, which is like smacking a child for doing childish things (i.e. you usually end up apologising for being a brute?

Answers on a postcard please.

andy (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Penzance: A View of the Art Deco Lido (circa 1952)" (other side) This is an encyclopedia - children should use a colouring book if they wish to draw doodles. Remove the vandalism, and if they don't get bored or grow up then send them to their room without biccies; i.e. warn them. Hope that helps. Weather horrible. Wish we weren't here! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Greetings from Baltimore, Maryland" When in doubt revert, block, ignore. The weather is here, wish you were beautiful. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. RBI it is. Winter weather gets me down sometimes. andy (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Andy. I did warn you that I was watching you. Some of My early behaviour was incorrect, changing languages to suit the traditional English, but if you wish to look through my edits you will notice that I am not some sub-troll. I do not just edit user pages, Barkochbar's page was altered because I thought he was South African after I found out he was not I stopped adding this erroneous information to the page. I do have fun and do not follow normal behaviour at times. However, when I edit articles I edit articles seriously. I edit them for wikipedia and the world. I do not edit them to troll. If i see an error I will fix it. Andy you seem to want to attack me for correcting your grammar to the Moriah college article after I had put a hold on to the Milw0rm page. The Milw0rm page you deleted and would not provide me with a full explanation DGG will hopefully soon (I have contacted him and provided my email). DGG told you off for not being polite. You are incorrect to post here. This page is to be used after you have posted on my user page the exact issue. I have posted on your user page and given you warning for personally attacking me. Thus, we must go through the dispute process and "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process". Hence would an admin please inform Andy about how to use this page and remove mine and his post. Andy I wish to proceed down the dispute resolution process. Remember Andy I am watching you. I openly invite users to review my contributions. It will get you silliness points. Dbmoodb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have warned the above editor with regard to the comments "I was/am watching you." I consider them and the tone of the above to constitute harassment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs)

Resolved

After talking with JzG, will be unblocking user a few hours after the conclusion of the original 48h block. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today (or, depending on the time zone, yesterday or tomorrow) I blocked Nealparr (talk · contribs) and Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours (essentially for edit-warring against each other). Apparently, Lucyintheskywithdada is the same person as the users noted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski, from December 2007 (she openly admits that here). Now, the question is: should I/we indefinitely block Lucy and unblock Neal? I ask because none of the accounts on that page received progressive blocks, so it's not clear that Lucy is evading a ban. Additionally, Lucy does not appear to currently be using her current account alongside other sockpuppets, as she appeared to be doing when the SSP was file. Granted, as one can see by Lucy's contributions, she (particularly in conjunction with Neal) has been highly disruptive on articles related to Spiritualism. So, any thoughts? -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was toying with blocking Lucy as a tendentious and disruptive editor, so an indef there is good. I refrain from comment on Nealparr. I have indefinitely blocked Lucyintheskywithdada for the reasons I noted on her talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't see this until just now, but was also reviewing this situation as my experience with Neal has been that's he's a solid and constructive editor, albeit one whose views I often do not share. I too was about to indefinitely block User:Lucyintheskywithdada as a disruptive editor and questionably legit alternate accout, but I held off and left a note at User Talk:Orderinchaos, as that admin had more experience with the sockpuppetry issues surrounding this user. In any case, I am in general agreement with Guy's indefinite block, unless Orderinchaos has something ground-shifting to say about it. Personally, I would have given Nealparr a bit more benefit of the doubt on the 3RR thing, partly because he's had a long track record of constructive editing on tough topics, and partly because his "opponent" in this case has a quite different track record. Still, he did edit-war rather than seek outside help, and he did lose his patience. I'd favor a good-faith unblock of Neal and commutation to time served, with the understanding that this was an isolated and regrettable incident, won't happen again, lesson learned, etc. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I support unblocking Neal. I'd gladly do it myself, but have had previous interaction with him (perhaps ironically, we've often been on opposite sides of an issue). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Neal, but I believe Lucy's should be commuted to the original block as imposed. On the Arbcom-probationed BK articles they have shown a newfound ability to work constructively with the other side and I think having the entire of one side blocked when the other side has an open conflict of interest is not a good idea. (For the record I believe both should be there so the article exhibits balance.) That being said, we shouldn't tolerate bad behaviour in unrelated areas for this reason alone, so I believe the original block should stand. Orderinchaos 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Developments since mean this thread is probably unnecessary now. Orderinchaos 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds fine to me. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef'd User:Wfgh66

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

Blocks exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. There has been significant disruption, abuse of the wikipedia e-mail system, repeating inappropriate behavior and major breaches of policy by this user. This is not controversial and an appropriate use of a block--Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

---

After escalating blocks, I have indef'd Wfgh66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright vio on his talk page. He was apparently enraged that his pet site, priory - of - sion (dot) com, was blacklisted, so he resorted to uploading the content to his talk page. Please be on the watch out for potential socks posting the same material. Ronnotel (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it was User:Sam Korn who indef'd. We seem to have ec'd on the indef button. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done a history delete on the talkpage, we don't need the information to be linked via e.g. a permanent link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How is uploading your own content to your own page a Copyvio? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a copy vio, it's a violation of WP:POINT. Horologium (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Point now a violation that can cause a user to be indef'd? I don't recall that consensus gathering meeting where that was decided. The entire episode from top-to-bottom here is a bit of an extreme reaction to the actual situation, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I was just going to post this: It is a violation of the GFDL if the text hasn't been released on a free license. Otherwise you end up with text under two licenses and that's a recipe for disaster. That's why even the authors of text need to formally release their material into a free license before we can host it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(responding to Wjhonson) He was blocked because of his abuse of the wikipedia e-mail system. That's why Pwok got indef-blocked, too. Look at Wfgh66's block log; the POINT violation was the straw that broke the camel's back, to use the old cliché. He was engaged in edit-warring, disruptive behavior and spamming. (That is why the site was blacklisted.) Horologium (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations are disruptive, which is blockable. This users conduct severely Disrupted the project and persistently violated multiple policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violations were disruptive. Repeatedly he was warned and chose in pursuit of a certain point, to reject community input and consensus that his edits were disruptive.--Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the rules stand in the way of blocking a blatant troll, we should ignore them.

Wjhonson, you don't appear to be addressing this user's behavior or what impact he has had on Wikipedia, but argue, "But WP:POINT says X! And policy says X!" This is a red herring.

In order to defend the indef block, others say, "No, but policy really says Y!"

My comment: The specific, technical wording of policy is irrelevant, per WP:IAR. The man was blatantly spamming Wikipedia with his website on the Priory of Sion, which reeks of self-published conspiracy theorism. He was blocked over doing this several times. He disrupted Wikipedia again, so now he should be banned. Again, the specific, technical wording of policy is irrelevant, per WP:IAR. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I respectfully disagree with your analysis of what actually occurred.Wjhonson (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I respect your right to disagree. However, please be aware that this user was found by multiple admins to have engaged in seriously disruptive behavior. As stated above, it was a single purpose account with a WP:POINT agenda to flog his web site and willing to do pretty anything he could to do so. Disruptive editing, badgering emails, trolling, sock-puppetry, you name it. What's described above is literally the very last straw. At some point, WP has to accept that a certain individual has nothing useful to offer and move on. That point was reached. Ronnotel (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous IP's anti-semitism.

Someone posted on WP:FTN about some people pushing the fringe theory that Jewish women did not originate in the Middle East.

So, I posted on the talkpage [27]:

Talk:Palestinian people#This article should not mention genetics.

75.72.88.121 (talk · contribs) then made this rant. [28]

I'm not Jewish, actually. And characterizing those you disagree with as Jews is a bit off-the-wall, aside from the claims that the Jews are all lying about their heritage.

Looking at his contribs list, he actually was making genetic comparisons between Jews and Palestinians on the article on Palestinian people! [29] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No opinion on whether the IP is being used for antisemitic trolling, because I haven't looked, but I've posted to that talkpage and to WP:FT/N that studying genetic differences between populations is fairly standard in population genetics. Actually, to tell the truth, its almost all they ever do, the boring fellows. Relata refero (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When IPs make racist remarks, remove the remarks and move on with your life. Maybe warn 'em, or block 'em if they've been a problem before. WilyD 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the diff above before commenting. The population genetics of Jews do not belong in the article on Palestinian people. WilyD, I'm not a politically-correct person who is particularly bothered by racism. I just brought this here because this is where it belongs, no?. Telling me to "move on with my life" and "maybe" warn them in response to being accused of being a Jew is quite frankly absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"accused of being a Jew"? Wow. That's...an interesting sentence construct, there. Wow.Gladys J Cortez 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP sounds like a bad lot, but comparative genetics are not per se racist or antisemitic. Can we establish that, please? And the comparative genetics of X people is hardly an irrelevant subject for the article on X people. I have no opinion on the specific content that the IP added to the article, but your general claims are overstated. Relata refero (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, once IPs go dormant, there's often little point in blocking them - unless they're a) actively misbehaving, or b) persistantly misbehaving, there's really nothing to do, and you've not suggested either is the case. WilyD 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Population genetics are not anti-semitic. I never said they were. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It would seem obvious to me that the relationship of the palestinian people to others peoples is relevant in an article about them; population genetics is probably the most reliable objective evidence. The difficult come because, like all evidence, it can be interpreted or quoted in ways that unfairly emphasize a particular point of view--as is routine in this particular topic. the rule of citing all positions holds, as it always does. . DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what Zenwhat was getting at - it's not the use of population genetics that's looks a bit antisemitic, as that's merely a standard research technique, it's the rather hostile comments about "CURRENT jews got caught red handed ( historically) stealing a land that their recent or ancient ancestors never been to" (sic). I've seen worse, to be honest. As the others have said above it's not really worth blocking an IP unless it's doing this kind of thing routinely or in large volumes. I'd just remove the anon's comments from the thread as not being relevant to improving the article (see WP:TALK#Others' comments). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pookeo9

