Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

User:Abtract is stalking again

Resolved

 – User blocked for 2 weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Abtract (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is stalking and harassing Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) and myself. See the RfC/U for the full history (which expired with no action).

For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on June 2nd he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another AN/I resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing[1]. June 5th, another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th[2], self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway)[3], and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u.[4][5][6][7] as well as continuing his insults of other editors[8]. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.[9]

He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably nobody here is reading the RFC, which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{underconstruction}} tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of Dragon Ball Z shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?

Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here [10] You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The other, less absurd option is that I am the same IP that stumbled upon the RFC and gave a reasonable and uninvolved view there. Please don't do that "we" business, speak for yourself. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I thought this was wrapped up, but if there's any doubt, I support the block. Abtract has promised on several occasions to stop crossing paths with these two editors, and appears incapable of living up to his promises. He appears now to be IP socking to protest the latest block. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract is still arguing that the block is biased - in that Sesshomaru and Collectonian remain unsanctioned - and too severe. I should be extremely grateful if another admin review the matter and address Abtracts concerns. I have responded on Abtracts talkpage regarding having the block reviewed, so commenting there - where Abtract can respond - would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at it as a third party now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. [11] [12] [13] [14] did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith here against an anon, but that’s a separate matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered. If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a history between the parties, which I am aware of and referred to at the top of this section - there is no good faith between users Abtract, and Sesshomaru and Collectionan following claim and counter claim of stalking, revert warring, and unfriendly talkpage interaction. Previously, prior to the RfC, I took the part of trying to argue Abtract's case as he was in dispute with quite a few other editors but my view is that Abtract inserts himself into disputes between S (whose style of editing results in a fair few disputes), C and other partiess. In this matter of the Alexis Korner record article, the dispute was between a third party and C which Abtract quickly involved himself - thus the claim of stalking. To me, there was clear evidence of a bad faith action on the part of Abtract - even though the action itself appeared legitimate. I see much the same interactions in Abtract's relationships with Sesshomaru and Collectionan for some time, many instances of legitimate disputes but with an unusual degree of overlap. I do not feel that this is simply coincidence.
      • Nevertheless, there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the indef block that I feel it cannot stand. I am going to substitute it for a fortnight block. This should allow any persons with a concern that Abtract is involved in a campaign of harassment to develop a case, and to indicate to Abtract the communities determination that these concerns be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay. I think that's best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Block overturned

Abtract's block, which was earlier reduced to two weeks, has been overturned by User Talk:JHunterJ [15], under an agreement to stop stalking placed there by Ncmvocalist [16]. Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering JHunterJ's involvement, I strongly disagree with his overturning the block (which also goes against the wording of the very agreement Abtract says he will follow, making it null and void). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be based on Abtract agreeing to the same kind of editing restrictions he's agreed to before and ignored. I've been trying to talk to him on his talk page, and all he ever seems interested in is getting restrictions on Collectonian and Sesshomaru, while completely ignoring his own behavior that's led to him being blocked six times. Dayewalker (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway civility sanction: actionrequired

Stale

 – Last edit was 18 July; marked stale. --slakr^\ talk / 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[17] is a new edit. Maybe move back to unresolved? ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway.

User:JimBobUSA

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold: [18] [19]
• Japanese war crimes: [20]

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[24]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

 – Phone calls made, e-mails sent. Unless one can track down the locale of the IP addresses/user, then not all that much else can be done. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Suicide Chump" You say there ain't no use in living
It's all a waste of time
You wanna throw your life away
Well, people, that's just fine!
Go ahead and get it over with, then
Find you a bridge and take a jump
Just make sure you do it right the first time
Cause there's nothin' worse than a suicide chump!

--Frank Zappa

We have another suicide threat which has been posted at [25]. Can someone look into this? — E ↗^TCB 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking the IP now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(further comment) Looks like someone's just ranting to his girlfriend/wife/significant other... anyone care to take this further (*cough*Bstone*cough*joke*cough*) or just WP:RBI it? Most of the other edits by this IP are just nonsensical vandalism, so I don't think the threat was serious. WHOIS goes to Ontario, through Aliant Telecom. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this here from the Help desk:

"Someone should check this out [26]. Remember (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)"

I know there are ways to find out the physical locations of (some) IP addresses, but I don't know what they are. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm; it says "Wikipedia responders have consistently contacted local authorities in cases of apparent suicidal users. Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat. Please make as prompt a report as you are able to." Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

See also: 142.163.22.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 142.163.22.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 142.163.211.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Seems to be generic vandalism, but to be on the safe side... seicer | talk | contribs 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to call the cops. It's either a person who needs help, or a person who needs a wake up call that this kind of stuff is not tolerated. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you find out what country that IP is in? Or should I call the local police where I live and let them forward the info to wherever? Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure you're not duplicating reports... *merges* Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in contacting law enforcement, the IP is actually originating from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, through Stentor National Integrated Communications Network. Can't give you anything better than that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling... seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) — E ↗^TCB 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Seicer. Sorry for the duplicate thread: I thought I had searched this page for the word "suicide" and didn't find it, but must have mistyped it or something. Thanks for catching the duplication, Hersfold. Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happens fairly often, as you know. Thanks for calling, seicer. Best of luck with that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for calling. Keep us updated on what happens. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, the text was originally posted by AngelofFadness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on 24 June. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As AngelofFadness has been active today, I've indef. blocked the account. seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Called practically all available lines and was redirected around but I finally made the case aware to one individual who logged it. I also sent an e-mail to abuse@aliant.net, which is what the individual recommended and per Bell Aliant's web-site. Try calling in the morning and seeing if anyone else has any more luck. seicer | talk | contribs 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bell Canada also panned out, and given the vagueness of the locale, there is not much else that can be done. They could not locate the abuse number (outside of the e-mail), either. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, how can someone threaten suicide? It's not really a threat, because they're only killing themselves... Beam 02:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'ts more of a threat against the people that are emotionaly attached. It is also a threat because suicide cleanup is very expensive. Stanley Steamer does not do "crime scenes". You have to hire an expensive and specific company to do it. The nicest suicides are when people just "disappear" themselves in the woods. No drain on public resources. --mboverload@ 02:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually saw a show on the Discovery channel about people who cleaned up crime scenes. Anyway I know this isn't the exact greatest place to discuss it, but if those who "threatened" suicide were not given the attention they do get, these "threats" would be reduced in number of occurrences. Of course there are those who are actually going to do it, and are honestly just letting people know about it. Those people will probably have a better chance of surviving with outside intervention.

One other strong feeling I have about suicide "threats" is that if one wanted to really kill himself, why would he give people an opportunity to stop them? Even an ip suicide notice here is treated to the whole nine yards as far as contacting authorities. The editors here are actually good at discovering who to call. Anyway it's kind of attention whoring, in a lot of cases, to claim an impending suicide. Meh. Beam 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, people who really do commit suicide do leave such notes, that is one of the reasons we take threats of any kind very seriously. I don't think threats should be dismissed because they may not be sincere. Chillum 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, always a quick judgment eh Chillum? As I state there is a portion of those who claim suicidal intentions that have their lives saved by actions like what fine editors here practice. Beam 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as threats like this are taken seriously. Chillum 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this one. I wasn't online since Friday afternoon. Thanks for swiftly and appropriately dealing with it. Bstone (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User talk:Rove2

Resolved

This is going to be very controversial, so sit down and get ready to read for a while.

User:Rove2 was recently blocked by User:Sam Korn, as he identified Rove2 as a sockpuppet of the Avril Vandal through the Checkuser tool. The related case is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal, however Rove2 is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Just a short while ago, I noticed an unblock request from this user and took a look. I originally declined the request, citing our policy against open proxies, but mentioned that if the user had a good reason, they could ask for IP block exemption according to our policies and the precedent set by User:Giggy's exemption. I made my first mistake here in not checking the user's own block log, having seen the autoblock removal request and thus assuming that they were not directly blocked. Rove2 later posted another request, stating that they are a missionary in China and unable to access Wikipedia due to the Great Firewall, and can only get to the site using Tor nodes. I (again) reviewed the user's edits and found nothing objectionable, so asked for some opinions on the #-admins IRC channel, not looking for a consensus necessarily, just advice. Before I was able to grant the exemption myself, User:Werdna gave the exemption to Rove2. I logged the reasoning here, noting that I supported the exemption. Shortly thereafter, Rove2 posts another unblock request, saying he is still blocked by username. Now I finally check his individual block log and find the sockpuppet checkuser block. Whoops. So, under a hail of "what were you thinking" type comments in the IRC channel, I decline the request, go to revoke the exemption only to be beaten to it by User:Prodego, remove the log entry, and come here for further discussion and input.

My opinion in this matter is that the Avril Vandal could have very well used the same Tor node as many otherwise innocent editors, and that the checkuser report could, in this one unusual instance, be incorrect. Other administrators feel that the Avril Vandal is exactly the type who would try to make us give them IP Exemption just to be a nuisance. I will take no further action on this account myself, but invite everyone's input into this situation. Sorry for making such a mess of things previously, and for not coming here in the first place. I accept full responsibility for this; please do not accuse Werdna of any misuse of the tools or ignorance, because it was my stupidity that led him to granting the exemption in the first place, and as I stated, I was about to grant it myself anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith and give him the exemption. That said, if Sam Korn gives a reason for the block that hasn't been noted above things could be different, but for now it seems he was blocked for using Tor which would make a CU block somewhat shaky. —Giggy 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While the situation as-stated could very well be the case, Sam is a competent checkuser and should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt in this case: We're second guessing someone who blocked the user not the ip or range. I would suggest asking Rove2 to please wait until we can get Sam's input on this thread, or at the very least, another checkuser to double-check the situation for us. Kylu (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no rush here, and given that the Avril vandal has been active, I suspect the CUs have a wealth of data on separating him out from other run of the mill tor users. Lets wait for Sam or some other CU to respond before doing stuff. MBisanz ^talk 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A checkuser far outweighs good faith here, the user can wait for Sam to comment. Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam has been contacted, on talk page and by email, so should come by to comment soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While we're here and waiting, the IP Exemption policy page isn't very clear on granting exemptions in this case (to allow editing from a Tor node/open proxy), and the discussion hasn't been active since mid-May. This is a forum where most everyone, including non-admins, checks in eventually, and so this is probably the best time and place to decide this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on facilities to tag tor edits as such in contributions and recentchanges, and to allow administrators to change the level of blocking for all of tor at once, as well as to disable tor access for individual users. Once my changes are live, we won't need to grant ipblock-exempt for individual users to use tor. All the trolls, once discovered using tor, will go back to their botnets and zombies. We could even make the abuse filter more sensitive to tor users, when I'm done. — Werdna • talk 07:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So, with that, all users would be "Tor-block exempt" by default, which we could revoke at any given time if it gets abused? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, input from me. Firstly, I am slightly peeved that this was raised at ANI first rather than asking me to have another look. It generates a good deal of unnecessary fuss -- indeed, the whole conversation about ipblockexempt is pretty irrelevant to this case.

The user came up on two different IPs that the Avril vandal has used. There was more technical evidence to link them than this, but it is best not to release it, for obvious reasons. Furthermore, some of the edits made were rather reminiscent of this troll -- one of the first edits was to ask a question at the Help Desk -- the troll has spent a long time trolling the Reference Desk. Making a userpage redirect to the talk page is also, bizarrely, something that vandals often do.

Despite all these things, the link is clearly less secure than I thought -- the post-block behaviour is extremely uncharacteristic. I am very willing to concede that this is not the Avril troll on this basis and on the basis that a common use of Tor has muddied the waters and confused things. I have therefore removed the block on Rove2.

Incidentally, making it clear on the CU results page which edits come through Tor would be extremely useful in cases like this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, and again, apologies for not contacting you first on this one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your wish may soon come true, Sam. I'm working on it :-). — Werdna • talk 01:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rastronomer (subtle vandalism, racist slogan in mainspace)

Since yesterday, User:Rastronomer edits the page Roma minority in Romania, adding "references" to the text (see his contributions). Have a look at the diff (his version, which he already pushed twice into the article): one of his "references" ("Romanian press about Roma people's ID.") is his google search; the second "reference" does not verify the text (as any Romanian speaker will be able to tell you). For the latter, see the text before Rastronomer's intervention: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates . However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes." Here is his contribution: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates <ref>[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/ro/features/setimes/articles/2006/11/20/reportage-01. However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes. "Roma people" are criminals!]</ref>" [my emphasis, and no, obviously not found in the source, if "quoting" is indeed what Rastronomer pretends s/he is doing]. This is obviously a racist message, which, in addition to his "subtle" vandalism, should warrant a block.

Also, given the surprisingly short time Rastronomer took to familiarize himself with wikipedia, the history of such incidents among my fellow Romanian editors, and the need for "adoption" he states on his front page, it would not surprise me if this guy were a sockpuppet of a known Romanian vandal/troll. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not an romanian. If would live in Romania, you would say that i'm right. How can I prove that romanian people think that Roma people are bad, ugly, stincky, they don't learn, they steal (even Romania's identity)? You're a gypsy that knows english...One at a milion...About sockpuppetry, I don't know who really is an...you or me?--Rastronomer (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All I will say is that I would also like admins to take into consideration the above comment when assessing the measures needed. Dahn (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Indef blocked for racism. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of West Virginia - EDIT WAR

After trying to resolve an issue between two editors and the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article, it has been suggested to move this to this Incidents page. Below is the text that has been copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Can someone please help resolve this. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---Start of copied text---

User:Bedford and User:Doncram are engaged in an edit war on the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article. They have repeatedly reverted each other's edits. I cautioned both users about the 3RR and tried to help resolve this by doing an edit of the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. The edit wars continue. It's probably time for an admin to investigate and take appropriate action. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it still has neutrality problems, then I must continue to add the templates. I was never asked if my problems with its neutrality were resolved; the tag was just blatantly removed. Over half of an organization's article, who's history must by necessity date from the 1860s-1870, if not from the 1700s (due to it must having been split off from the Grand Lodge of Virginia), being about a negative event can not stand. The only reason for this edit war is because user Doncram has making a nuisance of himself towards me for almost a month now, trying to torpedo many of my DYK nominations and whatnot, and this is his latest phase. If I hadn't commented on it on its DYK nomination, Doncram would not be the least bit interested in it. If this keeps up, I feel I must recommend it for AfD.--Bedford ^Pray 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was asked on the talk page and by edit comments to participate meaningfully on the talk page, which he has not chosen to do. It is asked there what on earth is the story, the source, any info at all which is available but which is not reflected or is being suppressed by anyone from the article. Bedford may have access to other sources, but the official public website of the organization is scant, and the organization chooses not to comment about the lawsuit which has been in the news. So, a new article does tend to show the available news. If that news was so bad, the organization would choose to respond publicly, which it does not.

Bedford's last big revert (which i eventually reverted) returned the article to a clearly inferior state, stripping out the development based on the official website of the organization which I had added, and returning it to show both "Under construction" and "Neutrality" tags. Since Bedford had not before and has not since contributed to the article besides tagging it and removing well-sourced material, i believe that his effective posting of a new "Under construction" tag was erroneous and careless at least. It's a perfectly fine new article, very well-referenced on every statement. So I don't get why he continues to tag the article and to make threats.