Pookeo9 has had a history of creating tests, doing nonsensical things, and overall semi disrupting Wikipedia. So far, he has nominated 1 AfD (but then closed it as keep), and closed about 2 others. That's not so bad, but so far has files 2 RfA's that seem to be tests, or vandalism (Also 1 request for mediation). He might be trying to do good, and I am assuming good faith, but he is doing things that I have never seen before, and it is likely to continue. Just as an extra note, he has been given a final warning for vandalism. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and improper AfD closure by non-admin

This covered several categories, so I hope it's okay here. User:Pookeo9 has closed several AfDs, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Southern Cat Rocks On (check the history). User contribs: Special:Contributions/Pookeo9. It was suggested at the Help Desk that I bring this here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, see the above notes. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:) Yeah, I should have actually just posted here instead of both. But oh well. Thanks for reading that reply so fast! Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, it would be good to hear from Pookeo9 and his/her mentor/adopter - JetLover. I'll direct them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen what you wrote and i did not know it was vandalism. I will remind my adopter one more time to look and comment if he/she can.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) P.S: Some things on wikipedia i have done were good and bad and i knew some bad things but i just couldnt stop doing it. As i said before i will remind my adopter one more time about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to politely suggest, until you gain quite a bit more experience, that you don’t try to close any more AfD debates. —Travis^talk 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Travis.--Pookeo9 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible oversight required

Creator of this Mike Ward (TV director) article has unfortunately put a private email address in the edit summary. Pollytyred (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done without oversight...nat.utoronto 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The deletion has been oversighted, also. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jw120550 in continual edit warring

Jw120550 is a new user, but recently engaged in an edit war on Nancy Pelosi. In fact, he violated 3RR a few days ago, after being warned, and I had the report completely typed up, but right before I was ready to submit, he promised to stop: [30]. He did not: [31]. He has also vandalized the same page via his IP: [32]. I ask for someone to please block this user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I believe I've found a second IP used for vandalism: [33]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what his deal is but again tonight [34] and for some reason this [35]. R. Baley (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask that any admin looking at this, hold off on any action (involving the "buttons". . .any other assistance is, of course, appreciated) at this point. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to respond to this? Why do my ANI posts go unheeded so often? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR against User:Jossi

I invoked WP:IAR and common sense to No Action this 3RR report against User:Jossi. As far as I can tell, Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. I therefore declined to take the rather drastic step of blocking an admin in good standing. This is a fairly contentious issue right now. Does anyone else want to chime in? Ronnotel (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This brings up 2 questions:

i) Does WP:3rr apply to pages other than wikipedia articles? In my opinion, no, thus Jossi should not be blocked (or punished). The reason for this is that, articles are important because they are the only content read by the public. In fact, everything on wikipedia exists for one main purpose, that is to improve articles. Thus it is important that articles be stable.

ii) Are admins and users in good standing exempt from WP:3rr? Certainly not. Infact, if anything, good users, as members who represent wikipedia interests, should be held to higher standards than edit warriors who violate the rule. (In this case, though, as already stated, 3rr doesn't apply). Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to Wikilawyer, but WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The use of "page" instead of "article" in that sentence seems significant to me, so I don't think I can agree with Bless sins' first point. I endorse his/her second point absolutely, mind you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I've seen people blocked for violating 3RR on policy pages, talk pages, and even user pages. The only time I have seen an exception made was for people removing stuff from their own user page. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the edits to the Homeopathy notice subpage - disruptive edit warring seems to justify a few short blocks, and not of Jossi. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy and it appears Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. Not reason for a block, and agree with Ronnotel's decline.--Hu12 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look through Jossi's recent editing history and some of the rumblings going on at User talk:Jossi. I know it is hard to block what you may consider to be a trusted admin, but I'm afraid he's stepping beyond the bounds of policy and making some very provocative maneuvers. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

to be honest, I'm much more concerned about your behavior. I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on. I think Jossi is trying to de-escalate the environment. I can't say the same for you. Ronnotel (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime, I think you should carefully note that this 3RR report was not due to me edit warring with Jossi, so there really isn't a kettle to be seen. Also, FYI, "I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on." is basically flouting WP:AGF. I know that you are upset with my hardline position at cold fusion, but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. For what it's worth, I really appreciated that you started this thread because it shows that this is not an easy situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that a cadre of dedicated warriors on each side is pushing the situation to where uninvolved admins can't step in without being attacked somehow.

This whole article probation / etc situation was set up to defuse that, and yet has now become another focus of disruptive editing and infighting.

From a practical standpoint - it doesn't matter who's fundamentally right. If both sides make it too toxic for uninvolved admins to step in, both sides need to get blocked and pages need to be full protected until things cool down.

That is approximately the last step left, and we're approximately there. I haven't pulled any triggers yet, but I think it has to be on the table. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As a previously uninvoled admin, I generally agree with User:Georgewilliamherbert. I had some hope that Arbcomm would agree to look at the article to look at issues of user conduct, but it appears that they continue to view it as a content dispute. I'm not really sure what else can be done from this point, because I don't think most of the unconstructive behaviour is actually blockworthy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't the only tool that admins can use here. You can impose revert paroles on individual users, or article/topic bans. That might be a way to address disruptive behavior that doesn't rise to the level of blocking. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that the most disruptive behaviour I see isn't to the article (in the form of excessive reverting, etc.) but on the talk page, where many editors seem interested only in denigrating (civilly, natch) their opponents; the talk pages get flooded with this sort of thing, and attempts to achieve consensus get buried and have low participation. Revert paroles wouldn't do any good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's where the article/topic bans come in. If an editor consistently makes disruptive edits to the talk page, including incivility and obstruction, then they can be prohibited from editing the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's more subtle than that, I'm afraid. They behave civilly, they're polite, and they don't obstruct others' efforts. They just do nothing to advance the cause of consensus, and a whole lot to fill up the talk page with endless debate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

In order to centralize disussion related to admin responses to the situation...

I have just blocked ShmuckyTheCat for 3 hours for the edit: [36], which I judge to be disruptive and drama-increasing rather than reducing behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so following WP:TALK is now blockable. In this forum, it figures. Shot info (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was Shmucky's edit summary? This does seem like an odd choice. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting a bunch of comments is not helpful. By itself it would probably be worth a warning or overlooking - but it was further escalation after comments by myself and other admins that further escalation is unacceptable, and that crackdowns for existing behavior might be justified. 3 hrs is enough to make the point without abusing anyone severely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seemed to have missed that bit in WP:TALK. Would you be able to point out where jossi's comments helped improve the article? Shot info (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were to rigorously block for violations of a strict interpretation of WP:TALK on the article talk page, about 35 editors will be sitting on their hands for the next week.

Alternatively, one can acknowledge that WP:TALK is a guideline not a prescription, and "violations" of it aren't removable barring other disruption... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that having a bunch of the editors sit on their hands is a bad idea. You could accomplish that through article/topic bans through blocks, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just shaking my head at what actually is acted upon decisively. No, it shouldn't surprise me, given the obsession with civilness over content. And edit warring civilly is tolerated....until it becomes uncivil, but by then it's too late for certain admins to act. Instead they pick and easy but largely tangential target. Shot info (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, large scale edit wars and disruption are worse for the Encyclopedia than even having clearly factually wrong content in some articles. Edit wars and personal attacks are attacks not just on individuals, but on the community. The community will, if it's not damaged or scared off a topic, eventually fix incorrect articles and related problems. But there's not much which fixes the community if people rampage around trying to break it.

Schmucky happened to be the first incivility to step in front of the bus, after we started the bus moving. That it was him and not one of a few dozen other people is not his fault, nor a conclusion about his position in the article dispute.

If you will excuse me from this little discussion, however, I have some people to ban from the talk page for a couple of days, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

George, in all honesty, there are a LOT of editors who are just waiting to see admins actually begining to act and act sensibly. Blocking Schmucky wasn't sensible (IMO). But if he is the first sign of a movement by admins to enforce content by removing editing warning, then I think he would be accepting of his fate. But then again, some oldtimers have heard this sort of talk before. I personally look forward to in anticipation to see what happens. Will the project move forward, or will WR be proven correct? Shot info (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd thing to block over. From George's perspective, removing comments made things worse. Schumucky felt differently. So instead of asking him not to do that.. no warning, you jump on a block? Wha? Schmucky's logic for removing the "OMG I'm leaving" comments are reasonable. We should not block over bad judgement calls (not that I even agree that it was a bad judgement call or not). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Infophile (talk · contribs) is banned from Talk:Homeopathy for 24 hrs for this edit which was disruptive and uncivil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

endorse. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to be civil rather than how they have been uncivil. Ronnotel (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there's some edit warring over the inclusion of the Pseudoscience and Fringe science categories on Homeopathy. This sequence of edits strikes me as a bit odd, since QuackGuru is an advocate of the categories and Dance With The Devil has never edited the article before. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Ronnotel) This is the major problem with the Project at the moment. The most civil POV is rewarded by the admins rather than NPOV and improving the article. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to improve the project rather than how they have been uncivil. Shot info (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is an official policy at Wikipedia. Editors who are laboring under the misapprehension that they can 'improve the project' while being 'uncivil' are... laboring under a misapprehension. Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that I endorse the article ban of User:Infophile, and further endorse User:Dlabtot's comments on civility. That said, I understand where User:Shot info is coming from; editors can be as frustratingly obstructionist as they want on the article talk page, but as long as they're polite about it there are no consequences to them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. The problem isn't the civility, it's the failure to enforce NPOV. It's time to reward those who contribute to the project, rather than do what we have been doing - which is reward those who editwar, but do it civilly. Shot info (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't agree with your assertion: There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of admins are putting forth their best good faith efforts at enforcing WP:FIVE. And I'm sorry, there simply is no way to justify uncivil edits: not only is incivility a violation of one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, it also just doesn't work - it's poor rhetoric which not only fails to persuade, but backfires. Dlabtot (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it backfires, meaning that the uncivil NPOV pusher is overwhelmed by the civil POV pusher. Which is worse? From the answers here is it clear that it is the more civil. Also it is plain only one one of the pillars is monitored - civility, because the civil POV pushers are rewarded. If you want people to believe you, then it's time (as I keep advocating) for the admins to start enforcing the others. NPOV as a starter. Clamp down on that, and you will find that users (on the whole) won't be around to be uncivil. It's not difficult - although the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Shot info (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. (Don't even think about WP:IAR.) It's frustrating to those who value content, but you can't fight city hall. You either play the game by whatever rules you're given or you get off the field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has decided that WP:CIV is its most important policy, ahead of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and all the rest. Another assertion with which I must respectfully disagree. In fact, that is precisely why I linked to WP:FIVE. These fundamental principles form a whole. It makes no more sense to think one is more important than the other than it does to think that your heart is a more important organ than your brain. But as far as "getting off the field if you don't like the rules" - yes, I completely agree. Dlabtot (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be tested empirically: make impeccably neutral edits supported by top-drawer reliable sources and use uncivil edit summaries, then make POV edits supported by the lousiest possible sources but do it civilly. See which gets you into trouble faster. I'm not suggesting you actually do this, but I think the outcome of the thought experiment is obvious and is supported by past experience. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you posted this below my comment, as it seems to be completely unrelated to anything I have said. Dlabtot (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only can it be tested, the evidence supporting it is rather apparent. Saying it doesn't happen is just rewarded the civil pov-pushers, but that is the default position, and has Ray states, no point fighting it. Too bad it isn't actually the rules of the game, just umpires being selective in how they do their job(s). Shot info (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outside view as an interested but uninvolved ordinary editor) Shot info, I think part of the problem is that enforcing civility is content-neutral, while enforcing NPOV requires making judgements about content. As soon as an admin tries to evaluate where NPOV lies in a contentious article, that admin is an involved participant in the content dispute. And since admins are explicitly prohibited from using their administrative tools to adjudicate a content dispute, there's no straightforward to "enforce" NPOV. I think the current system relies on the assumption that anyone focused on pushing a particular point of view will also trip up in more objectively measurable ways, such as incivility, excessive reverting, lack of sources, or abuse of multiple accounts. Most of the time, that's true. Sometimes it's not, and then what do you suggest? --Reuben (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that admins don't enforce NPOV, and just enforce CIVIL - because it is "easier"? This agrees with what I have been saying (and others have disagreed with I note). The solution is for admins to become more informed, not involved, of the issues. Too many admins opt for the "civil" solution and reward the civil pov-pushers, while with a bit of care and attention (and doing some of this stuff called "work") the correct solution can be applied to correctly ID the real editwarrior. Besides, as it is noted over in Homeo-land, almost every admin adjudicating over there has been "involved" at some point or another. Something which is proving to be a problem for admins. My personal solution is "AGF" for involved admins regardless of the level of involvement because if an admin editwars, well that what we have AN/I for. But as we see here at AN/I, an admin can 3RR (and even "civilly") and get off scot-free. God help us if the watchers don't watch their own watchmen. Shot info (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Refocussing

Jossi's behaviour is troubling. He has been told that he is not considered uninvolved or a trusted mediator by a particular side, and yet he continues to maintain he is, and to take actions to the point of violating 3RR. Can someone explain why that is considered OK? Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been told that by both sides (see e.g., the comment by Martinphi, who is a paranormal-oriented editor[37]) but in this case both sides are wrong. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that since I'm just a science geek and not a lawyer or diplomat. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From my perpsective, it became a problem when he had to "edit war" to assert his uninvolved neutrality. What should have happened (given the half dozen admin eyes on the page, and the assumed dozen more watching it) is that a different admin should have made the revert so that Jossi wouldn't have had to do it himself. No one is perfectly objective or as we say here "neutral". But I imagine that more than anything, Jossi got riled by the lack of support that he should have received. My comments here notwithstanding, I hate how this turned out, mostly because, with the recent block of that cat guy (gal?), it reinforces the (mis?)understanding that being admin is more than just having a mop. R. Baley (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I've looked through some of Jossi's edits in this area, and I have to say that in my opinion he and the rest of us would be best served if he looked elsewhere. I can recommend several other problematic areas that would benefit immensely from his energy.

I'm not sure what Martinphi's objection is, but he seems to be more welcoming than the other 'side'.Relata refero (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of the above. Although I respect Jossi, he should know perfectly well that 3RR is a community consensus and he has ample methods to deal with the situation other than what occurred. No one is served by allowing admins to IAR content-issues where they are related. Rather it presents the image that admins are under no restrictions to do as they will. The project already suffers from too much of that image. It's almost a daily refrain. I also agree that the extent that Jossi has self-involved now becomes problematic.Wjhonson (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated false additions to World Heavyweight Championship

User Charaxes‎ and IP's 64.85.130.207‎ and 64.85.130.139‎

Are adding information to World Heavyweight Championship that is incorrect and completely false. I beleive all ips are from the same. Always posting and deleting the same material. Has refused to pay attention to numerious warnings. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Add IP 64.85.131.147 to the list--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP? D.M.N. (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is fundamentally not something that belongs at AN/I; it's a content dispute and you should pursue the standard dispute resolution options. If it needs to be brought to admin attention, take it to WP:AN3 and note that you, too, appear (at a cursory glance) to be risking a 3RR violation, too. Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I am new and have been trying ot read through all the information about this, but it is vast. --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page

70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs) (among many other IPs as well as the username 'Mondrago') has re-added the link to their personal website (which adds nothing to promote the content of the article and vios WP:EL) has gone 10RR+ and has some sort of "if we don't get our way we will sue you" jargon posted on their talk page. 156.34.222.28 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. The user has also been warned for legal threats, and there is a sockpuppet case open regarding this IP, 3 others, and User:Mondrago. See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The article has now been semi-protected due to increased vandalism of external linkspam from 5 IPs. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add the link to the spam blacklist. Nakon 05:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno man, are you sure you want to risk being sued for deformation (sic)? Resolute 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, you could get bent out of shape... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharadtriyama inserting fair use images on Julia Allison

Resolved

Someone else watch the page, because I am taking it off my watchlist. miranda 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After many warnings, Sharadtriyama is continuing to insert a fair use image to Julia Allison even when there is a plain consensus that a free image of her is on the page. She uploaded fair use image screen shots and (same image here). She inserts the image here and here. I told her to stop doing so, but she continues the behavior here. I am not violating 3RR due to the free content exception, but one of two options need to happen. Either fully protect the page, or block Sharadtriyama from editing. miranda 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And, she has broken 3RR. miranda 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left her a note explaining the situation. If it continues, blocks will follow, but hopefully that won't prove necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a wheel war. I would strongly ask someone to fully protect the page, because I am tired of reverting the page because of some picture of her not putting on her best dress, etc. (i.e. pathetic minute details which are disruptive). Cheers. miranda 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice Article

Somebody who knows how needs revert the obvious vandalism to the photo used in the Condoleezza Rice article. I attempted to revert it myself, but could not revert back to the correct photo --TommyBoy (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a doozy. I've replaced the image with a cropped version of the original from Commons, but I'm not sure how to get the good original back. The article is OK for the time being, but we should probably fix the original image. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a vandal on Commons who also vandalized Image:Rumsfeld1.jpg and Image:Oprah Winfrey (2004).jpg. I've reported it to the vandal board over there, but it's a bit of a ghost town. If any Commons admins see this, please go block Commons:User:Downstage. - auburnpilot talk 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been blocked by Commons:User:LX. Sandstein (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing

This discussion from the top which has since been archived.. I'm concerned about Lumberjake's actions on Wikipedia. Besides the above mentioned issue, see this. Editors removed his PROD and began sourcing the article. That wasn't good enough so he sent the article to AfD. Bells go off when an account only 5 days old is on a PROD removal spree, or PROD/AFD placement spree.. Then his edit summaries such as this, this, this and this PROD reason only further make me wonder what is going on here. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User is currently blocked; block is being reviewed. What is it that you would like us to do? El_C 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing now. At the time I posted, he wasn't blocked. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a puzzling thread on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:129.133.124.199

Could an admin or admins please review User talk:129.133.124.199? The IP editor is making a lot of claims against a couple of other people that need to be addressed and the editor either admonished or their complaints resolved. Corvus cornix_talk 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning again... perhaps an umpteenth opinion will set him straight? Sasquatch t|c 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from two weeks ago... How is this an incident? Or, why did it come up now?El_C 09:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there was an edit war going on over removing and reinstating the comments. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by user Koonleg50 (talk · contribs) 3rd complaint

This user has been engaging in disruptive editing practices again on Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. He was previously blocked twice for these practices. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and material that violates NPOV. He has been engaged via the talk pages for his entries in the past as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references, not references to his own blog and forum pages. He has responded with continuous reverts to strong arm his edits. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. He just engaged in a revert war at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu. I have stopped before violating 3rr. I'm requesting administrator intervention again. Here is the record for the previous blocks: IncidentArchive347 IncidentArchive348 Here's the current listing of anonymous IP's: 61.18.170.141, 61.18.170.108, 61.18.170.107, 61.18.170.129. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll sprotect it, for now. El_C 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

162.84.234.178 has repeatedly over the last several days removed content from this article. Now the IP claims to be Jay Brannan on the IP's talk page. Then, I'm assuming this user registered and is now known as Jaybrannan, a user that just blanked both the article and the article talk page. I restored the article and talk page. The user then just now left me a message on my talk page regarding the deletion. Someone have a look? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:slackr has blocked the account for 31 hours, and i've done the same for the IP —Reedy Boy 10:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well before seeing this post, I blocked him for 3RR, since he was a bit out of control. I still have no idea if this is actually the dude or not, but if it is, it's still a huge conflict of interest issue, which I warned the IP he was editing under about. --slakr^\ talk / 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with possible rangeblock