I appreciate that Truthanado stepped in to try to fix matters. I have provided the article with additional research and think it should now be cleared of Bedford's tags. doncram (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be moved to WP:ANI - or even WP:AN3. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---End of copied text---

Some more intervention related to DYK nomination of this article may be warranted. Bedford has been asked to add material to the article and to identify any source, story, material that anyone else is preventing from being added, to tell some potential "other side" that he projects is needed. However, I do not expect that he will contribute seriously to the article, because he is opposed to its development and in particular to the JWSpencer's nomination of the new article for DYK listing. The I expect in Bedford's mind, he wishes to "win" by causing delay; he has shown great stubbornness on other matters at DYK where he is himself quite a DYK medal-collector.

Another complication is potential COI that Bedford has with this topic. He has not answered a direct question of whether he is himself a Freemason, or to describe what is his association with Freemansons. I asked that on the DYK Template Talk page for the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article (it shows under Expiring Noms, July 12, in this now current version of the Template Talk DYK page. Bedford is associated, at least, in that he is interested enough in Freemasonry to have written an article on a Freemason memorial at Gettysburg, and self-nominated it for DYK in the July 17 section of the current DYK Template Talk. Further, in that DYK he has nominated a picture of himself posing with the memorial as illustration, which he would like to see displayed on the Mainpage of wikipedia. This seems perhaps associated with his extreme reaction to dismiss the DYK nomination for the West Virginia article, to disqualify it by stripping the WV article down to one sentence (too short for DYK), and to oppose it by coming up with new critical tags.

Although Truthanado indicated agreement with Bedford that there were neutrality issues in an edit comment, Truthanado's subsequent edits indicated to address neutrality have essentially rearranged material in the article, without finding as slanted any source or any particular information that would have needed to be removed. Other comment in the Talk page of the article has not found there to be a problem. So I ask for more speedy review of this article, and to demand that Bedford add material for balance to the article immediately and/or remove his DYK nomination opposition. doncram (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ultimately a content dispute that should be settled through dispute resolution. It doesn't require administrative action. --Farix (Talk) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not abn admin, but I'll take a look at it, as it's in my topic area. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 blocked

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

---

Resolved

 – User unblocked; blocking admin already party to arbitration case. Move along, nothing to see here. HiDrNick! 14:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) has blocked Dragon695 (talk · contribs) without sufficient cause as far as I can see. I have commented on the user talk and waited a little for FM to comment. Time to get some uninvolved opinions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A block 48 hours after the fact when Dragon695 acknowledged and removed his own personal attack 9 minutes after making it is wholly inappropriate. Blocking someone for opposing you in an arbitration and calling for you to be desysopped is a flagrant abuse of power. --B (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two above editors that this block appears to be retaliatory, and political. It would have been far better to ask User:FT2, for example, to review the situation and decide what to do. I am going to unblock because there is no satisfactory basis stated for the block, and there are now three administrators who think it was unwise. Even if there is some hidden, non-transparent rationale for the block FeloniousMonk, as a named party in the case beneath the claimed incivility, is exactly the wrong administrator to take this action. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2? After his one-man RFAR of members of the group that Dragon695 has been harassing? Why am I not surprised you'd suggest him; he's about as uninvolved as you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Immediately unblock - FM is clearly involved. This is enough for him to desysopped without his history. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely a bad block. FM was not an uninvolved administrator. Kelly ^hi! 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Entirely endorse the unblocking. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Unblock with a quickness. Somebody broke the rule. HiDrNick! 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have unblocked Dragon695.Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Only now saw this, I support the unblock, FM was involved. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • All in all, this was an incredibly stupid move by FM. When your use of the tools is being heavily scrutinised, you need to follow the rulebook to the letter. This may be the straw to break the camel's back and lead to a desysopping. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I doubt it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)Since there's already an ongoing arbitration case (granted, it's moving at a glacial pace), I think the most productive course would be to simply add this to the evidence section there, and archive this thread - unless someone thinks that FM may wish to offer some kind of valid defense of his actions here. But honestly I can't think of what that defense might be. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never been involved in any way with Dragon695. I was asked to look at a number of his comments, and in so doing I found him to indeed be incivil and harassing. Chronically. I find it telling that most of those above, Kelly, B, Jehochman, Sceptre, accusing me being 'involved' with Dragon695 are themselves far more involved with Dragon695, both here and at WikipediaReview. In fact, with one exception, those above opposing this are all his friends from there. Interesting. Care to explain how you're uninvolved enought to pass judgement on a block of your friend? I'd rather truly neutral admins review Dragon695's behavior, rathter than all his pals. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Asked by who? I believe Kelly and Jehochman do not post on Wikipedia Review. I may be wrong. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They are all part of the group of friends at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM, by involved I meant this. You should have recused from blocking anyone who has endorsed the notion of de-sysopping you through an RfAr. It can't help looking to some like you're getting back at Dragon, even if that's not what you had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Never saw his comment at the RFAR. Furthermore, there's no policy requiring adims to recuse themselves against everyone who has a personal gripe. In fact, there's a long convention at Wikipedia of just the opposite. Otherwise it's simply too easy for chronic troublemakers to game the system by going out and calling for every admin they're concerned about to step down. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would still appreciate knowing who asked you to look into his behaviour. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume it was User:Jim62sch, based on this. Kelly ^hi! 14:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather rich for you, FM, to speak about groups of friends sticking together. No way should you have blocked Dragon695. Block your friends, unblock your enemies? Sure. Unblock your friends, block your enemies? No way... ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Excuse me, I have never posted at WikipediaReview, so put away your tar and feathers. I have no involvement with Dragon695 whatsoever. Your response is completely inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a battleground. This "for me or against me" approach is the antithisis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. FeloniousMonk, now would be an excellent time for you to do the honorable thing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I said "are themselves far more involved with Dragon695, both here and at WikipediaReview. You have been supportive of this group of editors seen here in opposition to me in the past. Do I need to provide diffs. You're hardly uninvolved. In fact, you're far more involved with Dragnon695 than I. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

all nicely lined up for me — FM, maybe, just maybe, it's you and not everybody else. user:Everyme 14:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Echo Jehochman: You really need to stop equating WR posters to absolute evil. It's a massive assumption of bad faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I for one am not involved in WR in any way whatsoever, nor a "pal" of Dragon, and I fully agree that the block is horribly inappropriate, and most obviously so. Accusing people who —on a reasonably solid basis— call into question the neutrality of your judgement instead of simply apologising for this wildly inappropriate action means that enough is finally enough. Please take this episode as proof that you are unfit to wield the tools, and show some decency by asking for them to be removed yourself. user:Everyme 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec*lots) A group of friends? I have like 15 posts ever to Wikipedia Review. In any event, if I had made a block or an unblock, you might have an argument. But I didn't. You did. You abused your admin privileges by blocking someone who is calling for your desysopping in this arbcom case. Trying to make this a referendum on Wikipedia Review is nothing but a distraction. The fact is, your use of the admin tools has been nothing but abusive. I have laid this out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk. If you think this is all about WR, that's a you problem, not a me problem. --B (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been a supporter of Dragon695, of course you'd say something like that. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. I don't support or oppose him. He agrees with the obvious conclusion that you should be desysopped, so I agree with him there. He believes that SlimVirgin should be desysopped, which I disagree with and have said repeatedly on the case that I disagree with, so I disagree with him there. I don't support or oppose him and am frankly indifferent to him, beyond the mutual respect that I have for any Wikipedian in good standing who edits in good faith. --B (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse unblocking. I do not post at Wikipedia Review and I have not previously been involved with FeloniousMonk or Dragon695 as far as I know. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on evidence posted here and on the talk page of Dragon, I endorse the unblocking. Rudget (logs) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I went to get some water from the well, but it tastes funny... Sceptre ^(talk) 14:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM, this block was very wrong on all kinds of grounds. You were wrong to make it. You do not then get away with that by attacking all those who criticise you. This behaviour is right out of order. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never posted at WR (I refuse to give them my e-mail address), I am not involved in the overarching dispute between FM and Dragon695 (and their supporters and detractors), and I still endorse the unblock. Chronic incivility does not result in a ex post facto block, two days after the supposed trigger. Initiate a Request for Comment/User if necessary, but don't drop the banhammer on someone with whom one is in dispute. Based on FM's knowledge of Dragon695's activities on WR, I think it is safe to say that he recognized a dispute. Horologium (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this (like pretty much everything else these days) is being portrayed as yet another battle in the Great War Between Good and Evil, I'd like to chime in and say the block was quite inappropriate, and should be registered as exhibit "A" on the evidence arbcom page. The WR reference is especially ironic given that in the same thread, SV imported a WR allegation and used it against Alison and Lar, something which is supposed to be a serious "no-no" even when the allegations turn out to be true. I'm registering my opinion here as someone who's never interacted with any of these editors, nor ever posted on Wikipedia Review, so there can be no charges of group behavior on my part. ATren (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM should have reported this to the case clerks rather than blocking someone he's involved with vis a vis the arb case. I'm glad to see the community quickly remedied this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree that reporting this to the case clerks is the way to go, but the record of ArbCom support for case clerk actions in this case is... well... is there a word that means "worse than abysmal"? Maybe just report it to an uninvolved admin, in future. We don't want to run out of clerks before this case closes. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia Review sucks on a whole, doesn't mean all of the users there suck. The trolls from WR however, aren't appreciated. Beam 15:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who would that be? Third time you've been asked that. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing FM as being involved. Can someone explain to me how he was involved? Right now I'm not seeing it(I might be missing something here). While we're at it, can someone explain how Dragon695 has not been uncivil? The following recent difs for example [27] [28] and [29] are highly uncivil blockworthy comments. Telling people to go crying back to another user's talk page is unacceptable regardless of the editors involved. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not FM was involved doesn't matter on the ANI front. The point to make here is that the block was lousy and this has been resolved. Move all questions of "involvement" to the arbcom page. Wizardman 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please archive this before it turns into another BADSITES flamefest. No further admin action is required; further opinions should go to the Arbitration case. Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Reminder: I'm unarchiving this for now, but remember that we're discussing the block/unblock, involvement, and the diffs presented. I better not see any mudslinging going on or else I'm re-archiving this, as that accomplishes nothing. Wizardman 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is reopened I'll just quote from the relevant difs explicitly: From 4 days ago "Waah! Waah! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why don't you go crying back to MONGO's talk-page and see what you can tattle on Viridae for next" [30]. Less than 5 hours ago refers to other editors as "riff-raff". Dragon695 has a history of serious incivility and has been recently uncivil. Whether or not FM is the person who should do it, this Dragon should be blocked. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Comments like that demand an instant block. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys just posted the same diff twice. The same one that was posted above as a result of the original block. Not sure what that's trying to prove. The other two I'm still looking at the context for. Wizardman 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe there is far more to this situation than meets the eye, particularly with the one-sided description of certain parties above.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Beam 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Same diff twice? I don't see that. In any case, this too is problematic. Even though it was redacted, the post still presents a problem. I'm pretty sure I can find more example with relative ease, but I'd prefer to not need to do so. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to filll) Maybe, maybe not. I haven't really kept myself up to date with the arbitration case and the involvement of the two editors, granted, we know the sides of both parties at this point. This dispute has gotten to the point where you could name an editor who hasn't commented yet and I could probably nail what the opinion of said editor will be. However, I wonder what role the blocking policy itself plays in this. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, yet blocking for this kinda stuff seems to be argued as both punitive and preventative due to it being more long-term. This is where it gets a little confusing, I think. Wizardman 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 has been warned by myself just 2 days ago about a personal attack (he then withdrew it), and a couple of times by FT2 about civility, however, I don't think a block is warranted, even by an outsider, for what's cited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Brief description with core problem

For those of us who are actually uninvolved, would someone be willing to write out a quick, close-to-neutral explanation of what led up to Dragon's block? Without too much commentary, if possible, so that we can decide for ourselves if it was justified or not? That would be very helpful. Also, my understanding of the meta-situation is that:

1. Dragon and FM have not been involved with one another in any meaningful way.
2. Many of the people who were alleged to post on WR do not actually post there.

Thanks, Antelan 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't have anything to do with this! That site holds way too much sway in some people's mind. I agree, I'd like a rundown of the block without the drama. Beam 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I see the current dispute (trying to be as neutral as possible, I hope I succeed): FelonoiusMonk blocked Dragon695 for (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Chronic incivility). The block was later overturned by apparent consensus, though this is being disputed (both the consensus and block). The diffs provided are supported by one side as block-worthy, which opposed by the other as the block being punitive. The attacks themselves are in dispute, one side saying they're obviously a problem, the other saying one was removed by Dragon, the others either borderline or not a big issue. Then, after all that, there's the question of how involved FM has been with Dragon, and this is also where WR comes into play (though even this is in question). One side says FM and Dragon have no connection, other than maybe the arbcom case, though that's iffy. The other side says FM's very involved not just because of the arbcom case, but because of WR criticism by FM and Dragon being a member, as well as them being on different sides of this case. The level of WR being a factor varies among people from not one at all to quite a bit. This is how I see it. Wizardman 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, an explanation of the events proceeding it? ...oops. Well, the above's a description of after the block then, I guess. I need to pay more attention. Wizardman 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a good description though. If I hadn't already known all that, I would now. ;) Beam 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was still a helpful catch-me-up. Thanks! Antelan 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Intriguing that this block is contested as stale. At 16:18, 18 July 2008, Dragon695 describes other editors as "an embaressing bunch of fanatics", then quickly "refactors" that part of his comment.[31] When the "vitriol" still in the history is pointed out Dragon695's response is "Shoo! Complaining about something that I refactored a moment later is silly",[32] but just under an hour later Dragon695 describes the other editors as "riff-raff" and says "The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control."[33], just 26 minutes before being blocked. The diffs have been posted as I understand it, and the abuse was certainly current, or are editors arguing that such personal attacks are acceptable? . . dave souza, talk 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that this kind of repeated behavior is acceptable, and even should be encouraged I find somewhat incredible, given our current climate of sensitivity to personal attacks and incivility. I thought we were being more strict and less lenient about violations of WP:CIVIL? What have I missed? Are these examples for my list of strange inconsistent CIVIL standards? Sure seems like it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly who was Dragon695 attacking with those comments? I thought there was no ID cabal, despite the fact that certain unnamed editors always show up in disputes, wherever they may occur, that involve certain other unnamed editors. Kelly ^hi! 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, are you suggesting that the acceptability of personal attacks depends on who's being attacked? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said that. Kelly ^hi! 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean then? Hmmm...interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I should say, my only worry was that FM had made the block. He's since said he was unaware of Dragon's statement in his RfAr, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's something I don't understand. At 12:45 UTC (I think that's right), FeloniousMonk gave a formal warning to Dragon695 as a result of the comment on Ed Poor's talk page.[34] This is fine in and of itself. However, three minutes later, he was blocked by FM,[35] and was notified 11 minutes after the original warning.[36] Dragon695 made no edits during that three/eleven minute timespan, so if FM said, and I quote, "One more like this and I will take action to ensure that it stops.", then why was he blocked before "one more like this" ever occurred? That's my question now. Wizardman 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's already been explained. FM issued a warning, continued to look at Dragon's behaviour and then blocked him: at least that's what I get out of what FM has stated. Not sure how there could be any confusion, other than a confusion caused by looking at the wrong part of the issue or by dissmissing some information or by not looking at the big picture. Not sure which, if any, of these scenarios are accurate, but I can see no other explanation for any confusion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AH, okay, I get it now. I felt that the "one more time" implied that in the future he would block Dragon, rather than a couple minutes later. If it's true that the block came after a look through the contribs, then that makes the block at least somewhat punitive, and as a result iffy. Wizardman 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and you are able to tell just like that, what is punitive and what is preventative? Pray tell, how do you do this? Is there some magical formula you could enlighten us with? Perhaps you could write an essay on this explaining the fine points and details with maybe some evidence and quantitative analysis to back up your assertions, which might appear gratuitous to some otherwise.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I re-read the blocking policy, which says that a block is acceptable during persistent disruption or harassment. The question is what does persistent mean. Are some personal attacks over a few minutes/hours blockable, yet some over a few days/weeks are not? That seems to be what is being accepted by many people above, and I can understand your concern. The way I see it, the line between civility issues calling for a block, and civility issues calling for an RFC are different. Many, more sudden outbursts would be block-worthy, yet many spread out over time (Which FM is arguing in support of, based on the comment "I see that you chronically are incivil and bent on harassing others"[37]) would be more worthy of an RFC, especially if the user is a productive editor in lieu of the incivility. (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2 accomplished far more than a block ever would've done) That being said, what i am saying is if Dragon was as bad as you guys are implying, then that was the route to take. Wizardman 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695's statement