Hi - my first post here as a new admin. I've noticed that Nancy Kulp has been subject to the same vandalism[38] from Carleton University IPs (134.117.0.0 - 134.117.255.255 according to WHOIS) for several months. I think all the vandal IPs fit into 134.117.137.0/24, so I was thinking of blocking this range. Could someone confirm whether or not I'm right and if so for what sort of period I should block? Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  12:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Maxim has protected that page, but as I suspected, it's just made the vandal move on - see [39].  —SMALLJIM  14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Oops, that was an old one!  —SMALLJIM  14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and not an expert on blocking, but I'd certainly hesitate to block a whole university. How many good edits are also coming from that range? Would it be the type of block that allows logged-in users to still be able to edit? Do you have a feel for how many good contributors are using that range of IPs? Is only one page affected by the vandalism, and if so, why not just semi-protect that page instead? Surely a university is a fertile source of new, good contributors. Putting a barrier in their way such as making them get an account in some more complicated way before being able to edit might just turn away potential excellent contributors before they ever discover what editing Wikipedia is really like. Congrats on your RfA, by the way. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to avoid the rangeblock and leave the semi-protection in place. Unless we can demonstrate vandalism ac cross the project coming from that range. But one article can be protected and such is less damaging than a rangeblock. And thanks for asking first. Always a good idea. -JodyB _talk 15:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; agree with JodyB.) My impression is that a rangeblock would be way overkill. I looked at the article and what I see is anon-IP's repeatedly inserting "(ironically)" into the article. If you want to stop that, just semi-protect the article (or have a non-involved admin semi-protect it). I looked at the contribs of one of the anon-IPs that added in that "ironically" thingy: 134.117.137.183 (talk · contribs). I see a bunch of apparently (at a brief glance) good-faith edits on other articles plus one edit adding the word "ironically" to this article. That's nowhere near enough vandalism to block even just that one IP, let alone a whole range, even if you consider it to be vandalism rather than a content dispute which is discussed on the talk page. I realize you're proposing to block a certain range, not the whole University, but still. Just my opinion as a non-admin. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the feedback. I certainly wouldn't have gone ahead with a rangeblock with my current level of knowledge without checking first: I know they can be problematic. You're right, of course that semi-protecting the page is a far better idea, though I was concerned that would just encourage the vandal to move on to other pages (as he has done at least once [40]). He's also been making a repetitive edit to James Lipton since the end of December.

It looks like most of the addresses in the range 134.117.137.18 - 134.117.137.253 have been active, so I guess dynamic allocation is being used. I've checked the contributions from a number of them and while there were quite a lot of good edits up to around 2006, there's not been so much since. Anyway, it's been more an exercise in detective work than anything actually useful, but at least it's made a change from continually rolling back "poop"! And I've learned some new stuff today, which is good.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an honest question...

...but it could be absolutely trivial, so if I'm making a tempest in a teacup, please be kind...

Exploring the contributions list of ACMEMan(as part of an AfD issue I recently discovered) I discovered the following:

# 17:54, 29 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:76.230.233.240‎ (←Created page with '(blocked)')

This user is not an admin, and thus can't block anyone. Is it appropriate for non-admins to do such things? As I said--this is an honest question, and though it's a bit stale, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time--I'm still trying to learn my way around here a little better. Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you could leave a polite note for ACMEman explaining things. It seems like this could be a simple misunderstanding of how things work. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an ongoing misunderstanding, then. He's been doing that to IP user talk pages for a month now, as his contribs page shows. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Normally that's what I'd do...but if you'll take a peek at his talk page, you'll notice that much of it is dominated by AFD notices, placed there by yours truly. I have a sneaking suspicion that he would not take kindly to even the politest question, especially since there's a potential appearance of stalking. (NOT the case--I found one non-notable article he wrote, then discovered another on the same general topic, and figured I'd check his contribs to see how many more there might be--but I can see how it might look bad.)Gladys J Cortez 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Hut 8.5 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed full of awesome. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 17:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

King of Mann

Please would you semi protect. I suspect puppetmaster User:Kingofmann is back.CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any recent vandalism worth protecting the page against. For future reference, such requests usually belong on WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a reference if missed, it looks like he made and removed this edit here. Lawrence § t/e 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zenwhat Civility issues, 2nd incident

In addition to the previous complaint, now, apparently a public noticeboard has degenerated from content discussion into a railing against my persona itself, as can be seen by clicking here. I'm not sure how content issues have merited that my entire persona become the focal point of a public discussion of "crankery." Sadly, I'm also not sure why these attacks are not engaging some form of intervention. WP:NPA seems to offer me some protection against this mess .... "some types of comments are never acceptable: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not."

Not quite as serious, but another recent problem that troubles me is that Zenwhat has taken to misquoting me, in an apparent attempt to cast me as a gullible idiot. Here he states how I've assessed myself to be overly biased and deluded. I've never made such an assertion.

These attacks have persisted despite my admonishments to Zenwhat. Please look into the matter. Any consideration would be very greatly appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation by User:Mayalld

Having had a, pretty minor, run-in with User:Zenwhat over the past couple of days (he was restoring comments to user talk pages that the user had deleted), I'm unsure that this is an AN/I case. Far more a WP:WQA issue. Having said that, there is an issue to resolve. The user is not infrequently abrupt, and seems to believe that WP:IAR means that he can unilaterally change policies and guidelines quoting WP:DICK. Mayalld (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mayalld. There seems to be disagreement over which forum is appropriate. My previous issue was bounced back from the WQA, though not entirely due to "inappropriate forum." I'm not really sure where to turn on this. Dedicating an entire noticeboard section based on his characterization of my persona, instead of focusing on the verifiability of content seems to thoroughly cross the line, but in any case, please advise which way I should turn. I kinda need for his disparaging behavior to stop. I'm thinking only an Admin can make that happen, at this point. BigK HeX (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who handled the WQA complaint. It was bounced back because, as noted, there are several existing unresolved threads already open on two other forums, AN/I and FTN. When a complaint has already escalated to AN/I and to this level of discussion, there isn't much a friendly note from a WQA clerk without administrative abilities is going to do. It's already being addressed elsewhere, and since it appears to be an ongoing dispute, it's best addressed on a noticeboard where it will have the attention of admins or through mediation.

I'd also add that in the specific issue of restoring the deleted comments, I think that Zenwhat was acting in good faith. The discussion in question was about a policy/conduct issue. I believe he felt it needed to be addressed on the user's page and was frustrated that it kept being deleted. I'm reserving an opinion on everything else, because I've done my best to stay out of it. DanielEng (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

IN Zenwhat's defence, this particular complainant is rapidly approaching tendentiousness in my opinion. Relata refero (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ... now that you've said it. Show how it's true. BigK HeX (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I am inclined to think that Zenwhat's characterisation of your comment (diff) is tenuous, at best, I would recommend that this not be dealt with on the administrators' noticeboard, where nuanced solutions (which is what I believe is required in this case) are generally not arrived at (in part due to the heavy volume of posts to this board). --Iamunknown 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware that any other appeal could actually enforce any solutions .. ? well, except Arbitration which seems premature. But, anyways, I just need him to attack content, more so than me, personally. Whichever venue can make that happen is cool with me. BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Re enforcement: individual admins can "enforce" things, though if they are contested, a review should generally happen here. My hope, however, is that we can arrive at a solution without the need for enforcement, but I guess we'll see.  :) --Iamunknown 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this does appear to be something ongoing between these two users, how about mediation?DanielEng (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm no fan of Zenwhat for what I see as baiting other editors at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron as seen here and here. There was also an AfD Zenwhat opened just to make a point which seems a bit abusive and some threads on Jimmy Wales talk that also seemed to be veiled soapboxing. Having stated this I have seen perfectly civil and constructive dialog take place elsewhere. Benjiboi 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that no interpretation is required to characterise Zenwhat actions at talk:ARS as baiting. He is overt about it when, in Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#A request for comment, he asks other editors to comment on two articles and that AfD in order to - as he says a bit later on - demonstrate that the group's actions are disruptive. My impression is that Zenwhat is a learned person who's very deeply convinced of his own rightness and whose interactions with others here are characterized by that. Notice how he opens his dialogue with ARS in this section by titling it with a vicious insult and following up with more. --Kizor 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor Rebuttal

This complaint is tendentious. His complaint is about Wikipedia:FTN#About BigK Hex on WP:FTN, created for the benefit of other users making edits to Monetary policy of the USA, who have also been having problems with this user. After being notified by User:Gregalton of some pretty bad sources being used on Monetary policy of the USA, I came across this user making some pretty absurd assertions and tendentious edits. I checked his contribs, found a number of blatantly absurd edits indicative of trolling through a single-purpose account, which I then reported on WP:ANI [41]. On the advice of some the users who responded, I posted an RFCU to investigate the possibility that this is the sockpuppeteer, User:Karmaisking. [42]

BigK HeX then used this posting as justification to start another thread on WP:ANI about "incivility" in a thread that admins themselves can already read a few pages up. [43] His WP:WQA was then issued for him on his behalf, by User:Addhoc, who copied and pasted BigK's remarks to WP:WQA with the dubious summary "add Zenwhat - copy from WP:ANI - no opion on complaint." [44] Administrators don't take the extra step of copying and pasting WP:WQA violations they think are unfounded or are indifferent to. Danieleng asked him about this and Addhoc removed his comments from the talkpage [45] and didn't copy his original comments to Danieleng's page, thus wiping the information from any future archives. Danieleng would then comment on Addhoc's talkpage, Addhoc would immediately remove it (they reverted a couple times over it), but they continued to discuss the matter on Danieleng's talkpage, where the rest of the conversation remained. I then attempted to restore Daniel's comments, because it seemed inappropriate to remove them, but was reverted. [46] I then posted a thread on Addhoc's talkpage asking him to stop removing comments and Addhoc again reverted it. [47] Within the policy of WP:Talk, he is fully free to do this of course, but Daniel and I both agree that it was belligerent and immature -- reasonable for a non-SysOp, not for a SysOp, however, who is accountable to the community. I recommended Daniel issue an RFC, but he doesn't think it's that big of a deal. I'm willing to just let it go also, but it's relevant here, so I thought I'd mention it anyway. Until 1=2 has continued to debate the matter with me on my talkpage, now referring to me as a "vandal" for restoring Daniel's comments with one revert. Based on that, I'm not going to debate the matter any further here or with Until 1=2.

OK, so anyway, after this, I post the sub-section about BigK Hex on WP:FTN to demonstrate his past pattern of behavior, to help other editors. It seemed to be helpful to User:Itsmejudith who responded, "Thanks for this as I now see why editors were so concerned."

Then (a day after BigK's last posting on WP:ANI), BigK posts a second thread on WP:ANI about incivility over the same issue.

Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK? You're wasting others' time here and only seem to be digging yourself a larger hole.

That's all. I have no further comments on the matter. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• "BigK posts a second thread on WP:ANI about incivility over the same issue"

Funny guy. Obviously, the admins can quite plainly see that the two ANIs are referring to two incidents of questionable civility. In fact, this 2nd posting was made because the behavior was decidedly more aggressive, IMO.

• "Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK?"

Errr ... only you know the answer to that.

All of this inflammed commentary, and not a single apology. Kizor makes an intersting point, above. It is quite obvious that Zenwhat sees no fault in what are obvious personal attacks and is unlikely to disengage. This is why the matter has been presented. BigK HeX (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Zenwhat's second paragraph, interested editors and admins may wish to see my (somewhat lengthy) remarks on Zenwhat's talk page: (talk page section) (diff). --Iamunknown 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification: The remarks about User:Addhoc are a side-issue and yes, as Iamunknown just noted, based on my own misunderstanding of certain diffs. I think Addoc's actions were still inappropriate, but only mildly so, not worth arguing, even suggesting RFC, or taking note of, since all comments were restored in full on Daniel's talkpage. Sorry about that. Please ignore it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On a side-note, thank god I didn't finish that policy proposal "requiring admins to not remove comments from their talkpages!"

I frequently have difficulty reading these horrible things called "diffs." Please, forgive me for my blatantly horrible reading comprehension and tendency to speed-read to the point of humiliating inaccuracy. Sorry for wasting your time.

Still: This apology extends to the matter of Addhoc. The diffs regarding BigK HeX stand and seem pretty solid. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish ISP user

• This is in regard to delete Siobhán Hoey and Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all Ireland-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are Irish-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.

The accounts in question are shown below:

• 84.203.1.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.97.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.149.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.132.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.98.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.52.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.2.170.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.76.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.21.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.183.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.138.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Chris (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For context: this relates to the sub-stub Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) and its on-going deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh), and the article Siobhán Hoey and its closed (as keep-cleanup) deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhán Hoey.

Personally, I'm not seeing an incident. I'm seeing an anon with a bee in his/her bonnet about these articles, who is arguing loudly for deletion from multiple semi-dynamic IPs. But established editors are not agreeing and seem at the moment unlikely to do so. Such are the ways of AfD, the louder and longer the anon calls for deletion, the more established editors will say keep. This isn't to detract from the annoyance the author of the article will be feeling: it's just not all that an unusual circumstance (albeit usually anons ask for a keep). ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but if you click on the contributions to these links, you do see some of these articles linking to Irish related articles, including a few links that are single-purpose accounts (194.125.52.12, 213.202.132.52, 213.202,149.105 (all but one edit), and 194.125.97.208 (all but one edit).). These are things to think about. Chris (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP has threatened an editor

• 83.7.209.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made this threat. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Him again. Looks like the little monkey has learned how to use random IPs this time. Marvellous.HalfShadow (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Jéské Couriano. Sandstein (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported all IPs to the Grawp CU case to see if they're possibly related to Group I (Senang Hati (impersonator) and his socks), and left a warning on one of the IP's pages that any more death threats will result in an abuse report to the ISP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

(Moved from WP:AN) east.718 at 21:43, February 2, 2008

It appears that this user is being subjected to remedies under the homeopathy probation, but may not have been informed of that probation and so not may not know that remedies could be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps an independent admin can take a look? —Whig (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Without comment: [48] R. Baley (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting, why was Anthon01 removed from that list? —Whig (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. [49] Anthon01 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. [50] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the second action against me in 2 days. Why? Anthon01 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was properly notified, but more to the point, the reason given for the block is 'stonewalling'.... What is 'stonewalling' in this context and are there diffs that demonstrate this supposed behavior? I know what stonewalling is, in a general sense, but I don't know how it substantively differs from 'continuing to disagree'. Disagree with whom? The consensus? Obviously there IS no consensus, any way but even if there were, disagreeing about it is not disruptive in and of itself. I thought you were allowed to express your disagreement with the consensus (if there is one), as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Is there a policy or guideline that describes the parameters of 'stonewalling'? I don't want to accidently violate a guideline or policy that I may not have heard of. Dlabtot (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Probationary sanctions were imposed by an uninvolved admin (see here), who also implied there were some checkuser findings being sorted out. Those sanctions can be appealed here, if that's Anthon01's intent, in which case I'd suggest briefly making a case and allowing input from other uninvolved admins. You could also ask the admin placing the sanction for specifics if that's your concern. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The stated reason for the block is "stonewalling". Was that accurate? or was he blocked for some other reason? What was that reason? Someone's suspicions? Something that was implied? What is the specific reason he was blocked? Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile the edit warring rages on with nary a warning or block or ban in sight, except me. And guess what. I haven't touch the article at all. By an admin who has express his disdain for alternative medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Presenting a case? How long will the case stay open? Will Guy come by and take another swipe at me trying reveal my indentity an accusing me of being a meat puppet and commanding to leave, as he repeatedly does? Anthon01 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, you're not making a very persuasive case. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I just caught you using a half dozen accounts to edit war for the past six months across multiple pseudoscience-related articles and had the results verified via checkuser, the more germane question seems to be if you can evade a block. east.718 at 20:02, February 2, 2008

Half dozen accounts? Please read the checkuser account carefully. You're making alot of unfair accusations here. You are wrong. Ask FT2 if I have a half dozen accounts. You should do you homework before accusing me. Anthon01 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again wrong. Will I be given enough for me to comment and other admins to comment? Anthon01 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your comment on the Checkuser report here? Why is it wrong? Lawrence § t/e 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relevant link .[51] Quack Guru 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

East. I know you have you work cut out for you. This problem is a big one but you've pointed your adminstrative arrow in the wrong direction. Note as I have left the problem has gotten worse. Just consider that I may be a moderating force instead of an extremist. I have reached consensus with a number of editors including Jim Butler, Art Carlson and Scientizzle and Arthur Rubin. So far I am unimpressed by your efforts in this case. Your block of JacobLad is unimpressive. [52] Used once for 1.5 hours and never never used again. Please delete as you can see I have no need for it. Anthon01 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I will defend this on my talk page. And let me say it here before Guy comes through for his drive-by accusation. I have absolutely `nothing to do with Ilena. Anthon01 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

While there was strong suspicion in the beginning that Anthon01 might be Anthony Zaffuto, the partner of User:Ilena, I no longer believe this to be the case and think that no one should raise this accusation against him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I will comment here once I have completed my defense there. Anthon01 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sent my explanation to FT2 and am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While Anthon01 may appeal to some few collaborative situations with some editors (a couple of whom share his POV on many alternative medicine matters), he is pretty much constantly in conflict with editors who are scientific skeptics and supporters of mainstream POV. Those conflicts cannot be ignored or undone by a few favorable situations when editors of his own persuasion support him. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01

In contrast to Anthon01's statement above, I find the actions of Anthon01 while using his sock puppet, JacobLad, quite "impressive" and a significant violation of policy here. Talk about a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny! I noticed the edits by JacobLad at the time because they occurred at a very opportune time for Anthon01. Why? Because at that exact time period (minutes) we were engaged in a very heated discussion (with Anthon01 being backed up by Levine2112, both of whom are very strong advocates of chiropractic, a competing profession) about edits that made quite false implications about my own profession of Physical Therapy.

This diff is the last edit in the section where the discussion can be found, so the whole section can be read on that page. I tried to improve the false phrase by a rewording and the introduction of very good sources. They continually reverted it. You will notice that the List still fails to contain a single mention of chiropractic in any manner, even though numerous attempts have been made, even with good sources, to include its pseudoscientific aspects (vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, vitalism). This situation is caused mainly by the efforts of Levine2112, who claims to be a "chiropractic advocate" and has admitted he is here "to protect chiropractic's reputation." [53] The edit history of the List shows this charge to be true. This type of deletionism of well sourced inclusions needs to be stopped. It is disruptive protectionism and violates NPOV policy. When Anthon01 arrived, they became a tag team to protect chiropractic.

By editing the Physical Therapy article in the manner which he did, Anthon01 was effectively taking revenge by attempting to smear my profession. He was trying to do it at the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and then he used a sock puppet to do it at the PT article itself. He also edited it using his Anthon01 username, in cooperation with Levine2112.

It is important to note that I respect NPOV, even when it goes against me and even when it means the addition of nonsense, as long as it is encyclopedic and properly sourced. That is why I didn't revert his additions or edit war with him and Levine2112, since the additions were properly sourced and to some degree true. Whether they are a notable POV is another matter, since the same can be said of some aspects in most mainstream medical professions, and most aspects of all alternative medicine. It is an especially ironic situation, considering it is an example of the Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy being used by two believers in alternative medicine and pseudoscience. They delete obviously good sources that criticize their favorite profession, and then attack a mainstream profession in revenge.