I was angry at what I consider to be a massive campaign against Ed Poor's RFA. I rarely, if ever, agree with Ed on anything, but I felt the opposes were over the top. My comment about riff-raff is not uncivil. Riff-raff is a child's word, if I wanted to be insulting or uncivil I would have used much harsher words than that, I assure you. Further, I felt that many of the attacks on Ed by the opposition were far worse than my own, even the before-refactored comment. I was responding to my belief that Ed Poor needs should be permitted to bring his dissent to the Intelligent Design and Global Warming articles, despite the fact I totally disagree with his viewpoint. Keeping controversial articles from becoming walled gardens of woo is a goal that Wikipedia should seek to achieve. We cannot allow even the most righteous people to WP:OWN whole swaths of subject matter. Not to be pointed, but some in the greater scientific community were patently wrong on eugenics, the popular bastardization of Darwin's natural selection, at the turn of the 20th century. I've been reading an excellent book, War Against the Weak by Edwin Black, which catalogs just how it was that a group of determined American and British scientists popularized this hideous science and even directly inspired the tactics of Hitler. It is a chilling account of what happens when determined scientists insist that their viewpoint is the only viewpoint that matters and how uncritical groupthink led to horrendous travesties being perpetrated against our poor and sick at that time. My point is that groupthink is bad. Refusing to debate opposing views is bad. Ed brings the necessary questioning which ultimately results in better articles because lazy and poorly sourced material is kept out, while some space is given for the opposing viewpoint. I feel that my fellow colleagues treatment of Ed, based mostly on his behavior on another project - which by the way is admittedly slanted (the "conserv" in CP should have been the hint) - was awful. My comments were not directed at anyone in particular and were only meant as an attempt to console Ed on his good faith attempt to serve the community again. Please do not wheel war over this block. I will just go do some move to commons until it is resolved satisfactorily. Cheers! --Dragon695 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

. Calling other editors "riff-raff" is unacceptable. This entire conversation also has the off-the-wall doublething that the same editors are saying that this is part of the evil ID-cabal while at the same time arguing that Dragon's comments weren't directed at any editors in particular. Those are mutually contradictory claims. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ here. Riff-raff is a term we should eschew, and Dragon695 knows better. I've counseled Dragon695 about being the better man in his dealings before (for many of the folk he runs up against, it's not too hard to do, really). He should have known better. But the block still stinketh, it was by a highly involved editor with little warning, against a contributor with no prior record of blocks. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, Dragon695 is still autoblocked, could someone find and fix it? Kelly ^hi! 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I just tried but it looks like the autoblock has now been lifted - Alison ^❤ 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... saying that "those above opposing this are all his friends from there" [38] and they're "all part of the group of friends at Wikipedia" [39], and the whole bunch is a "group of editors seen here in opposition to me" [40] is fair comment, but calling out a different group of editors with "The level of abuse by those I would normally side with is completely out of control." [41] is blockable incivility? Seems to be a double standard. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

None of that is good either and I'd strongly prefer FM didn't do that. But none of his comments have been as bad as Dragon's. Calling people "riff-raff" isn't ok and the fact that Dragon isn't even willing to acknowledge that that isn't ok should be disturbing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, had I the time and patience to point out the flaws in your statement I would, but as I have neither, I won't. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is statement is riddled with inaccuracies and is uniquely uncompelling. So the suggestion that all those who did not vote to support Ed Poor are all supposed to be part of some deep dark conspiracy? Do you have any proof of that? At what point did the "oppose" votes from those in this purported cabal appear on the Ed Poor RfA page? Seems to me his RfA was doomed no matter what. But it is a convenient excuse to use. As for the rest of it, if the word "silly" is deemed a blockable offense, or the phrase "amazingly wrong" is deemed to be a blockable offense, or the word "nonsense" is uncivil, etc, but "riff-raff" and other commentary by this editor is perfectly acceptable, I believe we are facing a lovely double standard here. Most interesting.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this seems to set new standards of what's to be accepted as "civility". Will try to keep in mind the useful phrase, and as an aside "scientists" were by no means the only ones promoting eugenics in the early 20th century, a movement which had much more to do with earlier ideas of heredity and Mendelian ideas of genetics than with natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, Dave. I suppose that this and a few other recent incident show that we're pretty much free to say what we want, and that an ad hom is every bit as apropriate as an ad rem. Cool.

And yes, social darwinism and uegenics plucked at whatever straws they could find to support the hatred and stupidity inherent in each. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess my thanks were premature. Please, for the sake of us all, do not debate relationships between fascism and Darwinism on the admin noticeboard. Take your content disputes to the appropriate dispute resolution forum, thank you. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At risk of reigniting old feuds, is anyone surprised at FM's defenders all showing up at once, and who they are? I kinda feel like saying Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here.... SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All showing up at once? Surely you don't mean to suggest anyone would organize some sort of joint defense to combat harassment by the "WR trolls" in some off-wiki venue. Who could fathom such a thing? <grin> :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with having this page watch-listed? That is how I found out about it. Also I have JoshuaZ's talk page watch-listed. Please point me to the place in policy where this is explicitly forbidden.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no-- you're quite correct-- there's no need to break out the secret lists to explain people showing up at ANI. Hence the double-grin. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with having pages watchlisted.. the average observer might look at it and wonder how come a certain group of editors have a habit of always showing up at the same time, like a pack of lions trying to bring down a wildebeest, however.. SirFozzie (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, we all agree that it's completely astonishly coincidental when the members and/or supporters of Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design just happen to show up at a dispute involving one of their fellow travelers - wherever that dispute may be. RfA, RfAR, IfD, user talk pages - it doesn't matter. Apparently those folks are telepathic, there simply can't be any coordination happening. Kelly ^hi! 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest. It isn't any more astonishing that a lot of editors with one opinion show up than that a lot of editors with another opinion show up. A lot of the people here for example could be easily described as people who mysteriously show up whenever FM is involved. It doesn't require cabals or such, just keeping track of what edits other people you know are making or what is going on on their talk pages. Instead of paranoia and mudslinging we need to focus on the issue at hand, whether Dragon's comments violated WP:CIVIL. There's also an amazing piece of doublethink going on here in that people are claiming that Dragon's comments weren't really directed at any editors at the same time they make accusations that the editors it was directed at form a some sort of evil cabal. I mean really. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is telepathy an example of Darwinism or Creationism? Minkythecat (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shush! Telepathy is a gift from the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked that this discussion was burbling along for quite some time and then all of a sudden when a large faction of the ID cabal concerned editors all turns up at the same time, nefarious forces start nattering negatively about non coincidental behaviour. Please, people, assume good faith here. It's strictly coincidence that Filll, Dave souza, Jim62sch, all turned up when they did. Why on earth would anyone assume there was any off wiki collusion? That is so patently unfair. Now, round up the usual suspects, I've some gambling winnings to collect. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Or see my comment above. One could just as well claim that the editors including you Lar who normally oppose FM are just happening to show up. Frankly, it looks just as likely to me that the people in favor of the block are coordinating off-wiki as it looks like the people against the block are. Indeed, this topic has already been mentioned in multiple threads on WR. So again, instead of the paranoia and the mudslinging let's please focus on the topic at hand. Ok? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, a certain segment of the population is, for a fact, known to have been doing stealth-canvassing and coordination in the past. It's not paranoia once you have the proof. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is far more evidence of an anti-FM cabal operating here than anything else. So if we go on the basis of the strongest evidence, Lar, SirFozzie, B and several others should be vilified and sanctioned for their cabalistic practices, clearly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) That's funny, Filll. Remind me again, which group posts here more? And um.. which group posted here first? Just curious. Nice job at trying "I know you are, but what am I?".. what's next, "I'm rubber and you're glue?" SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This has downgraded into mudslinging again. This time I'm not unarchiving. Wizardman 22:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Thirusivaperur

Thirusivaperur (talk · contribs) is giving me a mindless edit war at History of Hinduism. That's just Wikipedia as it is, I suppose. But now he is spamming my talkpage with "final warnings" for "vandalism") -- I do not feel I am required to take that. This chap could do with a lecture on proper procedure on consensus-building (not that it will likely do any good, I'm afraid). --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GFDL confusion or just plain trolling? Can you guess the puppeteer?

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

A new account, Jerusalem53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) just surfaced and has been adding the full text of the GFDL license to article pages. There's also been other vandalism.

This is clearly a sockpuppet of someone who's been around here before. My question here is: who? Does this meet a familiar pattern? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PS On the the very slim chance this is not a reappearing long-term troll, I've given a last warning, not a block.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. If people would more consistently notify when they revert vandalism, might have been caught sooner. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked this account after another incident.

I'm still curious about the pattern if anyone recognizes it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

Right decision. It's a vandalism-only account. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that it's a sock of someone. I've not found any familiar pattern. I think we should close this case. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter if its a sock? Are we going to super-block it if it is? Its a vandalism-only account people, report to AIV, block, move on. Mr.Z-man 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Super-block"? No. Just curious, that's all. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential problem user?

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk · contribs)

Despite the fact that Milhouse will never be a meme, this user's contribs concern me. Forced meme and anti-Scientology are two major red flags. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when was being associated with Anonymous not tolerated on Wikipedia?--Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhouse will never be a meme, is a meme. Sorry. Beam 17:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nur110

{{resolved|... - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)}}

User:Nur110 is a likely sockpuppet of User:SecretChiefs3, who has engaged in:

• Creating attack pages[42]
• Talk page vandalism [43]

This pattern fits that of a particulary bellicose and belligerent sock User:Thamarih. That editor blanked the warnings in June. See the older version for the whole story. MARussellPESE (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

• That is not an attack page.
• That is not talk page vandalism.

It looks like a malformed Sockpuppetry report. I've fixed it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unresolved this, per concerns of the complainant. I'll just say that if you are not engaging in sockpuppetry, then you've got nothing to be concerned about. SSP reports are somewhat common. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed User:Nur110 is a sockpuppet of User:SecretChiefs3.

WP:ATP says that "A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. As the subject of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MARussellPESE, I'm asking that it be deleted. MARussellPESE (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander of me on the talk page of hAl

Unresolved

User HAl hs engaged in slander of my good name on his talk page. It is my belief that he has used a ip to start the slander and then reply to himself. I have requested that he remove the slander and he has not. He replied to the request. User hAl regularly removes things from his talk page, leaving this slander in place is clearly a personal attack. I request it be removed and that hAl be warned about replacing the slander. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Slander" is a bit over the top for him simply agreeing with someone else that you may be a sock. And then you turned around here and accuse him of socking. That said, calling you a "git" is way out of line. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only person who pointed out that leaving the slander in place was not a good idea. I have requested it be removed. User hAl regularly deletes the contents of his talk page. The fact that he is leaving the section in place speaks for itself. Is it sop to allow people to discuss other people and bring unfounded accusations against them? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick: slander is verbal, libel is written. Neither of which really apply here.

Second, considering someone a potential sock puppet is not assuming good faith, but it's not strictly against the rules either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that interpitation of the events is the fact that the account that started the section in question is a single edit account. This is not 2 editors discussing the possibility of someone being a sockpuppet. This is a case of someone posting lies about another editor. It is not a discussion of why they think I am someone else.

Are you saying that any editor can state unfounded accusations about another editor? That they can write whatever they want to, and there is nothing that can be done? AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing the exact same thing you accuse HAl of doing, by assuming the IP is him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:T-rex trolling AfD

T-rex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Once again, User:T-rex is trolling AfD discussions. After being particularly disruptive here, he has taken to trolling this current one. I think it is obvious from his talk page that he does not take AfD discussions seriously, and intends to be purposely disruptive. DarkAudit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not trolling. In the first AfD you linked to my comment was "Keep - appears to have a considerable following, and to be notable within his expertise." in the second AfD you liked my comment was "Keep". how either of those are out of place at an afd is beyond me. However if it really bothers you that much, I won't comment on a single afd for the next five days --T-rex 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency here are all the afd's i have commented on within the past two days. [44] [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85]. If you see a pattern of trolling there feel free to let me know... --T-rex 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You neglect to mention the rest of the exchange in the first AfD, which not only adds nothing to the debate, but clearly shows intent to disrupt. The message to your talk page after your reasonless "keep" in the second, combined with your reply also shows intent to disrupt and not meaningfully contribute. DarkAudit (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people asked questions, so I answered them. They may not have liked my responces, but thats not my fault. An exchange is not a bad thing, but for what AfD is designed for, it is supposed to be a discussion. If there is any trolling here it is you bringing this to ANI just because you disagreed with me on the deletion of some article. I am done discussing this. --T-rex 16:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. First, Dark Audit, don't start a post with "once again" without a link to the "once", it's rather accusatory, presumptious, and bad faith. When was T-rex previously "trolling"? (to use your words) (its a rhetorical question). Second, T-rex, stop replying to everything at AfD. Yes, its a discussion, so if you "just have to", do it nicer, your opinion might actually carry some weight. The Steve Terada posts of yours were a titch aggravating, but not completely unreasonable, and I daresay, they were not "trolling" (that's a word thrown around way too much.). This is a editorial dispute, I have no idea what you would like administrative assistance with DarkAudit. It's a big wiki, those two afds are rather lame/tame/mild compared to some of the other more ridiculous ones. Don't you think that if any editor says "It's notable, I checked, and no I'm not going to link my evidence here, go get it yourself" is going to have their "opinion" weighted accordingly by the closing admin? This does not need to be on AN/I. Keeper ǀ 76 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to second the thoughts on "trolling": it's one-word assumption of bad faith, the use of which would only be (rather weakly) justified by (a high standard of) proof that the primary intent of the alleged offender really was to aggravate and provoke. Alai (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I read the links provided by the accuser (not the TL;DR diffs from t-rex). It looks like T-rex needed to be upgraded about his behavior in the first afd, which he was. the second link was just absurd. Nothing in that link showed trex being provocative or uncivil. He made a comment at afd, the comment was disputed. the exchange that followed was terse and sarcastic but nothing like trolling. The fact that this went to AN/I seems a bit much. It shows a failure to assume good faith and a failure to solve things at the lowest level possible. I'm not endorsing trex's comments here, just chiming in with some thoughts. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Absurd to not giving in to his expected response? I'm sorry if I didn't play along long enough. DarkAudit (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, absurd that that exchange in particular led to the AN/I. I expected an exchange like that to be linked by T-Rex as evidence of his ability to comment in an AfD without trolling, not linked as an accusation of his incivility. You don't need to play along with him. If he irks you then just ignore him. If you try to ignore him and he seeks you out (either on your talk page or elsewhere), then you should bring it to AN/I. Otherwise you should try to solve this at the lowest level possible. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree some of his comments are less than helpful, given the other AFDs he listed, I fail to see how one can come to the conclusion "that he does not take AfD discussions seriously, and intends to be purposely disruptive." I think a reminder that the burden of evidence falls on those wishing to keep the article is sufficient. Mr.Z-man 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion nominations by single-purpose accounts