All of mainstream medicine has issues of this type because we are working with inherited techniques that seem to work, but are sometimes uncertain. Fortunately they are dumped if proven to be ineffective. That last part isn't mentioned by them in their edits there.... Within alternative medicine, and to a large degree chiropractic, this is not the case. Applied Kinesiology is itself a notable example of a pseudoscience being practiced by a rather large number of chiropractors. It is also an article which Anthon01 tried to dominate when he arrived here.

What should be done about this misuse of a sock puppet to edit disruptively (even when using good sources) is up to admins to decide. It was definitely not a collaborative situation. Just because it happened some time ago, doesn't mean it should go unpunished. -- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody review this and, if possible, delete it?

User:BQZip01 and myself have been engaged in an editorial dispute over the inclusion of some meaningless statistics at Talk:Kyle Field. I filed an RfC, which has gone mostly unnoticed. User insisted on a response from me to his suggestions at his 2nd request for Adminship, which I then did.

We weren't able to come to an agreement, but, for reasons I don't understand, user has created his own indictment of my editorial practices within his userspace. I asked him to remove it on his talk page and he responded saying that, since it was his userspace, I couldn't tell him what to do. I think it's somewhat unfair to me for him to advertise what a terrible editor I am, as it's uncivil and (I suppose) constitutes a personal attack. I would ask somebody to review the material on that page, determine if it violates it policy and, if so, delete it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would seem he's since removed the request I made on his talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it strikes me that this needs to go – constitutes a personal attack, seeing as it's all about the negative points of one editor. Would be nice if he requested speedy deletion of it, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. — alex.muller (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually after reading really thoroughly through WP:NPA, it doesn't seem to be a personal attack. It's just plain not nice — alex.muller (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the more appropriate venue for this is a RFC and not a page on his userspace. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It almost looks like that's what the userpage is being used for, prepping an RFC. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• But he also says "It may take weeks, months, or years to put this page together," so I don't know how long he wants to wait before filing that RfC, but in the meantime I don't think it's appropriate to for him use it as a platform to accumulate accusations and negative remarks about my editing style. If he's going to file an RfC, he should file it so I'm not waiting on hold with this thing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks to me like it's prep for an Arbcom, which I'd highly recommend. As it says on the page itself, Unless someone is poring [sic] over my contributions (as they might be in my RfA), there is no reason that anyone would have to even see this page. Also, BQZ's remarks are more about Cloud's poor behaviour than "editing style". - BillCJ (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• The previous comment was brought to you by the same user that brought us [this]70.4.12.147 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like content dispute not ArbCom or RFC... Igor Berger (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance needed with restoration of "Ecovillage" article

Resolved

I am in a bit of a state and need the help of someone with more tools than I have. Here's the situation:

• On January 26, KVDP put a note at Talk:Ecovillage that proposed a move to Sustainable neighbourhood. He put a merge tag on the "Ecovillage" article, but then, inexplicably removed it that same day.
• On January 27, DWaterson put a merge tag on the Ecovillage article suggesting a merge to Sustainable city.
• On January 29, following comments by these two users at Talk:Sustainable city, but no comments at "Talk: Ecovillage," KVDP moved "Ecovillage" to "Sustainable neighbourhood."
• I only happened on this latter discussion on February 2. By that time four users had commented at "Talk: Sustainable city." Two, (myself being one) were adamantly opposed to any merger of the "Ecovillage" article. Only one (KDVP) has spoken in favour of such a move. However, I then discovered that the move had already taken place.
• Unfortunately I freaked out and, forgetting everything I had ever learned about page moves, copied the old ecovillage article back to its original location. Of course, the problem with that is that the page history remains with Sustainable neighbourhood.

There seems little doubt that there should continue to be an article for "Ecovillage." The term is well-known and there is a worldwide network of ecovillages[54]. The term "ecovillage" gets 287,000 hits on Google; "sustainable neighbourhood" only 9,500. Moreover, two days (or even five days) seems insufficient for discussion of a move of an article that has been extant since April, 2002. Would someone be willing to restore the "Ecovillage" article's page history? I would think that "Sustainable neighbourhood" (whatever that may be) could be a redirect to "Ecovillage," but not the other way around. Sunray (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the history of Ecovillage out of the way, so you can do whatever you want now. east.718 at 02:23, February 3, 2008

Many thanks. Sunray (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Recommend that somone adopt Goblyglook (talk · contribs)

Goblyglook (talk · contribs) has a history of making irrelevant, "chatty" comments on article talk pages that do not pertain to improving the article, with no additional substance. Some examples are here, here, here, here, and here. The inappropriateness of such comments has been pointed out repeatedly to this user. Most recently, he/she has tried to use his/her talk page as an opinion forum or social networking website. I'm not sure if this is just a user who simply doesn't "get it", or if it's a practical joke. But I think if the user will agree to be adopted it might be a step forward. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The portal for adoption is at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, The user has expressed a desire to be adopted Diff. I will point them in the correct direction. Jeepday (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued problems over Sumerian kings

• Sumerophile (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
• Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Could someone please intervene with a relatively new user User:Sumerophile who has repeatedly been adding parent categories to all of the Sumerian king articles that are already in subcats. I have asked him numerous times over the past few days, including on his talkpage, to read WP:SUBCAT and at least engage in meaningful discussion as to why he feel an exception should be made, but he has not deigned to address this question at all, and instead continues to revert me without explanation whenever I remove the parent cats on all of these articles, and back and forth it goes. He will not listen to me and I have also been trying for some time in vain to get anyone else to take an interest in the overall situation, to no avail or response, so this is like a last resort. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, so much for my "last resort". I told you, I have tried everything else but it seems like nobody these days gives a crap about Sumerian Kings or their articles besides me and him, and he is meanwhile becoming increasingly hostile. I don't know where to turn now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs linking to hostile remarks? It isn't that no one gives a crap about Sumerian Kings, its that administrators have no power over article content - merely conduct. If you can demonstrate that some intervention is necessary regarding editor conduct, then the noticeboard can help you. ^Avruchtalk 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (cf. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PresterJohn continues misrepresenting source in BLP

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. US charges David Hicks

Prester John continues to edit to present the allegations as facts/admissions. This problem has been discussed on the talk pages of David Hicks with PresterJohn and on Talk to the Hand/"David Hicks allegations" section.

Misrepresenting edits

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.

SmithBlue (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues on this topic. However, given that there are multiple sources for Hicks' training with al-Qaeda, SmithBlue's fundamental dependence on the use by a newspaper of the word "alleged" seems a wee bit precious, and I wonder if this ANI report is aimed at resolving an edit dispute by nobbling those with opposing views. --Pete (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See my reply to this content dispute at the David Hicks talkpage. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

see also: Talk:David_Hicks/Archive2#Satanic_symbols cygnis insignis 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No dispute that "Hicks trained with AlQ" from me and I was pleased to see PresterJohn's recent removal of many POV headers and phrases from the article. This issue is more fundamental to editing an encyclopedia. Accuracy of representation of sources is essential to WP. Without it? ... what do we have? SmithBlue (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking user comments

Is there a way or means I can use to stop or prevent or block Lanfear's Bane from harassing me by posting pointless comments to my user talk page which I have asked him (or her) not to do? Thanks. Julie Dancer (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this like a month old? It looks like he stopped. Maybe you should too? --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Julie Dancer is only editing about once a month these days, so from her point of view it's something that's just happened now. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

HELP

The user styrofoam1994 keeps on deleting my supporting evidence from the sockpuppetry case that he filed against me even though he did it before and it was dismissed. Please help me as soo as you can. Thanks--DurzaTwink^TALK 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, here's a link to the page I think is meant: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink --Coppertwig (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No big deal. Just fill out a 3RR report. One or both of you ought to get blocked. Maybe they won't block you because you were just restoring evidence that had been deleted -- maybe that could count as reverting vandalism? There were definintely more than 3 reverts, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a warning at User talk:Styrofoam1994, focussing mainly on 3RR, though really I suppose deleting evidence is worse. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

swatjester

I had my user page history legitimately deleted today. An admin called Swatjester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went and restored it against my wishes. Pleawee can another admint ake a look and warn him. It appears to eb part of a dispute he has with me at Perverted-Justice. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Being discussed two sections below. Nakon 04:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

... of course...everything that isn't exactly as SqueakBox wants is some sort of personal vendetta against the king of personal vendettas. That "because of my protection against his poor edits on X article" accusation/reason is getting old... VigilancePrime (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

[55] Corvus cornix_talk 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The legal threats continue - [56]. Corvus cornix_talk 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blanked as a courtesy and protected. Nakon 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone review this decision please?

User:HanzoHattori just has been blocked indefinitely: [57]. Of course his incivility is obvious, but I think such harsh decision would require a community discussion or ArbCom ruling. I know him as a good, reasonable and highly productive editor (~28,000 edits) who was always willing to discuss any disagreements with me.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. The incivility is unacceptable. Note that the block is indefinite rather than infinite. If he wants to return and edit without making personal attacks, he can be unblocked. Nakon 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This User has been blocked 12 times. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, if they'll agree to quit making the incivil edits, they might be unblocked. Corvus cornix_talk 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked because they obviously didn't get the message from increasing blocks, I highly doubt that they'd reform. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for practical blocking purposes, indefinite and infinite mean the same thing in the block entry. As for HH, being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. Being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil. To tell the truth, another user just came to my talk page and blamed me of bad faith and "manipulations" [58]. I tried to explain him about WP:CIV and delete his uncivil comments, but he reverted me three time at my talk page to blame me of "lie" without any proof... With regard to Hanzo, I can only hope that he will rethink his behavior and ask for unblock.Biophys (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I must also endorse this block, this editor has a long history of incivility, edit warring and tendentious editing. User has ignored a long list of warnings, recommendations and blocks. Dreadstar † 06:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to the continued incivility on his talk page, I have protected it. Dreadstar † 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox/right to vanish and User:SqueakBox/gone

Can we get a consensus together to delete these pages? It's the history of SqueakBox's userspace, he doesn't want them there, he said he was excercising his right to vanish, but it's clear he just wants to remove the userpage history. He's had a death threat because of the history in November and he is more than entitled to get rid of the history per WP:SPEEDY#u1. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has decided to restore the pages, I've attempted to discuss it with him, but he won't redelete, hence why I'm bringing it here for further review. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We were still discussing this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No we weren't, you refused to redelete it, even given it's quite clearly a U1 deletion, I also see no attempt to discuss this with the deleting admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh really I didn't? So while I was attempting to figure all of this out, you filed an AN/I complaint prematurely, without finishing discussing it with me first? As for the deleting admin, did you look at Squeakbox's talk page? The deleting admin is quite confused by Squeakbox's actions, saying "I deleted two pages you tagged for deletion. I am confused that you seem to have recreated your user page. You can ask for your user page (not talk) to be deleted at any time, without moving it. But "right to vanish" only applies if you actually vanish, and recreating your user page seems to contradict that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)" ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:USER he cannot have it speedy deleted under U1 if he has significant conduct issues, which he does. That's the "admin reason to keep" clause in the U1 speedy. WP:USER is very clear about that: He MUST submit it to MfD if he wants it deleted. For the record, SqueakBox's conduct issues were that he had a bad night editing, blanked all his pages and called Wikipedia a hate site, and said he didn't want any more part of it. Fine, he has a right to do that. He invoked right to vanish. Fine, he has a right to do that. But as soon as the page was deleted, he came right back, saying that all along he didn't intend to vanish, that he only wanted to have the edit history deleted. So, he intentionally lied to have his user page deleted. That's no bueno, and that's significant conduct issue that I'm contesting the speedy deletion, as WP:USER explicitly allows me to do, and explicitly says I should undo the deletion, and that Squeakbox must put the deletion up on MfD.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Significant conduct issues generally means the user is banned, Squeak is nothing of the sort, and his conduct issues are nothing compared to many users here. U1 overrides WP:USER just about every time - you have not yet stated a reason for your undeletion, and the reason why this is significant enough to override U1. Many users delete their userspace, and given there's been a death threat, I'm a little astounded you won't meet the request. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

21 block log entries, and an ArbCom parole with 5 violations is not significant user conduct issues? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are people making death threats against me. Swatjester is helping them by providing information about me and my family. This has got to stop now. Thanks, SqueakBox —Preceding comment was added at 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the above comment is about, nor did I look to see who wrote it. But as for evidence of significant user conduct problems: SqueakBox's block log fills up my entire 15 inch screen. He is only a few months off of a 1 year personal attacks/civility parole [59] which he was blocked 5 times for violating. For that reason alone, he cannot have his page deleted via U1. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW I've offered to individually delete the death threats. No response from him yet. And I don't take that accusation kindly. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, he lied again, the death threats are not even on Wikipedia. Why isn't he blocked yet for disruption? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's his userspace for god sake, let him delete it, like we would anybody else. WP:USER does not let you undelete a page with no discussion whatsoever, especially when you're going against the deletion criteria.Open your eyes, the death threats came because of his userpage, they didn't happen on wiki. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you guys should just tone it down. This kind of tone is not helpful in this situation. I don't see a serious problem in deleting his userpage, since his talk page will be preserved which contains all pertinent material relating to his blocks. --Haemo (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that it was an invalid speedy deletion in the first place, and that he's lied now twice to get the page deleted to cover his history. I'm about 15 seconds away from indefinite blocking him for disruptiveness to the project. Haemo there is no problem in him MFD'ing his user page, but he is expressly NOT allowed to speedy it per WP:USER precisely for reasons like this that he is trying to do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that his user page contains(ed) information which could be used to personally identify him. Understandably, since he has received death threats due to his on-wiki actions, he would like this removed. This shouldn't be a contentious request — perhaps he made a mistake in saying he wanted to "vanish". Fair enough — I don't think it matters, or has any bearing on what we should do here. --Haemo (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this U1? Any conduct issues are documented on his talk page, not his userpage. WP:USER is a guidline, WP:SPEEDY is policy, we really should be following that. I strongly suggest you don't block him indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Except he can't have his talk page deleted, and this is about his user page, not his talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops; fixed. That doesn't change the content of what I said. I couldn't care less if this was a U1 or J8 or whatever; the issue is more basic than that, and it shouldn't matter what guidelines we cite. --Haemo (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If SqueakBox is actually leaving, then why not go ahead and let the pages be deleted? If he comes back, either with this name or with another name, then it can be undeleted. Corvus cornix_talk 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not leaving, he just wants his userpage deleting which meets U1. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? --Haemo (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't meet U1. He's not leaving, he's deleting his user page history to cover up his misdeeds over the past years. This is specifically one of the exceptions to U1: Significant user conduct issues. 14 blocks, an arbcom parole for a year, recent personal attacks, etc. that's the exception.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Question, how does deleting his USERpage (not the talk page) hide his misdeeds? SirFozzie (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; I don't see the issue here. The talk page comments are well-documented. --Haemo (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reason would be valid if only the user page was the locus of those misdeeds. The mere existence of sanctions does not preclude an invocation of CSD U1 on pages unrelated to said sanctions. —Kurykh 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that he has a history of harrassing others. He called Wikipedia a "hate website" (in user page edit summary, hence deleting the page hides at least one personal attack/incivility/disruption/whatever-you-want-to-call-it). As has been noted, his block log takes up more than one page. He has engaged in personal attacks, harrassment, bad faith, and so much more, and much of that can be evidenced (could have been) or documented there. And the moment that Swat took a breath to evaluate the situation, Squeak demended he be de-admin-ed. It's a longstanding history of attacking and threatening anyone who dares to disagree blindly with Squeak. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing his user page, you're discussing his behavior. We're not even talking about the same thing. The user page is independent of his behavior. —Kurykh 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. His behavior is clearly demonstrated ON his user page. That's why he wants it gone. The two cannot be seperated. He made an attack on the whole of Wikipedia on his user page (edit summary). How is that not related to his (chronically disruptive) behavior? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One edit summary, which is unrelated to any sanctions, is not a reason to deny his reasonable claim. --Haemo (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the user received death threats due to his user page is sufficient reason for deletion irregardless of whether the user has "significant user conduct issues." Since when did we start valuing transparency over human life? —Kurykh 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly recieved threats. There is no evidence to support that, that claim surfaced only after this brouhaha started, and he has explicitly refused to share that info with an admin. Pairadox (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak claimed (apparently inaccurately) that he was vanishing. He may have misunderstood the right to vanish or he may have other motives for not accurately stating the reason to delete. Either way, he induced an admin to delete his userpage under a pretense that doesn't match reality. If he wants to vanish, then by all means, he should. But if he wants to stay, he shouldn't be able to wipe away part of his edit history considering his historic and ongoing conduct issues. I've tried three times to ask Squeak about this issue, all to no avail. In short, WP:VANISHing is fine, but it's not a pretense to get an unsuspecting admin to delete. Transparency is key to this project. It's the user's conduct in giving the deleting admin an inaccurate reason that raises a concern with me. If the deletion is for good cause, then why not say so to start with? It's the inaccuracy that is the locus of both the deletion and conduct issues. --SSBohio 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If he isn't trying to leave, why is he claiming right to vanish? Corvus cornix_talk 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anything happen to the block log if the user page is deleted while the user talk page is kept? R. Baley (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with R. Baley. The block log speaks for itself. I see no reason why the user page SHOULD be kept if the person wants it deleted and suggest SwatJester step back, and have a Nice cup of tea and a sitdown and reign his temper in. SirFozzie (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The general rule is that userpages (as opposed to talkpages) may be deleted on the user's request. I know of no circumstance that would warrant an exception to this rule for an editor currently in good standing. Talkpages are a more complex matter, and sometimes we decline deletion where the user is not leaving the project permanently and there are significant contributions by other editors on that page. However, these rules should be enforced, however, with a view toward minimizing unnecessary disruption and avoiding creating a dispute about nothing in particular. In this case, we have an editor whose controversial history is reasonably well known, and reflected in his block log, so there can be no legitimate concern that the user is trying evade administrator scrutiny by these deletions (which in fact are causing more attention to be focused on him than ever). In light of the claim that the user is receiving death threats based on information that has been revealed on his userpage or talkpage, and out of a desire to avoid unnecessary disputation or disruption over a matter not of importance, I see no reason not to grant the deletion of all the relevant pages, without reference to any technicalities or norms that would otherwise apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying; agree completely. --Haemo (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself brad: Editor in good standing. He is not an editor in good standing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any current ArbCom cases. I don't see any current ArbCom Sanctions against him. So, I don't see your point. As things stand, he's an editor with a checkered past (to be kind), but right now, he's an editor in good standing. Once again, Swat, please take a step back. SirFozzie (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to engage in edit-warring or wheel-warring to keep userpage content (or user talkpage content, for that matter) intact against the wishes of the relevant user, even in ordinary circumstances. Beyond that, in view of the allegation that death threats have been directed against the user, an emergency situation is presented. Common sense suggests that discussion concerning alleged death threats and similar problems should not take place on-wiki. These pages are not to be restored. Any further concerns about the matter should be presented privately to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec's) Agree with the deletion of the user page (assuming the block record is preserved) however, the talk page should be deleted and then restored with any offending/problematic edits redacted. Or in the alternative, problematic edits to the talk page can be oversighted. But in general, the bulk of the talk page history should be kept, and the details of what to remove should be conducted privately. It should be OK to delete the talk page immediately, and work out what to restore in a timely fashion. R. Baley (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To my comment above, I will add that I can see little reason to fight to keep userspace content which a contributor, rightly or wrongly, believes presents a danger to himself and his family. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations that he's already misled us about once, coming hot on the heels of having just lied about invoking right to vanish. Right. Emergency situation. Got it. Glad to know that we lend tendentious editors with extensive block histories and known credibility issues every protection, including allowing ArbCom to sweep this under the rug, while we chastise an admin for following EXACTLY WHAT THE TEXT OF WP:USER SAYS. If that's where our priorities lie, I don't want to be a part of this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that this user has a contentious history and a long block log is going to be forgotten if we delete some userpage content by request. If the request turns out to be ill-founded, that can be dealt with in due course. I do not, in the least, understand the level of importance that is being placed on this entire matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we do. If he's a liar the full weight of process can of course be brought to bear. In the meantime please direct further hatemail to Arbcom. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And a representative of the arbitration committee will post an on-wiki notification of the result of said discussions, including the veracity of any reasons for deletion? If that is a given, then fine. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Swat, I can completely understand your point. From his history, he seems to have been a real pain, and I can certainly sympathize with your point. However, I don't see any point in not allowing him to delete his user page. I think his talk page should stand, or be deleted with the block history replaced. If he's going to change identities, it won't help us to leave his old info up on the old user page, so I'd err on the side of caution. If he's claiming death threats, let him vanish. I'm sure he'll pop up again and we'll deal with that when it happens. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A side-effect here is that by requiring a long debate about whether to allow this deletion or not, the amount of administrator and community time devoted to dealing with an allegedly disruptive user is substantially increased. I don't see how that could be considered helpful from any perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What is arbcom's role in this matter? To make clear my concern, I only worry that by having the page speedied under a pretense, edits which should be part of his history will disappear from scrutiny. Has an admin taken a look at the history of the deleted page to see if there are actual issues here, or just possible ones? If there are no problem edits in the deleted history, I have no problem with its staying deleted. --SSBohio 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no formal ArbCom case or anything of that nature. The reason I have referred this to the Arbitration Committee is that if someone has to post along the lines of "the personal information is in this revision and this one and this one, and the death threats are here and here," that type of information cannot and should not be posted on-wiki. The confidential Arbitration Committee mailing list is the customary repository for sensitive information of that nature. Therefore, while my first preference would be to allow the deletion to stand, and not expend any more time on this (see my comment above), in the event people insist on pursuing it further it should be done confidentally as indicated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason not to delete a user page upon reaquest - doing so does not erase the block log. The talk page should at least be blanked, and any possibly harmful edits oversighted. SwatJester appears to be assuming bad faith which isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, it's a prima facie challenge to good faith to claim WP:VANISH if vanishing isn't his intention. The admin making the deletion was surprised when Squeak recreated the page. SwatJester isn't making any unwarranted assumption that I can see. --SSBohio 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SSB is right. Perhaps it was simply an accidental mis-wording (as had been noted elsewhere), but that Squeak refuses to answer a simple question about why he deleted the page and there is coniderable background and potential for information to be lost, the motives are paramount to this discussion. That said, I generally support userreq deletions of both userpages and user talkpages, but this is a possible exception. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The user page contains a lot of personally-identifying information. If a user wishes that to be deleted it is a priority. People often post such material, without at the time realising the possible consequences. As Will Beback observes, deletion of contributions does not affect the block log at all. Tyrenius (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm solely concerned that there may be edits or edit summaries deleted which bear on this user's ongoing conduct issues. If someone could take a look at that, I'd be happy. No one should face off-Wiki risks from on-wiki editing. --SSBohio 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I just went to SB's talkpage. He moved it to a user subpage, which was then deleted. This effectively removes his entire talkpage history. Perhaps this is one of the problems SJ had with the deletion? I'm genuinely not certain, but it seems to be a problem to me. 71.54.57.168 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox is a user in good standing, and if there's anything identifying in his user page history, the usual practice is to delete it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reposting of information (on hate websites no less) is a procedure used by some admins (Link in text) and supported wholly by SqueakBox. In a way, what goes around comes around. How's it feel now, Squeak? The point is, I can see the need to delete personal info (it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, and Squeak, as a 45-y/o man - something he points out at every opportunity while harrassing and impuning others - should know better), but the editing history - including the accusation that Wikipedia is a "hate site" - are of great import in describing Squeak's chronic, consistent disruptive behaviors.