This seems clearly actionable to me, but I invite comment lest I give the appearance of being unduly "involved" in an earlier iteration of this matter. We have a deletion nomination of new prog by the confusingly-named and self-confessed single-purpose account DeletionAccount. Any reason not to speedily close and block, respectively? (This is partly a matter for inappropriate user name, partly of deletion process, and assorted other stuff besides, so I'm splitting the difference and bringing it here.) Alai (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for the username, anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The user had agreed to a user page note clarifying they aren't an admin. I don't see the name as inherently blockworthy. The contribs seem acceptable - one AFD nomination already closed as delete and another seemingly reasonable AFD nomination. I don't see any intent of abuse here, and so I don't see any reason for admin action. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The name is inherently misleading - "deletion account" incorrectly suggests it is a human or bot agent within Wikipedia with an official charter to delete things. Since the problem is intrinsic to the name, the disclaimer doesn't cure it. Even with the disclaimer it suggests that it's okay for an account to exist on Wikipedia with no purpose other than deleting articles, and I'm not so sure about that. Is it okay per WP:SOCK to set up a named account as an alternate identity for the [[ sole purpose of making non-snowball deletion nominations? Seems disruptive and a likely good hand/bad problem. Wikidemo (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As the editor usually uses an IP username (not logged in), they can't create AFD noms under their usual account. I agree the name isn't optimal, which I why I worked out the disclaimer with the editor earlier. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps they should not be starting AfDs. Are IP accounts allowed to create socks in order to participate in controversial meta discussions in which only registered users are allowed? It seems to me there's an active discussion issue and an Arbcom ruling discouraging use of socks on meta pages. Or turning this around, is a controversial editor allowed to use an IP sock for their uncontroversial edits? At a minimum they ought to disclose their IP account, in which case there's no point using an IP. Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The moment of cogdis that I experienced on receiving the message suggests to me that it's misleading in exactly the way Wikidemo suggests. Since the editor in question was far from helpful in resolving that aspect, I support Gwen Gale's action on those grounds, at the very least. If people wish to let the AFD run its course on merit, that's fine by me, so as an 'incident', this is essentially resolved. On the wider issue of SPA accounts for deletion, I've left a comment at WT:AFD. Alai (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From the folks that brought you "Keith Steve Howard"...

• "Yu-Gi-Oh! - The Abridged Series" (a popular fandub of the aforementioned anime) has said in its latest episode "Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged; according to Wikipedia, we don't exist". Now there seems to be a lot of efforts to get an article created under a variety of titles. I recall marking two different titles for speedy deletion in the past two days. We should probably be on the lookout... in America. ._. JuJube (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that quite a few versions of the title are already salted. (in America) shoy (reactions) 18:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Resolved

 – Protected; refer to Talk:Singapore Airlines. —Kurykh 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin who has a few hours available take a look at Singapore Airlines? This article is too high profile to have as many edit disputes as we are seeing again. Since I occasionally edit the article I'm not the best person to protect the article. I did it once in the past and announced that here so that anyone could override that action if I acted in bad faith. No one did, but several editors were not happy. However this resulted in a stable article for a while, even after protection was lifted. This article and a few related ones suffer from WP:OWN in my opinion. Discussion on the Mediation Cabal seems to produce a resolution that lasts for a while and when someone tries to act on the consensus and we get edit wars and probably WP:CIVIL violations all over the place. This has also been discussed on talk pages and in the WP:AIRLINES project. In my opinion, and I feel in the the opinion of others, there is consensus. However some editors continue to believe that consensus does not apply to several articles including this one. A few diffs will not help, just look at the edit history and some of the other discussions and you should be able to stop the problem.

I think it is time to protect this article again to stop the constant reverts. As I said above this article has too high of a profile for it to be receiving this kind of treatment. To any admin who decides to follow up, I'd request that you try to look through the various previous discussions and then protect the article in a state that reflects the consensus achieved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected and note posted on talk page. Discuss further on relevant talk page. —Kurykh 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal of Tasc0

Resolved

 – User indefblocked by Angusmclellan following overwhelming agreement. No administrator is willing to unblock and thus the user is considered banned. --B (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to propose a community ban of Tasc0 (talk · contribs). He repeatedly makes flagrant personal attacks. He was indefinitely blocked in February for this horrific threat. Fred Bauder, after talking with him, was willing to give him a second chance. Anetode (talk · contribs) blocked him for incivility on June 10, but after Tasc0 promised to stop making derogatory comments, Anetode unblocked him. Following this edit summary, Anetode reinstated the block and Tasc0 replied with yet another personal attack. His threat to Ronnotel is about the most horrific I had ever seen on Wikipedia and he probably should have been banned indefinitely after that. I think he has sufficiently demonstrated no willingness to change and it is now time to reinstate the indefinite block and consider him to be community banned. --B (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - It was very generous of Anetode to allow this person a second chance after the horrific derogatory marks he made initially, and it appears he has not learned. JBsupreme (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why was this person ever, ever unblocked after that first comment? Wow. Endorse ban Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I would like to know what he said to Fred Bauder. And what he has said to get himself unblocked other times. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's my recollection of events. Initially, Ronnotel had protected Tasc0's talk page. I unprotected it to facilitate communication. At the time, I knew Tasc0 to be a good faith user and thought (although I now believe I was in error) that this comment was way out of character for him. I encouraged him to apologize for his threat and said that if he would do so, it would open the door to reconsidering the indefinite block at some point in the very distant future (something well over a month). Tasc0 was only interested in lawyering over the block (saying that Ronnotel shouldn't have blocked him) and not at all interested in apologizing. He demonstrated to me no recognition that he alone was responsible for his conduct and the consequences. You can see his talk page at that point in time here. I had decided that there wasn't anything to pursue since he was more interested in going after Ronnotel than he was in apologizing. Where I left it off was informing him that he obviously wasn't getting it - neither I nor anyone else was interested in arguing over who should block him. He made a horrible threat and that was the only issue. I left off by informing him of his avenue for appeal to the arbitration committee. A few days later, Fred Bauder reduced the block to a month, so I assume he contacted the arbs directly. --B (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. I see he's now blocked for 3 months -- that should be extended to indefinite. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wikipedia does not need users with that bad of an attitude. —Travis^talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite ban. Looking at his talk page history and block log, he's been given too many chances to improve his behavior, none of which he's taken us up on. His conduct before, during, and after each block is atrocious, and whatever he said to get his indefinite block reduced, I highly doubt it's going to work again. We don't need editors who can't work with others politely. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that there are other ways we can deal with these kinds of personal attacks. Instead of banning, you first give a warning and then when the personal attacks continue you simply tag the user page and the talk page of the user with a text that says that this user cannot control himself and may engage in personal attacks and give the links to all the personal attacks. The user page must then be protected, of course.

What matters is that editors on wikipedia know what to expect. Just like in real life, a child needs to learn that not all creatures are the same: people are different from dogs and cats and they in turn are different from lions, crockodiles and snakes. That doesn't mean that we cannot engage with these animals or that we have to kill them all. It just means that you need to be prepared.

For the tagged users, it means that they will have to live with the nameing and shaming. The only way for them to get rehabilitated is by showing that they can abstain from personal attacks for a long period. Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you reminded me of this template, which was created for another user. I agree that that is sometimes the best course of action, but in the case of personal attacks, no, the user has to be stopped - especially with severe threats that not only cross the line, but blow it to smithereens like the diff you cited. Personal attacks aren't limited only to the user namespace, and this user has had more than enough chances to stop. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Ronnotel (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Months is more than enough for saying "stalking ass." Yes that analrape retarded kids bit was very incivil and jerkish, but if he wasn't indef banned for that, you can't go back and punish him for it now. 3 months is ok, 6 months is good, any more than that is punitive imho. Beam 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a ban for saying "stalking ass". It's a ban for the cumulative conduct of this user. Think about Marcus Vick. Prior to his dismissal from Tech, he stomped on the leg of an opposing player. The school had decided to suspend him for two games and Frank Beamer was on his way to deliver that message. Then, it came out, because some people on a UVA message board with nothing better to do were searching police reports, that he had gotten a speeding ticket while driving with a license that had been suspended on a technicality. The school decided instead to simply dismiss him from the football team. So was Marcus Vick dismissed from Virginia Tech for a speeding ticket? No. He was dismissed for the his cumulative conduct over his time there - the speeding ticket was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Similarly, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. We have given this user repeated "second chances" and with this comment, he continues to demonstrate a lack of awareness that the consequences of his actions are HIS OWN FAULT, not the fault of the admin that blocks him. There just isn't much to work with here. --B (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems this user is already blocked, has there been any attempt to stop his bad behavior before or after the block? –BuickCenturyDriver 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read my summary above. He was blocked in February for a terrible threat to Ronnotel's family - something worse than I have ever seen on Wikipedia. He was unblocked to give him a second chance after that. Last month, he was blocked for 2 months by Anetode following additional incivility, but Anetode unblocked him after Tasc0 agreed to reform. Once Tasc0 continued making rude comments, Anetode blocked him again for three months and Tasc0 responded with name calling. There have been a gracious plenty attempts to reform his bad behavior and there are more than enough straws to break this poor camel's back. --B (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban That first comment should have ensured a permanent, irrevocable ban. It's unspeakable. Horologium (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hindsight is always 20/20. I had had a brief exchange with him a few weeks beforehand when I protected an article following a request on AN3 [86]. His conduct was fine, even though my own left something to be desired. (I had handled a bunch of AN3 requests that day and had him confused with someone else, leading to a misunderstanding that was entirely my fault.) I still had his talk page on my watchlist when he was blocked a few weeks later and was stunned by his comment - the incivility was out of whack with my previous interaction with him. At the time, we didn't have six months of additional evidence to go on. --B (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. Editors should not have to tolerate that type of crap here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Judging from what actual productive editors get blocked for, why bother bending over backwards again for this editor? Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Tasc0 seems to have a mindset which will mean that there is the likelihood that they will again make highly inappropriate comments, which means another block and consequent discussion. On the basis that there seems no other way to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, banning is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse otherwise it'll only get worse. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban We cannot tolerate personal attacks and harassment. The block should be extended to indefinite. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I see some ethos reactions to a very uncivil comment above; but what does it for me is the wikilawyering to refuse to even apologize, and continuing to do so. I have been at this website for a while, and I guarantee this user will not ever abide by community policies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Oh lord! Enough is enough. For God's sake why do we even wait this long??? This person never should have been unblocked after hoping that "retarded kids get anally raped". Whoever unblocked after that has to do some more thinking before unblocking. Chillum 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban My least favorite administrative responsibility on Wikipedia is having to block established contributors. I respect that people have different tolerances for conduct and politesse and I hate resorting to blocks for behavioral modification. It never works. Tasc0's attitude is clearly summarized on his userpage: "I'm like a Christmas tree, I just stand there and let my balls hang." I don't think he cares and I don't see the point in putting any further effort in policing an editor who has shown no sense of personal responsibility or maturity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By my reading of the discussion, Tasc0 is subject to a community ban. I have changed the block to indefinite and advised the editor of this, and also that appeals should be made only to the arbitration committee. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The Committee will generally not overturn community bans - an appeal may be made to the community at any time, however. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.

I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.

I made a second attempt.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.

It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?

The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all. FCYTravis (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with WP:BLP. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain. FCYTravis (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. Jeffpw (talk)

Excuse me. Did you not read the AfD closure? It says quite clearly, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition. FCYTravis (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch WP:POINTy to me. I see no need to delete the article in toto until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the AfD closer said, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered. FCYTravis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --Rodhullandemu 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after this AFD closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid. FCYTravis (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a WP:BLP. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but if FCYTravis believes the AfD was wrongly closed, WP:DRV is the place to go. Deleting an articles hours after it survived a deletion discussion where he argued for it's deletion is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools. It would be poor conduct were he completely uninvolved - given his involvement in the deletion discussion, it is unacceptable. I realise he strongly believes this article to be problematic and respect that, but this is exactly why he should not be making admin decisions involving it. WJBscribe (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ultra vires the closing admin anyway. --Rodhullandemu 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called Bernard Montgomery a pederast, for God's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a WP:BLP situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Wikipedia policies. WJBscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material. FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. RMHED (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, Haiduc, about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

Dybryd (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now those were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Dybryd (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge FCYTravis to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Support undeletion and listing at WP:DRV. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The talk page is still there. Unclear why the article as it was when the AfD was closed wouldn't be restored. If there are particular items someone thinks needs to be more fully sourced then there are numerous and less pointy ways to make ones concerns known. Using <!--- these handy mark-ups to temporarily hide content until sourced ---> adding {{fact}} tags and (shock!) actually discussing the issue would all seem to be more considerate and cooperative behavior befit of this project. If any other (non-admin) user was to delete the content as such they would more than likely be on vacation at this point. Banjeboi 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beyond words that people are defending an article which contains random speculation and innuendo in the guise of historical fact. Do what the hell you want. FCYTravis (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Travis, as others have said, you were out of order. What you are taling about is an opinion of what is sourceable and correct, and what is not, and edit/revert thereof. In any terms, that is called an editing dispute, and you abused your admin priveleges to "win" on the issue by deleting the article, because you felt you were right, thus someone (all) else must be wrong. You now quote a selective part of the article... part that was at issue... in defence of your action, but of course, as the article is deleted and nobody can see what was said, nor the nature of other edits, nor indeed information that wasn't removed (which by nature of your not removing it was thus OK to remain... the AfD admonishment wasn't a binding order anyway). As a result, nobody can speak up in favour of the articles content or the ability to put the article straight (over time... a matter of hours is not reasonable), and yet you use article content in your defence. That's highly objectionable. I personally would go as far as to say a disgraceful action... there was no support in policy for the way in which you deleted that article, or indeed, for it to be summarily deleted like that at all.

The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.Crimsone (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was no consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

Dybryd (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. HiDrNick! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the article's talk page about some references but not all of these. I also see discussion started on the talk page about what to do following the AfD discussion to fix the article. Finally, FCYTravis, I see no edits by you to that talk page. Did someone evaluate the references for the disputed entries? What about the material that wasn't deleted by FCYTravis -- why wasn't that retained? Why wasn't this article first discussed at DRV if it should have been deleted?