Note: SqueakBox is hardly an editor in good standing...! VigilancePrime (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are treading very close to a block for harassment. east.718 at 06:17, February 3, 2008

You who? Me for pointing out the reasons? How am I harrassing for linking to an admin's edit? How am I harrassing for backing up an admin who is following WikiPolicy? How am I harrassing for contributing to the discussion? Or were you referring to someone else, cause it was ambiguous what or who you're talking about. Or if you were referring to SqueakBox, then I understand (and agree). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you have a history with Squeakbox, so it's hard to take your recommendations at face value — even though you may feel you are unbiased in your assessment, comments like "How does it feel" and "What goes around, comes around" indicate that you have an axe to grind, and should probably recuse yourself. --Haemo (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. FWIW, he has a history with me more than the other way around... But you're probably right. I would refer to my additional comments below to point out that I support the admin in this and support total deletion if the pages are to be deleted. Generally, I don't see any reason not to delete user talk pages with the user talk pages when requested. I generally remain unbiased, even in areas where I'm invested, but I do see your point that I might have a particular POV in this from having been on the receiving end of Squeak's hostilities and attacks. Maybe that's why my thoughts are needed, but I'll recuse myself (mostly) I guess. I do think it's ironic, though, that he's claiming similar issues to ones he has supported in the past. You have to admit there's irony in that. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

RTV, oversight, and talk history

I thought we didn't delete user talk pages, even under Right To Vanish, and only deleted/oversighted identifying information in them. My understanding was that eliminating user talk history, as seen here, made it so that non-admins had no ability to review an editor's public records and history for things like Dispute Resolution. All his old talk page archives are now lost in three files which are:

• User talk:SqueakBox/right to vanish
• User talk:SqueakBox/gone
• User talk:SqueakBoxArchivehsitory

Is this user leaving and doing a RTV? If not, why not just Oversight the material in talk? I don't see the need to hide his entire talk history from the public. What is the need for that? It gives a user a false new start to people that don't know to look closer. If this is an actual RTV, where this user will need to disclose his new account if any to the Arbitration Committee given his disruptive history, do we delete talk pages in those cases? Lawrence § t/e 06:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem necessarily with deleting user talk pages. This is a special case, which is why it's here. I'd say all or nothing... if it is decided that the deletions are legit, then there's no reason not to delete user talk pages too. The issue is whether or not there is sufficient reason (meaning "evidence") to keep the user page. If so, keep all. If not, there's nothing wrong with deleting the talk pages too. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the user page: who cares? People can delete them or ask for their deletion because of a death threat, an upset stomach, or for the hell of it. I'm just talking about the talk history, since it looks like an absolute mess and I've seen mention before that we don't delete those. If Squeak is gone, full RTV, and that page with his history of interactions is going to go, perhaps editing access for the account should go too. If he decides to come back later, the talk page then gets recreated with history. But the user page itself, who cares? How is this usually done? Lawrence § t/e 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of Information: SqueakBox is not gone. He said he was vanishing and half a day later started all this and article editing. It has a red herring look to it, or perhaps a change of mind, or perhaps an emotionally-distressed decision rescinded with a later clear head (who of us has never had something like that?). I don't have a problem with deleting the pages, user and user talk, per se, but there is some controversy as to whether it removes (and intentionally so?) evidence of some of his past bad acts on Wikipedia and to other Wikipedians. That's the only issue here. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no deleted history at any of those three pages. The history of SqueakBox's talk page is still available for non-admins, you just have to know where to look. east.718 at 06:59, February 3, 2008

Copying and pasting own deleted contributions

I've been reviewing my deleted contributions, and there are some edits there (mostly those to user talk pages of users who have asked for their talk pages to be deleted) that I would like to retrieve (at some point) and record on a subpage of my userpages. Is this an acceptable use of admin tools? I'd say yes, because I still have the copyright on my contributions, even after freely licensing them under the GFDL, but I'd appreciate confirmation of this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the best use of your time, but I don't see anything against policy, assuming obviously that there's nothing problematic in the edits themselves. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Newyorkbrad. Under the GFDL, you still own your comments, so go for it. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this about Squeakbox? Obviously, there's no copyright reason you can't ... but please make sure you aren't treading on WP:POINT territory. --B (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bill edmond

User:Bill edmond recently deleted a large portion of the article Igbo people with the somewhat odd summary "For the sake of posterity in keeping the RULES of WIKIPEDIA, let this article be edited, but not be deleted." Judging by his talk page, he has been admonished in the past, and even blocked for a month, for disruptive edits to this article. I haven't really been tracking this, and I don't have time to look into it, so I'm not the one following up on this possibly complicated matter, but I suspect that another long block is in order. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note update

Don't Worry, It is extremely unlikely that this was a genuine suicide note:

"i am going to kill myself. i have to i am nothing anymore and i wish i was never fucking born. I have a shitload of pills and it will be ok soon. Tell Shonna I Love Her And that I'm Sorry."

The following observations lead me to conclude that this is a hoax:

• "I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.
• Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.
• This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.
• The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)
• Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.

Compare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.

• The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.

However, This does not discount the possibility that this person may be someone on the brink. These observations would likely be seen in someone who is not yet ready to take their life, which means that we may be able to do some good here

Hope this helps. --BETA 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this referencing?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of administrator RyanGerbil10

RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I have blocked this administrator indefinitely after a conversation in #wikipedia-en-admins.

He vandalized the main page. :| east.718 at 07:08, February 3, 2008

He's also been emergency desysopped after a discussion in #wikimedia-stewards. Mr.Z-man 07:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)