I have left a courtesy note for the closing admin, Sandstein, informing him of this discussion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is just to clarify that I don't understand my "admonition" to observe WP:V and WP:BLP by deleting noncompliant material (as cited variously above) to have any particular binding force above and beyond that of the policies themselves. The wholesale deletion of the article by FCYTravis and then its protection in his preferred version cannot be supported by these policies, in my opinion, and amounts to a serious misuse of the administrator tools. Protection may be used to enforce WP:BLP compliance in certain circumstances, but even if this were such a case, it should certainly not be done by an administrator involved in the content dispute at issue.  Sandstein  22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline at all for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful abuse of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies: WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has now gone on wikibreak "until the community wises up." And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. Crimsone (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just yesterday FCYTravis got into an edit war on Ashley Alexandra Dupré with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. HiDrNick! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is to be done with Travis when he returns from his "wikibreak"? Is he to be admonished for his rash actions? Will his admin actions be monitored? Or will he be alllowed to continue this admin style unchecked? These questions concern me, and I would hope somebody can come up with an answer. Jeffpw (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version

I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries. And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. HiDrNick! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. Jeffpw (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing statement referred both to WP:BLP and WP:V; verifiability applies across the ages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. Beam 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people are not living. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD Crimsone (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was being worked on by many editors to improve it, and the sections Travis gutted wholely had sources. For an admin to lock his preferred version without any arguments to back up the removal of sourced material is egregious behavior, to sayu the least. I ask that an impartial admin take a look at the diffs, remove any blatant BLP violations, and restore the rest of the article. To do anything less amounts to gross abuse of admin privilege and censorship based on personal considerations. I am shocked that this has occurred at all, and also shocked at the waffling I see on the part of many admins in this discussion. All I see is appeasement of FCY's ego, and trying to let him save face when he fell so badly on it.Jeffpw (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the content that FCYTravis objected to. I know we're big believers in protecting the wrong version and all but as an involved admin FCYTravis should hopefully see that allowing another admin to do the protecting and doing so on the version that have survived AfD would at least seem a bit less problematic. As I, and Haiduc, stated in the AfD, sources were on the article but because the items weren't individually sourced, as is common in older articles, those who wished to delete assumed no sourcing existed. Although undeleting the article was the right first step, let's now complete the restoration so those interested in getting the sourcing documented on each item can do so. Banjeboi 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, i count about 16 sources deleted with that content. Banjeboi 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be unprotected. Let's pretend Travis didn't delete the article out of process, then undelete and protect to his version (three actions, by the way, of which two are clearly bad ideas). Had he gone to WP:RFPP and requested protection, it would have been outright declined. Clearly, no protection is warranted in this case. Sure, the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, but there are many disputes that should be discussed on the talk page that don't get the added push of protection (especially from someone involved in the dispute itself). FCY's action shouldn't get preferential treatment simply because it has been done already (especially since it was done improperly). -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is to determine what consists of a sufficient citation and reliable sourcing if it not its editors? I must suggest then, since I am clearly unable to participate in the editing of the article, it should be an admin with more content experience than I have. Please find an admin with more than 9 FAs to do the job. I do not trust an admin with primarily non-content related experience to be able to ascertain what should be done any more than the admins who are protecting this article trust me to determine what content should be in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a really odd definition of "sourced". Try goodling on "pederastic couple" - I get a whopping 57 unique hits. Wikipedia is not supposed ot blaze a trail, and that is very much what seem to be happening here. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  You know as well as anyone that the number of google hits for a given phrase is not the measure of the legitimacy of an article, nor is it the measure of the verifiability or suitability of given sources within it. A google search for "pederastic relationship" has a hit count of 3,270 if we really must have numbers exchanged though... and no, as with another that felt the need to say so, I don't support abusive and dangerous philias, especially involving children, and it would be useful not to bring in issues not significantly related to the issue being spoken of. Crimsone (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from article Historical pederastic couples talk page):I wrote an article titled Indigenous people of the Everglades region. That has a single entry on Google that matches the words in the title, here on Wikipedia. Is our creativity and capacity for language that limited? If the major objection is the title, then let's come up with a different title. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of protection for a while, especially if it brings more eyes on this terribly troublesome article (which, in my opinion, should have been deleted at AFD, but that's a separate issue.) My claim all along has been not that this article contains problematic material, but that since collecting the list under this named topic itself is original research and synthesis, it must contain problematic material. The defense against this was "Oh, well, we can just remove the offending material." The blind reverting that Travis' attempts to fix the article met with, I think, give the lie to this claim. I myself wouldn't have protected the article given that I was involved in the deletion discussion, but the outcome is, in my opinion, better for the encyclopedia. Nandesuka (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Well so much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As soon as I joined this outfit, I realised that that would cause problems, and it sure does. However, in the current context, the Afd had no consensus for deletion, and per deletion policy, the default is not to delete. It's complicated by the closing admin giving advice as to the future conduct of the article which strictly I don't think is enforceable. That's not what an Afd is meant to do. However, that advice seems to have been taken literally and as carte blanche. The deletion guidelines should make it quite clear that closing admins should not engage in content-based analysis. It's regrettable that Travis took this as licence to gut the article, even to the extent of removing sourced, if not beautifully-sourced, material; it's difficult not to see an agenda here, because I've never seen this kind of behaviour before. Even WP:TRIVIA suggests moving material to the talk page of an article for discussion; I see nothing in any policy to suggest unilateral deletion of an article merely because parts of it may be unsourced. WP:BLP is largely a smokescreen here, since very much of the deleted material, even before the total deletion, was not relevant. WP:V is much more to the point. Some material was unsourced directly. Some was poorly sourced. But it could have been fixed or deleted as appropriate. There is no need to continue protection of the article, because while it's fully protected, you rely on {{editprotected}} and thus on an admin agreeing that your edit satisfies policy. Having seen this evening's shenanigans, I'm no long sure that I even trust myself to make on objective decision on that. However, I may have a different view tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:FCYTravis

I see Travis has deleted his user talk page - under what circumstances are admins allowed to do this? Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowed? When they feel like it. Just like any other user. --CBD 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is different from deleting. I'm not aware of deleting being accepted outside of right to vanish cases. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to undelete, and then courtesy blank? The people who might need to see some old posts can get around it easily enough, but this is (another) out of process action by this account. I would hate there to be a wheelwar and a desysop RfAR, so I should think we need to do this mindful of the consequences. For what its worth, I think that there are no special circumstances and the content should be undeleted and then blanked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as I can tell, the deletion of the user talk page was done completely outside the deletion policy. There was no AfD, no speedy tag (and no CSD criterion would apply here anyway), so the page needs to be undeleted and the content restored. Courtesy blanking it afterwards is fine, but people should be able to look at the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should say, short of WP:RTV this shouldn't have happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that everyone have a nice cup of WP:TEA and re-cage the hounds. Yes, using the delete button to delete one's own talk page generally isn't "allowed by the deletion policy", but in the present case I don't see any pressing harm being done, and it seems to me that building a federal case over this is going to escalate tempers rather than calm things down. In the absence of some urgent need to see his talk page, this doesn't have to get resolved today. Nandesuka (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been done recently by another admin, who also deleted his user page. I'm only one editor, but I don't know that it's a big deal. (I see there's more above about unusual activity by the editor in question; I am not making any comment on that as I haven't read through it. I am commenting only on the page deletion.)  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a cup of tea, but it did not change my opinion in the matter. In fact, in view of Frank's comment, I see a very good reason to undelete the talk page now. Allowing such an obvious violation of the process to stand would set a really bad precedent and send the wrong message to others who might be enclined to do something similar in the future. This is especially the case since, as you say, there was another recent example of a similar action. We do not want to set a trend of admins deleting their talk pages when they feel like it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's no good reason to do something other than "to set an example" is the best possible time to take a deep breath and not take any hasty action. There is absolutely no emergency here, and it would behoove us to take steps to avoid drama, rather than to create it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of emergency but of setting and reinforcing a really bad precedent. When there is a clear violation of deletion policy, such as this one was, it should not be allowed to stand, not because there is an emergency but as a matter of principle, in order not to encourage others to do the same. Nsk92 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What drama? Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this especially should not be done by admins with problematic conduct. I'm not upset about it or anything, but we don't delete these pages unless users want to vanish. If Travis would like to vanish, he should probably turn in his tools on the way out - he can get them back if/when he returns. Kelly ^hi! 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has been an admin in good standing for at least 3 years, has never been blocked for anything, and to the best of my knowledge is a valued and respected contributor. I don't see any reason here to do anything other than sleep on the issue for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not by any means the first time FCYTravis has used the admin tools questionably. For a long time, FCYTravis kept his talk page permanently semi-protected, and kept hundreds of edits in its history deleted. Following a couple of discussions on this noticeboard, FCYTravis was required to restore the history and remove protection. Just days later, FCYTravis again indefinitely semiprotected his talk page against policy and consensus (and it has remained semi-protected since February). It may be time for FCYTravis to step down. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page. To revert his deletion seems like a personal move instead of a move to benefit the project or a move to fix a "wrong" against policy. Just let it be, imho. Beam 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, excuse me? Whatever do you mean, "It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page"? The deletion policy is very specific on how a deletion process can occur: either through a prod, a CSD tag or through an AfD debate. None of these happened here, and the only one which might allow for a quick deletion, namely CSD, is not applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. The talkpage is not a normal article. Beam 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, given some problems I've seen in the past, I'm thinking that a Request for Comment might be a good idea, so when Travis returns he can see how the community feels. However, that's pretty hard to judge, or to present any evidence of trying to resolve the problems, when the user talk page has been deleted. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above I wondered to myself, 'when was WP:CSD#U1 repealed?'. So I checked... and it hasn't been. So I wondered, 'when did the user talk page stop being a user page?'. So I checked... and it hasn't either. So... any user can request deletion of their user talk page at any time and it is customarily granted as a U1 speedy deletion except for "rare cases" where it is necessary to maintain the page, usually for evidentiary purposes. Or at least that's what the policies actually say... and a practice I've seen carried out in the past. An admin deleting a CSD page without first inserting the tag isn't at all unusual either. --CBD 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of our policy regarding user pages. See Wikipedia:User page, which states "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish)". In other words, it says the opposite of what you claim. Taking a Wikibreak is not a "good reason". - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm

(ec)I have only just stepped into this mess. Noone is blocked - so can we slow down, get a hold of our tempers and sort this out in a rational manner. I understand people are upset by these actions, but nothing is gained by screaming at each other. Viridae^Talk 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted I've only been reading this discussion for the last 10-15 mintues, I must say it seems like a fairly calm discussion at this point. I think everyone has already moved beyond the initial shock/bewilderment of FCYTravis's action, and are now discussing how to move forward. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anyone screaming at each other. Just trying to figure out the best way to resolve this. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I have not seen anyone screaming at each other here (and hopefully we can avoid it). Nsk92 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading Viridae? This conversation is actually very civil and especially when one looks at the recent convos at this page. Shoot, this is like a party compared to other "discussions" of late. I'm pretty happy with the civility and levelheadedness displayed towards each other here~ Beam 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone screaming either. Anyway here's the policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly wht I'm talking about (screaming wasn't the best choice of words) there is no paticular hurry to get his talk page back, against policy or not FYC is obviously stressed at this point - so slapping him with a "you shouldn't have deleted your talk page because of XYZ is not helping things resolve" Viridae^Talk 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be undeleted, I said, "Here's the policy." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but that is pretty much impossible with the talk page deleted. (I'm uninvolved in whatever disputes are going on here, by the way - I've had differences with Travis before, but we have always been able to work it out amicably.) Kelly ^hi! 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait to hear what his reason was. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not find Viridae's arguments persuasive. Yes, FYC is upset (and for the record, I had absolutely no prior interactions with him). But, in my opinion, trying to soothe him is too high a price to pay for allowing such an obvious violation of the deletion policy to stand and to possibly encourage others to folllow his example (especially in view of Frank's comment above). Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is being hurt by having it remain deleted for a little wile while he gets his breath back? Viridae^Talk 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see your reasoning, or any valid reason to revert his delete. Unless you have a personal gripe with FYC there is no reason. I don't buy the "encourage others" idea, and I definitely think you're wrong about it being "such an obvious violation." As I describe below it's not an obvious violation at all. Beam 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this isn't a first step towards RTV? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his userpage just says he's on wikibreak. Kelly ^hi! 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy does NOT say you can't delete your talk page. It says it's rare, and gives some valid reasons (right to vanish etc) but it does not say you can't delete your talk page. This isn't an article, this wasn't someone elses talk page, this wasn't the main page, this was his own talk page. Let him delete it. It can only hurt him to take such an action. It is NOT a good idea to revert his deletion. There is no "right now" reason to do so, and it can only make the guy feel even worse about this whole situation. Anyone who does revert it, would seem to be acting against FYC, and not for anything. Beam 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I heard from Travis - he plans to undelete his talk page if he returns. Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with that. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You speak for me as well. :) Beam 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same. This appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation. Orderinchaos 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Summary

Side A: If I have a problem with one single individual regarding an article, making it unavailable to everybody is an acceptable response.

Side B: You have got to be shitting me.

Tell me, which side sounds saner here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

False characterisation. In this case side A is saying that an article violates three important policies and the editors of the article obdurately refuse to conform to said policies. I have checked the entries which are backed by online sources, not one of them use the term "pederastic couple" and several did not use any version of pederasty at all. An agenda is being promoted, as it has been promoted numerous times before, and that stinks. The article is a festering pile of crap at the moment and deletion improves the encyclopaedia, but an acceptable resolution would be ro testrict all past editors to the talk page and have people check every source, remove those not supported by cast-iron references and rewrite so we are nto blazing the trail. It is no secret that Wikipedia is regarded as the number one most important place to get your agenda promoted, and that is what I think is happening here. It needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible that the refs are there, but simply in book form? Haiduc has added several book refs to the article, but did not supply the page numbers or ISBNs. Perhaps we should AGF of him here? Jeffpw (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm speaking of "false characterisation" you have now accused "editors of the article" of "obdurately refuse to conform to said policies" and pushing agendas. This is patently false. There has been nothing but a willingness of editors to address concerns raised at the AfD, which just closed when this incident occurred, to ensure policies are upheld. Your continuing to insinuate otherwise, here and elsewhere, and leaping of bad faith that all those editors are promoting an agenda as well is quite alarming. Further throwing around how the editors should now be restricted to talk page use only as well? Wikipedia isn't served by punishing the very people who are working to correct problems. Just because the exact phrases pederastic couple or a version of pederasty isn't splashed around doesn't mean the more clinical or scientific terminology is false. It's simply referred to in different ways by different cultures throughout history. The footnotes should expand to include this so these sweeping accusations can be more readily dismissed. Banjeboi 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's the actions of only one particular individual that are mentioned as being the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this and I agree that it was a serious abuse of the tools. The deletion itself was bad enough, and it was followed by an attempt to use the deletion to impose conditions on editors with whom Travis was in dispute, along with the inappropriate deletion of his user talk page in the midst of a controversy. This kind of behavior gives me serious doubts about whether Travis should remain an admin. Everyking (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody directly involved in this dispute with Travis, I will not make a comment as to what should happen to his admin status. But as I stated above, I would like a clear explanation from Admins or Bureaucrats about how they plan to proceed if and when Travis returns. Jeffpw (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Update - relisted at DRV

I have relisted it at DRV here - 24 editors out of 000s is not enough. I can't see how this article is compatible with WP sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Tinfoil hat-type at DTV transition

Some person from multiple IPs in the 76.192.0.0/10 range has been inserting "Big Brother"-type ranting into DTV transition: [87] [88] [89]. I'd rather it not be handled with semi-protection; we've had decent contributions to the article from other IPs.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will a couple of weeks semiprotection help? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  user specifically requests the page not to be semi-protected given the good natured edits by other IPs. The only thing that can be done is WP:RBI, or a range block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• The good faith anons can comment on Tlak ad their suggesitons will be acted on. But feel free to remove semi if you want. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned from a one-week block[90] for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again[91] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[92][93][94][95][96] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[97] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks from Kurt.

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.

Do we really need another WR thread? There's nothing admins can do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

[98]

I know it's off-wiki, but the fact he messaged me on IRC pushes it into harassment. We give him way enough leeway for disrupting RFA and AFD (there's a difference between having an opinion and using it to troll). Calling established users vandals is simply not on. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is ridiculous. WR is not a troll site when we are dealing with attacks against SV, FM, JZG, etc, but it is a troll site when we are dealing with attacks on you? Let's eliminate the double standard here. I'm a little sick of all the damn drama caused by some of the prima donnas over there, but it's not going to go away, they are not going to STFU, and we're going to have to live with them, because there are too many people on Wikipedia, some of them decent people, who participate over there. Horologium (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the topic. This is about Kurt, not the media he used. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia admin action are you after Sceptre? Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Tan ǀ 39 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) I'm not changing the topic. You are complaining about off-wiki harassment from WR. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas, templating isn't going to help. Sceptre, you're off base here. If he's messaging you on IRC, /ignore KurtMWeber fixes that problem. If he's going at you on WR, ignoring people works there as well. Many of us (both here, there and everywhere) have dealt with Kurt, and his peccadilloes and his attitude, but we shouldn't be treating WR like it's an extension of WP.. Just ignore him and move on. SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't template anything. I just cut and pasted the first line of the instructions for use of this page, in case Sceptre missed it. Tan ǀ 39 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the part of my sentence that said he used IRC? If it was WR alone, I would let it slide. Tanthalas, stop being condescending; I know what ANI is for. Pedro, I need someone to get through to Kurt that his behaviour is unacceptable, whether through ban, block, or just a warning. And SirFozzie: given he's known for a poisonous attitude, why is he still contributing? Especially seeing as he gets on everyone's nerves? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the WR post and thought it was dripping with sarcasm - if he really is serious, ok, maybe something should be done, but are you sure he isn't joking? I was thinking about replying with a sarcastic comment like "I view defecating on your neighbor as prima facie evidence of power hunger."--B (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he votes speedy keep on AFDs simply because things exist, I doubt he's joking. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is actionable only if Kurt posts a link to it on Wikipedia, unfortunately. It does not reflect well on Kurt, though. If WR wants to e taken seriously as a source of critique then they really need to get their house in order and clamp down on egregious trolling like this. But maybe they don't, maybe they like being dismissed as a nest of vipers. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not from lack of trying. Some people have been trying to at least lower the noise in the signal. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have just notified User:Kmweber, as he was not notified of this discussion, even though it is about him. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, IRC, one of the many grey areas in WP: Jimbo has said that misconduct on IRC falls under ArbCom perview, but there's no guidelines to how it should be handled (I hear there was an ArbCom case about it, and they've promised to bring forth guidelines "Real Soon Now". As for your question to me, I would say that is because he is also a content contributor, and folks have just basically tuned out his Arbitrary Commitee, and prima facie evidence of power hunger rants due to overuse staleness. Trust me, I'm no fan of the guy after he tried to recall me, but I ignore him, he ignores me, we all win. SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie is correct. Sceptre just ignore Kurt. He's just trying to draw you out. This thread is giving him satisfaction. He knows that he's the biggest prick on this planet and he loves the role. He feeds off of the attention people give him. Essentially he's a bully. As you know, in English lower schools we get told to ignore them. Simple as, Will. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinda reminds me of Mrs Trunchbull from Matilda: "Never do anything by halves if you want to get away with it. Be outrageous. Go the whole hog. Make sure everything you do is so completely crazy it's unbelievable." Sceptre ^(talk) 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well now, Freenode has its own terms of service and IRCops, etc, starting with the ignore button; and WR, despite its many many faults, also has a hierarchy and rules of posting; afaik, none of these three systems overlap. The Wikback, a similar forum, run by an arb iirc, was created so people could have discussions that would not be permissible on WP. So maybe people with disputes at these other forums should first escalate there. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of bits of info;

• The IRC group contacts apparently didn't concur with Jimbo's statement re:arb com authority (per Kirill)"..the IRC group contacts do not acknowledge that any formal authority over their actions rests with the Committee.."
• 'NotTheWikipedia Weekly' (which in this context means me!) recently held a discussion about matters relating to specifically the admins IRC channel here which may be of interest.
• Wikback unfortunately is no longer operational. (I think WR is now the only functioning online forum?)
• Fozzie's advice seems sound to me - I've never really met Kurt, but if he bugs you, maybe ignore him?

this prolly isn't an AN/I thing really - but thought this info might help... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mailing lists are the right venue for comment not suited to WP. WR is a troll's nest and shows no sign of even aspiring to be anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful. I mentioned this on Wikipedia to an apparent WR user and was immediately threatened with their "power and processes." I wish I was exaggerating or lying, but I was threatened. Beam 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how editors who care, even remotely about WP, would use WR. I just don't get it. I have been attacked in the name of WR, and it's silly. Of course there are users there who aren't necessarily bad people, but that site does not further the goal of WP. It gives an outlet for which people can talk shit or degrade their fellow editors without fear of losing their privilege. I don't get why some editors don't see the damage that, even if they don't participate in the actual segregation, the site entails. Beam 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WR does not exist to further the goals of WP. Naerii 00:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But the editors of Wikipedia do. Or they should.... Editors like you though, who would use an edit summary to call me an idiot, aren't really needed to advance the project. Beam 00:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor who comes second to only Sceptre in terms of making a fool of themselves on a regular basis doesn't want me on the project - I guess that's it, I'm off to cry myself to sleep, boo hoo, etc. Naerii 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

List of Shuffle! albums

Longstanding consensus is that non-free cover images are not permitted in discography articles such as List of Shuffle! albums; several users have been readding them after they are removed. Most recently, User:Grk1011 asked about this policy here. He has started adding the images again, per his contention that, because this article is titled "list" instead of "discography", it gets special treatment. Perhaps an explanation by an uninvolved admin would help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A discography is a kind of list, so calling it a list instead of a discography is mere semantics. The use is definitely in violation of our NFC policy. Steven Walling (talk) ^{formerly VanTucky} 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

it wasn't merely because it didn't say discography lol. See my reply on your talk. Grk1011 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees

User:Zero g keeps undoing a merge with which he disagrees:[99][100][101][102][103] As per talk page at Richard Lynn (where the article was merged), a straw poll was taken to get the opinions of editors. Zero g is the only one who actually disagreed. When the straw poll had become inactive for over a week, it was closed with a 5-1-1 verdict in favor of the merge. Zero g so strongly disagrees with the merge that he keeps up a slow edit war by reverting Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations to the pre-merge version, even if the other editors continue to object to it. Can an admin take a look at the situation and take whatever actions may be necessary? I will candidly admit that I am the one who keeps reverting Zero g's reverts, based on the belief that one cannot single-handedly undo a consensus decision relatively as important as a merge, so I am not by any means an uninvolved party, but I would like someone with more experience to advise on what to do in such a situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you've been around since 2005, I'm probably less experienced than you, but have you requested page protection? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been advised, since there is significant opposition to the merge, I recommend that the book article be sent to AfD to get more opinions, and that will put the matter to rest. If there is genuine consensus for the merge, it will show up at the AfD. Either way, please stop edit-warring about it. --Elonka 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Elonka could provide diffs to support her case, particularly for the first sentence. "As has already been advised, there is significant opposition to the merge". There were 5 for, 1 against (Zero g) and 1 abstention (Richard001). This has not changed. As can be seen from User:Zero g's talk page, Elonka is now following his edits and providing him with tips on editing, for reasons best known to herself. Possibly she still regards some of those voting for a merge as a "lynch mob", the words she used when opposing Cailil's recent successful RfA. Her own intervention on the talk page of Richard Lynn [104] came shortly after Zero g's [105]. Without apparently looking at any background, she made an odd suggestion as an ordinary editor and failed to engage in subsequent discussion, thus causing a certain amount of disruption. Could Elonka please be more careful to distinguish between her roles as editor and administrator? Elonka seems also to be misrepresenting User:Wsiegmund, who was responsible for the merge. It would have been appropriate for her to have made her remarks one or two weeks earlier when the merge of this article was suggested and discussed in detail, but certainly not when she actually intervened with such disdain for other "junior editors"[106] by refusing to enter into discussion. (The article on Lynn actually contains far more material on the book than the subsequent fork, which apart from a list of contents, contained a synopsis of the book which as WP:OR would not have survived.) If at the appropriate time, Elonka had herself proposed an AfD for the article on the book, to debate a merge/deletion, that would have been fine; but not how and when she did it. That seems to be the problem/wikidrama she has helped create here. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and the consensus has little value in this case. The way the merge is carried out is mutual to an article deletion, hece the AfD route should be taken. It also appears that Ramdrake's goal isn't as much to improve Wikipedia, but to delete and erase anything he does not like (from what appears to be an extreme liberal pov), whether it is properly sourced or not. Just a brief glance at Ramdrake's contributions shows his main activities on Wikipedia appear to be reverting, minor edits (often mentioning a certain somebody has been called "racist" by some liberal source), endless talk page discussions with the opposition, and wiki-stalking. --Zero g (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is based on consensus editing. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires an AfD to be produced every time a merge is proposed; that would be pure and simple red tape. Please don't confuse your non-acceptance of a consensus with the absence of consensus. Unfortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On WP:RPP, Zero g has written

Ramdrake and four other editors (who appear to form a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias) refuse to put the article up for deletion, and instead try to silently burry it by merging it into the Richard Lynn article

Could Zero g please explain how this "pov cabal" functions and how it applies to both reviews of the book presented in Richard Lynn? Could it in fact be the case that these are simply editors who independently happen to disagree with Zero g? As I've said before, I would actually not be against having the very recently created article put on WP:AfD to discuss a merge/delete. So far its notability has not been established by normal academic criteria, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviewers agree that it is a valuable source of data. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The cabal functions by canvassing, another editor of the group will soon show up whenever there is something going on.

They generally don't try to have the same opinion, but share the same deletionist attitude. For example User1 wants an article or chapter gone for reason A, User2 wants it gone for reason B, and user3 wants it gone for reason A and B; though amazingly, favoring alternative C slightly more.

It should go without saying that the stuff they want gone is properly sourced. When there is opposition to the removal of sourced content, they'll make sure they have a reasonable amount of support and have a 'consensus vote'. They always vote in favor of their group, and if they manage to get enough votes in, have one of them start edit warring claiming to have 'majority consensus'.

When this doesn't work, Wikipedia after all is not a democracy, they become rude and start wiki-lawyering (you're not AGF! etc), taunting, and having long tedious (soapy) talk page discussions that go in circles and never go anywhere because they don't desire a consensus (they have 'majority consensus' after all). Not before long they'll report the offensive user to Ani, or some 'neutral admin' - who is in fact part of the clique and sympathetic to their viewpoints - though not editing the article in question (but often editing one or more related articles). --Zero g (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Mathsci's request that Elonka's statement of a "significant opposition" is pointless, unless she herself now objects, intervening as an editor rather than an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, the "significant" opposition is limited to a single editor who cannot accept a 5-1-1 merge verdict, and if we let this go by, we indeed demonstrate that a single person can significantly derail Wikipedia's processes and indeed act as it they owned an article without opposition, and indeed be supported in this disruption. Indeed, I wouldn't have objected to an AfD at all back when the merge was being proposed. However, seven editors expressed an opinion, 5 of those being in favor of the merge, and when no opinion had been registered for a week, the straw poll was closed. Then, after one week without anyone objecting, Zero g (the lone original dissenter) comes back, and starts reverting the merged article (which had been stable as a redirect for a week), even though most other editors have voiced their objections again to undoing the merge. Also, although I won't delve in them, Zero g's contributions also show a pattern of editing which demonstrates a kind of slant not normally accepted at Wikipedia. Just the fact that he calls such articles as Dysgenics and Race and Intelligence "hereditary articles" should give people a hint as to his leanings.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to review your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that more people oppose the merge than agree with it does not mean a consensus is reached. If there are valid points being made for both solutions then these need to be addressed. I highly recommend an afd or rfc as suggested above. I also remind you to assume good faith objecting to a merge is not disruptive, but claiming a false consensus and trying to 'railroad' a decision is. --neon white talk 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the link I provided above, the decision was 5-1-1 in favor of a merge, with no overpowering argument against the merge, except one which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not saying that objecting to a merge is disruptive, but single-handedly, repeatedly undoing a merge which has been in effect for a week because one disagrees with it certainly is disruptive. Also, if you are thinking that more people oppose the merge than agree with it describes the situation either you are mistaken about the situation, or you are privy to information which nobody else has. If the latter is the case, please share with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am part of the "cabal" Zero G refers to ... I can only appeal to my fellow editors to judge what follows based on the contents and not my identity. The question is, why do we have an article on a book about population genetics, when the author has no expertise in population genetics and the book is not taken seriously by population genetics? Does the book really need its own article, or can't it be discussed in the article on the author of the book (the author is clearly better-known than the book in question)? Above, Elonka states that there is significant opposition to the merge. She elides two different meanings of "significant." It is true that Zero G is really opposed to the merge. However, it is not true that many editors are opposed to the merge. In fact, this proposal has been discussed extensively and as Ramdrake observes Zero G is the only person who objects. In the context of this discussion - of a discussion of how to resolve conflicts on the article talk page, and how to improve the article, one objection is hardly "significant." Zero G is coming very close to the kind of POV warrioring that Wikipedia must strongly and decisively reject.

For those who are not clear on the nature of the dispute, it is this: there is a body of evidence that Blacks on average score lower than Whites on IQ tests, at least in the US. There is considerable debate as to why, and researchers have put forward a range of explanations. Richard Lynn, a psychologist, claims that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites i.e. their inferiority is genetic. Richard Lynn is not a geneticists and has done no genetics research, and his view is considered fringe by all trained professional geneticists. This is not an "extreme liberal POV," it is a "scientific" POV meaning the view of geneticists about genetics. Most of the editors who have argued against Zero G - I will name Ramdrake and Alun - have never argued on political grounds and have only argued on the grounds of identifying notable versus fringe views amond different kinds of scientists.

There is at Wikipedia an article on Richard Lynn, and his views are aired here at Wikipedia. No one has argued that his views be deleted from Wikipedia (so much for some liberal POV!) However, Zero G is systematiclly inserting Lynn's views everywhere he can, including creating new articles to repeat the same views. I view this as straightforward POV-warrioring. Does this make me a liberal? Well, skip what I just said and do what we Wikipedians are supposed to be good at: scholarly research. Look at the literature by trained professional geneticists on this topic, and see how many geneticists support Lynn's views. When it comes to complying with our NPOV and FRINGE policies, this is what matters, and not the enthusiasm with which Zero G pushes his own POV.

This is a set of conflicts that has plagued this article for a long time. you would have thought that a couple of RfCs would have been sufficient to resolve the issue, especially since they all overwhelmingly went in the same direction (the direction Ramdrake, mathsci and others are following). But Elonka and Zero G apparently are not satisfied with the RfC process, so I urge other editors to give this matter serious consideration. Let me close by observing that the race and intelligence topic is highly controversial in the US and I would think the articles on this topic are among the ones many people judge us by. Screw politics: let's focus on NPOV, FRINGE, V and other policies, as well as our responsibility first and foremost to write a high quality encyclopedia that provides readers with an accurate and proportionate account of current leading research on scientific topics. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not Race and intelligence again. Can't we just ban Zero g and any other SPAs in the closet from this set of articles/topic? They're doing no good here, unless you count persistent WP:FRINGE violation as "good". Zero g has been doing this since 2006, so he really should have learnt the rules by now. Looking at this, incidentally, he looks to be of the far-right Dutch type that crop up again now and again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth a lengthy ANI thread. Just file an AfD. If no one is sure how to file one, see WP:AFD, or ask for assistance. If there's a genuine consensus, it'll show up at the AfD, there's no need to insist that a limited conversation on one talkpage "proves" consensus. --Elonka 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Talkpage discussion is how we do merges. AfD is for deletion debates, not merge debates. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think we may be losing sight of the real issue here: a merge was proposed by the book (i.e., following Wikipedia processes). The merge proposal remained open for 2 weeks, during which time it received input from 7 different users. The proposal was closed after 11 days without any activity. The proposal was closed by the book, returning a verdict of 5-1-1 in favor of merging. This is no different than several merge proposals and XfDs which I've seen, which are rarely if ever unanimous. Now, the lone dissenting editor keeps reverting the merge, arguing that Wikipedia is not a democracy (nobody says it is) and that either there was no consensus because he didn't agree to it, or that consensus doesn't mean anything (it is a major editing policy of Wikipedia, on the contrary). The remainder of this situation is basically wikidrama, and hides a simple, plain fact: one editor is consistently acting disruptively by refusing to accept consensus (or even denying it exists), and reverting a merge that was done in full compliance of Wikipedia policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can file an AfD, they don't need to have "consensus" to do so. It appears that Zero g wants an AfD, but he's unsure how to file one. So I recommend that someone who does know how to file one, please do so. An AfD will put this matter to rest, once and for all. --Elonka 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that merge discussions are not supposed to be decided at AfD. That's what the talk page is for. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion is also sometimes a deletion discussion, as it involves the deletion of one sub-article that is then merged into the larger article. There is disagreement about whether or not the sub-article should be deleted, so an AfD is appropriate. I think Zero g would have filed the AfD himself, but he's just not sure how.

My own participation in this situation is as an uninvolved admin. I personally don't care if the merge is accomplished or not, but I do care that it's handled properly. From what I see, the merge discussion that is being referred to at the talkpage, was not handled "by the book". It was started by Wsiegmund on June 2,[107] and then closed by the same editor on July 13.[108] It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion. Further, there was no "announcement" of this discussion. No RfC, just a small discussion on one talkpage, with primarily the same editors participating, just as they have in multiple other articles in that topic area. Then once they'd "closed" their own merge discussion, they declared consensus, and proceeded to edit-war to enforce their view, and even went as far as opening this ANI thread to deal with their "opponent", Zero g.

I strongly disagree with this approach. To make it truly fair, there should be an open RfC, or an AfD. An AfD is probably easier, but either method would be acceptable. The point is, that this kind of a decision should not be railroaded by a small group of editors that are already working together in other areas of conflict. The current merge discussion at the talkpage, even though it looks like a formal RfC, is not.[109] So, I still recommend a wider community discussion, or at least the opportunity for one. If there is a genuine consensus, it will show up that way. So, in terms of disruption, we could continue wrangling about this on ANI, or we could just file an AfD, and then there's an organized mechanism to put this issue to rest. So revert this edit,[110] file an AfD, and then we can close this ANI thread and let the normal community discussion process handle the rest. --Elonka 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, there are several inaccuracies in your assessment of the situation:

• A merge proposal does not require anything else than the proper template being placed on the merge-from and merge-to articles' talk pages, with a link to a single discussion space on either talk page (so as to avoid duplication of the discussion). It does not require special listing as for XfDs and RfCs.
• As per WP:MERGE, there is nothing preventing a nominator from closing their own merge discussions, after a reasonable amount of time has passed (I would say several weeks qualifies as a reasonable amount of time). In fact, the very wording of WP:MERGE seems to imply that it is indeed normal for a merge nominator to close and archive their own discussions.
• By allowing the strong objections of a single editor to override a closed merge discussion process, you are in fact allowing him to railroad the intended process. This is not even the case of be(ing) railroaded by a small group of editors, this is the case of a single editor being allowed to railroad the process.
• Your analysis seems to confuse a merge discussion with an RfC discussion. Please be aware that these are not the same process, as per WP:RfC and WP:MERGE.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I am wary of misusing AfD. Each time we do that we send out the wrong message about what AfD is for. At bottom AfD is for telling admins when the community thinks they should use their "delete" button. Right? But a merge does not involve deletion. It involves redirection, which is not a matter for administrators to resolve. That's a matter for the community to sort out, on talk pages. I get really cheesed off when someone comes to AfD saying "I want this merged", because a merge is something anyone can do, anyone at all. It does not require admin buttons, and hence AfD is not the right process. Talkpage discussion is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides - Elonka? All this dysgenics/race-and-intelligence-connection material Zero g is pushing is really fringy. And he's been doing it since 2006. Without doing anything else, hardly. I think he's the underlying problem here, not his opponents. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, thanks, and I understand your concerns. And I agree that talkpage discussion is fine, as long as there is adequate participation. It's just that in this case, I am not sure that there was sufficient participation. To fix that, I still think an AfD is easier, but an RfC would be fine too. As for Zero g (talk · contribs), he's been an editor for two years, but also note that he's got fewer than a thousand edits.[111] But even with limited participation, he has still managed to work on a variety of articles, and he has made many valid edits. So I don't think we should just label him as "Fringe" and ignore what he has to say. I'd be more inclined to abide by WP:BITE, meaning that if he wants to challenge the merge, instead of us labeling him a troublemaker, we should patiently explain the Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms, and show him how he can best participate on Wikipedia. Remember, just because someone is proposing a non-mainstream view, doesn't mean we should kick them off of Wikipedia. Instead, we should welcome them, if they can participate in a civil and constructive fashion, since their participation helps us to create neutral and well-rounded articles. So I recommend that we work on this from an angle of teaching, not punishing. --Elonka 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS, Elonka. Unfortunately, no matter how civil they are, there's a limit to the compromises we can have with someone who holds a viewpoint this far out, and who pushes it on Wikipedia, which aims to reflect academic consensus. If Zero g refuses to understand that then there will be consequences. There have to be. And his viewpoint is fringe. WP:SPADE. The same holds true for our Hindutva pals or Neo-Nazis or hardcore Afrocentrists or whatever. See also the the quotebox here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block/ban of Zero g in this case is excessive. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I wasn't proposing that. Please check again as to what I did propose :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think Elonka's defense of Zero g is a bit disingenuous. Two years, 1000 edits, and maybe 97 percent of those edits look in some way to be related to Eugenics, even the ones to not-obviously-related articles like social justice. Again, WP:SPADE - that's a single-purpose account, I'm afraid. WP:TIGERS points out very nicely that eugenics articles do not have to be written via endless controversy between editors representing mainstream science - Ramdrake, Slrubenstein - and the hardcore right-wing element of Dutch politics, where I strongly suspect Zero g fits in. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass wants to be unblocked

Indefinitely blocked User:Fclass is asking to be unblocked. Since he had earlier broken his promise to me, that he would not make personal attacks and I can see no hint of a shift in his thinking, I'm asking for a review here. Perhaps another editor would like to speak with him about this and see where he's at. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

His attitude of "What do you want from me?" as opposed to "I'm willing to do anything asked of me, willing to follow any restriction imposed on me. I want to contribute to this project, and think I can in a civil and calm manner" leads me to lean towards another 30 days, at least. 30 days can't hurt him, and definitely doesn't hurt the project. You were right Gwen to not unblock him. Beam 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He was community banned so any unblock would need to be discussed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with an unblock at the moment, given this comment and this. Fclass should know what is expected and what is wanted, and we shouldn't have to feed the user policies and guidelines whenever a situation arises. 30 days for another review, per Beam, is what I am suggesting. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. His language in the request shows that he'll likely just continue where he left off if unblocked. Wizardman 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Eh. not sure. On the one hand there doesn't seem to be much promise of reform here. On the other hand, Fclass did seem to be a somewhat productive editor and how contrite he is might not be so relevant as long as he does actually not include any further personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• 30 days seems a reasonable time frame. Oppose unblock for now, and review later as per above. Rudget (logs) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block a Davkal sock

The IP belongs to a hosting company, so it is almost assuredly being used as an anonymizing proxy. IP contributions give the impression that the only intent is to harass a user and disrupt the wiki. Fairly open and shut: IP is anon-blocked for three months. Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Could someone please block User talk:64.86.17.112 - a Davkal sock who keeps wikistalking me? I filed a WP:SSP notice, but the usual people who handle Davkal problems are not around to do this. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably post this at WP:SSP or request a checkuser first. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

I did. I need some immediate intervention. SSP takes too long and the harassment is happening right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I apologise. I've been having a great deal of trouble viewing Wikipedia recently (still trying to figure out why), and I thought we were at the help desk, and didn't see the first half of your comments until after I submitted my response. Cheers, and thanks for understanding! —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also subsection below, which I'm moving here since it's the same topic. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

possible wikistalking by User talk:64.86.17.112

I was asked to intervene on behalf of User:ScienceApologist. An anon editor using IP User talk:64.86.17.112 has been giving him difficulty. He has been warned before to stop harassing SA. Today, this editor appears to have left more snide comments in response to discussion that SA is involved in.

I am fully aware that SA is to many a controversial editor, and I will not be an apologist for anything that he has done wrong. However, I think an admin should look into this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this troublemaker has been duly banished. After all, pointing out that new amendments to the core policies that govern the edits of every single wiki user are meaningless is not the kind of behavior that should be tolerated. Far better to block such users so that the meaningless amendments are allowed to stand unchecked. By doing this the following excellent precedent can also be set: users who have shown themselves quite unable to abide by core policies should feel free to treat those core policies as their plaything and doctor them in any way they see fit if they think it might help them win an argument or two on articles they are struggling with.

Just to let any administrator who is interested know: the policy in question is the "tone" section of NPOV. The main changes involve removing all uses of the word "fair", and turning the majority of the section into a brief restatement of the UNDUE WEIGHT section which precedes it. So, again for anyone who is interested, you now have a section of core policy that consists of a non sequitur, followed by a jumbled mess of a sentence, followed by a paragraph that has nothing to do with the section it forms the majority of. And all of this written for the sole purpose (see talk) of strengthening the hand of an editor who contributes nothing but mayhem to the wiki. Hey ho. 207.210.78.194 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So now Davkal has jumped to this new account. Please block that open proxy too. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is now a new account User:Codstreuth that is up to similar behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done: Indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 15:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears IP edits

Carol Spears requested, on her user talk page, that an edit be made to the article Senecio vulgaris to undo an edit she had made earlier (before being banned/blocked).[112] A single purpose single edit took care of this for Carol.[113] I suspect this is Carol editing with an IP account and would like this checked, if appropriate.

It also revealed even more problems with Carol's edits. She apparently used herself as a source to insert nonsense into articles, this one back in February:[114]

and one mention that perhaps it is distilled water which is harmful to laboratory animals and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.

This nonsense edit was recently reverted by User:Cacycle as vandalism, although it had stood for a long time.[115]

I request that arrangements be made for all of her major edits to be gutted, rather than allowing them to stand any longer on Wikipedia or requiring editors to spend hours checking this crap.[116][117] Her crap should not be returned by search engines as sources on any subject. Preferably this could be done by a bot as I first suggested.

I won't be arguing this point or participating in this discussion if one occurs. There are too many supporters of Carol Spears' contributions willing to attack anyone who finds problems with her making stuff up to write articles on Wikipedia.

But it should not go down when her edits come back to mock Wikipedia in the press that no one knew what was going on. This is a notice about the potential for Wikipedia to look really bad for supporting Carol Spears as an editor and allowing her edits to stand without large scale reversion.

--Blechnic (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that IP is her, it's on a different ISP and in a different country to the last IP she used. I just removed two more links to Carol's webpage. One was a link to her chili recipe that that she added as an external link in the Sherzer Observatory‎ article and had been there for over a month. The other one was to a page that doesn't exist (404 error) on her site that she was using as a citation in the Annona cherimola. There's another ten or so links that show up on the Special: EL tool but they all seem to be on discussion pages. Sarah 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely it's (the single-edit IP) just someone who's seen the drama and forgotten to log in before fixing it. Orderinchaos 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most probably right. I also saw her request and I made another change to that photo on that article right after that IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. I doubt the IP is a proxy so I also doubt she is in the UK ATM since she lives in another Country. Also that cite above was added by Carol on the (8th Australian Time) Feb 2008[118]. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who was blocked and caused a lot of work for other editors to repair the damage I was amazed to see she is still editing. I agree with Blechnic and others, all of her edits should be removed immediately. A bot would be the easiest way I assume, that is if there is a bot programmed for this kind of work. She was given plenty of opportunity to help fix the massive amount of edits she did, and then did nothing to help with the clean up. Thus I feel the block should be enforced in full and any socks she is using should also be blocked. If necessary, her talk pages should also be blocked to stop her from interfering or trying to stay involved. If a bot cannot undo what she has already done, then can an administrator do a rollback on her account to remove her edits? I'm sure there are probably edits that she made that are acceptable but given there is so much that is not, I think removing her contributions completely would be the best. There are other knowledgeable editors that can add to the articles she has edited to get the information needed added. I endorse her block and feel block should continue and maybe even a community ban be considered from Wikipedia since her behavior has shown she sees nothing wrong with what she has done or is doing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Holocaust

I pulled up the page on the Holocaust and found the template to have gone somewhat screwy. It's an edit by someone claiming to be "The Zodiac". From the text he left and a brief search of this page, I'm guessing he's got a history here. Looking over the edit and comparative histories, I can't seem to find what he put on the page, much less fix the problem

68.5.90.236 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a known template vandal. Clear out your cache, and the vandalism should be gone. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimancer (talk · contribs)

Wikimancer and I are in a dispute about possible violation of WP:BLP on Samantha Ronson, so I posted an RfC: Talk:Samantha Ronson#Are statements about Lindsay Lohan a violation of WP:BLP?. Rather than confining his comments to the WP:BLP issue, Wikimancer has decided to use the RfC as a vehicle to make false accusations about me in his edit here. I have tried to explain to him on his talk page that comments on the RfC should be restricted to the issues rather than making personal attacks on the editor who posted the RfC, but his only response has been to argue with me. I don't think I should revert his irrelevant (and personalized) comments about me on the RfC, but I hope someone will discuss with him what is and is not appropriate content for an RfC. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing anything there that is a personal attack, he's rather dryly reporting the differences that you've both had over the content and sharing his concerns that you may be misinterpreting the policies. While it would have been nice if he could have made his points without mentioning another contributor, there's no requirement that he do so, as long as he remains civil. Instead of worrying about his comments, try responding to his points by detailing your concerns about the sources, for example, he says that the blog in question is written by LA Times writers and has editorial oversight - that's something you may want to respond to, if you feel the blog does not meet the standards of reliable sources. In the meantime, let the RfC do its work - having some fresh viewpoints on the issue from uninvolved editors may help you sort out your concerns about the content. Shell ^babelfish 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestions. Ward3001 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) is at it again

He's editing as Bestrace (talk · contribs)...just see the edit histories. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a sock of banned user DavidYork71. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by Mattinbgn.[119] Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And User:Coontrack, already blocked by me but someone else has tagged it as a davidYork71 sock. 09:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Might need to run another checkuser, we flushed three out in addition to these ones in the past two days. Orderinchaos 10:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now editing again as --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added. Orderinchaos 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

A vandal has made a improper move. I don't think I can reverse it, or even if I did, I might mess it up. HELP!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone took care of it. For future reference, how does one reverse a move like that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any user can move a page over top of a redirect. So if they don't edit the redirect that results from the move, you can just go to the new (vandalized) page name and use the move button. If they edit the redirect, then only an admin can move it because the original page needs to be deleted first. If it is an emergency and you can't track down an admin quickly (say, 4:00 AM Eastern or something), you can move the correct title to a temp page to make room for the real page, then move the page back. --B (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg in continual removal of sourced data

I absolutely hate bringing up what may be a content dispute to the administrators' attention, so this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've ever done it (in multiple thousands of edits). But here I must. User:Vexorg, despite an RFC where he was universally told he was wrong (see Talk:Christianity_by_country/Archive_1#Eurobarometer_RfC and the rest of the talk page), continues to assert that CIA Factbook is not a reliable source for data, and to insert his own data into Christianity by country from a source which doesn't even mention Christianity. I don't know where else to go at this point; I'm not sure anyone else would sign an RFC/U anyway, so I'm bringing this to administrator attention. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a great thing about having consensus. He makes an edit against it, you revert him. He reverts you, another editor who agrees with consensus reverts him. He reverts that editor, a 3rd editor reverts him following consensus. He reverts that 3rd editor... you goto the 3RR noticeboard and the editor is blocked. See how easy that is? That's what is so great about consensus, it's not solely one person's problem. Beam 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted the WP:3RR and edit warring rules can apply to editors that are collaborating as well. --neon white talk 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaborating with consensus? Beam 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam this is a serious issue that we've been dealing with for months. It is not resolved; I wish nonadmins would quit marking my posts resolved when thye're not. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Vexorg's talk suggesting some ideas on how to resolve the issue, but unless he's edit warring or being disruptive, there's not really anything administrator intervention will do. You might want to consider trying some informal mediation or something else in the dispute resolution process if you're still not able to work things out. Shell ^babelfish 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to think I'm joking. I'm not. This is a content dispute. When I got my first 3rr break (and only i believe) that's what was told to me by an admin or two that I respect. I pass that advice to you. Beam 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg here. I would like it to be officially noted of the offensive remarks made by The Evil Spartan where he accuses me .... "despite how much you've decided you hate America" in Talk:Christianity_by_country. This not only contravening Assume good faith., is very offensive and I don't expect this from supposedly mature Wikipedia editors.

Now the figures in question from the CIA factbook have no source. For example it says for Norway that 90% of the population are Christians. this is clearly way of mark and there is no source for the figure. No link to or reference to a census or poll. Nothing.

I am certainly NOT being disruptive, I am trying to improve the article.Vexorg (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a further note, that The Evil Spartan seems to be starting an edit war. He has now reverted my edits twice. Could an administartor intervene here please. thanks Vexorg (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

It's me again bringing up User:RRaunak again! This user User:ElementR did the EXACT same things as RRaunak again. Look at the contribs, the signatures. They both match... I am feeling that a checkuser might be needed. I should bring up the WP:SOCKrule as a meatpuppet. Is there any possible administrative action? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can submit an WP:RFCU. I recommend starting there; if a match is made, the researching admin can, and probably will, block as needed. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good you traced my signature.but i did not steal it.I took it by asking.see User_talk:tinucherian.User_talk:rraunakI also grabbed it by asking about the church in medak.But how am i related..
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I.E Same edits, same mistakes, lots of edits and copyedits on userpage/talk page design mostly copied from others users. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that their the same users. What cream brought up, same userspages, signatures, ect. -- RyRy (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, close usernames also. RRaunak has "R" on the front, and ElementR has an "R" at the end. -- RyRy (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My name is Rahul.and not rraunak understand ? I copied bits (not all) from his userpage.but see cream.he has also taken the border from rraunak
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain the same edits to your user pages? Both of you edit your user page quite often, not to mention the same related topics. -- RyRy (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it myself for a better design but u RyRy is a designer i see !
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the sock allegations but there's nothing wrong with stealing code for userpage design or signatures. Lots of people do it. In fact, I was just looking at another admin's userpage and it had a note saying he had stolen the code from someone else who stole it from someone else again. This is Wikipedia, you don't own anything. Sarah 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that you have a sock here, open a suspected sock case or as ThuranX said, file a request for checkuser. There's really nothing admin's can do here. Shell ^babelfish 07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok now tell me can i keep up my present userpage and signature or modify it ?
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can keep it if you want to. Sarah 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better off filing an RFCU, but, ahem, I'v never done one before... I suppose this is a good day to start. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Troll

Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is trolling on this articles talk page and is intentionally vandalising the corresponding article with ridiculous statements.--Otterathome (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I warned him. If he does it again, report it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User Om-a-bear and the issue of Sinn Fein

The User Om-a-bear seems to have an issue with the inclusion of Sinn Fein as an organisation that was involved in Hindu-German Conspiracy. I have provided reference and directed him to this reference for what is written in the article. But he keeps insisting that Sinn Fein was a loyalist organisation before 1917, and hence it is wrong blah...blah... blah... Moreover, this appears to be a single purpose account. Can somebody please have a look if this guy is a sockpuppet of some known PoV pusher?[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected bot

Wikisebseb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created massive amounts of articles in a very very short period of time. Thought I should bring it up. Dengero (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think its on a script. The articles are very short and you or I could post many of them in a short space of time. Rudget (logs) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Worse than that, they're basically just copy/paste of each other. All unsourced. We have zillions of these unsourced sub-stub non-content town articles - esp. from France. But no one is willing to delete them (except me) so you're going to see bot-like creations like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any incidences where some of these towns don't exist? Rudget (logs) 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's...quite hard to tell. The symbols don't even come up when i copy+paste them onto google. And may I ask what EXACTLY ar the chances a user will search that name with all those symbols?Dengero (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The few I have checked with Google (no problems copy-pasting for me) all look legitimate. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello ! Hum, i'm new on wikipédia, and french so i apologie for all the faults i'll do (and i did) :) Indeed i don't use a bot (really dont know how to make a bot...) but I have developed a technique to quickly create articles that are similar, with a copy / paste and some tabs on firefox. But even like that it's boring to do so if somebody knows how to make a bot for this job I'm completely in ! Bye

wikisebseb (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The user is actually performing a useful function by starting articles on the communes of Romania. Communes are notable; villages usually not. As long as he sticks to communes (and isn't a bot, which doesn't seem to be the case), let's not interfere. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande - request for uninvolved admin block

Resolved

 – indef blocked. There's clueless, and there's this guy --Rodhullandemu 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears destined for an indefinite block but I wanted to bring here because I've already blocked him (her?) twice and thought someone might want to work with him. He has racked up fair use image violations since March 2008, for which I blocked him twice in June. He at least slowed down uploading images but also makes all sorts of unhelpful edits like:

1. Removing AFD tag.
2. Removing CSD tag.
3. Removing a lot of content.
4. Blanking a redirect.
5. Blanking a prodded page.
6. Blanking an established page
7. Re-creating an AFD'ed article.
8. Removing Persondata for no apparent reason.
9. Removing Persondata again for no apparent reason.

User needs an education, sure. Only he is 100% uncommunicative with zero edits to Talk, User talk, or Wikipedia namespaces and zero edit summaries that I can find. Good editors are getting quite tired of this and there is little change in disruptive behavior. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. 108 talk page comments, and 95% are article or image issues. seicer | talk | contribs 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Posturewriter - attack page

• Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

Could someone uninvolved have a glance at this situation? Long-term tendentious editing by SPA, situation escalating with his creation of a user page section that appears in breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:UP#NOT. And now the threat "would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won’t forget in a hurry" [120]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Belay that; I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cayman Islands

Continuing deliberate efforts to misrepresent legal status of homosexuals in the Cayman Islands [121], [122], [123], [124], in conflict with information provided by cited sources [125], [126]. No attempts made by other parties to engage in discussion or provide refs for point of view. Administrative aid is requested, so as to avoid edit war. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request AfD closure

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign? I can't myself as I've expressed an opinion in the debate. It's quite long, so be warned, it takes some reading. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Something is seriously wrong with Mobile, Alabama

I go to the page and I see an evil zodiac box blur it. I have no idea what is going on -- it wasn't there before I edited the page, and it was there after, but I didn't add it. Someone the Person (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism, already fixed. Algebraist 14:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How come I couldn't see the edits? Someone the Person (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the vandalism was to a transcluded template. I don't know which one. Algebraist 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because the article didn't get edited. One of the templates used on the article was edited; those edits don't show up on the articles in which they are used. Horologium (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, {{web cite}} was vandalized by user:24.120.228.12. Protection and block please. Algebraist 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That was sneaky; he vandalized a redirect. I have fully protected the redirect, and blocked the IP for a month. There is no contribution history from that IP prior to today, so it's not like we're losing a valuable editor as collateral damage. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

This article is currently fully protected and, according to its talk page header, subject to ArbCom's probation. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding adding some information to the article related to its IMED listing. An RfC was started on July 17 and, as I understand it, is still open. However, about 11 hours ago, an admin who had no previous participation in the talk page discussion, User:DragonflySixtyseven, made a sequence of 4 edits to the article[127][128][129][130].The substance of these edits was to add the disputed info and exactly in a way against which most of the talk page discussion participants had objected (except for User:Bstone). The edits were explained by DS in the edit summary for the first of the 4 edits[131] thus:"okay, I've had some extensive conversations over IRC with BStone and JzG, and I *think* this is satisfactory to both parties". Very quickly several editors objected to these changes and the fact that they were made based on off-wiki discussions with only some of the participants. DS explained that he was trying to help and to be expedicious; it also became clear that DS apparently had not been aware that considerably more than 2 editors had been involved in the dispute. To his credit, DS also then posted a portion of the IRC exchange (the one with Bstone, but not with JzG), at User talk:Shell Kinney#Mar Diop. However, even when it was made clear to him that several users had objections to his changes and that these changes did not reflect have consensus of the dispute participants, DS refused to revert the changes he made. At User talk:Shell Kinney he stated that: "I decline to be the one to revert. However, I would have no problem with someone else doing". And then later, at the same talk page:"D) I'm not touching this mess again, not even to revert." [132]. Now, I appreciate the fact that DS was trying to help, but he went about doing it the wrong way and the current end result is unacceptable. The current version manifestly does not reflect (in fact, in my opinion goes against) the consensus at the talk page of the article. Since the article is fully protected, I cannot revert DS's edits myself and some of the other previously involved admins, such as Shell Kinney, do not want to be the ones to revert either. I therefore request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at the matter and revert DS's edits, until some real and demonstrable consensus on the changes is achieved at the article's talk page. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not unhappy about this, apart from one sentence which is still hotly disputed so (mea culpa) I removed it for continued discussion on Talk - the fact that it is licensed in Senegal is a preferred edit of the banned users and sockpuppets who inhabit the article, but is of extremely dubious relevance to a school which is located in England and is explicitly not licensed in England, to the point that the GMC changed its policy and expelled one doctor. I know stone is really keen to be fair to the place, which is fine, but until we have a reliable independent source which makes the claim the St. Chris puppeteers make then we really ought not to be making it ourselves. IMED is a perfectly acceptable reference for the locatioon of its licensing but as far as I can see "the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate" is WP:OR since the IMED listing does not actually say that, I have checked most carefully and the words legal and charter are simply not in that reference. WP:NPOV and fairness is good, the article looks a bit nicer now D67 has tweaked it, and there is debate on Talk. Thanks to Nsk92 for the concern, I greatly appreciate more eyes on this long-standing troublespot. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The legal charter thing was exactly what I found objectionable. I am perfectly happy with your last edit and I think the current immediate situation should be considered resolved, where the discussion can now resume at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Yasis is (still) using IPs to evade his block.

User:Yasis is using yet another IP, this time Special:Contributions/218.186.67.37, to evade a block and stalk, revert or gainsay my recent edits. Previous examples of his behavior are to be found here:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours)

This all seems to have started when his addition of sources and external links was called into question. Tiring of inserting propaganda, conspiracy theory, and links to people's homepages (coupled with a block for 3rr). He is now just following me around the encyclopedia, randomly reverting my edits and chiming in to gainsay my talk page and AfD comments. I have no desire to tangle with this user and would really appreciate his input if he is willing to contribute constructively but he has to do so. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20

Could an admin take a look, thanks. Chafford (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are ones that have been nominated today and haven't went through the 5 day period to discuss them. There's no backlog there. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 14 and others, however...) Wizardman 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The events surrounding my block discussed above

With regard to this, my own opinion is that the discussion centred a little more than I would have liked on the justification or otherwise of my block, even though that was a question I asked. That said, there seemed to be a reasonable level of agreement with some of my more general concerns. My own thoughts on the discussion:

1. Dunc is concerned that I was "synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative". Would I have to stick to the original narrative in the source? Why is creating a new narrative from a source while sticking to the original context and intent wrong? If it is then wikipeida can create no unique narrative and is simply intended to be a quote farm. That is news to me.
2. ThuranX appears to me to be saying that I haven't done much wrong in this case, but that I should get probation for it. I don't quite understand this.
3. I agree with much of what Angus said, subject to 2.
4. I am yet to see an adequate explanation from Dunc or anyone esle for the contention that I was guilty of synthesis.
5. Dunc @ 21:58. I reverted because I was sure about what the source said (I added them to the article while watching the documentary in May), but needed to wait for the time reference. And I was right. The cites were valid, and their attempts to say they weren't were clearly disingenuous, perhaps malicious.
6. The dispute on Young Unionists Dunc has unearthed. Yes I probably didn't handle that properly. But one must consider that that dispute was with an editor who has subsequently been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. revealing my identity and harassing me.

It seems to me that the best way forward from this situation is that BigDunc and Domer be treated as one user for the purposes of 3RR, either that or they be limited to 1R each, but the former seems to me to treat the specific problem highlighted. Many thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Portal:Current events/2008 July 18

I've gotten into an edit war on this page with an anonymous user who has continuously removed a story I added about human rights abuses taking place at the largest county jail in the United States, the Cook County Jail. The anonymous user argues that the story is not internationally noteworthy. I disagree but I've run up against the three revert rule. A third opinion would help.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't especially an admin matter. If you want a third opinion use the Wikipedia:Third opinion process. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck am I supposed to do?

I have an editor clearly edit warring against consensus and in violation of WP policies (i.e., removing sourced data and inserting original research). If I try to bring it up on the ANI boards, I'm told it's an edit war, and an RFC/U would be useless, ArbCom would ignore. So what the fuck am I supposed to do? Or is this website completely useless; is it pointless to even try? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who, what, and where? I'll see if I can help you. Prodego ^talk 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution is not instantaneous. Relax. Beam 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Play party

I removed unreferenced, challenged content from the article Play party. I have been asking for references for months and and prior to that an unreferenced tag had been up for years. Within minutes the unreferenced content was re-added with the explanation "References could be months, years, like all other articles". Well it already has been years... so he's basically arguing that content can never be removed due to lack of accuracy/references. This runs flatly against WP:V which puts the burden on people restoring content to find sources. I don't want to edit war over this... but surely after years and no references, we can't sanely keep in this content which I have looked for sources for repeatedly and found none. --Rividian (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)